Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. "Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

"Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
64 Posts 22 Posters 2 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • M mad_lentil@lemmy.ca

    I agree in part.

    I’m genuinely curious, did you read the bill, or do you plan to? If so, I would seriously love to hear your take on it. I’ve read the backgrounder, and skimmed the actual bill. Even just doing that I’m sure I’ve read more of it than 99% of Canadians.

    Generally speaking, if you’ve actually read and understand it, then I say it’s your duty to help act as a vulgarizer so others can navigate it. It’s easy to say that we value citizens’ duty to educate themselves on their democracy, then figuratively cross our arms and say “well I read it and I don’t agree” and refuse to elaborate, when asked for your informed (and valuable!) opinion–which is what certain people who claim to have read the bill in this thread appear to be doing.

    I’m not trying to be cheeky. If you’ve (or anyone else has) read the bill and you care about our democracy, then please share your actual thoughts on the bill! So far all we seem to be doing is arguing meta amongst each about how to talk about bills, and not the fucking bill–pardon my language, this comment sections is frustrating me. it’s not directed at you - you’re cool. 🙂

    T This user is from outside of this forum
    T This user is from outside of this forum
    trakata
    wrote last edited by
    #55

    I agree with you in part as well, I’ve made my opinions known.

    I however have no intention of holding a serious conversation with someone who calls me a liar and stupid in the first breath.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • T toastmeister@lemmy.ca

      The problem as far as I’ve read from Sam Cooper is the lack of policies like racketeering laws in Canada, thus we are used worldwide by criminal entities for laundering money. Which is likely the larger issue Trump has with drugs, and likely is a big reason how housing in Vancouver can be millions of dollars when the median salary is less than 70k.

      Theres a long form interview here, Sam Cooper is a journalist who wrote Wilfull Blindness:

      @17:45 the interview starts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B73Tayj37sM

      acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
      acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
      acargitz
      wrote last edited by
      #56

      So let’s get racketeering laws?

      T 1 Reply Last reply
      3
      • S showroom7561@lemmy.ca

        As far as postal stuff goes, don’t they only have the right to open packages, but not letters?

        They have the ability to open letters over 30 g for a very long time. Bill C37 (from 2017) gave border officers power to open letters less than 30 g, because criminals were sending fentanyl over in small bags, and that closed the loophole (read here)

        I haven’t heard of this being abused over the last 8 years, so why the assumption that it’s all of a sudden going to start now?

        And I don’t think they have the right to get all our digital personal information either. At least not like they do in the U.S. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

        If you are being investigated for crimes against children online, then your digital assets can be seized and combed through. This new bill strengthens that in this context.

        The “unreasonable” part of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is what protects us, but that doesn’t apply if you’re under investigation for crimes and stuff like a computer needs to be accessed as part of that investigation.
        

        It does apply. A warrant is required for confiscating and searching mail and computer equipment. It sounds here like it won’t be required.

        I honestly didn’t read anything in the bill that says that warrants are not required for things that they would have currently been.

        In the case of the mail, what used to happen if there are suspected drugs being sent by mail (under 30g), the officer would have to get permission from either the sender or the receiver of the letter before opening it. If no response was given, they would send it back.

        The problem is that criminals banked on the fact that some would get through, and because others envelops were being returned, the drugs wouldn’t be seized and nobody was getting caught. This new bill tries to fix that.

        Maybe not, but it lays the ground for it though.

        I get it. There’s always a chance for abusing this power. Maybe not now, but in 10 years.

        Here’s the thing: good laws can be abused by any corrupt government. And corrupt governments can always introduce bad laws (see the States).

        Our current government seems to be doing this in good faith, so we have to take them at.

        If Carney was giving public events saying that immigrants are all murderers and rapists, and we’ll deport them by the millions, well… that would be a different story! I guess thank god we don’t have a majority conservative federal government.

        C This user is from outside of this forum
        C This user is from outside of this forum
        Cyborganism
        wrote last edited by
        #57

        Yeah that’s my problem with this. The laws definitely can be abused. You think you can trust the government, but can you trust the police? Because in the end, they’re the ones who will be doing the abuse.

        And if you eventually don’t like the government that’s in power, and want to protest and act against it, that’s when these laws turn against you.

        We definitely should not sacrifice our privacy, rights, and freedoms in exchange for security. We learned that in 2001 after 9/11 and we shouldn’t make the same mistake again just to make Trump happy.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • G greyeyedghost@lemmy.ca

          FYI, in Canada and the UK, to table something means to give it attention or handle it, unlike in America where it means to set it aside.

          M This user is from outside of this forum
          M This user is from outside of this forum
          Maeve
          wrote last edited by
          #58

          It means either, in the USA.

          G 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • A alloi@lemmy.world

            Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.

            softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
            softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
            softestsapphic@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #59

            Like in all political systems, nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

            1 Reply Last reply
            11
            • acargitzT acargitz

              So let’s get racketeering laws?

              T This user is from outside of this forum
              T This user is from outside of this forum
              toastmeister@lemmy.ca
              wrote last edited by
              #60

              Well I’m just speculating where this is going, that the US wants to control our legal system in exchange for tariff relief.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • M Maeve

                It means either, in the USA.

                G This user is from outside of this forum
                G This user is from outside of this forum
                greyeyedghost@lemmy.ca
                wrote last edited by
                #61

                Depends how British you are? 🤔

                1 Reply Last reply
                1
                • A alloi@lemmy.world

                  Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.

                  acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
                  acargitzT This user is from outside of this forum
                  acargitz
                  wrote last edited by
                  #62

                  Why is this the very first law the Liberals are trying to pass? This is not an issue that was campaigned and debated on in the election. This was nobody’s priority. Why strengthen police powers as the very fucking first thing the new government is doing? This smells very bad. And even if it’s all one big misunderstanding, given the slow burn that has been fascism in the US, I’m alarmed with even slight nudges in more authoritarian laws.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  5
                  • B benotafraid@lemmy.world

                    This Bill is just a lie to spy on (mainly) Canadian Citizens and residents. It gives Canada Post the ability to open your mail for any cited reason. It requires your ISP to log and keep track of all your devices and online activity and require it be turned over at the governments request. It’s also gearing up to turn Canadian Border Officials into ICE. We’re cooked.

                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    A This user is from outside of this forum
                    auli@lemmy.ca
                    wrote last edited by
                    #63

                    Well they can’t keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.

                    M 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • A auli@lemmy.ca

                      Well they can’t keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.

                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                      M This user is from outside of this forum
                      muusemuuse@lemm.ee
                      wrote last edited by
                      #64

                      IPv4 does not protect your from online tracking and logging. Not at all.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      2

                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Login or register to search.
                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      • First post
                        Last post