Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Bill C-30 For Dummies

Or should the title read The Truth About Bill C-30?


Anonymous said...

O. K. why oh why was this not done before the Media party sponsored opposition meltdown. Just askin'
I am so sick of the gotcha drama I will not look at any CBC or CTV news.
Thank you for an informative post

paulsstuff said...

I agree Bubba. This info should have been copied and handed out prior to the announcment. Lesson learned hopefully.

Bec said...

It wouldn't have mattered......the 'Goons' are looking for their scary hidden agenda.

I does need some tweaking and certainly needs a communication strategy if it's not to late but what should really frighten Canadians are the loose cannon idiots out there. I would venture a guess that they received ALL their info from Tweets and Blogs'. Research and information is not their thing.

Great post paulsstuff as always!

hunter said...

It's too late, the horse has already left the barn. The opposition and media will use this bill as a battering ram against the government.

Their communications skills are horrible, they should anticipate that they will ALWAYS get attacked, no matter how harmless the bill.

Anonymous said...

Speaking as a 55 yr old white guy card-carrying CPC member and even a sustaining donor (I have the wallet bling to prove it), I see Bill C-30 as the single largest blunder the Conservatives have made. They've badly misjudged Canadians on this Bill, but they shouldn't have- after all, they had much the same reaction when they tried this same crap with the "Investigative Powers for the 21st Century" Bill last time around.
To have brought back a Bill that Canadians detested, and then introduced it so incredibly badly as Mr. Toews managed?
They've done their "brand" a very great deal of damage.
They'll be lucky to get a minority next time out.

Bec said...

"They've done THEIR "brand" a very great deal of damage"?

Huh? Are you serious? I read that they were 'your' brand, didn't I?
I read that you were a "card carrying member" and even a "sustaining donor".....
....and then I see the Anonymous, the gender, age and race identification and then I say BS.

No one with an ounce of personal self control could possibly get this riled and childish about this proposed bill. At least not a real, card carrying, sustainable Conservative donor who had researched it.

Anonymous said...

Notice what the date is at the bottom of the web page Paulsstuff linked to: Date Modified: 2012-02-14.

Bill C-30 was introduced the same day, Feb 14.
"Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Public Safety, CPC)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to enact the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act and to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts."

So it appears the government was prepared for some misrepresentation, but perhaps not to the crescendo it reached thanks to the media.

Knowing that the media generally speaking loathes the Conservatives and that the former will try to misrepresent anything & everything the government tries to do, ministers have to make sure they explain EVERYTHING they propose to do beforehand in very plain language, without the over-the-top rhetoric.
-- Gabby in QC

Bec said...

I noticed that too, Gabby QC! I love it when you surprise us with a 'visit' offering an intellectual debate and challenging the consistency of the reporting of the dialogue.
You PROVE every point! :)

Anonymous said...

Bec, my CPC membership expires in 2014. And it will indeed expire unless they come up with a different, focussed Bill- one not so open to abuse.
I hate to burst your bubble, but I'm making the point that the CPC is in deep trouble when even it's core members are willing to quit.
Face it, they shat the bed on this one, and it's going to hurt them.

Anonymous said...

mulroney was kicked out of office by conservatives and mr. harper will suffer the same fate if he continues with this bill.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 6:39:00 AM PST and 7:14:00 AM PST:

The PM and Minister Toews have repeatedly said the bill will go immediately to committee, where it will get further study and will be open to amendments.

However, the opposition has already signalled -- at least from the reaction of their critics, NDP Jack Harris & Lib. Francis Scarpaleggia, during yesterday's Power & Politics -- that they will oppose the bill no matter what, accusing the government of lacking credibility. When did they ever think the Conservatives had any credibility at all? That's their own permanent position -- oppose but don't propose.

Some questions arise:
• Does the general public believe there is a need for such a bill?
• Do conservatives in general see a need for such a bill?
• What amendments would conservatives who currently oppose the bill consider?
• Why was there no similar outcry when the Liberals proposed an even more "intrusive" bill?

The answer to the last question, IMO, may be an orchestrated campaign designed to discredit the Conservatives and the PM in particular as well as the government and law enforcement. Going down that road may turn out to be a dangerous game.
-- Gabby in QC

Anonymous said...

Anony, The Media Party with their buddies the remains of the Liberals and the NDPQ-F set fire to their hair over a bill that is still a work in progress.
Minister Towes was somewhat confrontational, poor babies.
It wasn't like he called anyone a piece of s**t.
As for taking this from a very staged, very managed gotcha to a defeat at the polls and a minority Government? Dream on.
I too am a Conservative Party member, donor.
My Party Sir, right or wrong, if right to be kept right, if wrong to be made right.
This blue colour of ours does not run at the first squeal from a news reader or phony faux outrage from an opposition member.
All this noise and fury should be directed at the monsters that stalk our children.
But of course that is not an issue for the opposition, getting their sorry asses elected is their concern.
We have the best Government and PM in my lifetime.
I am 63 and stand proudly Conservative, if I have a problem I inform my MP and go forward from there.
May I suggest you do the same sir.
Cheers Bubba

Don said...

Don't forget that ISPs are not allowed to inform internet users that they are being surveyed. What's next? Planting listening devices in our homes? I can't believe this "end justifies the means" acceptance! The slippery slope, hellooo big brother!

Anonymous said...

Well I read the page and I agree this is a much better message from the Government. But....
....I am not placated. We have many laws on the statute books that are adjusted administratively later. They say that only 5 people per organization have access. I guarantee that will be 100% within 5 years, with no recourse to parliament. The police and public service do this all the time. Grab powers and wait for somebody to care that it is outside the written law.

Why do I need to agree that a cop should bypass a judge and get straight to my personal information? The phone book analogy is bunkum. I can CHOOSE to not be in the phone book. I can CHOOSE to have caller ID blocked but this law will, within a few years, allow ALL public servants access to information that I cannot control.

So why do I care? Remember that we are talking the police and public service here. Both organizations have had people selling information to biker gangs in recent history. This is the thin end of a badly crafted wedge. Politically it is nuts. I am from the libertarian/fiscal conservative end of the party and this is BS from the social conservative wack job end. How on earth could a party in power produce a wedge issue BETWEEN ITS OWN SUPPORTERS!!!

A final note; I post as aa anonoy nony because all this online ID nonsense is far too time consuming. I am a party member despite that, so save your harping about left wing trolls. This bill is a train wreck; it deserves to go back to committee; Toews messed up presenting it; and not trusting the police is a sign I live in the 21st century. Read up on Caledonia or Robert Dziekanski before you tell me to trust the cops any more than I have to.

paulsstuff said...

Don, I'm pretty sure the police don't give notice when doing surveilance in drug stings, murder investigations, looking into terrorist plots, etc.

That's the point of the bill, to catch people involved in child pornography. Is it invasive? Sure. Not to long ago we saw the Toronto Star publish the names and information of people concerning a story they were running. How did they get that information? By taking said persons license plate number to the MOT, and paying $20.

Will you demand this practice stop? Telemarketers have lists containing your name, address, phone number, etc. Will you demand this intrusive practice stop? Banks are required by legislation to keep your financial records on file for x number of years, so that police can go back in time when doing an investigation. Is that intrusive?

Don said...

Paul, the answer is yes, these are all intrusive means of investigation. Even the G20 protester they couldn't identify, a computer program put his face to a name from a banking cash machine ( I forget which bank it was). At some point we do have to stand up and say "no more". It does not matter that the point of this law is to target child pornography predators, it could be used for any purpose. Police are being handed incredible powers these days, to the point where one believes that provincial legislators are almost afraid to reduce these powers, lest they become "targets" of a well organized law enforcement agency.
For the record, I do support most of Harper's policies dealing with the economy, but I do believe in calling a spade just that.

paulsstuff said...

I agree they are intrusive Don, but accept the fact that new technology requires new legislation to keep up. In a perfect world we wouldn't have people who commit heinous crimes, but it's not a perfect world.

I'll wait untill the legislation is through committee and amended before making my final decision, but the media have misconstrued the legislation in it's current form, which police chiefs have pointed out. The legislation does not allow for the reading of your emails without a warrant, though most in the media are reporting otherwise.

It's also a reach for the Liberal Party to cry wolf on this legislation, as it was previously tabled by them but was left on the floor due to the 2006 election.


Anonymous said...

I always get a laugh when the people on Welfare or those bilking ODSP with bogus Disabiliteis by scam-artist Doctor's that cry about Big Brother governments and how their privacy is under attack .
The whine about Harper and Goverment control of their lives....BUT, how more Big Brother can they get while being a Ward-Of-The-State on Welfare or ODSP to give-up their freedoms to not leave the Country or use their bank Account for the Welfare checks.
Next they must report to Case Workers and their SIN card ID is in the system for all to read if any CUPE workers wants to search it, or someone at the CRA that scans it for Tax-frau every year if they have a job and collect Welfare without reporting it.

Oh the irony too for the femiNazis and NDP that support the Charter Right violations for males when the Police answer a Domestic violence allegation and the cops default to assuming the male is guilty and must accept the lies by the female and then boot the man out of his own home....NO trial, no evidence from the female,and no choice for the Cops but to appease Judy Rebbeck and Naomi Klein that ALL males are evil and abusers.
Big Brother can attack males and allow women to lie just to punish the spouse, but don't you dare read a email or ask a IP to reveal the DNS or IP address code for the user and email accout IF it's to catch pedophiles.
WE know that Toronto accept some forms of child-abuse and quasi-pedophilia acts in pblic because every year the PRIDE parade breaks the Laws and has naked males (TNT) show their penis at little girls and boys on Yonge street( this as the PRIDE Police stand by and allow it).
The Liberals were against the raising of the consecnt age for sex because it would criminalize some homosexual practices with young boys.

Since Barbara Hall allow this as Mayor and Miller gave us 7 years or the pro child-abuse and quasi-pedophilia, i didn't expect the Leftist/liberals to support protecting children because Miller also allowed the Tamil to use Children as human shileds after they assualted the Police and stormed the gardiner to occupy candian soil as a protest for the Terrorists back home.

There IS software to access any cell phone and activate the Mic to hear what is being where's the outrage that the RCMP and CSIS along with the FBI and CIA can listen in to everything you say near your phone????
The only way to prevent that spying is to pull out the battery to kill the link, other than that your phone is a 24/7 bugging device to record you for any comments to collect a file on you.

I bet the RCMP used that Software to nab the Shafia's Shariah law Murders and the bozo didn't even know he convicted himself.
If the Privacy laws and Chrter Rights were solid and true, the CRA could not make you GUILTY first to pay Taxes and then prove you are innocent, not could the Cops ruin your life by false spousal abuse to boot you from your home the you own and go bankrupt proving you are innocent.

Don said...

I had wondered why the evidence from that Shafia murder trial from the "bugged" vehicle was allowed to be used. As guilty as these people obviously were, it's maybe good I wasn't on the jury, I'd have been somewhat inclined to dismiss this tactic.

Men are always deemed to be guilty in any domestic dispute, and yes, it's scary that you can move someone in with you, and come home to find yourself locked out of your own house, I've heard of this happening once to a co-worker years ago.

Anonymous said...

Never mind this "info" page, read the actual legislation.

Tell me staunch conservative posters, where in this bill does it speak about children or porn or pedophilia? It doesn't.

Tell me what the Competition Bureau has to do with children, porn or pedophilia? As far as I know, they don't, but they are entrusted to read your internet traffic, monitor your cell phone and other media devices. For whom and for what purpose?

Any Minister can designate from what I read anyone to act as a snooper, on their behalf. READ the damned legislation!

Just the purpose of the legislation, in the first paragraph is enough. Install our ability to snoop at your cost, or go to jail if you don't.

Protecting children, yeah right!