[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Did you change your mind about C51 too?

Luckily now that C-51 is law, this guy can be arrested and detained, and his health records and tax records can be shared with the RCMP and CSIS. Just in case somehow his health or tax records have anything to do with terrorist activities. Or in case he wants to protest his logging rights or something.

While I despise this guy's views, he hasn't done anything to warrant arrest yet. I think CBS should let this guy go to his bastion of justice and light and sign up to die for ISIS if he wants. Cheaper than incarceration and yet another constitutional challenge to another poorly thought out Harper law.

Absolutely. AFAIK he's not under arrest, but has severe restrictions put on him. I don't have any sympathy for him, but I do for not becoming a police state. Just change Jesus a little bit: it's how the govt treats the worst of us that matters. Or as as been said, we don't have free speech protection for speech that is popular. The police should thank him for being so open and keep watch on him. And absolutely, any time he wants a one way ticket to ISISstan, he should be given one. Then cancel his passport once he gets there.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Just change Jesus a little bit

No, let's not.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

we don't have free speech protection

Actually, that is the only correct part of that sentence. C-51 puts restrictions on speech, and leaves what is popular or unpopular up to the individual enforcing the law. Critics said this could lead to arrests for anything deemed to block 'critical infrastructure', such as logging protests, or even rail strikes.

C-51 took away our right to free speech, and arbitrary arrest.

But judging from the 'Rights' thread, no one cared about those anyway.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

NObody asked you to have sympathy for this guy. And to connect the people fleeing Syria with being ISIS sympathizers is idiotic. But if you can't see that we can now be put under judicial orders for speaking unpopular opinions is a very bad road to go down, more's the pity. Even Martin seems to get that. Did you change your mind about C51 too?

I see--to connect this to people fleeing Syria is idiotic, and then you make an iditoic leap to Bill C-51. Did I mention Bill C-51? ...No. You dreamed that one up on your own. I said I had no sympathy for his position, not that I wanted him arrested. Fucktard.

I brought the reference in because of thread going on about the migrants of Calais, whom I believe PAN referred to as "vermin."

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If this was some redneck saying he wanted to kill a bunch of Jews his ass would be in jail and there'd be no debate about it. But because he's a fucking Muslim he gets away with it and I have not one doubt that he's laughing his ass off at the fools who are enabling him.

Bullshit. If he'd made actual threats he'd be in jail in a heartbeat. The inconvenient truth is that he didn't. Christ, under your standard, you'd be in jail by now for what you post here.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

NObody asked you to have sympathy for this guy. And to connect the people fleeing Syria with being ISIS sympathizers is idiotic. But if you can't see that we can now be put under judicial orders for speaking unpopular opinions is a very bad road to go down, more's the pity. Even Martin seems to get that. Did you change your mind about C51 too?

I see--to connect this to people fleeing Syria is idiotic, and then you make an iditoic leap to Bill C-51. Did I mention Bill C-51? ...No. You dreamed that one up on your own. I said I had no sympathy for his position, not that I wanted him arrested. Fucktard.

I brought the reference in because of thread going on about the migrants of Calais, whom I believe PAN referred to as "vermin."

You posted right after PA9 was advocating for his preventative detention. It sure seemed like you were saying you had no sympathy for him if he's arrested. Otherwise, why on earth would you have any sympathy for him, or feel the need to make the statement that you don't?

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

You posted right after PA9 was advocating for his preventative detention. It sure seemed like you were saying you had no sympathy for him if he's arrested. Otherwise, why on earth would you have any sympathy for him, or feel the need to make the statement that you don't?

I was just making a general comment that I have little time for privileged ISIS converts. I don't support arresting this guy. I believe in freedom of speech. The Conservatives (the governing party, not the political inclination) don't.

He was re-tweeting ISIS propaganda, and ended up on domestic surveillance list. I have no problem with that.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If this was some redneck saying he wanted to kill a bunch of Jews his ass would be in jail and there'd be no debate about it. But because he's a fucking Muslim he gets away with it and I have not one doubt that he's laughing his ass off at the fools who are enabling him.

Bullshit. If he'd made actual threats he'd be in jail in a heartbeat. The inconvenient truth is that he didn't. Christ, under your standard, you'd be in jail by now for what you post here.

For someone who loathes Christianity you sure invoke the name of Jesus Christ quite a bit, don't you?

[N_Fiddledog]

It needs to be made clear, this guy was not detained under C-51.

He was detained under the established 8.10.01 "High Risk Offender Judicial Restraint Order"

$1:

Sections 810.01, 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code authorize Provincial Court Judges to hear Crown applications for orders requiring Respondents to enter into recognizances. Applications intended to be brought pursuant to S. 810.01 and 810.2 require the prior consent of the Attorney General.

If the hearing Judge is satisfied that such an application ought to be allowed, he or she may require the Respondent to enter into the recognizance, with such conditions as are necessary to prevent the commission of certain offences by the Respondent and to secure the Respondent’s good conduct. The conditions imposed will normally be similar to parole conditions

http://justice.alberta.ca/programs_serv ... raint.aspx

Basically it restricts the movements, communications and activities of an individual suspected of planning a crime.

For example:

$1:

Where sexual offences are reasonably feared, the conditions might also include (and must include, if the application has been brought pursuant to s. 810.1 of the Criminal Code) conditions preventing the Respondent having contact with those under the age 14 years and prohibiting the Respondent from attending parks, daycare centres, playgrounds, etc.

On the internet Aaron Driver posted instructions on how wannabe jihadis could get to Syria under the radar of law enforcement. He also posted a video of an ISIS commander calling on Canadians to commit the sort of terrorist attacks later committed by Canadian jihadi sympathizers Martin Rouleau and Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. He was communicating with terrorists, and terrorist sympathizers.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

we don't have free speech protection

Actually, that is the only correct part of that sentence. C-51 puts restrictions on speech, and leaves what is popular or unpopular up to the individual enforcing the law. Critics said this could lead to arrests for anything deemed to block 'critical infrastructure', such as logging protests, or even rail strikes.

C-51 took away our right to free speech, and arbitrary arrest.

But judging from the 'Rights' thread, no one cared about those anyway.

As long as we get the Moooooslims, every last one of them, it will be worth it to give up a little bit of freedom.

[andyt]

He was detained for questioning. I have no problem with that. I do with putting severe restrictions on somebody that's shown no intent to commit violence.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

He was detained for questioning. I have no problem with that. I do with putting severe restrictions on somebody that's shown no intent to commit violence.

No. He was detained under 810.01. He was released only after he agreed to certain conditions.

You can disagree with 810.01 all you want, but it's been around since at least 2008. Where have you been?

What? You don't have a problem with a law until it's being used on instigators of Islamic terrorism, or something?

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What? You don't have a problem with a law until it's being used on instigators of Islamic terrorism, or something?

I don't. But he's not an instigator.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

What? You don't have a problem with a law until it's being used on instigators of Islamic terrorism, or something?

I don't. But he's not an instigator.

Well, apparently the Attorney General disagrees with you. He has to sign on to the warrant before it's issued with 810.01.

I imagine he's considering a confluence of available evidence:

Driver was associating online with ISIS and ISIS sympathizers.

He was posting instruction on how to illegally get to syria and join the terrorist organization.

He posted a video with commands to Canadians from ISIS to launch attacks using cars, guns or whatever was available. There is evidence sympathizers of the sort Driver was communicating with were vulnerable to obeying such orders.

All this and no doubt, things we don't know about, combined to give the AG reason to believe there was reason to sign an 810.01 warrant designed to protect the Canadian public in rare cases - which is how 810.01 is used: rarely.

[andyt]

Oh, didn't know that. I take it back if he posted instructions. that afaik is a jailable offense, and that's where he should be. You're not allowed to teach people how to commit crimes.