Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.
Oh no. Not that. Please no.
<Tee hee!>
But WHAT is that balance?
Can police just listen in to your calls at all times?
Can they search you just because you look suspicious?
Can they read your mail?
What is the balance between “police can do this” and “police need oversight “?
The balance is fine, but what does that balance look like?
Like I said in my previous comment I think we as Canadians have struck that balance well and if the new laws don’t then they will be repealed.
I’m not into baseless fear mongering about what ifs and I definitely don’t think Justin Trudeau is an omnipotent dictator with the ability to control all media.
Okay but the new law allows police to search your online messages and accounts without warrants. Warrants are intended to BE that balance.
And I have little faith that the law will be struck down if it “goes too far”
If we look to the south and their “patriot act” you’ll find that it went WAY too far and the abuses were RAMPANT. Yet to this day, it’s still around.
It’s twenty-two years later and we still don’t have those laws here, so that is more of that fear mongering I am talking about.
Can you send me a link about ‘the new law allows police to search your online messages and accounts without warrants’ because I haven’t heard of that and I usually keep myself pretty informed.
No no, the patriot act thing was about showing that “bad laws” can exist for a LONG time.
I don’t have a link handy for it, I’ll try to look it up later for you.
But you are referring to American laws when we’re talking about Canadian laws.
Yes, it’s not 100% accurate parallel, just the easiest one I could come up with.
Sometimes bad laws exist for a long assed time and hurt a lot of people.
But Canada has much different ways to deal with laws than the States.
That’s why I don’t bring up Cambodia’s laws and law making when I’m talking about England, it would make as much sense as what you just did.
I think it still generally applies, and the American legal system and Canadian one have some similarities, though I’m not really qualified to say that. Seems needlessly pedantic, but if you want a Canadian example, how’s the residential schools? Women’s rights? According to Canadian law, women didn’t qualify as persons until 1929.
There are plenty of Canadian examples of poor laws existing for far too long a timeframe.