Call me a nut.. but I thought the fall of the Berlin Wall was a good thing...
Well.
Apparently if you have reservations over bigger government having a free hand in poking into your privacy without the need for a warrant, you are "with the child pornographers", according to Vic Toews.
As most Canadians should be aware, we do not (yet) live in a police state where the police can tap your phone and intercept your mail without a warrant from the Courts.
The recent effort of our government would allow police broad discretion to inquire as to your online activity and to force internet service providers to disclose your personal information upon their request - all without oversight or warrant.
Just like the arbitrary detention of drivers was only to be used to stop impaired drivers.. err.. people not wearing seat belts, people smoking in their car with children, people eating cheese burgers while driving, changing stations on their radio.. etc...
Once the government obtains authority, the ability to expand that authority is not only much more possible, but much more likely.
Witness Alberta and British Columbia's efforts to make it an offense to "almost be impaired".
Of course the proposed bill will only be used for finding pedophiles. And, really, seeing as most children are abused by family members in their homes, why not just install cameras in all homes where children are living or cared for.
I mean, what have you got to hide?
Now.. lest I be labeled as some nansy-pansy liberal, I'm pretty conservative in my views.
I happen to think, and this is just my opinion, that the bringing down of the Berlin Wall was a good thing.
I'm one of those who has actually travelled to the Soviet Union before the Wall fell, and wasn't really all that impressed with the omnipresence and threat of the KGB.
But that's just me.
Oh.
And apparently another nansy-pansy liberal by the name of Ronald Reagan.
We're all aware of his famous demand of General Secretary Gorbachev to "tear down this wall", less well known are later comments in that same speech made from the Reichstag in Berlin, looking upon the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987:
"As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner, 'This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.' Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom."But, perhaps freedom cannot withstand complacency.
Too many people have sacrificed themselves to provide us with the freedoms we enjoy in this Country.
Too many people have sacrificed themselves in the effort to bring down the wall of fascism abroad.
To blithely allow the state to chip away at our freedoms in the name of the so-called "common good" is not only misguided, it is, in fact, dangerous, and spits in the face of the millions who lost their lives in wars in the support of freedom.
So today, Mr. Toews, I stand with Ronald Reagan, I stand with the 45,400 Canadians who gave their lives in the cause of freedom in World War II, and I say:
Mr. Toews, you can stand with us or with the fascists.Your call.
13 comments:
What about Harper, he is Toews's boss. All they are proving by bring forward liberal legislation is that the Harper party are CINOs and just as insulting as liberals.
I don't mind the govt. doing it,as I have nothing to hide.You must remember we live a whole lot different world now than say 10-20yrs ago,as it's changing every day.Mr. Toews is doing it for a good reason,and he's told us the reason,and he's not trying to hide anything.If you want to fear monger,write about the Socialist NDPPQ,and what would happen if they were ever the govt.We need all the protection we can get,and I don't care one iota how our govt. does it.
So Gerald you wouldn't mind if the police broke down your door and searched your house without a warrant?
As for the reason given you believe that and I have a bridge to sell you.
Conservatives, real ones, believe in less government and less interference in their lives. These CINOs obvioulsy don't.
The comment by "Gerald" is typical of what I hear from my Liberal friends when they justify government intervention into any aspect of our lives.
It's the "slippery slope" thing,Gerald,once you give bureaucrats and lawmakers an "in",they'll constantly tweak the laws to make their version of a perfect society come true.
And remember, as with the recent seizure of the .22 semi-automatic rifles,anything that is legal today,will not necessarily be legal tomorrow.
Don't trust governments, always be skeptical of their motives. Rarely will you find legislation that doesn't have drawbacks,and this one can have big drawbacks.
We have to remember that the sanctity of your private life is,with this legislation,in the hands of a wide variety of people whose integrity and character are completely unknown to us.
When we allow laws like like to pass, we are NOT trusting in the myth of the Honorable RCMP of Sam Steele, but a politically correct bureaucracy that has many agendas,with power being the overriding agenda.
Good comment dmorris.
And Gerald - I'm sure at first glance, it seems like allowing the government to look through your mail effectively, doesn't seem like a big thing if you have nothing to hide.
And I wouldn't suggest, in an appropriate case, that the police shouldn't be able to seek a warrant to compel disclosure of the information they are seeking.
But what you probably aren't aware of is the degree to which our governments have been, slowly but surely, carving out authority to do all sorts of things free of challenge by citizens or the courts.
And THAT my friend, is a dangerous and slippery slope.
And fear mongering is telling Canadians that we need more jails and longer sentences - when all statistics tell us cirme has consistently been going down for decades.
Fear mongering is telling people that if they don't agree to the state poking through their private communications that they are in league with child pornographers.
Now - if you don't have a problem with government intrusion into your life, that's fine, but me - I'd prefer to have them have to obtain a warrant first.
I don’t see what the issue is for the bleeding hearts charter loving criminal loving lefties who seem VERY SCARED of this new internet bill designed to protect children and catch online predators.
If you got nothing to hide you should have nothing to fear plain and simple! We all know that the so called charter of rights and freedoms is only for criminals while it makes no mention of victims.
Abolish the Charter we don’t need it. We’re a civilized society. I have nothing to hide whatsoever and the police are welcome to search my computer or home ANYTIME.
Like I stated,I have nothing to hide,and trust PM Harper and the CPC.I'm 72 yrs of age and I know this country is going to hell in a hand basket,and it'll go a lot faster if some of you people keep agreeing with the NDPPQ,and liberals.Why would you even think this country could turn into a police state?I could go on and debate you people on this,but what's the sense.As far as crime going down,where did you hear that?I know where you heard it,as it was on the CBC,CTV. and the NDPPQ and liberals bring it up a lot in question period,and you believe them.A real conservative wouldn't be so gullible.If for example there were 300 people murdered in Canada in a year,and the following year there were 299,there would be less people murdered,so by your logic crime would be going down.That's called liberal spin.There's more violent crime now than theres ever been,and what makes matters worse,a lot of crime are committed by repeat offenders.Also,they hardly ever put criminals in jail now,it's mostly that damn house arrest whatever in the dickens that is.There was a time we didn't even lock our doors around here,but I lock mine sometimes before dark,and it's not because the police will be breaking into my home.The police's hands are tied,as the laws are so slack. I'm totally for capital punishment.
"You’re with us secretary fornicators, or the child pornographers" - Vic Teows
Need info here.
I hear a lot of talk about this proposed bill but so far nobody is providing a link to anything to prove the contetion this legislation is going to turn us into a police state....other than liberals, NDP, the usual suspects in the media...
Sounds like the leislation (again no link so this is still heresy) would give the police the ability to force the internet providers, by law to monitor who is looking at porn.
Right now the purveyors of porn and the folks that want to look at it, can maintain a cloak of invisiblity behind an ISP.
At least if it was a store front operation everybody can tell without having to enter the premises what the business is. The percieved downside of this legislation, or so I've been told, is that this is the slippery slope of state intervention.
I hear yeah guy, just don't think talking points are the best thing to use as a fact in a debate.
Right on, Robert!
Everyone has no problem with state authority until they're on the receiving end of abuse.. And this isn't a PC v Liberal spin.. I don't have unbridled trust in any government.
As a lawyer I see, on a regular basis, beuarocrats overstep their authority.. So, it's just a simple matter of the police telling us a judge what they want to look at and why..
As for crime, well, that's based upon all statistical measures.. But, Gerald, you probably think if we just allow the police to do whatever they want, that will eliminate crime.. But it didn't eliminate crime in the Soviet Union where police pretty much did whatever they wanted.. Though it did reduce crime.
So what is your threshold for police authority?
Im supposing you would have been very comfortable in Hitler's Germany.. If not, give your head.a shake and be at least a little protective of the freedoms that so many died to protect.
And, oh, by the way, you do the Conservatives no favors by being a mindless sheep.
As you say Robert this is not PC v Lib spin, in fact the libs thought of it first and if elected in 2006 they would have brought it in. I wonder what cons, who are quite willing to give up their privacy to Harper, would have thought then. I am ex military prepared to fight for freedom and to be called a child pornographer because I disagree with this pisses me off. Especially coming from a so called con party, a party that is supposed to believe in less government and less intrusion in peoples lives.
Bang on po'd,
Policy shouldn't for thinking people be automatically good or bad based upon which party raises it. This policy is a significant intrusion which I fear will open a door we ought not open.
There was a time the Supreme Court said police couldn't arbitrarily stop a vehicle, but then ok'd it to stop impaired drivers. Now, we authorize arbitrary detention to check to see if you ate protecting yourself.
If we allow this, why not allow warrant less searches of your mail and home? What have you got to hide? That was exactly the argument used by KGB and Gestapo.
Oh. By the way. How trusting were us conservatives that gun registries were ok as long as you weren't a criminal?
Post a Comment