Gunnar, I respect your sentiment, and you present your arguments clearly.
But I disagree with some of your points: GAME ON! ;D
The comparison isn't ludicrous...if the basis of the ideas is the same, the end result will be the same
North Korea is about as extreme as you can get when it comes to lack of rights. It's silly to draw the comparison with such dramatic language, especially from the Supreme Court.
Is Universal Health Care socialist? Hell yes, it's just like North Korea!
When you leap to extremes, you look ... extreme. If you are a judge, tone it down is all I'm asking.
Internet debate is another ballgame.
The purpose of the constitution is so that the legal system can safeguard the country against governments who would undermine the very basis of the free and democratic country in which we live....a constitution sets limits on what the government is ALLOWED to do.
Point well made, well taken. But I believe that Canadian politicians have developed the convenient habit of leaving difficult decisions to the courts, to keep 'their hands clean.' As a result I
perceive that Canadian judges often foray into
de facto law-making. I think this is a result of years of lazy legislative habits, so when something important like this comes along, it bites us in the butt.
The whole purpose of a free country is that I am free to espouse unpopular views and causes...in fact, I am free to be hated by everyone, but I cannot be outlawed
Strongly disagree here. The rights of your fist ends where the rights of my face start. You can be and most definitely are outlawed if you conspire to commit murder or publicly incite violence against others.
Big difference between advocating for an unpopular cause and plotting the violent overthrow of the lawful authority. This is the major sticking point of the argument. I see a distinction, many Canadian citizens don't share my view. I respect
them, but ironically not those they are defending.
the presumption must be, unless there is EVIDENCE to the contrary, that I AM living within those confines, until PROVED otherwise. If the legal system can now throw me in jail without suitable trial or rules of evidence, where has freedom gone?
You can be remanded to custody while awaiting trial if you are considered dangerous enough. I am neither a cop nor a lawyer, so I may be over my head here. But as I understand it, these security certificates are similar to that. They are a bit more harsh, because someone plotting terrorism is a hell of a lot more serious than a stereo thief.
Sure, it's democracy...just like when they killed Socrates. The majority dictated that he was unpopular enough he had to die. Was it just?
Uhhh ... no. (Although nobody likes a know it all) ;D
But seriously, that's the standard counter-argument. We detain some clown who has more terrorist ties than Osama's dry cleaner, and now we're murdering Socrates? :brickwall:
Give them a speedy and fair trial, sure. Then, when they are found guilty, throw them in jail (or an open pit) and forget about them.
I like where you are going with this, but this is where reality steps in.
Instead of an open pit, they are more likely to get a plea deal down to a few years, with reduced time for time already served and good behaviour. When they finish their correspondence psychology degree, and the parole officer sees that they are harmless, they'll be back on the streets before you can say 're-offend.'
Or even better, the case will be 'too politically sensitive' and dropped altogether. (Read FLQ and Oka)
I've seen the justice system fail personally far too many times to have much faith in it stopping terrorism without a revamp.
Still, I admire your defence of rule of law and the rights of the citizen. I am onside with you on that one, with some distinctions.
You can't start down this slippery slope and expect freedom to continue to exist. First, there was freedom of speech. Then, there was "hate speech". Now it's "inappropriate" to make *ANY* comment which could conceivably offend someone....
"THE CALGARY FLAMES SUCK!" Some may be offended by that self-evident truth, but I am not going to be jailed for it. If I stand on a street corner inciting people to murder (insert minority group here), that's another story. Our legal system can discern the difference.
Likewise, I don't expect to be arrested for advocating vegetarianism, but I DO expect to be arrested if I spend my summer vacation learning how to assemble car bombs in Baghdad.
One of the downfalls of the belief system of soldiers and police is that they are usually great upholders of law and order
And one of the curiosities of the mindset of much of the Canadian public is that soldiers and police are their enemies, whereas the Khadr family et al are downtrodden heroes of the people.
Oh well, good thing I didn't join up for the gratitude.
Forgive my ignorance here, but are the minutes of these reviews available to public scrutiny? Is there any way the common citizen can be assured (apart from the fact that most judges were brought up under a free system, and are therefore unlikely to do the Star Chamber thing) that these certificates were fairly applied based on evidence?
It's a war. There are secrets. I see your concern, but this is the great democratic dilemma.
I side with CSIS and the gang on this one, but I respect your right to disagree.
