Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    12,669

    Harper pandering with plan to make it illegal to travel to terror-stricken zones

    Michael Den Tandt: Harper pandering with plan to make it illegal to travel to terror-stricken zones

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ives-terrorism

    Until Sunday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives had a sure grip on the anti-terrorist file by virtue of a policy to fight violent Islamist zealotry that is both tailored to the country’s military means and supported by most Canadians. Given the cruelty and barbarism of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, on display daily, the opposition arguments against our modest contribution to the war effort in Iraq and Syria have had little political traction.

    But then, as is its wont, the Conservative party took a posture that had appeared more-or-less reasonable, and torqued it for sensational effect into something entirely different, which will and should alarm principled conservatives and civil libertarians alike.

    Should the Tories be re-elected in October, the prime minister announced, they will make it a crime for Canadians to travel to as-yet undesignated “declared areas,” where terrorism is judged to be rife. The stated objective is to dissuade home-grown, wannabe Islamist Jihadists from travelling from, say, Montreal or Toronto, to, say, Aleppo, Syria, there to join ISIL and make war on the local population, Canada and her allies, and afterwards potentially return to this country to stage attacks like the one that terrorized Ottawa last Oct. 22. All of which sounds sensible enough, at first blush.

    The kicker: Once the fact of travel to a banned area has been established to the authorities’ satisfaction, the onus will be on the traveller to prove his or her business abroad was legitimate and inoffensive, according to criteria that have yet to be established, to be judged by security agencies as yet unnamed. If the traveller will not or cannot offer such proof, they will be criminally prosecuted and levied with penalties as yet undefined. In other words, the fact of travel to a “declared area” alone will be enough to have the presumption of innocence overturned. Travellers will be deemed guilty until proven innocent.


    “There are very few legitimate reasons to go to places like these,” Harper asserted at a campaign stop in Ottawa. “And those who go without such legitimate reasons will face the full force of the law.”

    In an accompanying news release, the Conservatives sought to allay civil libertarian concerns, saying “there may be limited legitimate reasons that a Canadian may travel to declared areas such as providing humanitarian aid or professional journalism. Canadians who can demonstrate they have travelled to declared areas for defined legitimate purposes would not be prosecuted under the new legislation.”

    Cue the alarm klaxons. There “may” be “limited” legitimate reasons? Who, pray, will decide what is legitimate? According to what set of standards? Who will determine those standards? Who will decide whether a journalist is a “professional” or a garden-variety malcontent, hack and propagandist? To whom will journalists, diplomats, academics and humanitarian workers – to name four categories of people who might have what most would consider “legitimate” reasons to travel to terrorism-stricken zones – be required to report upon their return? Will such reporting be public and transparent, or done in secret? And what about cases in which a journalist, diplomat or other professional may have good reasons to not want to share information about their business with a government department or security agency?


    This is, not to put too fine a point on it, reckless, dangerous and ill-judged. Why, given the debacle of the Maher Arar affair revealed by the public inquiry of the same name a decade ago, would Canadians even begin to believe federal bureaucrats and security officials can be trusted to fairly dispense justice in this way, likely behind closed doors due to “national security” concerns, in the absence of the presumption of innocence? And where has the case been made that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, charged with ferreting out threats to this country overseas, is so inadequate that such an extreme measure could be warranted?

    Delivered in the heat of a campaign, this proposal looks like nothing so much as a gambit to ignite protests from the opposition and media, which can then be used to assert that only the Conservatives care about keeping Canadians safe. It is short-term electioneering and pandering, with the potential damage, obvious questions and evident pitfalls to be set aside and worried about another day.
    CSSA

  2. #2
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    12,669
    PM Harper is framing the discussion,,

    He'll probably come out every couple of days with a piece of policy that Justin and Tom will need to respond to,,


    ( and as stated previously Michael Den Tandt is an idiot ) not to be confused with BS den
    CSSA

  3. #3
    Have gun, will travel. Forbes/Hutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,269
    "Once the fact of travel to a banned area has been established to the authorities’ satisfaction, the onus will be on the traveller to prove his or her business abroad was legitimate and inoffensive, according to criteria that have yet to be established, to be judged by security agencies as yet unnamed. If the traveller will not or cannot offer such proof, they will be criminally prosecuted and levied with penalties as yet undefined. In other words, the fact of travel to a “declared area” alone will be enough to have the presumption of innocence overturned. Travellers will be deemed guilty until proven innocent."

    This could be funny: CBC staff trying to claim/prove they're actually journalists.

  4. The Following 5 Users Like This Post By Forbes/Hutton

    blacksmithden (08-09-2015), Camo tung (08-09-2015), Edenchef (08-09-2015), Neil Burke (08-10-2015), Rory McCanuck (08-09-2015)

  5. #4
    Super Moderator Rory McCanuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Manitoba
    Posts
    12,390
    That was my thought too, who's to say what is a valid reason?
    Visiting relatives? Protecting the old family home?
    Tourism, pilgrimage?
    If you're reporting on events, does it have to be with a government broadcaster?
    What if you're over there fighting jihadis, are you persona non grata because you aren't being sponsored by the Canadian gov't?

  6. The Following User Liked This Post By Rory McCanuck

    lone-wolf (08-09-2015)

  7. #5
    Senior Member Drache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Williams Lake, BC
    Posts
    8,105
    Well there goes my summer vacation plans...

  8. #6
    CBLA Commandant CaperJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Cape Breton
    Posts
    1,185
    I wanted to go meet this Allan fella who all the terrorists get worked up over

  9. The Following User Liked This Post By CaperJim

    Foxer (08-09-2015)

  10. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    7,369
    Sounds like folks needing a defined legitimate reason to own a gun.

  11. #8
    Go Canucks Go! lone-wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Isle Saint-Jean
    Posts
    15,401
    Whoever is his PR/Policy maker, needs a kick in the nuts.
    the wild still lingered in him and the wolf in him merely slept

    "It must be poor life that achieves freedom from fear" - Aldo Leopold

  12. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By lone-wolf

    Mark-II (08-10-2015), matty86suk (08-09-2015), Rory McCanuck (08-09-2015), Swampdonkey (08-09-2015)

  13. #9
    The Gunsmithing Moderator blacksmithden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    I live among the creatures of the night (Edmonton)
    Posts
    16,729
    Im beginning to think Harper has gone a little too tin foil hat on the whole terrorist thing. While his intentions might be good, subsequent governments AND IDIOT BUREAUCRATS, may, and probably will abuse these new laws hes proposing. A government having absolute power over its peoples every move is just asking for trouble. Who would have thought giving the cops power over gun owners would have turned into the s--t show it is today. No...I think you need to sit down and cool off for while Mr Harper.
    GOC moderator
    Dealer/co-founder/co-owner of Tundra Supply Ltd.
    www.tundrasupply.ca
    The High River Gun Grab - NEVER FORGET !!!!
    Feb 26 2014 - Swiss Arms prohibition and ordered confiscation by the RCMP - NEVER FORGET !!!!!

  14. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By blacksmithden

    Curly1 (08-09-2015), Neil Burke (08-10-2015), Rory McCanuck (08-09-2015), Swampdonkey (08-09-2015)

  15. #10
    Moderator kennymo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB
    Posts
    12,837
    I would've preferred if we find out you've gone abroad to aid or become a part of a terrorist organization on our watch list we'll tear up your Canadian passport and you can stay there. Watch list to be updated as required.

  16. The Following 4 Users Like This Post By kennymo

    Metric Warrior (08-10-2015), Rory McCanuck (08-09-2015), speedloader (08-09-2015), Swampdonkey (08-09-2015)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Support Plummets For Harper’s Anti-Terror Bill, New Poll Shows
    By awndray in forum Non Firearms Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 11:23 AM
  2. GM, Ford, and Others Want to Make Working on Your Own Car Illegal
    By Drache in forum News and World Headlines
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-30-2015, 03:55 PM
  3. Justin Trudeau says Harper's pandering to fears of Muslims unworthy of a PM
    By Billythreefeathers in forum Non Firearms Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-20-2015, 11:02 AM
  4. Stephen Harper’s election platform: War on terror
    By Billythreefeathers in forum Non Firearms Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2015, 01:40 PM
  5. Stephen Harper uses terror threat to tee up for election
    By Billythreefeathers in forum Non Firearms Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 05:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •