The Harper Government Introduces New Police State Laws: To spy on all Canadians
We have said many times that with the Conservatives it is always what they do and never what they say. It has been discussed that the Harper Government relies upon shame, fear and lies and that it will always try to avoid the courts and openly disregard any legal decisions that are not their favour. So now we see that they are following the U.S. once again by secretly passing a Bill that will permit them the powers of a Police State that will in no way be regulated, documented or made available for any Canadians or the Courts to discover how, what, when and why they demand these powers. It is all a part of their intimidation technique and need to hide from the Canadian People exaclty what it is that they do and whose interests they truely represent.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Tories reintroduce ISP intercept bill
CBC – Mon, 1 Nov, 2010The federal Conservatives have reintroduced legislation that would allow police and intelligence officials to intercept online communications and get personal information from internet service providers (ISPs) about their subscribers without first obtaining a warrant.
“New and evolving technologies provide new ways of committing crimes, making them harder to investigate,” said Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, while announcing the legislation in Ottawa. “Criminals continue to find new ways to evade the law. Our Criminal Code and other federal legislation must be updated.”
Together, the two bills will help target child sexual predators, distributors of pornography and identity thieves, added Dave MacKenzie, parliamentary secretary to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The bills would also aim to disrupt those who would use the internet to plan terrorism.
The Investigative Power for the 21st Century Act would:
Its partner, the Investigating and Preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act, would:
The bills have the “strong and united support” of police chiefs across Canada, said Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, who was also present at the announcement.
While “the overwhelming majority” of internet providers co-operate already with police, “at the current time they don’t have legislative authority to co-operate with us,” he said.
When asked to provide an example in which the legislation could be helpful, Blair pointed to cases of child pornography.
Often, those distributing such pornography shield their identities by sharing information through a variety of networks, Blair said, adding that the new legislation could help law enforcement agencies pierce through those shields more easily.
“The mandated disclosure of personal information” by ISPs is a major concern, said Michael Geist, a law professor who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.
“That type of approach is open to abuse, and I don’t think it strikes the right balance,” Geist told CBC News. “There is a significant price to be paid, and sadly, scant evidence that a) we’ve got a problem, and b) that this is going to do very much about it.”
“If you were serious about dealing with cyber crime … it’s not new legislation that’s needed. It‘s the resources for law enforcement that’s needed.”
Daniel Petit, Nicholson’s parliamentary secretary, said the legislation “addresses Canadians’ privacy concerns by including strict privacy safeguards.” In the case of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, that includes stricter requirements for obtaining judicial authorization to obtain data relating to suspect’s location, he said.
This is the fourth time this type of legislation has been introduced.
Nicholson introduced the same legislation on June 18, 2009. It died after Prime Minister Stephen Harper suspended Parliament in on Dec. 30, 2009 in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.
Similar bills were also launched previously by the Harper government, as well as by the Liberal Party under then prime minister Paul Martin. The legislation stalled on both occasions.
Nicholson acknowledged “it has been difficult” to get the legislation passed, but said he is buoyed by the new composition of the Senate, where Conservatives hold 52 of 105 seats.
“I’m confident we can move forward and get this bill passed,” he said
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
The Harper Government is not the Canadian Government. When dealing with these kind it is always what they do and never what they say.
“Eyes open”.
Canada, Britain & U.S. Government want to Spy On Its Citizens’/ Electronic Communications?
The Canadian (Commons recent Bill C-30) would—give any Canadian police officer without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customer information (see section 17 of C-30) cause the same loss of electronic privacy and civil liberties that British Government recently proposed—to spy on Brits’ electronic communications. Is it coincidence the British and Canadian proposals appear to mirror legislation U.S. Government said it wanted passed in 2011 to spy on U.S. Citizens?
Overlooked by mainstream media is that Britain and Canada signed with the U.S Government an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) to share with Canadian and British Police/Governments assets seized from Brits, Canadians and Americans that resulted from e.g, evidence or information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records including GPS tracking.
Compare with U.S. Government’s proposal to electronically monitor, spy on Americans without a warrant—with Canada’s recent eavesdropping (Bill C-30) and British Government’s plan to spy on its Citizens’ electronic communications.
U.S. Government wants the power to (introduce as evidence) in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the U.S. Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen’s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions) to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts—determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to—Americans’ Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizen’s (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government can too easily use no-warrant—(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of “Property Seizure” Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation’s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html
Thnkyou for this erudite comment. It is good to see that not all hapless citizens are sleeping.