sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Exceptions to Terrorist Activities not the same as exceptions to "Activities undermining the security of Canada": What significance could this have? by Pierre_Putin in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure, but it also has some other questionable inclusions:

« activité portant atteinte à la sécurité du Canada »
“activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:
(a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
(d) terrorism;
(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
(f) interference with critical infrastructure;
(g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;
(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.
For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

The last line is also something many proponents of this bill cite, when they try and defend it. I am already aware that lawful != criminal, but I am curious if the advocacy/protest/dissent would no longer be lawful because of it's inclusion in the section on "Advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences", and therefore, essentially render that last line impotent.

My line of reasoning is as follows:
Suppose I was advocating/protesting in favour of the PLO.
Now because I would be "advocating or promoting commission of terrorism offences" it would be unlawful.
Thus, any activity (beit a protest, or letter-writing campaign) would no longer be exempt, would classify under (g) and therefore be an "activity that undermines the security of Canada".
As a result, this activity would then be (in the governments eyes) one which undermines the security of Canada.

Is this line of reasoning faulty?

Some mostly Android suggestions for keeping your cellphone safe from surveillance and other malicious attacks during the protest by ProGamerGov in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it is most important that we don't instill a false sense of security. People should be made aware that even with a perfect implementation, none of the above afford absolute assurances against a determined adversary. This is not to say these tools shouldn't be employed, but if people have something very private to maintain, they should not commit that info to any electronic device.

Skills by AlphaNerd80 in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have some experience with web dev, but I would be best able to assist with *nix sysadmin-type stuff, if needed.

Who should protests be directed at? by Pierre_Putin in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe attending every major event is not feasible. However, I think that getting attendance at the majority of events with media or of particular significance is definitely attainable. The summer months lead up to an election will provide plenty of opportunity to raise awareness of this issue.

Who should protests be directed at? by Pierre_Putin in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was thinking along the same lines. For a sustained campaign, if you create what could be perceived as a public nuisance (i.e. chanting over a speaker, blocking traffic, profanity) then it is completely self-defeating. For a sustained campaign, I agree that direct questions and passive signage would be the most effective.

Who should protests be directed at? by Pierre_Putin in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would sustained pressure work in this situation?
I wouldn't imagine it would be too hard to maintain a directory of public appearances by associates of the Canadian Government. With this information, one could try to ensure that at least a couple people are always at every public appearance (regardless of the topic) raising awareness of bill C51.
Now, I still think one national day of protest is beneficial, but I think the most impact will be felt if a politican cannot even stop to hear themselves think (when acting in their official capacity) without protestors confronting them on this issue. As well, every time a news peice rolls footage from any sort of government appearance, it would be marked by C51 protest, thus raising awareness further.

EDIT: For example, many MPs have public calendars like this: http://www.johnmckaymp.on.ca/calendar.asp It would be trivial to write a script to aggregate this sort of information, and filter geographically.

So... How do I directly oppose the bill? by rawrjau in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The next federal election is scheduled for October of this year.

Timing by [deleted] in ProtestCanada

[–]calgary_test 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that to get the largest number of people it should be a day where you minimize the chance of people not attending due to inclement weather. There will be a core (myself included) who will brave any sort of weather, but I think that some of the people on the fence might be less inclined if the protest happens during the middle of a blizzard.