What goes on in Stephen Harper's mind that he uses such language? Never mind that many Canadians suspect the "jihadist monster" occasions he's referring to were in fact false flags...concocted in order to justify the draconian security legislation. Harper's dragged Canadians into a parallel universe where dirty deeds done dirt cheap are the slippery slope to government tyranny by terror.
Mr. Lavigne said the public doesn’t have enough information about those attackers to justify new powers.
“We know they have some kind of link to the ISIL group, whether it’s from having seen something on YouTube or discussed things with a couple of people, but they’re not organized,” he said. “It’s not like they’re part of an organization. These are people who for their own reasons decided to act.”
Mr. Lavigne said that by proposing broad new powers, the government is either getting bad advice from security officials or ignoring good advice.
“I have never seen the RCMP and CSIS have such a cosy relationship with government,” he said. “They’re not supposed to be.”
On Thursday, law professors Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, released a hair-raising 37-page analysis of C-51.
- CSIS will be able to get warrants at secret hearings to violate Canadians’ rights, which risks creating “a secret jurisprudence on when CSIS can act beyond the law.”
- CSIS will have “open-ended authorization whose proper and reasonable application will depend on perfect government judgment.”
- They worry that Canadians can’t have confidence CSIS won’t be used to target political enemies of the government.
- In 2012, the government shut down the office of the CSIS inspector general, which provided active oversight. Since then, after-the-fact review is provided by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, a part-time committee formerly headed by an accused fraudster.
Mr. Forcese and Mr. Roach said expanding CSIS’s powers without improving oversight is “breathtakingly irresponsible.”
Mr. Lavigne agrees. He said that CSIS “sanitizes its files” before handing them to SIRC.
“To say that SIRC is any kind of oversight body is really misleading and the government knows that.”
A lot of what the government says about this issue is disturbing to Mr. Lavigne.
On Monday, standing next to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Ottawa, for instance, the prime minister said: “As you are aware, Madame Chancellor, one of the jihadist monster’s tentacles reached as far as our own Parliament.”
Mr. Lavigne said the prime minister’s advisers must tell him that using inflammatory language increases the risk.
“When our leaders start talking about tentacles and jihadis and barbarians, it’s adding fuel to the fire. It’s actually increasing the likelihood of that happening.”
Mr. Lavigne said the prime minister’s language reminds him of fascist leaders like Mussolini and Franco.“Some of these tactics are taken right out of the fascist playbook,” he said. “Create an enemy that is hard to identify. Make it an enemy that is nebulous and seems to be able to do things that nobody else can. Don’t define the enemy. Just identify. Generate fear around that enemy, Then send out the message that the only people who can deal with this enemy are us.”
But the government isn’t fascist, I said. Rhetoric aside, it is not crossing the line to fascist actions.
He agrees. “They’re not crossing the line. They’re using the language to appeal to the emotions, which is one of the first stages. Disinformation being the second, which I think they also use. But they’re not fascist. I’m not saying the government’s fascist.”
“Don’t detain me.”
I can't help but connect the dots between C-51 and a dispicable episode I posted about some weeks ago, where the Canadian Border Services Agency falsely arrested, charged and prosecuted an innocent Canadian family through the legal system--all because the US military told the Agency it needed to prove "harmonization" between the Canadian and US legal systems--prior to Canada getting a "discount" on some armaments. Is C-51 some "quid"? If so, what and where is the "pro quo"? Canadians are getting tired of this shenanigans. Reminds me of the old saying,"Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?"