Canadian Govt To Introduce Massive Internet Surveillance Law

Dammy said:
So yes, Obama is a Muslim by birth right.
Click to expand...

That's still a load of tits. You can BE something by birthright, only by being it. If it's your birthright but you don't actually BE it, then you are not being it by birthright or otherwise.

While it may be so (we just can't know) that Hitler's grandad was Jewish, that doesn't make him part Jewish. You can be born from two Jews and choose not to be Jewish or you can be born from two gentiles and choose to be Jewish. It's really up to you to be what you want to be by being it.

P.S. since Hitler's possible Jewish ancestor was male then Hitler fails the birthright test - at least in that we cannot trace a Jewish heritage through the maternal line.

If Obama is Muslim by birthright then he is equally Christian by birthright.
 
Dammy said:
Gets even more interesting. Had the Jewish birth right issue been put to bed, that entire ugly history would have been avoided. Hitler's father was half Jewish, rejected by this father and his father's family because he was not born by a Jew but a Gentile. Had Hitler's grandfather and great grandfather accepted Hitler's father as a Jew, WW II would never had happened.

So yes, Obama is a Muslim by birth right.
Click to expand...

lol
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If Obama is Muslim by birthright then he is equally Christian by birthright.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't believe birthright applies at all to either religion (that may be different for Judaism, not sure, but that's irrelevant). In fact, Christians become Christians when baptized, and you don't need Christian parents to be baptized. Muslims don't have any ceremony from what I can tell, you just declare yourself Muslim and that's it pretty much.

Regardless, this whole issue of Obama's muslim "birthright" is just a smear campaign. It's really quite irrelevant as he's a practicing Christian, as is his wife and kids. Perhaps those who accuse him of being "muslim", they just mean that he goes to one of those "black" churches where they sing and shake their hips provocatively, which we all know muslims love to do before they blow shit up. :rolleyes:
 
Got my form email from Vic the other day. All I deserve really because all I sent him was a form email. :)

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.



Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.



We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.



Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.



What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.



For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.



Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher





Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.



Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.



Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.



Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.



Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.



Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.



Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.



Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.



Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.



Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.



Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm... That form letter had some glaring mistakes. Here's a fixed version:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Imaginary Boogeymen Act.

Canada's privacy laws currently do not adequately enable Canadian police officers from exploiting their authority and Stephen Harper decrees that this is a problem.

We want to update our already effective laws while striking the right balance between enforcing unnecessary laws and maximizing prison populations.

Let me be very clear: the police will not need a warrant to track your communications, your search and browsing history or your telephone records and that we do our best to discredit the privacy commissioner by accusing her of siding with child molesters.

What's needed most is for Canadians to shut the fuck up and let us ram this down their throats despite almost universal rejection of the bill. We will therefore pretend to a take this to Parliamentary Committee but only so we can drag more opposition members through the mud as we label them to be advocates of child molestation.

For your information, Stephan Harper made me included some more bullshit below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state, although I see no real reason for it as we have more than enough votes to pass this and any other bill detrimental to Canada.

Sincerely,


Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher
Click to expand...

Now at least it's accurate .
 
Hey, remember that Liberal guy named Michael Ignat... what's his name? Well, I'm on his Facebook page and he posted a link to this today:

Judges, not child pornographers, are the real Tory targets

“This is the first time that I am hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers,” the Public Safety Minister said Saturday, a full five days after he introduced the government’s controversial online-surveillance bill in Parliament. “In my opinion, it does not.”

In fact, it does. Mr. Toews’s tardy confusion makes a mockery of his bluster; when he told the House of Commons the choice was between the Tories and “the child pornographers,” he did not actually know what he was proposing.
Click to expand...
He probably never even read it. Harper told him what to do and say and he dutifully complied. That a-boy. Now sleep in the bed you shit in.
 
Regardless, this whole issue of Obama's muslim "birthright" is just a smear campaign. It's really quite irrelevant as he's a practicing Christian, as is his wife and kids. Perhaps those who accuse him of being "muslim", they just mean that he goes to one of those "black" churches where they sing and shake their hips provocatively, which we all know muslims love to do before they blow shit up.
Click to expand...
where I come from we call that attitude, "racism"
:D
 
Vic Toews, meet Anonymous. Who's Anonymous you ask? Oh no one really, they're just this little group that 0\/\/|\| j00R 455!!!

 
We've signed ACTA. So has the US and Australia, I believe. Europe is holding off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top