Yes, civility has pretty much been ground down into dust. Too PC a concept. We must honour all free speech including incivility and outright rudeness.
Rights are not being removed. They may change over time, as they should, but the basics hold fast.
Using the phrase “reasonable general concern” for flapping your hands at the current Liberal gov and it's darkly nefarious acts is disingenuous. The Senator contradicts herself and happily omits information. I watched the 15 minutes when she stood up in the Senate with her arguments. I can only imagine the response.
Okay, we agree that civility has been / is being ground down "to dust."
I disagree that "we must honor all free speech" for the simple reason that we DON'T honor all free speech. We have an incredible number of examples in society today of people being deplatformed, being shouted down, etc. because their views are not popular or they make someone feel "uncomfortable." In fact, we have the opposite of free speech.
I do very much believe that rights have been removed. I will use the Covid era for my example but there are many possible examples. In order to make my Covid example, I must first present my personal bona fides: I am four times vaccinated - by my personal choice, I hasten to add. Now, specifics. People who opposed the various Covid rules were shut down - doctors who wanted to discuss treatment options were prevented from doing so; those who wanted to not be vaccinated were kept out of public buildings by the absence of vaccine passports. The first example I mentioned is one of the right of free speech; the second example is that of the right to choose your own medical treatment.
To the extent that the abrogation of these rights has been appealed, the courts ruled those abrogations as "reasonable in the circumstances." I absolutely do not agree that those abrogations were "reasonable in the circumstances" but the point is, no matter the reasonability, the particular rights have been reduced / removed, etc.
Thank you Ms. Simons, excellent article and I agree with everything until the end. I think you are much to kind to this Liberal government. It is not incompetence. The Liberals are demonstrating time and again an absolute disregard for personal privacy and free speech rights. Just in the last year: emergency act where people still have their bank accounts frozen and can't pay bills, including mortgages, because of a donation, internet censorship bills (follow Michael Geist) and now this. They do not respect personal freedoms and our courts tend to side with government vs individuals in these fights, certainly with exceptions, using the "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" language. It needs to stop and we need to push back harder. Thanks for bringing this to light but I believe your conclusions are far to soft on this government.
"And I don’t think it requires much creativity to imagine how much more vulnerable you might be to such a search if you were, for example, Black, or Muslim, or Chinese, or Indigenous or LGBQT+."
Er, how about wearing a MAGA hat, or a 'Truckers Convoy' tee-shirt? That would make you much more of a 'deep state' target here. Your own biases--your sense of where the threats to freedom come from--show through clearly in the examples chosen.
Don't misunderstand... I share your concerns about the legislation. It's just ironic that you inadvertently supply such a good reason for sharing them.
Not sure what Harper did to you personally but I think its time you got over it. We're talking about laws promulgated in 2022 not 2014. For god's sake Terry move on.
Thanks for bringing this up. The motives of the government doesn't have to be nefarious; we should be asking how can this be abused. Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs?
I'd like to see some examples of where this is power would help the border officers. What's on my phone amounts to ideas, and we shouldn't be in the position of policing ideas.
Now that I write this I'm reminded of a TV show that featured border officers going about their day, and the people that try to get in the country. One was a young guy from Australia. The officer looked through his phone, which showed the traveler was an avid graffiti artist. The officer denied him entry, claiming he didn't want him to express his artistic talents in our country by defacing Canadian property. Put him on the next flight back to Sidney. Too much?
Don't believe everything you see on TV. Border Officers has many many rules and regs that they must follow. (Yes we all know of exceptions but leave that aside for now) So far all of the fears about profiling and invasion of privacy and the dreadful reasons the Libs are doing this are all based on fantasy.
I agree with your questions...how can this be abused? Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs? That is where a strong opposition comes into play. It's in the Senate now.
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Customs Act to
(a) clarify the circumstances in which border service officers may examine documents stored on personal digital devices;
(b) authorize the making of regulations in respect of those examinations; and
(c) update certain provisions respecting enforcement, offences and punishment.
The enactment also amends the Preclearance Act, 2016 to
(a) clarify the circumstances in which preclearance officers may examine, search and detain documents stored on personal digital devices;
(b) authorize the making of regulations and the giving of ministerial directions in respect of those examinations, searches and detentions; and
(c) update the French version of that Act in respect of a traveller’s obligation to identify themselves.
I'm not a lawyer, but if I follow the argument correctly, we're offered various thresholds of legally justifiable evidence for searches: reasonable suspicion, reasonable and probable grounds, and now, reasonable general concern.
Whether it's a suspicion, grounds or concern, in all cases it must be reasonable and I assume therefore justiciable on that basis.
Folks in Canada have Charter rights including the right to hold and express various beliefs (short of, for example, hate speech).
The idea that folks are going to be searched at the border if a border agent has a 'reasonable general concern' that the traveller did not vote for Justin, as opposed to, for example, a national security threat, seems unlikely to survive its day in court as a reasonable and legally justifiable search.
So while a new formulation of evidence is worthy of attention, in a rule of law society the ultimate forum to test how this new threshold of evidence fits in the wider context of legal rights and obligations is, of course, the courts.
I realize that in the political arena suspicion suffers no such burden of reasonableness.
Well, as the author noted, this is intended as a legal threshold of evidence.
We're not talking about normal parlance here, where such verbal usage may not be that different than 'reasonable suspicion', as in, "I have a reasonable suspicion you're a Leafs fan, may god be with you in your pain".
However, as a legal threshold it needs to be justiciable as such, so that's something that has to pass legal tests in court. So how low the bar is for a brand new legal threshold is yet to be tested, I gather.
So it's not the bar of normal parlance that is the threshold border agents must follow, i.e., how most folks might use such an expression. The border agents would need to pass the legal test of 'reasonable general concern'. I gather as a new threshold of evidence it is yet to be legally tested, therefore we don't really know yet what it means.
The author appears to be raising a suspicion, whether it's a reasonable suspicion will partly depend on whether that suspicion is a legal one or a political one. Thus my distinction regarding political versus legal expectations of reasonableness, as we interpret the suspicion (i.e., perhaps 'spin') being raised by this piece of writing.
So, one wonders, why not used previously tested phrasing? If fact, why not make it even tougher? I think reading stuff on my phone is like reading my mail.
Well my only acquaintance with this issue is the article above, but I gather the change in wording is intended to capture something the established legal threshold is missing. The article is not clear on this, although there is some suggestion it might involve child porn. However, the author argues against it being effective in that case.
Apparently, on one side is the court-rejected idea of 'unlimited' searches. The court has apparently said 'the greater the intrusion...the greater must be the justification'. I assume that will still hold with the new phrasing. So while the author is right to draw attention, it's not obvious it's time to hit a panic button. The new phrasing will gain its legal meaning in a court of law, not in the heat of our online political forums.
However, I might add, I think we're into new territory of identity, property and privacy when it comes to digital info. Prior to the emergence of digital devices, privacy has been construed as a feature of space and containment. For example, my house, my yard, my wallet, etc., are physical objects with physical properties of containment. Private versus public could be made out across such spatial thresholds.
In the digital world my data is supposedly on my phone but in fact may be stored in the cloud somewhere, not necessarily even in the same country. More like a safety deposit box being rented in the pre-digital world, but a fundamentally insecure one.
The problem, as I see it, is thinking a digital device is private when in fact it's primarily a public form of information sharing. Any storage is more like putting a box of your stuff out on the boulevard and presuming some kind of privacy about it, when in fact the boulevard is largely a public form of shared property. The illusion of digital privacy is just that, an illusion. So the problem becomes taking a public device and pretending to do private things with it. It's just not going to work out that way. The internet was never designed for privacy, it was designed for sharing. Trying to lock the door after the fact is pointless if the door is not attached to a securely contained space, but is just standing in the middle of a field somewhere.
If you're at a hockey game shouting at the ref, that's not a private conversation. Once we plugged our devices into public networks they are no longer actually private, our private space has been ruptured. We use spatial metaphors to describe digital 'spaces', but they are just metaphors. We are simply renting a public communication device. So as long as we confuse the two, folks are going to be mixing different things and trying to separate them after the fact.
Thus, the muddle over legally searching a digital device, where does pubic end and private begin? Changing the legal wording regarding the motivation of the border agent is not likely to clarify the ambiguous public/private nature of the digital device and how we use it.
Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I don't understand why my comment was "unacceptable". I merely agreed with the writer that the search powers were ambiguous, and unclear, and that it was unwise to vest them in a body of state employees who may be less well-trained than police officers. And I suggested that legislative design is hard; and that the somewhat-reformed Senate (where the writer comes from) has a role in making it better. Otherwise the issues will be fought out in the forum run by allegedly "elitist" judges, who handiwork also draws criticism - although not enough, yet, to warrant invoking the notwithstanding clause.
I was with the author (and still share their reasonable general concerns) until they suggested customs would target travellers based on their political views. That’s hyperbolic, would not be authorized by the bill, and is not a behaviour supported by any experience in case law or complaints about customs agents.
The same thinking was attached to the PATRIOT act, which wasn't supposed to target Americans but inevitably did and still does. Hyperbole now could be reality in a few years. Seems to be that way about a lot of things these days, unfortunately
The PATRIOT Act expressly authorized the covert collection of information about people who Homeland Security or the FBI considered a threat to national security. This bill does none of that. Your paranoid and uninformed reaction is the reason that journalists need to me more rational than Paula is being here.
Though, as I said, I agree with her concern about the novel, likely lower, standard for a search.
It’s just her baseless tying it to searches based on political belief that I am criticizing. It’s designed to freak out the YouTube conspiracy-driven right wing.
Not sure how that was paranoid or uninformed, simply pointing out that government has lied before about seemingly harmless programs. Also wasn't a criticism of your position, just a counter to it. No need to get ravenous with your defense of government intruding privacy.
What is in there that can give customs officers the ability to search based on one’s political belief? Comparing it to the PATRIOT Act doesn’t make sense to me.
I wasn't comparing the content of the bill to the patriot act, i was comparing how the idea for the patriot act was able to be morphed into something more sinister over time and the idea for S-7 is currently very vague and may also morph into something more sinister. Not that it will, just that it is possible. The vagueness of it will allow for individuals to interpret it differently which is bad.
The PATRIOT Act was sinister to begin with. There was no morphing.
This bill sets a low threshold for a search at the border, which I’m concerned with, but it isn’t vague in what the search can be for; those are specified and are the sorts of things you’d expect a border guard to be searching for.
S-7 isn't vague. It's all in the Act. It's just that there is a new sentence and that's got them all excitable again. A "reasonable general concern". CBSA has all sorts of items that use "a reasonable concern" and many "general concerns. Is a reasonable general concern really so difficult to understand?
Why is that, exactly? Again not comparing the content of the bills, rather the poor and discriminatory implementation of them. Also, wouldn't you want to refer to failed and stupid American laws as a precedent to not implement them here? Seems kind of like common sense.
Common sense? Kind of like? It's the new fad for uninformed Canadians to dive whole-heartedly into all of the USA's GOP messages, memes, radio & TV. Don't encourage them. It's worrisome when people are spouting lines from the American constitution and its amendments when they still haven't read or understood their own charter.
Of course it is not authorized by the bill. But a border agent could manufacture reasonable general concern about just about anyone. Should the agent see you wearing your support the convoy shirt and they hold a different opinion do you think they would not be able to support reasonable general concern about you that has nothing to do with your shirt?
What I'm saying is that anyone can justify "reasonable general concern". The bar is too low and too fuzzy. I doubt you could ever convict a CBP officer on not meeting that bar.
What a great article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Has this been picked up in the media anywhere else? What do the opposition parties have to say about it? Will the Senate support the Bill?
The truth is that Trudeau and his regime are leaving the vaccine mandates in place in order to achieve personal identificaltion numbers for all citisens of Canada. We were volunteered by the regime with the UK following to see how the implementations of the identiy number trial is conducted. That is the only reason, other than a massive amount of vaccines that were ordered per person for Canadians, why we are the only country with mandates. They must have every citisen documented in order to complete the trial. Its has little to do with health, safety, or concern for Canadians and more about attaching numerical identities for ease of control.
They intend to bring in facial recognition for all passports to keep your identy safe. I thought that was truly heroic for them to consider each citisens safety and making it difficult for anyone to steal identities. It is why there are massive lineups for passports as they must identify every Canadian with this new technology. No conspiracy at all in play as these are facts and not conjectures.
It used to be you could say that the intention of the Government is nefarious without verbal and abusive backlash nor the threat of losing your job. Unfortunately the regime will punish you if you dare even site the truth and it is autocraticly deemed a "conspiracy theory."
I think this is just another example of the pace of governance not being able to keep up with the pace of change on the planet, mixed with what they feel is a need to appear to be doing something. Governments no longer know what to do anymore.
I am fairly sure that the photo accompanying this article is not of an airport. No luggage anywhere, not even a backpack and everyone has their shoes on. Also, no phones, laptops or tablets anywhere. Maybe it's a sports venue? A comic book or sci-fi convention? I wonder what the little girl clutching her Barbie doll could let us know.
The article raises valid drafting and policy questions; even if it is unlikely that “Justin Trudeau” (who apparently cares not about monetary policy) has anything to do with it. But it doesn’t help to debate about which “political persuasion” is more likely to “abuse” powers that could so obviously impinge upon “privacy rights” or the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is: it is unwise to empower low level state functionaries (whatever their personal motivation in particular cases) with the power to rummage through the kind of information that may, today, be found, on personal devices.
The possibility of abuse and pretextual searches are just so obvious that they should not be ignored, even if any over-reach might be subject to review (at great cost) through a Charter lens. Better to be very clear at the outset – including in the statute itself – about the personal and public interests being balanced. Otherwise you get “law” like the well-meaning voluntary-intoxication amendments to the Criminal Code, that have just struck down by the Supreme Court.
And happily, the chamber of sober second thought (now somewhat de-politicized…thank you Justin!) is just the place to do the homework.
Excellent article. We seem to be drifting away from civil rights that matter.
Susan, two points about your comment.
First, we are moving away from "civil." Second, we are absolutely moving away from "rights." Two separate but very related concepts.
Yes, civility has pretty much been ground down into dust. Too PC a concept. We must honour all free speech including incivility and outright rudeness.
Rights are not being removed. They may change over time, as they should, but the basics hold fast.
Using the phrase “reasonable general concern” for flapping your hands at the current Liberal gov and it's darkly nefarious acts is disingenuous. The Senator contradicts herself and happily omits information. I watched the 15 minutes when she stood up in the Senate with her arguments. I can only imagine the response.
Okay, we agree that civility has been / is being ground down "to dust."
I disagree that "we must honor all free speech" for the simple reason that we DON'T honor all free speech. We have an incredible number of examples in society today of people being deplatformed, being shouted down, etc. because their views are not popular or they make someone feel "uncomfortable." In fact, we have the opposite of free speech.
I do very much believe that rights have been removed. I will use the Covid era for my example but there are many possible examples. In order to make my Covid example, I must first present my personal bona fides: I am four times vaccinated - by my personal choice, I hasten to add. Now, specifics. People who opposed the various Covid rules were shut down - doctors who wanted to discuss treatment options were prevented from doing so; those who wanted to not be vaccinated were kept out of public buildings by the absence of vaccine passports. The first example I mentioned is one of the right of free speech; the second example is that of the right to choose your own medical treatment.
To the extent that the abrogation of these rights has been appealed, the courts ruled those abrogations as "reasonable in the circumstances." I absolutely do not agree that those abrogations were "reasonable in the circumstances" but the point is, no matter the reasonability, the particular rights have been reduced / removed, etc.
Ken, I apologize, I was being snarky when I wrote "We must honour all free speech including incivility and outright rudeness."
I disagree with the rest of your comment. All of it. It's been beaten to death over and over and now needs some time for tempers to settle.
"Reasonable in the circumstances." What were those circumstances? Well, first off there was a global pandemic.
Thank you Ms. Simons, excellent article and I agree with everything until the end. I think you are much to kind to this Liberal government. It is not incompetence. The Liberals are demonstrating time and again an absolute disregard for personal privacy and free speech rights. Just in the last year: emergency act where people still have their bank accounts frozen and can't pay bills, including mortgages, because of a donation, internet censorship bills (follow Michael Geist) and now this. They do not respect personal freedoms and our courts tend to side with government vs individuals in these fights, certainly with exceptions, using the "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" language. It needs to stop and we need to push back harder. Thanks for bringing this to light but I believe your conclusions are far to soft on this government.
Bang on!
"And I don’t think it requires much creativity to imagine how much more vulnerable you might be to such a search if you were, for example, Black, or Muslim, or Chinese, or Indigenous or LGBQT+."
Er, how about wearing a MAGA hat, or a 'Truckers Convoy' tee-shirt? That would make you much more of a 'deep state' target here. Your own biases--your sense of where the threats to freedom come from--show through clearly in the examples chosen.
Don't misunderstand... I share your concerns about the legislation. It's just ironic that you inadvertently supply such a good reason for sharing them.
Why does socialism inevitably tend towards authoritarianism despite the boistrous protestations to the opposite?
I fail to see how S-7 equals socialism or even authoritarianism. Many assumptions are being read in here and pretty much all of them are silly.
Tell me don’t have a collection of signed Jean Chretien golf balls, please
Not sure what Harper did to you personally but I think its time you got over it. We're talking about laws promulgated in 2022 not 2014. For god's sake Terry move on.
So as long as the government limits our rights differently that's ok? I thought he promised more freedoms https://twitter.com/i/status/832325485032067072.
It is always worth listening to Paula Simons.
I did. A mildly amusing 15 minutes I will never get back.
Thanks for bringing this up. The motives of the government doesn't have to be nefarious; we should be asking how can this be abused. Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs?
I'd like to see some examples of where this is power would help the border officers. What's on my phone amounts to ideas, and we shouldn't be in the position of policing ideas.
Now that I write this I'm reminded of a TV show that featured border officers going about their day, and the people that try to get in the country. One was a young guy from Australia. The officer looked through his phone, which showed the traveler was an avid graffiti artist. The officer denied him entry, claiming he didn't want him to express his artistic talents in our country by defacing Canadian property. Put him on the next flight back to Sidney. Too much?
Don't believe everything you see on TV. Border Officers has many many rules and regs that they must follow. (Yes we all know of exceptions but leave that aside for now) So far all of the fears about profiling and invasion of privacy and the dreadful reasons the Libs are doing this are all based on fantasy.
I agree with your questions...how can this be abused? Where are the checks and balances? Does this power accomplish anything? Are the benefits worth the risks and costs? That is where a strong opposition comes into play. It's in the Senate now.
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Customs Act to
(a) clarify the circumstances in which border service officers may examine documents stored on personal digital devices;
(b) authorize the making of regulations in respect of those examinations; and
(c) update certain provisions respecting enforcement, offences and punishment.
The enactment also amends the Preclearance Act, 2016 to
(a) clarify the circumstances in which preclearance officers may examine, search and detain documents stored on personal digital devices;
(b) authorize the making of regulations and the giving of ministerial directions in respect of those examinations, searches and detentions; and
(c) update the French version of that Act in respect of a traveller’s obligation to identify themselves.
More at : https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-7/first-reading
♥️ ( I think it's a javascript thing messing up the little hearts )
I'm not a lawyer, but if I follow the argument correctly, we're offered various thresholds of legally justifiable evidence for searches: reasonable suspicion, reasonable and probable grounds, and now, reasonable general concern.
Whether it's a suspicion, grounds or concern, in all cases it must be reasonable and I assume therefore justiciable on that basis.
Folks in Canada have Charter rights including the right to hold and express various beliefs (short of, for example, hate speech).
The idea that folks are going to be searched at the border if a border agent has a 'reasonable general concern' that the traveller did not vote for Justin, as opposed to, for example, a national security threat, seems unlikely to survive its day in court as a reasonable and legally justifiable search.
So while a new formulation of evidence is worthy of attention, in a rule of law society the ultimate forum to test how this new threshold of evidence fits in the wider context of legal rights and obligations is, of course, the courts.
I realize that in the political arena suspicion suffers no such burden of reasonableness.
How difficult do you think it is to say you have a reasonable general concern about anyone? This is such a low bar that it is ridiculous.
Well, as the author noted, this is intended as a legal threshold of evidence.
We're not talking about normal parlance here, where such verbal usage may not be that different than 'reasonable suspicion', as in, "I have a reasonable suspicion you're a Leafs fan, may god be with you in your pain".
However, as a legal threshold it needs to be justiciable as such, so that's something that has to pass legal tests in court. So how low the bar is for a brand new legal threshold is yet to be tested, I gather.
So it's not the bar of normal parlance that is the threshold border agents must follow, i.e., how most folks might use such an expression. The border agents would need to pass the legal test of 'reasonable general concern'. I gather as a new threshold of evidence it is yet to be legally tested, therefore we don't really know yet what it means.
The author appears to be raising a suspicion, whether it's a reasonable suspicion will partly depend on whether that suspicion is a legal one or a political one. Thus my distinction regarding political versus legal expectations of reasonableness, as we interpret the suspicion (i.e., perhaps 'spin') being raised by this piece of writing.
So, one wonders, why not used previously tested phrasing? If fact, why not make it even tougher? I think reading stuff on my phone is like reading my mail.
Well my only acquaintance with this issue is the article above, but I gather the change in wording is intended to capture something the established legal threshold is missing. The article is not clear on this, although there is some suggestion it might involve child porn. However, the author argues against it being effective in that case.
Apparently, on one side is the court-rejected idea of 'unlimited' searches. The court has apparently said 'the greater the intrusion...the greater must be the justification'. I assume that will still hold with the new phrasing. So while the author is right to draw attention, it's not obvious it's time to hit a panic button. The new phrasing will gain its legal meaning in a court of law, not in the heat of our online political forums.
However, I might add, I think we're into new territory of identity, property and privacy when it comes to digital info. Prior to the emergence of digital devices, privacy has been construed as a feature of space and containment. For example, my house, my yard, my wallet, etc., are physical objects with physical properties of containment. Private versus public could be made out across such spatial thresholds.
In the digital world my data is supposedly on my phone but in fact may be stored in the cloud somewhere, not necessarily even in the same country. More like a safety deposit box being rented in the pre-digital world, but a fundamentally insecure one.
The problem, as I see it, is thinking a digital device is private when in fact it's primarily a public form of information sharing. Any storage is more like putting a box of your stuff out on the boulevard and presuming some kind of privacy about it, when in fact the boulevard is largely a public form of shared property. The illusion of digital privacy is just that, an illusion. So the problem becomes taking a public device and pretending to do private things with it. It's just not going to work out that way. The internet was never designed for privacy, it was designed for sharing. Trying to lock the door after the fact is pointless if the door is not attached to a securely contained space, but is just standing in the middle of a field somewhere.
If you're at a hockey game shouting at the ref, that's not a private conversation. Once we plugged our devices into public networks they are no longer actually private, our private space has been ruptured. We use spatial metaphors to describe digital 'spaces', but they are just metaphors. We are simply renting a public communication device. So as long as we confuse the two, folks are going to be mixing different things and trying to separate them after the fact.
Thus, the muddle over legally searching a digital device, where does pubic end and private begin? Changing the legal wording regarding the motivation of the border agent is not likely to clarify the ambiguous public/private nature of the digital device and how we use it.
Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I don't understand why my comment was "unacceptable". I merely agreed with the writer that the search powers were ambiguous, and unclear, and that it was unwise to vest them in a body of state employees who may be less well-trained than police officers. And I suggested that legislative design is hard; and that the somewhat-reformed Senate (where the writer comes from) has a role in making it better. Otherwise the issues will be fought out in the forum run by allegedly "elitist" judges, who handiwork also draws criticism - although not enough, yet, to warrant invoking the notwithstanding clause.
I was with the author (and still share their reasonable general concerns) until they suggested customs would target travellers based on their political views. That’s hyperbolic, would not be authorized by the bill, and is not a behaviour supported by any experience in case law or complaints about customs agents.
The same thinking was attached to the PATRIOT act, which wasn't supposed to target Americans but inevitably did and still does. Hyperbole now could be reality in a few years. Seems to be that way about a lot of things these days, unfortunately
The PATRIOT Act expressly authorized the covert collection of information about people who Homeland Security or the FBI considered a threat to national security. This bill does none of that. Your paranoid and uninformed reaction is the reason that journalists need to me more rational than Paula is being here.
Though, as I said, I agree with her concern about the novel, likely lower, standard for a search.
It’s just her baseless tying it to searches based on political belief that I am criticizing. It’s designed to freak out the YouTube conspiracy-driven right wing.
Not sure how that was paranoid or uninformed, simply pointing out that government has lied before about seemingly harmless programs. Also wasn't a criticism of your position, just a counter to it. No need to get ravenous with your defense of government intruding privacy.
How does legislation lie? Here is the text of the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/S-7/first-reading
What is in there that can give customs officers the ability to search based on one’s political belief? Comparing it to the PATRIOT Act doesn’t make sense to me.
I should read through all the comments before I post. You are 4 hours before me with that good link.
Maybe I should email it to Ms Simons.
I wasn't comparing the content of the bill to the patriot act, i was comparing how the idea for the patriot act was able to be morphed into something more sinister over time and the idea for S-7 is currently very vague and may also morph into something more sinister. Not that it will, just that it is possible. The vagueness of it will allow for individuals to interpret it differently which is bad.
The PATRIOT Act was sinister to begin with. There was no morphing.
This bill sets a low threshold for a search at the border, which I’m concerned with, but it isn’t vague in what the search can be for; those are specified and are the sorts of things you’d expect a border guard to be searching for.
S-7 isn't vague. It's all in the Act. It's just that there is a new sentence and that's got them all excitable again. A "reasonable general concern". CBSA has all sorts of items that use "a reasonable concern" and many "general concerns. Is a reasonable general concern really so difficult to understand?
The PATRIOT Act has absolutely no bearing on S-7. Referring to American laws is paranoid and uninformed.
Why is that, exactly? Again not comparing the content of the bills, rather the poor and discriminatory implementation of them. Also, wouldn't you want to refer to failed and stupid American laws as a precedent to not implement them here? Seems kind of like common sense.
Common sense? Kind of like? It's the new fad for uninformed Canadians to dive whole-heartedly into all of the USA's GOP messages, memes, radio & TV. Don't encourage them. It's worrisome when people are spouting lines from the American constitution and its amendments when they still haven't read or understood their own charter.
If Government insists on further invading our privacy, perhaps they should consider hiring at least one Proctologist at every point of entry.
Of course it is not authorized by the bill. But a border agent could manufacture reasonable general concern about just about anyone. Should the agent see you wearing your support the convoy shirt and they hold a different opinion do you think they would not be able to support reasonable general concern about you that has nothing to do with your shirt?
That’s already the case though. We’re discussing what the law says. If the border guard is going to break the law it doesn’t matter what the law says.
What I'm saying is that anyone can justify "reasonable general concern". The bar is too low and too fuzzy. I doubt you could ever convict a CBP officer on not meeting that bar.
That’s a fair point.
What a great article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Has this been picked up in the media anywhere else? What do the opposition parties have to say about it? Will the Senate support the Bill?
The truth is that Trudeau and his regime are leaving the vaccine mandates in place in order to achieve personal identificaltion numbers for all citisens of Canada. We were volunteered by the regime with the UK following to see how the implementations of the identiy number trial is conducted. That is the only reason, other than a massive amount of vaccines that were ordered per person for Canadians, why we are the only country with mandates. They must have every citisen documented in order to complete the trial. Its has little to do with health, safety, or concern for Canadians and more about attaching numerical identities for ease of control.
They intend to bring in facial recognition for all passports to keep your identy safe. I thought that was truly heroic for them to consider each citisens safety and making it difficult for anyone to steal identities. It is why there are massive lineups for passports as they must identify every Canadian with this new technology. No conspiracy at all in play as these are facts and not conjectures.
It used to be you could say that the intention of the Government is nefarious without verbal and abusive backlash nor the threat of losing your job. Unfortunately the regime will punish you if you dare even site the truth and it is autocraticly deemed a "conspiracy theory."
Concur. The legislation definitely requires additional work.
So what happens if I refuse access to my devices?
I think this is just another example of the pace of governance not being able to keep up with the pace of change on the planet, mixed with what they feel is a need to appear to be doing something. Governments no longer know what to do anymore.
I am fairly sure that the photo accompanying this article is not of an airport. No luggage anywhere, not even a backpack and everyone has their shoes on. Also, no phones, laptops or tablets anywhere. Maybe it's a sports venue? A comic book or sci-fi convention? I wonder what the little girl clutching her Barbie doll could let us know.
The article raises valid drafting and policy questions; even if it is unlikely that “Justin Trudeau” (who apparently cares not about monetary policy) has anything to do with it. But it doesn’t help to debate about which “political persuasion” is more likely to “abuse” powers that could so obviously impinge upon “privacy rights” or the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The point is: it is unwise to empower low level state functionaries (whatever their personal motivation in particular cases) with the power to rummage through the kind of information that may, today, be found, on personal devices.
The possibility of abuse and pretextual searches are just so obvious that they should not be ignored, even if any over-reach might be subject to review (at great cost) through a Charter lens. Better to be very clear at the outset – including in the statute itself – about the personal and public interests being balanced. Otherwise you get “law” like the well-meaning voluntary-intoxication amendments to the Criminal Code, that have just struck down by the Supreme Court.
And happily, the chamber of sober second thought (now somewhat de-politicized…thank you Justin!) is just the place to do the homework.