It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill C-36, passed

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Yea the united states probably just got a little scared having a cool neighbor that their citizens could go to so they had to move in and ef it up. shame




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
i went to ctv's www did a search for
bill c-36: it came back 0
murder: it came back 200
kitty: it came back 103



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Okay holy #$%^ I'm trippin out hard right now.....
I'm from Canada... Ahh I feel like I'm ganna puke.......

One thing I'm trying to get clear here, as I'm not knowledgeable on politics... (kinda wishing now that I had paid more attention), is what exactly does "bill passed" mean? It's already a done deal? Set in stone? Law as of right now? Or is there another/more steps this bill has to go through? It makes a huge difference.

Not too much scares me because I try hard to remove fear from my life, but this bill scares me. I knew the politics of this country were becoming more like the U.S. over the past few years (ever since evil eyed Harper took over) but I didn’t realize it got this bad.

I used to be so proud of my country.... I lost half of that pride after watching the movie "Toronto G20 Exposed", and I just lost the second half after reading this thread.

Someone please tell me we still have time, that this bill isn't law yet. I'm going to send this information to every possible person I can, something has to be done; I just hope people will react...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Thanks Democrats and all who voted them in. They seriously make Bush and the Patriot Act look like a lemonade stand.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
ZIG BUSH ZIG BUSH for he will take the would by storm "be not us be last, but first in the new wold order, to set the terms and conditions to our friends, let us show them the way" and so he did and now it comes for you NAFTA at its finest. just think Mexico is next.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Oh, Canada!

The true north strong and free...

NOT!

Hopefully us Canucks who pay close attention to these kind of things will be able to rile up support and maybe start a rebellion against this outrageous bill at our local Tim Hortons...

I'm all in, I just have to wait for the local snow removal gang to come to my block so I can actually back out of my driveway without getting stuck.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
WTF I went to read about our constitution to see if we can protect ourselves with it and have some backup... Straight from the government site this is the kind of stuff I find...

laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#anchorsc:7-bo-ga:l_I-gb:s_24

sorry couldn't link it, the link messed up for some reason


Enforcement

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.





dis·re·pute/ˌdisrəˈpyo͞ot/
Noun: The state of being held in low esteem by the public.


So basically...legally anything that looks bad for them is "discarded" and cannot be used as evidence in justice...
edit on 20-12-2010 by _R4t_ because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by _R4t_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I had a general (and probably somewhat prejudiced) opinion that the Canadian government were decent, honest and sensible? I only got about a third of the way through the list when I realised how grossly indecent this bill is.

Bad day for Canada. Bad day for the world if other nations start following suit. Bad day for the people if the nations unite under one world government practicing 'logistically efficient' governance (based on corporate models of trimming off the excess, consolidating resources and supply chains etc).

The twentieth century has prepared people to accept such measures without too much opposition.

Drum roll for the fourth reich.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


AMAZING resource for Canadians affected by the active implementation of Bill C-36. Get this on Youtube asap buddy. Link to as many videos about the constitutional changes as you can. I don't know how Youtube works as such, but this needs to go viral in Canada.



Best of luck from 'across the pond and South a bit'.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RedAngel2
 


Kind of makes you wonder if they don't want people to know about this until it's too late?

Again, I repeat that the information posted above by another member regarding the 'disrepute catch' should go viral in Canada. Anyone who reads this and can make a decent Youtube vid, get it done as a service to your country and start hammering it out on here and on facebook etc.

'Merry Christmas from your friendly subversive government'...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


Its not even a constitution change.. that crap was already in our constitution prior to this C-36 bill...now according to our charter of rights *constitution* which "warranty my rights of freedom"


Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.


HOWEVER a little lower you find this


Enforcement

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.


Unless I'm missing something... but I doubt... under C-36 they can do whatever they want and the charter of right is of no help it actually "legally" secure us from suing them to protect our rights.. WTF MAN.. because basically any "evidence" you have of them doing something wrong is "excluded" and anything in regards to C-36 looking bad will be excluded as it is going to make them "look bad in public view..."

I'm pissed right now... reallllllllllllllllllll pissed.....



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Star and flag to help make noise against this atrocity...

Too many restrictive moves in so many places around the world, that is hard to keep up, but keep up we must...

My regards to my Canadian friends...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You're right, this sounds like really horrible news for Canadians.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SeaWind
 
The senate just passed the food bill over here. They just keep piling it on.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


that is such a ridiculous clause. it pretyy much makes null and void the whole concept of justice; since the state has admission to protect themselves if they feel it'll create "dispute"

Ohhh.. the language these bills use. You have to read over a few times to make sure you just read what you read.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Can somebody please answer my question, I'll post it again...

What exactly does "bill passed" mean? It's already a done deal? Set in stone? Law as of right now? Or is there another/more steps this bill has to go through? Thanks.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
That sounds really messed up for you guys.

Take to the streets immediately! Don't stand for it!

You are watching this New World Order come into view.

Looks good don't it?


Best wishes from Scotland.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WielderOfTheSwordOfTruth
 


Bill "passed" means it is now Law.

www.windsorstar.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by WielderOfTheSwordOfTruth
Can somebody please answer my question, I'll post it again...

What exactly does "bill passed" mean? It's already a done deal? Set in stone? Law as of right now? Or is there another/more steps this bill has to go through? Thanks.


it means it is officially law.

damn corporate sellout politicians!

Can we impeach Harper and McGuilty?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
This passing is not a good thing. It adds a huge layer of bureaucracy to something that was already pretty well covered in existing laws. It was started to further regulate the natural food industry and to make vitamins and natural health products be classified as drugs. It has grown to encompass a whole lot of other things now though.


reply to post by _R4t_
 


I need to address this though as I believe you don't quite understand what you are reading. The passage you are quoting is your right to have anything that was used against you to convict you of a crime that was gotten through unlawful or illegal methods by the authorities thrown out and to give you the chance to appeal your conviction. You are against the idea of being able to appeal a conviction.

In simpler terms, it means the law can't use evidence against you if it is deemed to be gotten through unlawful or illegal means. Trust me, that section is a good thing.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join