crimesinister said:
When I first mentioned the proposed lawsuit, some people here got very angry and started making ad hominem attacks against me, borne out of their racist narrow-mindedness. This is precisely the reaction I would get on a larger scale were I to go ahead with the lawsuit. Bills C-24 and C-51 epitomize the Conservative ideology: if you're race or religion is different to the majority, you're a terrorist. If you object to stop the government snooping on you, you're a terrorist.
There are not so many Canadians steeped in racism or hatred as you accuse, and frankly it is the tone and insinuation of your accusations which seem more in the vein of blatant bias.
And when you first mentioned the proposed lawsuit there were many legitimate criticisms regarding its supposed merits, including well founded explanations as to what was erroneous in the claims being made.
There are serious legal issues with a
few provisions in the
SCCA, which will no doubt be addressed by the courts in due course. Generally however the majority of the legislation will withstand legal challenges (and technically the entirety of it has already been ruled valid by two separate Federal Court Justices). Most of what you initially challenged was either
unfounded or more about whether the legislation is good or bad, whether it should be law or not . . . whether it should be law or not, remember, is
NOT a legal question. Parliament is free to enact bad law so long as it does not constitute an unjustified breach of the Constitution or Charter of Rights.
This is why some here have criticized your challenges as being political, not legal. Nothing to do with hatred or racism.
It also warrants remembering that many of the provisions in the
SCCA were very much needed, especially clarification of the requirements for the grant of citizenship (naturalized citizenship). These provisions, by the way, are almost certainly valid in their entirety, even if they will naturally be subject to various judicial challenges regarding their precise interpretation and application, which is standard when there are significant changes to law of this sort. Moreover, there is very little, if any likelihood, that either the NDP or the Liberals, if given the opportunity to form the government after the October election, will undertake any amendment of the provisions prescribing the requirements for the grant of citizenship. Any claim to the contrary, including any claim that either of these parties have committed to changing these provisions, is malarkey.
There are some specific provisions, such as some procedural provisions in particular, which are indeed troublesome and disconcerting. It would be good if the next government would undertake the effort to modify these provisions to be more fair and transparent, and perhaps this is something the NDP or Liberals might do if they form the government . . . but at this stage there is no commitment by any of the parties to do this.
Major changes to the provisions implemented in the
SCCA are not at all in the forecast no matter how the election turns out.
All that said: I applaud any and all legitimate and reasonable efforts to do what can be done to elect any government other than a Conservative one. Time for some serious change.
