Senators want no-visit list to bar 'ideological radicals' from Canada

Sounds like a plan as long as ideological radical is clearly defined. I have a suspicion that right wing nutbars would be allowed in under the current govt.

Also, radicals might be smart enough to not start spouting off until they are in the country.

If so:

Unfortunatley we have to kick the shit out of our concepts of freedom of speech. I wonder if we'll ever get it back.

Anything that slams the door on George Galloway or his ilk, I'm all for. Entry into Canada is a privilege, not a right.

The thing is who gets caught up in this sort of legislation? Look at Farley Mowat, say, being barred from the US. That is their loss, would be ours if there's a similar situation here.

Also, of course, a lot of radicalization is done over the web, that won't stop with this.

This seems like the most effective piece of the recommendations.

The quest for security over privacy or convenience chalks up some errors along the way. It's the fault of the legislators, not the public. Look at the recording industry! The quest to stop the illegal DVD mills in Asia means you can no longer service your own car effectively!

Unforeseen consequences happen, and no politician has the will to undo them.



People rail against the Senate, but most of the time they do good work.

A big problem, I think, is that the govt prefers to bring in very restrictive legislation, instead of properly funding the security agencies to enforce the laws already on the books. So we keep going down the road of abridged civil rights until the net is wide enough to catch the real terrorists without much effort, but also ensnare innocent citizens.

But we'll never defeat Islamicism by force alone. It's a battle of ideologies, and we have to show ours is better. Number one by enlisting moderate Muslims who do prefer to live under our way of life. Those Muslims need some carrots - ie greater social acceptance and recognition, and some prodding, ie pointing out that our way of life takes some effort to preserve, and they need to get the finger out and do their bit instead of trying to keep their heads down. Maybe it's unfair to expect them to respond to what others do in the name of their religion, but the number one beneficiary would be the Muslim community, being viewed with less suspicion etc.

Agreed there. The radicals that have been caught were caught before things like C-51 were implemented.




I like to think I'm not an idiot, and I prefer non-violent solutions first, but even I don't buy that. The radicals that create things like ISIS have no interest in learning or even considering our ideology. We will adapt to theirs, or be wiped out. That is all they want, and all they understand.

And all they respect. We should respect them.



There are many Muslim communities that already co-exist very well in western society. That's why we don't hear much about them.

http://www.theismaili.org/ismailis-acro ... erstanding

http://www.theismaili.org/news-events

I said by force alone. Of course force has to be an element to fighting force. But unless you are prepared to down Bart's road of convert or die, force alone won't cut it.

Exactly my point about not hearing about peaceful Muslim communities. We do need to hear from them, loudly condemning jihadism as being anti-Muslim. Many communities might be peaceful themselves, but don't want to criticize other Muslims or are afraid to do so. It might not be fair to expect these people to step up in the fight against extremism (we don't expect it of Christians, say), but it's to their own benefit if they want to live in peace in this country.

I used to think that, but I don't anymore. No I don't think they do. I think one of the reasons is that so many of them are put there for "service to the party" as opposed to actually having any ability to do the job. Once they're in there's no getting rid of them unless they run seriously afoul of the law, which they do with alarming frequency.

It's massively expensive and bloated. It's fundamentally undemocratic. And it complicates everything. The problem is that the Senate is a handy tool for the governing party so they will always strive to keep it there despite any noises they make on the campaign trail.

Wouldn't surprise me at all that even Mulcair, if elected as PM, did a Harper himself. The Senate is a good idea, but we need a much better way of appointing senators. As people have suggested, have each province put forth a list of names (however they decide to choose those names) that the pm then chooses from. People who are clearly living in the province they are meant to represent. And, there need to be term limits - surely we can legislate for term limits.

I used to think that, but I don't anymore. No I don't think they do. I think one of the reasons is that so many of them are put there for "service to the party" as opposed to actually having any ability to do the job. Once they're in there's no getting rid of them unless they run seriously afoul of the law, which they do with alarming frequency.

It's massively expensive and bloated. It's fundamentally undemocratic. And it complicates everything. The problem is that the Senate is a handy tool for the governing party so they will always strive to keep it there despite any noises they make on the campaign trail.

But it's also a place where the 'good' Senators can focus on a cause or a task and work on it for decades. The media focuses on the Duffys, Wallins and Brazeaus, but neglect the Jim Munsons, Romeo Dallaires or Lowell Murrays who aren't under investigation and who have done great work representing the Senate and Canada.

The expense and bloat and partisan hackery can be dealt with. Like my Dad used to say, you can't polish a turd. But we can make the Senate a worthy institution by filling it with good people and tweaking the rules so they are not so easy to abuse.

If we're going to fuss about Senate expense scandals, we should be doing the same investigation on the MP's. Although that would likely lead to mass rioting and tar and feather parties.

Common sense. Too bad he'll soon be prosecuted by the CHRC for 'hate speech' against people who hate everyone else.