Communist Revolution in Canada?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, nye, trying as hard as you can to grasp at more straws .

federal officials suspected the men of involvement in terrorism

The belief may have been mistaken, but I fail to see how you get that they were detained solely because they symphatized with Al Queda. If that was the 'actual' reason, then I'm surprised it was only 70 men they had in custody, because there some pretty decent sized groups of people who merely symphatize with Al Queda in the US.

To make any of your charges have any merit whatsoever, your numbers have to be close to a few thousand being detained simply because they sympathized with Al Queda or Hamas. Hell, the numbers of Muslims in the US who back Hamas openly may be in the thousands themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm still curious where these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action are. Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, and btw, link from that link:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/21/arar050421.html

The documents released Thursday suggest senior Canadian officials failed to act to prevent Arar's deportation – and once he was in Syria, Canadian authorities appeared more interested in Arar's interrogation than his treatment.

Apparently the Canadians believed him to be a terrorist as well. Not excused, but saying he was shipped simply because he sympathized with Al Queda is clearly off the mark.

That's right. There were people in Canada's security and intelligence communities who were interested in the 'terrorist' the US shipped of to Syria.

Should they have ignored him?

You might also note the Canadian government screaming bloody murder over the treatment of one of our citizens with zero evidence to go on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yeah, you're right. Nothing under US law to allow them to torture the guy either. That would be a good reason to ship the guy to Syria.

Indeed... another failing of the Bush Administration. Though it definetly seems that the US and Canadian governments suspected the man of terrorism, though they were incorrect.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm still curious where these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action are. Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

You don't have your old sedition laws. You have new and improved ways of walking on people with flimsy excuses.

Incidently, you should read the section of the CC that I mentioned. It isn't what you might have in mind regarding Sedition Acts from your history.

It's pretty straightforward statement that advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of Canada (or a province) is a crime.

I find it very hard to believe you do not have some similar federal statute.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh, nye, trying as hard as you can to grasp at more straws .

federal officials suspected the men of involvement in terrorism

The belief may have been mistaken, but I fail to see how you get that they were detained solely because they symphatized with Al Queda. If that was the 'actual' reason, then I'm surprised it was only 70 men they had in custody, because there some pretty decent sized groups of people who merely symphatize with Al Queda in the US.

To make any of your charges have any merit whatsoever, your numbers have to be close to a few thousand being detained simply because they sympathized with Al Queda or Hamas. Hell, the numbers of Muslims in the US who back Hamas openly may be in the thousands themselves.

I'm going on a report written by your own citizens, who might be suspected of being familiar with the facts of at least some of the cases they are reporting on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You don't have your old sedition laws. You have new and improved ways of walking on people with flimsy excuses.

Because you've sure proven that people who simply sympathize with Al Queda are rounded up and thrown in jails .

It's pretty straightforward statement that advocating the violent overthrow of the Government of Canada (or a province) is a crime.

I find it very hard to believe you do not have some similar federal statute.

Um... we have this thing called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prevents such a law to exist.

Simply speech advocating the overthrow of the US government cannot be outlawed under our Constitution.

Your sedition law is almost exactly what we had in the 50s, which was used to deal with Communists. That law isn't in existance anymore and even though the Supreme Court upheld it back then, the Court, as well as the society, has turned its back on that abhorrent era.

The closest thing is that it is illegal to actually threaten (instead of an idle threat) to kill the President. Then again, if you do that against any regular person, it's assault, so nothing too special with that except for the penalties.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed... another failing of the Bush Administration. Though it definetly seems that the US and Canadian governments suspected the man of terrorism, though they were incorrect.

So then, I am curious if this statement is accurate:

Actually people who simply sympathize with Al Queda and Hamas have nothing done to them by the US government (except maybe a file on them).

Would that be all people, most people, or some people?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... we have this thing called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prevents such a law to exist.

Simply speech advocating the overthrow of the US government cannot be outlawed under our Constitution.

The closest thing is that it is illegal to actually threaten (instead of an idle threat) to kill the President. Then again, if you do that against any regular person, it's assault, so nothing too special with that except for the penalties.

So then you admit that it is reasonable to limit expression under some limited circumstances.

Thank you.

Now we can argue about where the line should be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Would that be all people, most people, or some people?

As I've shown before, those who simply sympathize with Al Queda aren't cast in prisons. The people detained have been suspected of actual terrorist acts. If the government is incorrect it doesn't mean that the law is invalid. It's like saying people who don't kill anyone won't be charged with murder. If the government messes up and charges them with murder on a very rare occurence, that doesn't change the law.

So then you admit that it is reasonable to limit expression under some limited circumstances.

Very, very, very, very limited. No more than is needed for a society to actually function. As countries around the world have existed without Canada's sedition law (and Canada itself has existed without enforcement of the same), it is too much.

It is only reasonable to limit free speech when not doing so would collapse the social order irrevocably (and I don't mean mere 'depravity' of society).

[notyoueither]

What does this say?

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/smithactof1940.html

Smith Act of 1940

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because the antisedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, was adopted at 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).

§ 2385. Advocating Overthrow of Government.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Is that accurate? Does that note mean that the statute is still active as of the year 2000?

[notyoueither]

Do I get to 'own' anything?

[notyoueither]

Incidently, you can only get 14 years in Canada.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is that accurate? Does that note mean that the statute is still active as of the year 2000?

Under the context of SCOTUS decisions (first under Dennis v. US, which has subsequently been narrowed) limiting such fines/imprisonment to "clear and present danger" against the US government, yes.

[notyoueither]

Joy. You have a Supreme Court to oversee the application of your laws. So do we.

I guess that means we're even.

Last comment striken as unneeded and bad natured.