"Strong Borders Bill" is an attack on canadian privacy, immigrants, refugees, and is unconstitutional
Write your MP ASAP. This bill is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unCanadian.
the Strong Borders Bill is being sold as a security measure but it tramples over basic rights. First off, it retroactively disqualifies asylum seekers who crossed irregularly and didn’t file within a year, even if they had legit reasons like trauma or no legal help. That alone throws out the idea of fairness and due process. Instead of a full refugee hearing, they’re shoved into a weaker risk assessment process with low success rates.
Then you’ve got the cabinet getting sweeping power to cancel or suspend immigration documents and stop applications, just by citing “public interest.” No oversight, no clear rules, nothing stopping them from targeting whoever they want.
They also gave themselves the power to open mail, including letters, to “combat drugs.” That’s a huge privacy red flag. Once you open that door, it’s hard to shut it again. Add to that expanded info sharing with U.S. agencies, and suddenly personal data is flying across borders with no way to track how it’s used. (this alone is enough to toss this bill, ESPECIALLY now)
Worse? The bill barely allows for appeals. If you get caught in the gears of this thing, there's almost no legal way out.
This undermines core Charter protections, Section 7 (liberty and security), Section 8 (protection from unreasonable search), and Section 10 (rights upon detention). They say it's Charter compliant, but that's just PR. In reality, it's a blueprint for unchecked executive power and a direct hit on civil rights.
Send emails folks, to you MP and Carney himself. Be respectful and explain how you're surprised that the libs are doing this and that this doesn't feel like standing up to Trump. Tell them you voted for them. Harper used to try passing such bills and we fought against that for years.
This Bill is just a lie to spy on (mainly) Canadian Citizens and residents. It gives Canada Post the ability to open your mail for any cited reason. It requires your ISP to log and keep track of all your devices and online activity and require it be turned over at the governments request. It's also gearing up to turn Canadian Border Officials into ICE. We're cooked.
Well they can't keep track of all your devices online, I guess one advantage of ipv4.
IPv4 does not protect your from online tracking and logging. Not at all.
Like in all political systems, nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
The problem as far as I've read from Sam Cooper is the lack of policies like racketeering laws in Canada, thus we are used worldwide by criminal entities for laundering money. Which is likely the larger issue Trump has with drugs, and likely is a big reason how housing in Vancouver can be millions of dollars when the median salary is less than 70k.
Theres a long form interview here, Sam Cooper is a journalist who wrote Wilfull Blindness:
@17:45 the interview starts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B73Tayj37sM
So let's get racketeering laws?
Well I'm just speculating where this is going, that the US wants to control our legal system in exchange for tariff relief.
The current sitting US president is pardoning the worst drug dealers and gang members.
already wrote an email to my MP. I agree this is unnacceptable
Why is this the very first law the Liberals are trying to pass? This is not an issue that was campaigned and debated on in the election. This was nobody's priority. Why strengthen police powers as the very fucking first thing the new government is doing? This smells very bad. And even if it's all one big misunderstanding, given the slow burn that has been fascism in the US, I'm alarmed with even slight nudges in more authoritarian laws.
How do you quantify it as harmful? Genuinely curious.
Of the points raised in the video, which do you think aren't harmful?
Unilaterally cancelling immigration applications without any real oversight is draconian.
The video lays out a very concrete example of why the one-year limit on asylum claims is not a great idea.
I would think that eliminating "barriers" to forcing electronic service providers to hand over user data to law enforcement should be relevant to the interests of most Lemmy users.
Making it easier for the police to seize and open mail is...concerning.
Why is the year limit a problem. If you sneek into the country for asylum and can't be bothered to make it legal in a year I have no problem kicking you out.
I read the content of the bill, not the video, and thought through it without having my opinions spoonfed by a YouTube huckster.
IMO This appears to be a reasonable dual purpose bill to stop snow washing and strengthen our borders for war footing.
I was going to ask the same. I don't know who this guy is, but he seems to be jumping to conclusions.
Our federal government has over and over said that our partnership with the States is done. There's no reason for us to come up with "draconian" bills to appease to Taco Chicken.
And none of our leadership have spouted anti-immigrant rhetoric like they do in the States.
The Liberals don't even have a majority government, so we don't have to be hysterical and act like this is a Totalitarian Dictatorship like they have in the States. The opposition can bring up their points, amend the bill if necessary, and move on.
There’s no reason for us to come up with “draconian” bills to appease to Taco Chicken.
Maybe you should tell the Public Safety Minister.
Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain "elements that will strengthen the relationship" between Canada and the U.S.
"There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues," he said. "But it's not exclusively about the United States."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legislation-border-fentanyl-1.7550684
The guy in the video makes some very good points though, don't you think? If this bill gets voted into law, it only takes on bad agent or bad government to exploit those laws against the people.