The Response, pt 2

Back in October, I invited the federal government to avoid amping up the “security” measures and laws and state power under the guise of “making us safer.” That invitation has not been taken, and Bill C-51 is now in committee, where being in committee means public comment is being curtailed, and witnesses are being questioned with leading and straw man questions of the “do you still beat your spouse?” variety.

This is not a parliamentary debate, this is a determined effort to strong arm an opaque bill into law.

I say it again: we know how these “strong security”-type bills end, and it does not end well. The endgame is increased cost, decreased public participation, wrongful convictions, loads of hassle, decrease in trust, upset in foreign relations, and negligible increases in public safety. The safety to cost (not only in financial cost) ratio is abysmal. We know this because we can see it having being tried in other countries already, allied or not. Why repeat their experiment?

Please call or write your MP to express your desire for a full and open debate on C-51, and speak against any “need” for creating a security state to fight off bogeymen.