UCP Passes Bill 1. Thoughts?

[A790]

For sure thought I'd hear some pushback from the pro-freedom of speech crowd, but they've been super quiet.

What's your take on bill 1?

[ExtraSlow]

It certainly could be a bad thing. Or a good thing. I think the application of the law is probably more important than the law itself. Blockading road/rail/pipelines is bad, and should be against enforceable laws. Clearly there were limited legal tools to prevent it previously.

[ExtraSlow]

Timing not great, while we all have police abuse of power and institutionalized marginalization on our minds.

[Tik-Tok]

Just like so many Conservative policies, it's good for the economy, and terrible for societal freedoms.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For sure thought I'd hear some pushback from the pro-freedom of speech crowd, but they've been super quiet.

What's your take on bill 1?

disrupting critical infrastructure is a requirement to enshrine free speech?

[revelations]

So Im no longer allowed to set fires on rail roads anymore? Well shit.

https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-cr...structure.aspx

Found this part interesting:

"fines up to $200,000 for corporations that help or direct trespassers"

[Xtrema]

Quick, everyone get their wish list done while nobody is looking/can't do anything about it.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For sure thought I'd hear some pushback from the pro-freedom of speech crowd, but they've been super quiet.

What's your take on bill 1?

It's only against freedom and free speech when it only impacts me.

It's fine if it's against someone else.


The slopes have been getting slipperier all the time.

It won't be an issue until another government they don't like wins and use this against them.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

disrupting critical infrastructure is a requirement to enshrine free speech?

Read the bill and rethink your oversimplification of the issue.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Read the bill and rethink your oversimplification of the issue.

Buster secretly love Chinese style rules.

He say he doesn't but he is seeing how low cost of business is there without red tape and protests.

[01RedDX]

.

[A790]

Let's skip the character attacks and get down to the actual issue.

I don't have any issue with the government wanting to protect critical infrastructure. I take huge issue with the government legislating themselves the power to declare protests illegal, arrest people for peacefully gathering, etc.

We should not be slipping down this slope.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Read the bill and rethink your oversimplification of the issue.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Let's skip the character attacks and get down to the actual issue.

I don't have any issue with the government wanting to protect critical infrastructure. I take huge issue with the government legislating themselves the power to declare protests illegal, arrest people for peacefully gathering, etc.

We should not be slipping down this slope.

I’ve read the bill and didn’t see anything inherently wrong with it. No protesting on critical infrastructure and roads. What am I missing?

For reference: https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_f...5_bill-001.pdf

[ExtraSlow]

Does this make any new thing illegal?

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Does this make any new thing illegal?

Not that I’m aware of. Just steeper fines.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Buster secretly love Chinese style rules.

He say he doesn't but he is seeing how low cost of business is there without red tape and protests.

who doesn’t like efficiency? Haha

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’ve read the bill and didn’t see anything inherently wrong with it. No protesting on critical infrastructure and roads. What am I missing?

For reference: https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_f...5_bill-001.pdf

The legislation allows the government to arrest peaceful protestors if the government feels that they don't have a right, justification, or excuse to be there. The issue I am taking is that the government gets to now decide when and where it's okay for people to protest, even if those people are being peaceful and not disrupting infrastructure.

It's too far-reaching and ambiguous to be a good thing and the potential for its abuse is high. As the bill is currently worded, they could decide that the steps to city hall are "critical infrastructure" or that a parking lot is "critical infrastructure" and start mass-arresting people. It leaves a lot up to interpretation and feels like an overreach to me. I'm confused as to why you don't see the same issues I do in the bill.

[01RedDX]

.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’ve read the bill and didn’t see anything inherently wrong with it. No protesting on critical infrastructure and roads. What am I missing?

For reference: https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_f...5_bill-001.pdf

a radio apparatus as defined in the
Radiocommunication Act (Canada), including its
antenna systems;

Good, now we can got after people who burn cell towers thinking they cause COVID19.


Bill 1 ain't that bad but I think a few of the sites can come off the list. Sounds like protest in parks and in front of government buildings still allowed. But I can see why unions don't like it, making their job actions pointless.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The legislation allows the government to arrest peaceful protestors if the government feels that they don't have a right, justification, or excuse to be there. The issue I am taking is that the government gets to now decide when and where it's okay for people to protest, even if those people are being peaceful and not disrupting infrastructure.

It's too far-reaching and ambiguous to be a good thing and the potential for its abuse is high. As the bill is currently worded, they could decide that the steps to city hall are "critical infrastructure" or that a parking lot is "critical infrastructure" and start mass-arresting people. It leaves a lot up to interpretation and feels like an overreach to me. I'm confused as to why you don't see the same issues I do in the bill.

Which section in the definition could be used in your steps to city hall example?

[ExtraSlow]

I think a person's reaction to this bill will be clearly decided by thier opinion of recent Canadian protests. Nobody is looking at this in an unbiased manner, because humans are not unbiased.

I'm certainly biased on the side of preventing protests from damaging existing infrastructure or blocking infrastructure construction.