C'mon guys! Lay off the CSIS criticism - 6-year-old Jacob St. Jean becomes Canada's youngest secret agent in CSIS

Neither of these are supported by the article, or even C-51.

Politely, that's a really odd reason to dismiss associated commentary.

More to the point, you're pointing to some odd reasoning to justify your dismissals. The fact that the comment section of the article is replete with anti-CSIS commentary, or anti-C-51 commentary. The subjects are immediately topical, and dismissing that sort of discussion because it doesn't strictly have to do with the article misses the point of discussing news media objectively.

You go on to dismiss it because there's ambiguity as to who initiated this news story - and appeals to ambiguity are immediately suspect. If you want to typecast people who feel this is a spin piece as cynical or conspiratorial, the ambiguity is a benefit, certainly, but then you bring about how this isn't CSIS' fault, because they are not the government that intends to empower them.

This is somewhat confusing, considering that you also put forward the idea that people are acting on partisan grounds, while accusing detractors of this article of only hating CSIS because of their partisan bias. And in that way, both reducing your own position by revealing your own bias, and implying that a person that is antipathetic must be a non-conservative, they must be cynical, they must be conspiratorial, and so on.

I agree that there are trite alarmist tropes at play, but I can't help but notice how many you're bringing into the game yourself, and I have to admit that at the very least, a thorough reading of the bill has me antipathetic towards the vague language which legal scholars, lawyers, and professors (all people who tend to be smarter, and better reasoned than myself) all seem to suggest is unconstitutional - which is to say, if the bill were used to collect information on a person, and they were actually to commit a crime, they could get off, full pass, by arguing nothing more than the illicit nature of the law itself.

To wit - I was aware of what you were dismissing. I was pointing out that it was done thoughtlessly - it seems I would have been more correct to say that it seemed to have been done thoughtlessly, and instead was done with a narrative being pushed.

Which is appropriate, considering you've effectively telling JonoLith not to look behind the curtain.

/r/canada Thread Parent Link - cbc.ca