Talk:Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

New section

I agreed that the "Support" section needed expansion and I expanded it today. The lack of information there was misleading by ommison. The section was expanded to "Support History" and more information was provided on the amendments proposed by the Liberal party, as well as those put forth by the Conservative party afterward. Recent quotes from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's talk with MacLeans were added, which better clarify what he likes about the bill and what he does not. Every quote is referenced and cited. There are no weasel words present in setting up any of the quotes themselves and all attempts were made to remain bias-neutral. The intention here is only to provide more information. This expanded section allows readers to better understand the support history and nuanced differences of opinions between the two parties that did support the bill, as well as what one of those two parties intends to do next if allowed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhelix80 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This article has issues, especially with bias. The "Summary" section needs better sources and a more objective description. "Support" should be expanded on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.202.51 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to define the acronym CSIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Garbage in garbage out

At best the background section is tangential, at worst it is a non sequitur diversion that whitewashes important civil liberties and security discussions. Furthermore it is an uncited inference into the motivation behind the bill. Without explicit interviews with the authors it is impossible to know the motivations behind drafting the bill.

The summary section is completely unreferenced and should cite the body of the bill as passed, reported in the on-line archives of parl.gc.ca; the biased editorial referenced is off topic.

The objective section is completely inferential, a clear understanding of the objective of bill will not be known until implementation policy is drafted and published, and court precedence controlling its application is established.

The support section while accurate could use a table listing MPs and Senators who voted for the legislation, with links to their wikipedia entries.

The criticism section while reasonably referenced is inarticulate and disorganized, the author of the section has clearly not thoroughly read through the cited material.

The response section is adequate.

Overall this article should be suspended until it is better constructed. It fails to meet the standards of wikipedia. In comparison the Patriot Act article is much more thoroughly researched and written.

As a start I recommend organizing the criticism section around the sections of the bill and the specific critical arguments (which revolve around interpretation and application). I recommend organizing the support and response sections around who specifically supported and responded to the legislation. At some point space will have to be reserved for applications and challenges of the legislation. The background section should be constrained to directly related objective facts: which sitting of parliament was it tabled in, what was the process of reading, e.g. proposed amendments and committees etc...When the bill was finalized and given royal ascent. And finally note its relationship in time to the election cycle, the budget bill tabling, and other events (e.g. ISIS advances in Iraq/Syria, parliament hill shooting), WITHOUT MAKING ANY CAUSATIVE INFERENCES. The summary section should contain section for section paragraph summaries, omitting coordinating sections and coming into force sections. The objective section should be removed until either it is seen how the legislation is used in practice, or there are interviews with the authors where they directly specify their intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.54.241 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC) last update almost 2 weeks ago.

Merging with Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act

There is no reason for these to be two separated articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aganon77 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The two articles are about two distinct pieces of legislation separated in time and circumstance by more than a decade. Although the new law has been passed, the Liberal government has promised to revisit the 2015 law, which might still be repealed. What would be helpful would be to rename one article so as to get both to conform to the appropriate naming standard; this might be done by renaming the "Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act" to "Anti-terrorism Act, 2001" or to rename "Anti-terrorism Act, 2015" to "Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015" Laurel L. Russwurm 20:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelrusswurm (talk • contribs)

Oppose the merger, for the reasons given by Laurelrusswurm . Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I second the opposition for the same reasons as aforementioned. NikolaiHo^☎️ 01:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Different Bill C-51

Spem Reduxit added a new paragraph to the lead, about the current Bill C-51, which deals with an amendment to the law of sexual assault in the Criminal Code. Other than the coincidence of the bill number being the same, it has nothing to do with the topic of this page. I removed the passage on the basis that it is not relevant to this article, but Spem Reduxit reverted the removal. I still see no reason for the reference to the new bill C-51 to be included in this page, since the current bill has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. Thoughts from other editors, please? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Spem Reduxit added nothing. Spem Reduxit reverted a deletion by MSB. The deletion was from an IP address. The nomenclature itself of C-51 causes confusion. The purpose of the original edit by the IP address was to disambiguate C-51. Spem Reduxit thought that to disambiguate C-51 was a worthwhile contribution. Spem Reduxit (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you had added it. Still, I see no reason for that paragraph to be there, as it has nothing to do with the Anti-Terrorism Act.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll add a dab link to the top of the page. If someone makes an article for Bill C-51 (2017), they can add it to the dab page. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I like very much how @Arctic.gnome: has solved this problem, and propose it be rolled out as wikipedia's standard operating procedure for Canadian bills/laws. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I just removed it again, as it was clearly off-topic and (especially as it was featured in the introduction) disruptive to clear understanding of the main topic of the article (the Ant-Terrorism Act).Jeandjinni (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)