Statistics are shown for this demographic
Province/Territory
Electoral District (2011)
Response rates from 47.9k Federalism voters.
43% Yes |
57% No |
22% Yes |
56% No |
13% Yes, but only by court order |
1% No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications |
4% Yes, this is necessary to combat terrorism |
|
3% Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 47.9k Federalism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 47.9k Federalism voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Federalism voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9SXNRYK3mos3MO
Yes, so long as the country maintains a strong rule of law. As long as your right to free speech is protected, you do not need privacy in my opinion.
@9D4R2DY1yr1Y
Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds for violent; sexual; financial; and/or gang related crimes.
@9QZCYDN4mos4MO
Only if they have reasonable cause to believe somebody needs to be monitored, like if they're a criminal or there's police evidence. In addition there needs to be a court order to give permission.
@9JC6BKV10mos10MO
Yes, and all communications for any elected official should be public record before ANY private citizens are subjected to monitoring excepted by court order.
@9GNXSP71yr1Y
No, only in cases where a warrant is needed and deemed necessary for extreme crime and terrorist activities.
@9FCQFGM1yr1Y
Yes, but only in certain circumstances when security is in danger
@9F9MWMM1yr1Y
yes but only depending on the person
@9F98QST1yr1Y
Only if there is a confirmed threat in the country
Join in on the most popular conversations.
