Liberals Split on Terrorism
As seen here we Liberals appear to be spit yet again. But this admittedly is an area I find confusing. Now, I waited a few days to think this one over as I wasn't quite sure how to take it. Our new leader seems to think that we shouldn't be worrying about terrorism. Both of these provisions are important and necessary. It doesn't matter that they have never been used. It matters that in situations that they need to be used they are in existence. This is why Conservatives call us soft terrorism. And quite frankly, we are. This is not a joke. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of Canadian security. It seems for now only Bob Rae, Herb Dhaliwal, and a few others are aware of this. I hope M. Dion will wake up and soon join them.
posted by Jordan | 8:52 PM
11 Comments:
I'm not willing to throw civil liberties down the drain as they have in the US. As far as I'm concerned, Dion is doing the right thing as a Liberal and as a liberal in opposing the reinstatement of these... and its regretful you've fallen for Harper's soft-on-terrorism propaganda that is right out of the George Bush/Karl Rove Republican playbook.
In 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Anti-terrorism Law constitutional. (judgement required for the Air India Inquiry)
The Law does not infringe on the constitutional rights of citizens.
Therefore, the stand that the Liberals are taking is not supported by facts.
To scott tribe:
I knew someone would say I am simply falling into the right wing propaganda. But quite frankly, its true. Terrorism is not something we can afford to be "liberal" on. If the Liberals wish to be government than they must show that they are capable of maintaining our nation's security. It is how George Bush won the previous American election. So M. Dion has not proven he is capable.
George Bush won on the fears of an electorate.. and that electorate is realizing the mistake it made in doing so. Check the recent Congressional elections out as proof.
Standing up for civil liberties is not being "soft" on terrorism. We can deal with terrorists without having to severely curtail rights.
Unfortunately it is true. We cannot afford to be different on this for the sake of being different. I never thought I would be saying these two names in the same sentence, but it should send the message that this is something we cannot compromise on, but Bob Rae and Steven Harper understand this issue.
Scott: Isnt it the Chretien/Martin playbook?? Um...Bush/Rove are Americans and we dont have anything to do politicaly with them, unless, your saying that the Chretien/Martin plan was a copycat version of the Americans!! See how confusing it gets?? Your party is now telling people they've fallen for George Bush's propaganda if they support extending a bill that was written and tabled by the Liberals....now ask me why more and more Canadains are finding the Liberals without vision.
"This is not a political issue."
right...lol ;-)
Obviously a shot at me...
Perhaps what I should have said was this "should not be" a political issue. That is because, we as Canadians, cannot afford to let it be.
I agree!!!! Great post.
Wilson61 is correct. That said, it only questioned a specific provuision. That said, if you read the decision it seems fair to assess that the rest of the act is constitutional as well.
Scott, you know that I generally agree with you on issues. I am afraid that I disagree with you this time. This is not the time nor the place to play partisan politics. I have lost a friend in a suicide bomb. I don't want to see that happen in Canada.
Jordan, you are right this is not a political issue nor should it be. This is a matter of security. We don't want to regret this decision when it's too late.
There is nothing partisan about it. It is generally well known when I joined this party that I am on the left-wing of it. I have watched the actions of the US and have been appalled at what they have done to their own civil liberties - some I might add that may yet still be ruled unconstitutional - and I want nothing to do with even a whiff of that up here.
I was opposed to these provisions when they were put in, and I am opposed to them now (and the only reason they are being reviewed, I might add, is that the liberal left in the Liberal Party insisted on the sunset clauses to be inserted, to review whether they were really needed. I would agree with their assessment obviously, that they are not).
As for Jordan.. if you want to disagree with that view, that's certainly your right, but what I object to most is your calling the leader of the Liberal Party "soft on terrorism" or seemingly supporting the scurrilous charge that Dion supports terrorists or hates the police, as Harper has thrown out there.
That is what the Republicans have done and attempted to do in order to smear their Democratic opponents as being against America.. and it is why I take you to task - you should know better.
And here inlies the problem. This cannot be an issue of left vs. right. Far too often we weigh civil liberty vs. civil security. But this issue cannot be one of those. Whether we like it or not, Canada is a target for terrorists. The Government has a job to do in protecting us. The opposition has a job to do in letting them.
Post a Comment
<< Home