Mulcair opposes Harper's police state bill while Trudeau folds like a cheap suit

radiorahim wrote:

There's something much more important...namely the basic civil liberties of the people of this country. 

There is that, but what does party politics have to do with alleviating any of those pressures when their words are so meaningless?

Part of the problem here is the use of the word terror or terrorism as it is being thrown around like a ping pong ball. Violence or even extreme violence perhaps, but terrorism?

New poll finds Harper’s anti-terror bill is a political juggernaut

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-finds-harpers-anti...

On oversight

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2015/02/on-oversight.html

Mulcair is right and the NDP is on the right side of this issue.

Unfortunately it's on the wrong side of public opinion. I understand why the Liberals are supporting it,It's what the people want.

Indeed, the fine Liberal art of selling one's principles for the proverbial mess of pottage.

Ex-PMs call for CSIS oversight as Conservatives rush C-51 debate

Harper government moves time allocation on anti-terrorism bill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-pms-call-for-csis-oversight-as-conser...

radiorahim wrote:

I don't give a rat's ass about "What's Good for Mulcair" or "What's Good for Trudeau"...or "what's good for Elizabeth May" (who incidentally came out much more forecefully from the get go against this legislation).   This isn't about what's good for party leaders.

There's something much more important...namely the basic civil liberties of the people of this country.   

 

nicky wrote:

It is noteworthy that none of our usually reliable Liberal posters have actually supported Justin's position on C-51.

Debater, who is otherwise quick to support the Liberals in everything, has avoided Aristotled's  question in #43 above as to where he personally stands. Similarly no word from Pondering who usually goes on ad nauseum about how Justin was born in a manger. Or even the wild Ajaykumar whose Liberal cheerleading knows no bounds.

And they are not alone in their reticence. Look at Twitter and comments to stories on th Toronto Star webpage. The Liberals are running for cover on this issue. No one is standing behnd Trudeau.

I remember in the initial phases Wayne Easter was guarded and expressed similar concerns about the bill as the NDP, then Trudeau turned around and announced his support with or without ammendments. It makes me wonder how Trudeau makes his decisions, and more specifically why he doesn't seem to trust the judgement of people within his party and caucus who would be knowledgeable and well-versed on issues, people such as Wayne Easter.

Aside from being bad for the country, this does not reflect well on him at all.

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

And although "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", it seems to me that the NDP brain trust was checking with the weather people first.

Quote:

I concur. It should also be said that C-51 is a direct attack on Indigenous peoples who are leaders in stewardship of the land.

Agreed.

The name of the game with Bill C-51 is to first label political opponents "terrorists" and then once you've done that, the whole Harper style COINTELPRO regime will come down on people.    Except for one thing of course.    While much of COINTELPRO was found to be illegal, Bill C-51 will make COINTELPRO style activities by the police and spies legal.

In El Salvador during the 1980's, once you were labelled a "communist" or "terrorist", it was open season on you by the death squads.

How Quickly Politics of Fear Could Transform Canada

Is Harper pushing us towards a new McCarthyism?

Cartoon by Greg Perry.

• Postscript on the New McCarthyism

  Stephen Harper is succeeding in his efforts to make it a crime to criticize Israel.

• How Did 9/11 Change US Culture?

  Four years ago, I saw Americans' 'sense of immunity' assaulted, and predicted a mental shift. Where did it lead?

• Tyee Wins Its Second Edward R. Murrow Award

  Twice in three years site has received prestigious North America-wide prize for online news.

• Read more: Politics,

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, unless thwarted by a surge of surprising voter intelligence, has found the winning formula. Leading his coven of three-piece-suit and pearl necklace know-nothings, he will rally the electorate in a rout of the mortally dangerous non-Christian hordes within and without our borders, saving God from Allah and leaving Trudeau and Mulcair gasping for air, something they excel at.

As Harper whips up fear of a Muslim enemy he will make it simple to allow hate to spread without appearing to do so. In fact Harper need only mumble "not all people... many are fine, innocent... blah, blah, blah" and play the civil libertarian role.

It's classic George W. Bush, a fellow intellectual of the right, who parlayed the hateful Saddam Hussein and those who looked like him into two election victories from which the world will likely never recover.

This point, however, is critical. The condition that must be present to make it all work -- a clear, comprehensible threat to our society -- is in fact present. I accept that radical Islamist jihadism is dedicated to destroy its enemies, its followers will cheerfully die for their cause, and it must be defeated. This threat is for real and not a CIA plot as the U.S.-hating left would have us believe.

But, as the famous Yankee ballplayer Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà vu all over again." We've been there before, not long ago, and there are lessons to be learned about how a threat from without can be used by politicians to cow and control their own populace.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/16/Canadian-Politics-of-Fear/

That Angus Reid poll up thread did not ask what is the ballot box question

Had they done that I believe that the economy which seems to be tanking
would take precedence over extreme violence

I think people need to reread the Angus Reid poll completely

Opposing C-51 could be a big winner for the NDP as Mulcair may be a lot wiser than many Canadians have given him credit for.

More and more Canadians are beginning to see the wisdom in the NDP's position.

By-the-way did anyone listen to Rex Murphy on the National tonite? If not I suggest you do.

What would be very helpful is for some progressive police to speak out  against C-51 soon.

Anti-Terror Bill Presents a 'Bogus Choice': Mulcair

'We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety,' says NDP leader.

The federal New Democrats will officially oppose the Conservative bill, Mulcair said today.

• Inside the Orwellian Launch of Tories' Anti-Terrorism Act

  Locked up reporters, denied a look at the bill, revolt.

• Harper's Police State Law

  Passing it means 'death of freedom' writes Green leader Elizabeth May.

• With Anti-Terrorism Act, Tories again Fail to Protect Canadians

  Beyond eroding our rights, Bill C-51 ignores key root causes of past alleged 'terrorist' actions.

• Read more: Rights + Justice, Politics,Federal Politics,

The federal New Democrats will oppose the Conservative government's new legislation aimed at stunting terrorist attacks, stating the bill has "several serious problems" including a lack of oversight for the new powers it would grant the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, allows for authorities to "disrupt" suspected terrorist activities and make preventative arrests of suspected terrorists. The bill also criminalizes the spreading of terrorist propaganda.

Critics in the media and government have said the proposed legislation is too broad, leaving it open for abuse by the government.

In Ottawa today, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said the bill is too vague and "likely ineffective," while it undermines the freedoms that define Canadian values.

"What Stephen Harper is proposing is a bogus choice," Mulcair told reporters in French. "We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety; we have to deal with both at the same time."

Conservatives contend the bill strengthens the ability of law enforcement to intercept and stop terrorist activities by expanding on current laws.

Mulcair said the Conservatives must not "railroad" the bill through Parliament, and that his party will do everything possible to ensure it is properly debated and amended.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/02/18/Anti-Terror-Bill-Bogus-Choice-Mulcair-...

 - from the comment section

anne cameron • 9 days ago

Amazing, really. And Intriguing. This huge spy system, costing who knows how many billions per year, eavesdropping on all of us, and the purveyors of child pornography seem immune. These spy guys seem able to hear people whispering to each other in hidden alleys and even , who knows, closets, but they can't slam down on those who get their kicks watching little children abused and tortured. Makes a person suspect the spies aren't all that good at their jobs. Also makes a person wonder how much of the incredible profit from porn is winding up in which pockets.
It's true.. I've seldom met a conspiracy theory I didn't find interesting... almost as interesting as the question HOW MUCH is all this snooping costing us? And why not use that money for social improvement programmes?
Jeebus, it's like something out of MAD magazine. Black spy vs white spy.
And to think they linked arms and marched chanting Je Suis Charlie because of their commitment to free speech.
Amazing. Really.

• Aaron Sheldon  anne cameron • 9 days ago

  In the 2014 fiscal year CIHI spent ~$100,000,000 on analyzing health care information to improve the health of all Canadians.

  https://secure.cihi.ca/free_pr...

  (quick plug for the CIHI online health system reporting:http://yourhealthsystem.cihi.c... )

  Yet in the same fiscal year ~$450,000,000 was spent on a basically useless security establishment, at least in the broad statistical sense of population health benefits.

  http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/r...

  WE AS A NATION CHOOSE TO SPEND NEARLY 5 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY ON EVENTS OF SUCH RARITY THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN BE CALLED AS RISKY AS LIGHTNING STRIKES.

  For example ~7% of Canadians suffer from diabetes, ~200,000 Canadians are diagnosed with cancer, ~30% of all deaths are directly attributable to heart disease. Yet less than 1 in 10,000,000 are physically impacted by anything that can even be approximately squeezed into the label of terrorism, a percentage so laughably small as to defy comparison with the health risks we truly face.

  http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-...

  http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer...

  http://www.heartandstroke.com/...

  As to the lack of competency, in many ways the scale with which the security establishment is collecting data has created a disincentive to fostering technical analytic expertise. Why bother inventing nuanced techniques to extract as much information from the smallest amount of data when you can just collect and store it all? With respect to analytic capabilities, particularly algorithmic market segmentation, the private sector is light years ahead of the security establishment; hence the security establishment piggybacks on the techniques used in the private sector. The combination of strong financial incentives, and the throttling of data because private sector servers can only extract data from clients directly connected to them, has lead to an explosion of sophisticated analytic techniques. On the other hand, the security establishment seems to prefer an attitude of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/02/10/Privacy-Protection-Got-Tougher/

Well said jj

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

radiorahim wrote: "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

Just for historical accuracy, it was "watch the pawking metaws"  1:31  https://vimeo.com/72540087

Quote:

Just for historical accuracy, it was "watch the pawking metaws"  1:31

LOL

Stockholm wrote:

PET brought in the War Measures Act in 1970 and the conventional wisdom was that it was sooo popular that he would be unbeatably popular forever. The conventional wisdom was also that Tommy Douglas had committed political suicide by opposing Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties...and let me remind people that the October Crisis was about 100 times bigger a deal within Canada than anything happening right now with ISIS etc... By the spring of 1971 the Liberals were back to being marginally unpopular, the NDP was back in the high teens and even won traditionally Liberal Brant in a byelection and in 1972 the NDP had its best result ever and the Liberals lost 40 seats - no one seemed at all impressed with Trudeau's declaration of martial law anymore.

That was before my time. But ya raised an interesting point. So I decided to review the Quebec '68 fed election results v. the subsequent '72 Quebec election results in terms of popular vote share:

1972 (with changes):

Lib: 48.9% (- 4.7%)

PC: 17.4% (-4%)

Social Credit: 24.3% (+ 7.9%)

NDP: 6.8% (-0.7%)

Unless the right-wing QC Socreds were anti-1970 War Measures Act, I am at a loss trying to figure out how the 1970 matter affected Quebec public opinion at the ballot box in 1972.

NorthReport wrote:

It's classic George W. Bush, a fellow intellectual of the right, who parlayed the hateful Saddam Hussein and those who looked like him into two election victories from which the world will likely never recover..

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/16/Canadian-Politics-of-Fear/[/quote]

I think this is actually worse than what we saw under George W. Bush. Remember that in the wake of 9/11, he urged Americans to not take out their anger on the Muslim community in the US, and he always talked about either specific people for enemies (i.e. Sadam and bin Laden), or raised the general spectre of "terrorism." I don't ever recall him or anyone in his administration being as blatantly Islamophobic as Harper is currently.

More nonsense as Rokossovsky has already pointed out up thread

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it fact

Actually, Mulcair & the NDP appeared to be considering supporting the bill a few weeks ago.

Here's a January 30 article from Radio-Canada:

Appui prudent du NPD au projet de loi antiterroriste conservateur

(Cautious support from the NDP to the Conservative anti-terrorism bill)

https://twitter.com/RadioCanadaInfo/status/561264871904264192

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

jjuares, did you see the French story from Radio-Canada I just linked above?  It shows that as of January 30 the NDP were considering supporting the Conservative bill.  So there you go.

And while I do not support the bill myself, what has been ignored above by some NDP posters is that Justin Trudeau & the Liberals have repeatedly criticized the lack of oversight in the Conservative legislation and have said that they will strengthen oversight if they form government.

Le chef du NDP, Thomas Mulcair, a une impression plutôt favorable du projet de loi, qui vise notamment à donner au Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (SCRS) de nouveaux pouvoirs pour contrer les projets de voyage de présumés extrémistes, interrompre des transactions bancaires et intervenir secrètement sur des sites web radicaux.

Le texte permettrait également à la GRC d'obtenir plus facilement un engagement à ne pas troubler l'ordre public afin de restreindre les déplacements d'un suspect. Il est prévu aussi d'allonger la période permise pour les arrestations préventives et la détention.

« Tous les partis politiques au Parlement souhaitent la même chose, c'est que les Canadiens vivent en sécurité. Alors, si le projet de loi peut faire ça tout en respectant leurs droits, il aura notre appui. Il y a déjà des éléments là-dedans que, c'est sûr, on va appuyer. Pour l'ensemble du projet de loi, on va attendre l'ensemble de notre analyse », a expliqué Thomas Mulcair.

« S'il y a des éléments là-dedans qui méritent notre appui - puis la suggestion de criminaliser l'incitation à un acte terroriste me semble bien avisée - on va l'appuyer.  »— Thomas Mulcair

« C'est un projet de loi qui touche et modifie cinq lois différentes au fédéral, c'est substantiel », a-t-il rappelé. « On a des équipes qui l'analysent depuis que ça a été déposé et on va prendre le temps de donner un avis circonstancié ».

À la question « le projet de loi des conservateurs va-t-il trop loin? », le chef du NPD a répondu : « Pour l'instant on n'a rien vu là-dedans qui nous permet de dire ça. Par contre, on va prendre le temps de l'analyser. Avec M, Harper, il y a toujours une petite pilule empoisonnée pour s'assurer que ça provoque un peu de controverse ».

---

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

Please folks, feel free to trash the NDP all day long for real things, but don't get suckered by this crappy Liberal spin, again.

Quote:

February 2nd, 2015, Craig Scott Twitter: Unbelievable how @CBCNews can profile a Liberal (Goodale) demanding better oversight of CSIS in QP w/out reporting Libs just voted for C44

February 2nd, 2015, Craig Scott Twitter: For a rolling series of analyses of the indefensible aspects of Bill #C51, sign up to Profs Forcese and Roach blog:

February 4th, 2014, Craig Scott Twitter: #C51 will now make #CSIS an agency of judicially-sanctioned illegal action and "disruption" (black ops, dirty tricks)

Don Davies explains clearly the process of decision on Facebook:

Quote:

"The bill requires analysis: what anti-terrorism measures exist now? What measures will the bill add? Does it violate the Charter? Are there unintended consequences? Is the bill necessary at all? What do security experts and civil liberty groups say? What do Canadians in general think? All of these questions need to be evaluated, and the bill has only been out 3 days. The House is also adjourned next week, so we will discuss as a Caucus when the House resumes. I also see that yesterday Trudeau and the Liberals have decided to join the Conservatives and SUPPORT C51 - a clearly unprincipled, fear- based and opportunistic move. The NDP will not act that way on such an important issue."

Yet, I guess, Tom Mulcair is supposed to pull a Justin and imperiously announce the party policy purely on his perogative without consulting even the Caucus when all members are present, or allow the membership the opportunity to have input.

So what do people want? An NDP run by "the leader" on whim? I seem to remember endless critique of the NDP caucus and Jack Layton for making up policy on the fly, without regard to the party policy book established at the conventions. Now, it seems the very same people are chastizing the NDP of having too much democratic process on making key decisions, about important issues.

Democracy is more than just about positions, it is all about "process", and it is good to see the NDP caucus following one.