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

Aristotle, it's actually the NDP partisans here that have trouble admitting when they are wrong.  Rokosovssky stated above that No one in the NDP has uttered a peep in favour of the Bill. 

I just quoted TOM MULCAIR himself uttering more than just a peep in favour of the Bill as of only a few weeks ago!  So I disproved the contention above of NDP posters.  In a debate, that's calling winning the argument.  I just won that point.

Why is it that when NDP posters are wrong about something and have been shown to be wrong with evidence IN PRINT that they keep digging?

Btw, I did you the courtesy of answering your question because I wanted to respond and show that I wasn't ignoring you.  Legislation like this has a history of being overbroad and the intelligence community and military-industrial complex usually abuse their power.

But Trudeau & the Liberals have tried to take the best position they can at this point in time to prevent Harper further using this as a wedge issue to portray them as terrorist sympathizers.  They are making a strong case for the need for more oversight.  And several prominent people from Irwin Cotler to Bob Rae have backed up this position.

Debater wrote:

Aristotle, it's actually the NDP partisans here that have trouble admitting when they are wrong.  Rokosovssky stated above that No one in the NDP has uttered a peep in favour of the Bill. 

I just quoted TOM MULCAIR himself uttering more than just a peep in favour of the Bill as of only a few weeks ago!  So I disproved the contention above of NDP posters.  In a debate, that's calling winning the argument.  I just won that point.

Except that he didn't.

The article has the CBC saying that Mulcair spoke favourably about the bill. That is their paraphrasing. But if you actually read the article what he says is that we will look at it. He didn't speak in favour of the bill in total.

Or even stand on the issue of oversight and abstain. Anything is better than being a Haper lapdog. They will never get out from under now, and the NDP progressive votes are more solid that ever now, so bye bye "strategic voting".

He's a clever one that is for sure Mr. Harper.

Justin's only chance now is if he really can get Harper to relent on some form of oversight.

Of course it does, and it should be remembered that even though overall 78% of those polled by Ispos Reid supported it, in theory at least, 56% of respondents had no idea what was in the bill or were unaware of it.

It should be noted the Elizabeth May is against C-5l, but the Green Party has no position (they don't whip their vote--how do we know how the Deputy Leader of the Green Party will vote?)

Actually just as big as the NDP opposing C-51 is this corresponding and timely story about the fly-by-the-seat-of-my pants policy based on the latest poll Trudeau. Any way you want to slice it Trudeau is not presenting Canadians with a solid alternative to Harper. Sadly, the Liberal party has been, since Paul Martin's putsch, a shell of its former self.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is running out of second chances: Goar

Canadians have shrugged off Justin Trudeau’s slips and stumbles for three years but they want a competent national leader now.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/02/19/liberal-leader-just...

Heed this call for better oversight of Canada’s spy services:

 

NDP resists Harper's 'anti-terror' bill. Liberals denounce it, but will vote for it!

Trudeau's cognitive dissonance

The big difference between the Liberal and NDP positions is that, despite their leader's eloquent critique of the many shortcomings of Bill C-51, the Liberals are twisting themselves into a pretzel in order to vote for it.

When asked about this cognitive dissonance, Trudeau could only say there were a few provisions in Bill C-51, such as those relating to information sharing in government, that might be helpful in the short term.

Ergo, his party must vote for the whole package. 

If we had a minority parliament, such a position might make sense.

But since the Conservatives have the votes to pass Bill C-51 without the Liberals' help, why vote for a Bill the Leader so thoroughly and forcefully condemned, on Wednesday afternoon, on the floor of the House? 

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/02/ndp-resists-harpe...

On motivating factors

Now, let's start by highlighting Coyne's distinction between a "random lunatic" whose actions are in no way related to terrorism-related policy, and a "lone wolf" who draws some inspiration from terrorist groups.

At best, that distinction looks like an exercise in begging the question. At least, I don't think there's much room for doubt that people who engage in random violence would generally do so based on the influence of a combination of internal and external "voices" - and to assert that some people may include organized groups among the latter is utterly unhelpful for any purpose.

In fact, if our goal is to establish policy with the goal of minimizing the external voices which might lead people to violence, Coyne has it exactly wrong.

The motive of a speaker or group whose message might drive an individual to violence should be utterly irrelevant. A message which has an equally strong likelihood of influencing an individual to pose a threat is no less and no more threatening whether it originates with a group dedicated to the same end, or another source with entirely innocent intentions.

That doesn't answer the question as to how to address the relationship between mental health issues and security threats. And there would be alarming implications to any policy that speech which could possibly provoke violence (even if only through misinterpretation) should be suppressed - which is in large part why the virtually unlimited powers contained in C-51 are so worrisome.

The more reasonable means of addressing individuals who might be prone to acts of violence is thus intervention at the individual level to ensure that some pro-social voices and connections are in the mix. That's exactly the part of the system which broke down in the case of last year's Ottawa shootings - and it's the aspect of threat management which the Cons are downplaying in order to push widespread surveillance and interference.

But there's no reason to think we're safer if public policy is oriented toward stopping the speech of groups who might shift a would-be attacker from "random lunatic" to "lone wolf" status. 

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2015/02/on-motivating-factors...

"The NDP needs a fight, not a victory. The more daylight they can put between themselves and the Conservatives, the more they can polarize the vote and squeeze the Liberals in the middle."

 

 The above was a particularly good point, for those who fear that fighting this bill will hurt the NDP, honestly Mulcair has nothing to lose at this point and everything to gain.

How Peter MacKay ever get into such a position of power is beyond belief.

CSIS watchdog agency starved of staff, resources

Conservatives say Security Intelligence Review Committee a 'robust' mechanism for oversight

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-watchdog-agency-starved-of-staff-re...

You're right welder.  

 

Justice minister explains reference to gunman's 'own words'

Justice Minister Peter MacKay has not seen a video reportedly made by Parliament Hill shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, despite writing a letter to the editor this week in which he said the Oct. 22 gunman’s “own words” helped show that the attacker was a terrorist.

In a Friday letter to the Citizen, MacKay wrote: “Last October’s attack on Parliament by lone gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who had converted to Islam, was indeed a terrorist attack. His own words, evidence of his targeted attack on a soldier and on our Parliament Buildings, and the fact that ISIL also claimed responsibility, drives us to this inescapable conclusion.”

Soon after the attack, the RCMP said they had obtained a video the gunman filmed on “a device” they recovered that indicated his motives. That video has never been released, although some parliamentarians have requested that they be allowed to view it.

 

http://www.canada.com/News/politics/Justice+minister+explains+reference+...

NorthReport wrote:

This legislation is sooooooooo important yet Harper's a no-show. What gives!  

Prime minister a no-show at Commons' anti-terror debate

http://www.canada.com/News/politics/Prime+minister+show+Commons+anti+ter...

He doesn't need to be there as long as you have mindless robots like:Roxanne James,James "Chicken Hawk" Bezan,Paulie "Walnuts" Calandra,Pierre "The root cause of terrorism is terrorists!" Poilievre...To spew prescreened bumper sticker talking points...

Pondering wrote:

Whether or not I personally agree or disagree with a position a party has taken doesn't define whether or not they messed up. At the moment they seem to be on the same side as a majority of Canadians.

What a disgusting comment. Fuck the "majority of Canadians". A "majority of people" sat silent, or actively collaborated, while entire communities, including my family, were the victims of genocide. Fuck the majority and your disgusting comment.

 

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whether or not I personally agree or disagree with a position a party has taken doesn't define whether or not they messed up. At the moment they seem to be on the same side as a majority of Canadians.

What a disgusting comment. Fuck the "majority of Canadians". A "majority of people" sat silent, or actively collaborated, while entire communities, including my family, were the victims of genocide. Fuck the majority and your disgusting comment.

Genocide is illegal in Canada and this bill doesn't change that. In my opinion "majority rules" is pretty much the theoretical heart of democracy. Though atrocities have occurred within democracies, still are, it is still the best system I know of.

The success of a political party is measured by votes. At the very least, in my opinion, this bill lacks sufficient oversight and is unnecessary. However that is an opinion, not a fact. The majority of Canadians have a right to disagree with me. I would not say that Mulcair messed up either. I am happy he is presenting the alternative viewpoint. His strength as a politician will be measured by his ability to sway Canadians to his way of thinking.

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whether or not I personally agree or disagree with a position a party has taken doesn't define whether or not they messed up. At the moment they seem to be on the same side as a majority of Canadians.

What a disgusting comment. Fuck the "majority of Canadians". A "majority of people" sat silent, or actively collaborated, while entire communities, including my family, were the victims of genocide. Fuck the majority and your disgusting comment.

Genocide is illegal in Canada and this bill doesn't change that. In my opinion "majority rules" is pretty much the theoretical heart of democracy. Though atrocities have occurred within democracies, still are, it is still the best system I know of.

What unionist is referring to is the fact that in the 1930s, anti-semitism was quite rampant in Canada and Canada turned away several Jewish refugees who were trying to escape Germany, and that this had the support of many, if not the majority, of Canadians. So by your logic, the government of the day was right to turn away Jewish refugees.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whether or not I personally agree or disagree with a position a party has taken doesn't define whether or not they messed up. At the moment they seem to be on the same side as a majority of Canadians.

What a disgusting comment. Fuck the "majority of Canadians". A "majority of people" sat silent, or actively collaborated, while entire communities, including my family, were the victims of genocide. Fuck the majority and your disgusting comment.

Genocide is illegal in Canada and this bill doesn't change that. In my opinion "majority rules" is pretty much the theoretical heart of democracy. Though atrocities have occurred within democracies, still are, it is still the best system I know of.

What unionist is referring to is the fact that in the 1930s, anti-semitism was quite rampant in Canada and Canada turned away several Jewish refugees who were trying to escape Germany, and that this had the support of many, if not the majority, of Canadians. So by your logic, the government of the day was right to turn away Jewish refugees.

To be fair to Pondering her position is amoral not immoral. Issues of right or wrong play no part but the validity of any position simply is measured by its popularity. And also to be fair she is accurately representing the Liberal party on this issue.

Justin von Pappen.

 http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/02/20/politics-aside-con...

 

 Don't just look at what Walkom wrote,  but the comments section.

 

 I will say it again, the polls are misleading, the people mostly likely motivated by this bill to change their votes will be those opposed to the bill, most of whom are Liberal - NDP voters who hate Harper,  which could swing a nice chunk of votes the NDP ' way. Those for whom support this bill strongly enough for it to effect how they vote were not likely to vote NDP anyway.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Genocide is illegal in Canada and this bill doesn't change that. In my opinion "majority rules" is pretty much the theoretical heart of democracy. Though atrocities have occurred within democracies, still are, it is still the best system I know of.

What unionist is referring to is the fact that in the 1930s, anti-semitism was quite rampant in Canada and Canada turned away several Jewish refugees who were trying to escape Germany, and that this had the support of many, if not the majority, of Canadians. So by your logic, the government of the day was right to turn away Jewish refugees.

Majority rule does not guarantee moral decisions. That is why we have developed laws to protect human rights which the majority of Canadians do support and value. Our understanding of right and wrong has evolved and is continuing to evolve.

Treatment of aboriginal peoples in Canada has been appalling and improvement isn't anywhere near fast enough but it has improved. Aboriginals have also won major court battles that will serve to increase their ability to protect themselves. I hope we are on the cusp of a massive step forward over the next decade or so.

So no, majority rule within societies doesn't make for a perfect world. Do you know of another system that does?

I didn't say the Liberals were "right", I even said I disagreed with their position as I don't support Bill C 51. I just said they didn't "mess-up". That could change if sentiment turns against it.

¨Though atrocities have occurred within democracies, still are, it is still the best system I know of.¨

true enough, under such conditions as people being given an opportunity to express themselves based on their direct experience, and with their leadership being held accountable...unfortuneately both the people and their representatives are under the control of corporate media and money...such a corruption means oligarchy not democracy...there is only one solution to end this corruption...a total decentralization and federation of the politics and economy of the system and an end to the oligarchic capitalist finance and economic systems. Only this way can we restore a system of (direct) democracy that can serve the interests of the people not the financial and economic elites.

And for this of course we need a political movement to express such demands with a vision and transitional strategy to do so!

What follows is a useful and important reminder of where this US police state bill can and will lead if allowed to.

Chris Hedges - One Day We’ll All Be Terrorists

Chris Hedges(2009) wrote:

... the gravest threat we face is not from Islamic extremists, but the codification of draconian procedures that deny Americans basic civil liberties and due process. Hashmi would be a better person to tell you this, but he is not allowed to speak.

This corruption of our legal system, if history is any guide, will not be reserved by the state for suspected terrorists, or even Muslim Americans. In the coming turmoil and economic collapse, it will be used to silence all who are branded as disruptive or subversive. Hashmi endures what many others, who are not Muslim, will endure later. Radical activists in the environmental, globalization, anti-nuclear, sustainable agriculture and anarchist movements—who are already being placed by the state in special detention facilities with Muslims charged with terrorism—have discovered that his fate is their fate.

...our descent is the familiar disease of decaying empires. The tyranny we impose on others we finally impose on ourselves. The influx of non-Muslim American activists into these facilities is another ominous development. It presages the continued dismantling of the rule of law, the widening of a system where prisoners are psychologically broken by sensory deprivation, extreme isolation and secretive kangaroo courts where suspects are sentenced on rumors and innuendo and denied the right to view the evidence against them. Dissent is no longer the duty of the engaged citizen but is becoming an act of terrorism.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Chris Hedges(2009) wrote:

This corruption of our legal system, if history is any guide, will not be reserved by the state for suspected terrorists, or even Muslim Americans. In the coming turmoil and economic collapse, it will be used to silence all who are branded as disruptive or subversive.

Sadly, in recent years, Hedges has been all to eager to participate in such branding of radical activists himself.

That's kind of a classic [i]ad hominem[/i] argument. How about letting us know what you think of what Chris Hedges said?