Anti-terror bill to be scaled back as Tories bow to criticism

Let us always remember. Tom Mulcair entered this scene lukewarm at best. It took more than a little grassroots pressure before he smelled enough of a political possibility to move. Don't allow Tom Mulcair to claim this as his. It isn't.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Not at all. The NDP they took their time, dotted their "I's" and crossed their "T's" and strung the media along, and getting the membership engaged in the issue, waiting until the caucus met in Ottawa to vote on the bill, ensuring due process was observed while at the same time garnering every once of media attention they could get. After Trudeau blew his wad, the NDP was able to set a dramatic stage. Trudeau was nowhere in the mix, because there was nothing to report.

The question then became: "will the NDP support this bill?".

Of course not. Major players in the caucus were denoucing this bill within days. There was no doubt that they would oppose. Indeed, even if you take the most cynical possible view of the situation, there was absolutely no electoral reason not to oppose. It made no sense whatsoever to parrot what the Liberals and the Conservatives were doing. The other positions were defined. It would not have paid off.

None of that would have happened had Mulcair decided to make up on policy on the fly, based on his own authority, and they would have gotten half the media they would have gotten.

There was simply no need to rush.

I agree with some of this -- however, I do think the NDP really did want to examine this -- from a communications as well as legislative point of view. The party needed to come up with a response that included what should be done not just vote on way or the other.

When Mulcair spoke about the bill he gave a more comprehensive position (was not covered in all the articles but was very clear in interviews). The NDP wanted a strengthening of the resources for the existing mandate -- sharing of information, best practices, additional funding in key areas. Over time the NDP has articulated what I have been calling for them to do here which pleases me a great deal -- connecting a mental health strategy and efforts to address "radicalization" of youth who are at risk. These are sophisticate postions that took some thoguht and consultation. As well the NDP had to look at the Bill from a practical and legal standpoint -- what to do if it already is passed. Given the way the Bill amends other acts it cannot just be repealed -- so the party has explained that it would deal with it through amendment.

So the NDP is proposing ammendements like the liberals! Its NOT saying that existing laws are enouugh. What were those poorly attended protests about then?Hypocrisy= NDP.BTW those who attend these protests aren't exactly liberal voters anyways!

ajaykumar wrote:

So the NDP is proposing ammendements like the liberals! Its NOT saying that existing laws are enouugh. What were those poorly attended protests about then?Hypocrisy= NDP.BTW those who attend these protests aren't exactly liberal voters anyways!

The amendments take this in a different direction -- aqs you probably know but don't want to admit.