This is how Stephane Dion is being depicted at this moment on Conservative.ca, where there are three incorrect articles and three such pictures of the Liberal leader.
When I first walked into Stephane Dion’s office a few weeks ago, he was in deep discussions on the sunset clauses of the anti-terrorism bill. At the time, this was a nascent political issue on the national landscape, but he was intensely interested in what he was hearing. I heard him say he wanted to consult, hear what caucus members had to say, and to think.
A week or so later I was polled by Dion’s office for my thoughts on extending two provisions of the act which had been never used, and which granted the police extraordinary powers to detain and question people without charging them. I oppose giving the state that blank cheque, I said.
Over the next couple of weeks at national caucus I sat and listened to a major debate take place between those who believe these powers are necessary, and those who find them dangerous. As I have written before, I delighted in hearing this. It was the first issue-driven and passionate ideas-centric discussion I had experienced in a caucus room since being elected again in January of 2006.
I really admired the people who lined up at the microphones on either side of the historic Railway Committee Room where caucus is held, to argue their points. They were articulate, compelling and knowledgeable. The protection of the state versus the protection of the individual was a constant theme.
I also admired Dion, sitting there listening, taking notes, patiently soaking in what 22 speakers had to say last Wednesday morning alone. It was what I would have expected from a leader at the head of a national caucus, full of experienced MPs from all over a vast country with 100 different points of view and millions of constituents to represent. It was the role of a leader to listen to Canadians, distill the best path forward, establish a consensus and then defend that position.
And the contrast with my months in the Harper caucus was extreme. Old friends there tell me that no discussion was allowed on the anti-terrorism bill. The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to say. Their offices were issued with talking points that called Dion a weak leader.
“Stephane Dion’s decision to withdraw support for his own party’s anti-terrorism legislation could interfere with the Air India terrorism investigation,†those memos said in a patent fabrication. “Dion’s decision to cave in to extremist elements in the Liberal caucus and oppose extension of provisions for investigative hearing and preventative arrests in the Anti-Terrorism Act will weaken the ability of law enforcement officials to effectively investigate the Air India terrorist attack.†And this, sadly, “Stephane Dion is prepared to deny justice to the families of the Air India tragedy and jeopardize the safety of Canadians.â€
The spins mount, of course. The current Air India investigation is not impacted one whit by the ATA vote, whichever way it goes. That is a lie. The police are actually not involved in that inquiry. The Dion position, to let provisions die which were intended to sunset after five years, is exactly what legislators intended when the law was written. Calling that an “extremist†view is a joke.
And let’s not forget what the Supreme Court told us this week in ruling that our current practice of charging people, locking them up and not even telling them what their crimes might be. It’s unconstitutional, the Supremes said. That’s not what Canada is all about.
Well, I don’t think Canada is about these things, either:
- A government which is openly lying about its political opponents.
- A prime minister using terrorism victims as a pawn in the coming election campaign.
- Increased police powers which override human rights. In war, maybe. In peace, never.
- Conservative MPs not even allowed to discuss this, let alone exercise their free will or power of independent analysis.
I am sure most Canadians will not take the time (nor should they) to understand who is telling the truth and where the political mischief hides. PMSH and his ministers are using the Air India inquiry, its victims and the War on Terror to systematically shred Stephane Dion at every opportunity. They say it shows he is weak, flip-flopping, soft on crime, anti-police, careless about terrorism and willing to jeopardize the safety of Canadians.
The lie’s so big it’s almost laughable. But then, Big Lies have been used in history before with devastating consequences.
All I can tell you with certainty is that I have just witnessed a process of thoughtful decision-making of which I was proud. No wonder it scares the crap out of Conservatives.
117 comments ↓
Garth – there may be a huge difference in the two caucuses. For one: The Liberals at this time do not have a platform. It is being written by Maurice Strong’s nephew, and PowerCorp VP John Rae’s brother – former NDP Bob Rae as I understand it.
When you were in the new Conservative caucus they ran on a platform. There were promises made during the election campaign and therefore since you ran under that platform changing direction was out of the question. That was last year. This year as the Conservatives are developing plans for their second year and beyond the caucus consulations along with many consultations with stakeholders and Canadians are underway. Flaherty has asked for input from canadians and he is getting it. My MP has canvassed his constituency, had several open houses and he is taking our ideas back to caucus. So you are comparing apples and oranges, in my opinion. Because the Liberals have no platform or policies they are at the brainstorming point, which you love. Because the Conservatives had already brainstormed their election platform which you endorsed by running under it you did not like the fact that you were not part of it at that time.
Is this fair comment?
No, it is wrong. First, the Liberal platform is being written now by elected people. I know, for obvious reasons. Second, the Con platform is already written, and your MP has diddly to say about it. This I also know. — Garth
I am sure most Canadians will not take the time (nor should they) to understand who is telling the truth and where the political mischief hides.
I’d say they SHOULD and starting with the liberal party is as good a place as any.
I think its time to actually refute these lies with TRUTH and substance. I think its time to show everyone what parliament COULD be. This blog is a great place to start shedding light on these subjects. An even better place would be the liberal website.
And you want to know an even better idea? LIBERAL BLOGS. Liberal MP’s on the liberal website blogging to their constituents. Its right there. Waiting to be utilized, waiting to be exploited for the good of Canada.
Digital Democracy is a great place to be the frontier party on. People WILL respond with something as….. revolutionary, as this. Get your party ahead of the curve Garth. Many people will appreciate it.
In the mean time. Keep the debate relevant and make sure Canadians know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…..so help us god.
Making due allowances for the fact that you have made a fateful political decision and may not be wearing the clearest of spectacles for a while, I must confess that I agree with your assessement of Harper and how he is operating.
I also must confess that I voted CPC on January 23, 2006 to throw out the Liberal rascals. On February 23, 2006, I started having doubts about Stephen Harper’s political honesty and way of doing busines when Emerson emerged as a Conservative cabinet minister. Since then, it has been a steady drip of disappointment leading to the conclusion that I do not want that man to be PM of my country.
It really is too bad – I so was looking forward to a different way of governing.
I’ve just read an article where in a speech, David Emererson said that when he told Bill Graham he was going to cross the floor Graham told him to think twice and that he would be sorry and Emerson said Bill Graham was right. Hmmm….
Too bad our political shows (specifically Mike Duffy) weren’t so partisan. I used to like Mike Duffy but I don’t trust him now would feature a “fact and fiction” section of their programme instead of putting on the useless strategists.
I know during the U.S. 2004 election, CNN ran this kind of segment (I believe by Bill Sneider).
What’s happened to Mike Duffy? He’s become a wink, wink, nudge nudge “Inquirer” type of political show. He’s says he’s not partisan, but it’s really hard to believe when he only has conservative radio talk show hosts, brings up Liberal problems constantly and practically gets on his knees when interviewing Harper. Is afraid he won’t get invited to the Harper cocktail parties?
Duffy says he’s not Liberal, not Conservative – he’s a journlist – like he doesn’t vote?
Anyway, I dare Duffy to do this and I bet he wouldn’t have the guts to play fact against fiction.
I think Canada desparately needs it.
Article about Emerson is in Macleans.ca, by Mithcell Raphael and is entitled “On the PM’s Valentines Day and a floor crosser has regrets.”
Interesting post Mr. Turner, and not terribly surprising to me. It appears there is a fetish on the Right for unity and groupthink and that any party which shows itself having a vigourous debate over a serious political issue (like the ATA which is a very serious issue both in political terms and in terms of public policy) is somehow weak, divided, and incapable of coherence while having the debate and then once the debate is over and it is decided to whip the caucus position taken as a result of that debate shows this is a dictatorship. Yet these two beliefs/premises/claims directly contradict each other. If the party is a Dion dictatorship then he would not be allowing for the diverse debate within the caucus, he would simply tell the MPs the party’s position and what they are to say (gee, isn’t that what you said was how the CPC caucus works?) and how to vote.
One of the most glaring and troubling things for me about CPC rhetoric is how inconsistent it is, both within internal logic regards and in contradicting other rhetoric aimed at the same target previously (and all too often at the same time). Worse, even when one points out these inconsistencies it is ignored or worse brushed off as “Lieberal spin” even when the person making the point is not a Liberal. Which is another element of their rhetoric I find troubling the assumption that anyone opposed to Harper and the CPC is automatically a fan/supporter/member of the Liberal party, especially given the reality of this being a multi-party polity and not a binary configuration which such assumptions rest upon.
Harper and the CPC are using some of the more dangerous and disrespectable propaganda tools, including some from Goebbels, as others have noted including even the HoC not to mention those favoured by the GOP spinmeisters who also have demonstrated a love of the tools of Goebbels. The big lie technique being one of his favourites, and an approach clearly embraced by the CPC regarding the ATA, the use of the Air India families to beast up on the Libs over their ATA position as somehow interfering with the ability of the Inquiry to do its job (which given that this is a tool for police only is bad enough, but when one considers that Justice Major made no mention of these clauses as a problem for his job but only the government’s refusal to provide sufficient declassified info really makes this disgusting IMHO) represents some of the slimier aspects of messaging/PR/spin/rhetoric.
Interesting post Mr. Turner, and I thank you for it. I wonder though, I know you were in the Mulroney caucus; I would guess that there was more debate/disagreement within caucus there also than in the CPC one, am I correct in that? It is too bad that so many folks that feel they have opinions on politics worth considering demonstrate their ignorance of how things like caucus works, how routine whipped votes are, indeed on how the actual way our government is set up to operate. Just look at the amount of nonsense regarding how/why caucus debate is for has been perceived by your and Liberal detractors here, especially those supporting Harper and the CPC.
What concerns me though is how much are they deliberately trying to duplicate the right wing noise machine that the GOP created? We know they are using the same GOP “liberal media bias/conspiracy” myth to work the refs as the GOP employed to great success especially after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in the late 80s thanks to Reagan. We know that this PM believes in this myth because of his words and actions since (indeed since the 90s or even 80s really when you get right down to it) show it. This is the sort of thing that allows for propaganda to replace news and real information, and I don’t care in whose ideology that is in service to I will oppose and fight those that use such dangerous fictions as fact so as to gain/hold power. This is *NOT* Canadian rooted Conservativism, it is not traditional Canadian politics, and it is inherently contemptuous of our heritage, history, culture, and society IMHO. I am glad you saw that for yourself and are willing to attest to it, this is something critical to the future survival of our nation in my view.
Before we judge SH and we decry the lack of free votes. Let’s consider this little paragraph that I found on MapleLeafWeb.com:
The Liberal Red Book made several specific promises to reform parliament:
Allowing more free votes in the House of Commons
Giving MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons Committees
Permitting parliamentary review of some senior appointments made by Cabinet
Instead of reforming Parliament, critics complain that under Chrétien, the role of backbench MPs is weaker than ever. In the first three years, Chrétien allowed only one free vote on over 200 Government bills (he did allow free votes on private member’s bills). Furthermore, the Prime Minister has frequently cut off House of Commons debate on contentious issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and Bill C-36, the government’s anti-terrorism legislation. With respect to House of Common’s committees, party discipline severely limits the power of committees to review government legislation.
I sincerely hope that the “who’s softer on terrorism?” question doesn’t emerge as the major issue for this election, just as it did in 2004 in the U.S. If the Conservatives try to push it as such, I think it’ll backfire, since (a) anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Canada (notice Harper has avoided using the phrase “cut and run” lately in describing the Afghanistan mission?), and (b) this is 2007, not 2002 or 2004. Terrorism remains, and will always be, a threat; and yet there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. Is that because the Department of Homeland Security is really good at its job? You tell me.
The latest poll (if you believe in those things) has the Conservatives at 36 and the Liberals at 34. Barring a scandal or major catastrophe in the upcoming weeks, it’ll be another minority government. I don’t really support any of the major parties (sorry, Garth!), but–no disrespect to Stephen Harper supporters–I’m hoping for a Liberal minority, with a contingent hope that the Conservatives find a new leader. Harper has some good ideas, but, as I’ve said before, I think he’s too petty and bitter to trust.
P.S. As an aside, I bet nothing fun will happen in the Sens-Sabres game tonight, but I may watch a bit of it, just to be certain . . .
“The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to say”
So Garth, i’m still waiting for your balanced unbiased blogging.Fife had Dion on CTV and reported it would be a three-line whip, meaning everyone shows up, votes with Dion. Thats being told how to vote. So explain why its ok for Dion to do this but not Harper.
And when will Goodale issue apologies over claiming Pearsons Nobel prize was intentionally hidden by the Conservatives, and CTV pointed out it was done under the Liberal’s as well when setting up a studio.
And Goodale just smeared the PMO and RCMP saying there was a leak in the Air India issue. Which was also proven wrong by the reporter from the Vancouver Sun, who has been involved in the case for 19 years.
Pretty ironic, Goodale’s hissy fit about smears and then doing his own a day later.
JMcCain – that is sort of what I was thinking. As Garth says and the media has openly reported there are deep divisions in the Liberal caucus, even the Senate about the anti-terrorist clause extension.
Would not true democracy be to allow a totally free vote on this issue. That way the MPs can remain true to their own convictions and the will of their constituents. If there is absolute concensus in caucus then the vote could be “whipped” to show leader/party solidarity as the Conservatives are doing as they have no caucus member who would vote against this based on their own beliefs and convictions.
The Liberal ideology of rights of the individuals over the safety of our nation is quite disturbing even to some of their own. Why not a free vote, Garth. Would that not be true democracy in action?
Democracy is allowing MPs to represent their constituents, at least behind the caucus door. Harper has consistently denied this, and voters should know. — Garth
JMcCain – that is sort of what I was thinking. As Garth says and the media has openly reported there are deep divisions in the Liberal caucus, even the Senate about the anti-terrorist clause extension.
Yes a free vote would be the way to go. Our current model of government does not allow for that however. And this is a problem with all parties. Makes electing an MP kinda overkill. Unfortunately.
And here I though democracy was allowing people to vote how they wished.
Silly me.
With each passing day, you seem to qualify your “principles”. First you put conditions on floor crossing to make your own floor crossing more palatable. Now you qualify Dion’s whipping of your vote saying it is ok since he did allow free speech in caucus-just not when it is time to vote.
Cognitve dissonance must be serving you well. Otherwise your stomach would be in knots in trying to live with your hypocracy.
All I said, and you know it, is that MPs should be able to discuss, debate and reach a position in a consensual fashion. Only a control-freak ideologue would dispute that, surely. — Garth
Would not true democracy be to allow a totally free vote on this issue. That way the MPs can remain true to their own convictions and the will of their constituents. If there is absolute consensus in caucus then the vote could be “whipped†to show leader/party solidarity as the Conservatives are doing as they have no caucus member who would vote against this based on their own beliefs and convictions.
Oh I enjoy that little tidbit there. lol
How exactly do YOU know that the cons are ALL onboard with this shannon? What makes you think that the LIBERALS are whipped, but the cons are not? What an absurd notion. Garth has said time after time after time that his party is DEBATING in their caucus meetings, and while he was in the con caucus, there was NO DEBATE.
You OBVIOUSLY have your own ideas about who is right and wrong. So why do you even bother coming here? Your not going to change anyone else’s mind to your one sided view. You are obviously not going to believe Garth, so why even bother say anything? You are looking for people who think like you do….. there are PLENTY of blogs out there that do. Go there, that way you can have your narrow minded views be met with joy and understanding. Please.
You obviously know by now that I intend to vote for neither the Liberals or the Conservatives, I don’t think they deserve my vote, I voted for Garth in the last election mainly to rid the country of the corrupt government. There is one thing I have learned along the way, you may like or dislike Mr. Turner but no one can say he is a dishonest man. If he writes something here, I believe you can go to the bank on it. I am so sorry he joined the Liberal party, but I am not sorry he is no longer a Conservative. Both parties are dangerous and not good for Canada in my view and we need to think hard about an alternative.
surely a “control freak ideologue” (lol) like myself realizes there’s no pint in discussing and debating in a consensual fashion if the leader is going to take an extreme stand and demand others follow suit.
That’s just as bad as Harper. At least he’s upfront about it. Dion just makes you “feel” like you have a say when you really don’t.
Whipping a caucus is whipping a caucus, regardless of what side does it. It’s either a necessary evil for both parties or it is throwing democracy out the door for both parties. But to try to justify in Dion’s case and demonize it in Harper’s is playing silly partisan politics.
Did you read one word that says I agree with whipping a caucus, Lib or Con? Quote it, please. — Garth
Garth, while I believe the ATA provisions should sunset because they have not been used and therefore cannot be defended on the basis of giving authorities the powers they need, you need to be careful not to fall into the spin of PMSH.
1. The Dion position, to let provisions die which were intended to sunset after five years, is exactly what legislators intended when the law was written. – Garth.
Nope, the original provisions as written by the Liberals had no sunset clause. Since civil liberties were being affected, the clause was inserted to ensure the provisions would be re-visited in five years, at which time they could be renewed or be allowed to fade into the sunset.
You also have to remember who created the provisions. Since these Liberal people still support them, I doubt they allowed the sunset clause to be inserted so the provisions would lapse.
2. And let’s not forget what the Supreme Court told us this week in ruling that our current practice of charging people, locking them up and not even telling them what their crimes might be. It’s unconstitutional, – Garth
Nope. The SOC was ruling on security certificates and the fact that the accused has no way of knowing what the charges are or the evidence against them and thus have no way to defend themselves, not the ATA provisions.
While security certificates and ATA fall under national security, that is the only link. The SOC has already ruled the ATA provisions to be constitutional.
So again, don’t fall into the Harper trap of telling half truths and bending the facts to support your position. Otherwise, like PMSH, nothing you say will be credible.
I believe you are wrong on both counts. It was the Liberal government that wrote teh ATA law, and which passed the sunset clause. The Supremes were ruling on a different aspect of the alw, but the principle is the same – you cannot classify people as criminals or suspects without demonstrating proof. However, I sppreciate and support your basic premise. — Garth
I went to the Conservative Link and “Ouch” it’s Orwellian.
They should get new writers and take a diferent approach.
“Urban myth” or North American Union?
Don Butler, CanWest News Service;Ottawa Citizen scratches away the superfluous bees wax on this Super-State ticket and finds a hive of busy, secretive activity.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=93580c44-451b-49ce-9b52-af9dd5bff31e&k=5536
To control domestic inflation of a run-away money printing machine, Industrial production was outsourced to China and India. Now that those workers are aiming for a better life, why not turn to other slave labour. Import the workers to drain the resources that you don’t manage to pipeline out. As a bonus, new housing will be needed to further the fiat Ponzi scheme.
This is World Capitalism without regard to Nation or Political Parties. There can be only one result…the Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Follow USA legislative opposition to the “Urban myth” by some here:
“H.CON.RES.487
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Sponsor: Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] (introduced 9/28/2006) Cosponsors (6)â€
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.con.res.00487:
“All I said, and you know it, is that MPs should be able to discuss, debate and reach a position in a consensual fashion. Only a control-freak ideologue would dispute that, surely. — Garth”
Really Garth? this from your post above.
“The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to say”
So again Garth, why no criticism of Dion for whipping the vote? Dion has decided what your parties position will be.Your fellow Liberal MP’s have been told how to vote, AND they must be there for the vote.
C’mon Garth. Spin spin spin.
It looks more and more like joining the Liberal’s was what most suspected. All about Garth.
The “contradictory” statements you quote make no sense in the context in which you use them. I have said repeatedly that MPs need input into decisions. I am seeing that happen within the Lib caucus. It does not happen in the Con caucus. If you disagree that MPs should determine policy, then say so. Otherwise, what’s your point? I would rather every vote is a free vote, but when all government MPs are told they have no free will, it ain’t going to happen. I really hope you are writing in to Tory blogs to ask for free votes on that side of the House. Are you? — Garth
To Paulstuff: Would you be in favour of the abolition of the party system and the establishment of an independent system in Canada, this would insure free votes?
Here is your post again.
“The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to sayâ€
Soundes like criticism to me. Dion’s position is i decide our position, i tell you how to vote. I’ll listen to your opinion maybe, but in the end i tell you how to vote. It’s the same friggin thing.
So once again, where is your unbiased criticism of Dion? Slam both leaders or neither. In this case both are ruling the same.
Maybe you should read before you write. I just posted an article on the process the Liberal caucus used to reach a position, which was consensual. I contrasted that with PMO/Harper telling Conservative MPs how to vote, with neither debate nor consensus. What part of that did you not understand? I have also made it clear that so long as the government MPs are prevented from voting as they may wish, as individual represetatives of the people, no other party will be strategically able to do so, either. This is why the system is failing us. — Garth
“All I said, and you know it, is that MPs should be able to discuss, debate and reach a position in a consensual fashion. Only a control-freak ideologue would dispute that, surely. — Garthâ€
Really Garth? this from your post above.
“The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to sayâ€
So again Garth, why no criticism of Dion for whipping the vote? Dion has decided what your parties position will be.Your fellow Liberal MP’s have been told how to vote, AND they must be there for the vote.
C’mon Garth. Spin spin spin.
It looks more and more like joining the Liberal’s was what most suspected. All about Garth.
By paulsstuff on 02.24.07 4:16 pm
Im at a loss here pauly boy… Im not quite sure you understand the english language enough just yet. But to me:
“And the contrast with my months in the Harper caucus was extreme. Old friends there tell me that no discussion was allowed on the anti-terrorism bill. The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to say. Their offices were issued with talking points that called Dion a weak leader.”
Means the CONSERVATIVE party is the one that is whipped, NOT the liberal one. But you keep on spin spin spinning there buddy.
You cons are hilarious. Keep lookin between the lines, maybe one day…. one day you will find something….I wouldn’t get my hopes up though.
Pretty ironic, Goodale’s hissy fit about smears and then doing his own a day later.
By paulsstuff on 02.24.07 2:29 pm
Just wondering if you caught Goodale’s latest hissy fit? He was ranting about Harper giving press conferences and putting up a wall to hide the Liberal’s statue of Pierson. Just rabid, saying the Conservatives want to hide everything good about Liberals and their wonderful history and good to the country…blah, blah, blah. Turns out as it was reported, putting up that wall is common practice and they showed Pettigrew, Chretien also had the same wall put up behind them. What’s with Goodale? Is he the new liberal attack dog? Next he’ll be cowering in a corner pulling out his remaining hair screaming ‘look what they did to me’. Honestly, this constant victim game is getting very lame. L
To Paulstuff: Would you be in favour of the abolition of the party system and the establishment of an independent system in Canada, this would insure free votes?
Phil, can you give any other example of this type of government anywhere else in the world? Other than a small territory in Canada that is.
I dont know how this would ever work, but if it is indeed in place in other countries and working, maybe…. can you cite any?
I would be happy if Garth tries being a little more unbiased in his bashing.
My point is Garth pointed out Harper decided his parties position and how to vote. Dion did the same. Both are wrong.
But in Garth’s new Liberal world only Harper is. If Harper screws up, do a post on it. Same for Dion.
I am the only MP sitting in Parliament who has been in both the Harper and the Dion caucuses. Maybe you should trust that I have a little more insight than you. — Garth
I believe you are wrong on both counts. It was the Liberal government that wrote teh ATA law, and which passed the sunset clause. The Supremes were ruling on a different aspect of the alw, but the principle is the same – you cannot classify people as criminals or suspects without demonstrating proof. However, I sppreciate and support your basic premise. — Garth
Yes the Liberals wrote it, originally without the sunset clause. Due to vigorous debate such as this, it was added. Check with your collegues on this one.
Secondly, while I am against renewing the two ATA provisions, they don’t mean a person is incarcerated without proof. This only applies to the security certificates.
The ATA provisions in question have a time limit for how long a person can be held without evidence.
Hence you can’t use the SOC ruling in your case against the two sunsetting ATA provisions.
I did not say the sunset provisions had anything to do with incarcerating people, but rather with “classifying people as criminals or suspects.” I stand by that. Let’s be accurate as well as on the insertion of the sunset clause which was in fact passed by the Liberal majority government. And yes, thank God, it was as a result of the vigorous kind of debate which this Conservative government has disallowed within its ranks. — Garth
In other words: When it comes to Security Certifcates and the sunsetting ATA provisions, both are fruit, but one’s an apple the other’s an orange and the SOC only ruled on the apple!
It would be a different matter if the orange was ever squeezed into action. — Garth
To Paul…no I can’t give you a jurisdiction…but I do know that our present system breeds nothing but division and contempt and does not allow for constituency representation and should it fall into the wrong hands could be very dangerous.I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t be willing to try an independent system along the lines as I outlined in the post “The Defiant Fisherman” on this blog. Myabe that way we all wouldn’t be shooting insults at one another and start to work constructively on the problems facing our country. In the house at the moment we have a constant campaign to discredit the parties opposite. If this is governing, I suggest we are being totally misled. This goes for both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Sorry my last post should have been addressed to SJ…
Let’s face it, the new Conservatives are either opposed to consensus politics or don’t understand how it works. Stephen Harper has always been opposed to consensus building and once wrote that the “breakdown of the consensus that once governed the country is a significant advance.”
When you work towards conflict rather than consensus you get exactly the kind of politics we have today. There is no doubt that the Liberals have contributed to the problem but the concept of two warring camps vying for power goes back to the ideology of Ernest Manning and Social Credit.
The new Conservatives who post here frame all issues in the “us against them” framework. If you are not with them on every issue you are “with the Liberals.” George W. Bush expressed the concept best in his famous phrase: if you are not with us you are with the terrorists.
This concept of politics appears “easy” because it never requires any independent thought: the leader does all the thinking for his followers. Proponents simply mindlessly follow the dictates of the leader without any question. One could call this the “Borge” principle from Star Trek where each Borge was wired into a central control who governed all their thinking.
It is far more difficult to understand consensus building and how it works. That is why those incapable of thinking independently cannot understand its intricacies. They are totally perplexed by the idea that people might actually vote for a measure they did not totally accept once they understand the various elements of the issue.
“Im at a loss here pauly boy… Im not quite sure you understand the english language enough just yet.”
Well, i’m pretty sure i know what he meant here:
“The PMO determined what the government’s position would be, and then MPs were told how to vote and what to say.”
With that i agree. Dion might have had some debate, but in the end decided his parties position and told them how to vote.
Like i’ve repeatedly said, just waiting for a little unbiased posting from Garth about issues he disagrees with concerning his new leader and party. Harper and Dion both deserve criticism on this issue. Both sides trying to come to a deal made sense, but nope, both accuse the other of refusing.
That is not true. As I said, if one side refuses to allow a free vote, then how can the other? At least the Libs reached a decision based on discussion. Is that not admirable? — Garth
C. B. Innes , it isn’t about compromising but having opposition parties ram their agenda down the governments throat IGNORING compromise. Take the NDP’s Bill C303 – the National Childcare act. This bill is a flagrant violation of provincial rights defined in the Canadian Constitution and yet he Bloc is supporting it. Hypocrisy reigns supreme in the House. Fortunately Bill C303 even if passed will not be funded and so it’s meaningless.
RE: Harper vs. Dion.
Harper dictates how his MP’s vote without consultation. Dion dictates how his MP’s vote after consultation, a better way to do it.
But in the end, MP’s are still being told how to vote. If an MP cannot, in good conscience, vote the way his/her party is being told, whether by a dictator or after consulation, they are still caught between a rock and a hard place.
In which case, they have to abstain/vote with conscience and suffer the consequences.
Why do the Tory’s and Liberals not want free votes? Because the more free votes the HOC has, the less power rests with the party! And at the extreme of all votes being free, the party system ceases to exist!
You all are supporting my agenda!
Since you took Liberal side, I heard nothing but praises. And I heard nothing but smears to PM and Conservatives. How can you ensure this is neutral point of view and is not personal vendetta? How come you couldn’t find any dirt inside Liberal’s house?
I want to hear an unbiased voice inside the government. And I fear that you’re losing it. People are not stupid, you know…
Regards
I am not in the government. Say, how many other MPs’ voices do you hear every day in this fashion? I fear you are losing perspective. You want dirt, go here.
Garth,
Interestingly, I had a conversation with a Die Hard Conservative friend of mine, and you are RIGHT! The average Canadian will not seek out the truth!
This particular person is still living in a Cold War world where anyone who is not a WASP is an enemy. He, as an example, has admittedly never talked, not even talked, to a Muslim, but he KNOWs that the Security Certificates MUST be kept in place because ALL Muslims are adherents to TERRORISM!
Needless to say, I gave up any hope of a rational discussion on the matter, because his mind is as closed as a burial vault.
I think this is what PMSH is counting on…Brain Dead Followers who will drink the CPC Kool-Aid, regardless of facts.
Hate and FUD are still great political tools for the Power Perverts!
Bill – how could any Canadian living pretty well anywhere in this country not have even talked to a muslim. They are our co-workers, there are mosques everywhere where I live (Edmonton); they are shop keepers and nurses and professionals and …well, just like the so called WASPS. We don’t differentiate here as a matter of fact. The other day I was on the LRT and in a packed car I think I was the only white person. We have a huge community of very tall and very dark skinned Sudanese here. They are wonderful people. We have a huge Pacific Rim oriental residents. They are not in apartheid parts of the city – they are interspersed and integrated like everyone else for the most part. So just where does this so called die hard Conservative live? Being a conservative myself I have only experienced vile bias, slurs and defamation by Liberals actually – especially attacking the fact that if you are a conservative Christian you must be a neandrathol. I am catholic just like millions of Liberals. Dion being an atheist I guess gets to be “neutral” asbout where his values come from.
Dion is a lapsed Catholic, according to a profile in the Globe and Mail. It’s a long trip from there to ‘atheist’. — Garth
Phil…How this this sound,,I used the last fed election to start a new party. I called it The Representative Democracy Party of Canada..I will quote from the founding principle ” The Representative Democracy Party of Canada mandates that it’s elected members of Parliament, will always on every issue represent the majority wishes of the constituents in their riding… further” the Representative Democracy Party of Canada cannot and does not take a policy position on any issue, and while an elected representative may voice and elucidate his/her personal opinion, that opinion must be servient to the wishes of the constituency”
So I ran a number of newspaper ads, talked to friends and neighbours, and have a total of six, yup 6 signed up members. I thought it was a good idea..
..Another Phil
To Phil: Legally, voters cast their ballots for individual candidates, voting for a person to represent their constituency in Parliament. Sadly, Canadians have been neglecting their legal responsibilities, particularly since 1970 when the name of the political parties started to appear on ballots besides those of candidates. We’ve been peddled cleaner than clean, whiter than white and, most recently, meaner than mean, politics – and we buy in. If we all went out and met each candidate and voted for the best individual, I believe the quality of our governance would increase overnight.
I also believe we would see great improvements if MPs were not allowed to ask/respond to questions, or debate, from notes. They should stand up and speak their mind – and if they sound like idiots, well, we’d know what to do with them. I want to know whether or not my MP has a brain, not only an ability to read.
“I think this is what PMSH is counting on…Brain Dead Followers who will drink the CPC Kool-Aid, regardless of facts.”
Not quite. I used to be a Liberal Supporter when I was youngster in Quebec until I grew up and moved elsewhere and saw what Trudeau’s policies did to the rest of the country.
Now even today the Liberals have turned into extremists forcing their agenda on the Canadian population with zero debate listening to special interest groups- whether it’s subsidized childcare paid from someone else’s pockets or putting Canadians lives in danger by letting the anti-terrorist provisions die.
” Suzuki slams Harper, Alberta
Tells students PM doesn’t care about environment or them, and oilsands expansion is ‘insanity’
By BILL KAUFMANN, SUN MEDIA
Picture below: Dr. David Suzuki took the prime minister and Alberta to task over global warming yesterday as he spoke to students, teachers and parents at Altadore elementary school in Calgary. (Stuart Dryden, Sun Media)
image
Calgary—Environmentalist David Suzuki savaged Prime Minister Stephen Harper over global warming in front of a gymnasium full of elementary school students and their parents yesterday.
Later, he lashed out at Albertans, calling rapid development of the oilsands “insanity†and a “disaster.â€
Suzuki, who was invited to speak at Calgary’s Altadore elementary school and accept $835 collected by the students for his foundation, asked kids what Harper’s main priority was after being elected last year.
“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,†he said, adding any of the PM’s pledges to preserve the environment are cynical ploys to that end.
“I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body – he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment.â€
He told the room some of his message was directed at the adults, because the youngsters don’t vote and Harper and other politicians don’t care about them.
“It’s up to your moms and dads to ensure your futures and livelihoods are part of the agenda,†he said to about 185 students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 6. ”
It’s seems even Mr. Suzuki isn’t above a little libel and slander…either.
What about those poor people who have to feed their families? I guess he doesn’t care as long as the oil sands are shutdown.This just shows the callousness I despise in the environmental movement.
Garth:
Thanks for putting the truth to print. Here is a quote that sheds light on the false War on Terror. For those who read and listen to the world outside of the US of A know Europe has know terror for centuries and looks at 9/11 in a much different light.
Of course the people dont want war…that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. – Hermann Goering
Shannon,
You seem to have all the answers…Go figure it our. Here is a clue…Do Muslims have Mosques in the rural areas, or mainly in the major cities? Oh, BTW, conveniense store personnel do not really count in this discussion!
So, if you want to challenge my post…go right ahead because I am the messenger, not the message!
SLG,
“What’s happened to Mike Duffy?”
Maybe he thinks He is Don Cherry and the show is ‘Liar’s Night In Canada’?
“The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs,”
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656
________________________________________
Quoth the Leader: “you just never know when you will need detention camps, they’re good insurance, just in case, – for the new progroms”
Well said Loraine, I totally agree, its annoying when they ask a question, get an answer( it does happen sometimes) look back at the paper and ask the same question again a different way, make them look stupid in my humble opinion. Lets ban the speaking notes and party line written down on paper and ever once in a while we might figure out what someone actually thinks about an issue
Loraine…you are right, that is how the process is supposed to work but when you get to Ottawa, you are told how to behave, what to say and how to vote, if you do not, you end up like Garth…if you play by the rules you might end up with a nice job…maybe even a minister with all its perks….very hard to turn all that down! So the power lies at the center of the party, take away the party and you have a whole slew of independent MPs who can now vote freely. After what we have seen in Ottawa over the past few years, we could not do any worse. The behaviour in the House is venomous, bitter and downright uncivil. The main priority in the House during question period is to see how badly you can embarrass the party opposite, the debates are poorly attended and used primarily as a campaign tool. It is a wonderful example for our children. Right now we have a choice between basically two parties, one leaning to dictatorship, the other corrupt and still has yet to explain satisfactorily where all the brown envelopes went, and if, in fact, all who are responsible are gone from the party ranks. There is no room in the party system for a politician who sincerely wants to represent his constituents. they are there to represent their party.
To another Phil…I am open to anything that will change the present system, I would prefer not to change one party for another as they would eventually turn out the same. I would like to see 308 members, all independent with allegiance only to their constituents.
Garth,
I could agree more with the above sentiments and would like to expand on them. Contrary to your detractors, I think you are doing a tremendous public service with your site, not seen anywhere else, because unlike the others, it is not just a one-way conversation with terse one or two sentence statements that barely amount to a shell of an idea, but a full-duplex dialogue (contrast this site with the John Baird Weblog, whose entries, I note, suddenly end in concert with him moving from MPP to MP – cease and desist orders issued?).
I can very well appreciate that an MP’s day is enormously laden, but that said, it would ideal if you could have some of your colleagues come on as guest contributors, allow their constituents and others get to converse with them firsthand, … and vice-versa. A couple months back Martha Hall Findlay participated in some live blogging over at CBC. Personally I like the format of your site better since it gives you time to frame a fully-developed and considered response – live puts too much pressure to just say anything to fill and move the conversation along.
Who knows what ideas you might mine from the participants? Last Fall, many here were engaged in Global Warming debate, and from my assessment, you sat back and took it all in, but with consideration. At the end of it, you thanked everyone who participated, and I believe that you were sincerely appreciative. I think you extracted something worthwhile and valuable, something that could inform policy.
“I think this is what PMSH is counting on…Brain Dead Followers who will drink the CPC Kool-Aid, regardless of facts.â€
Not quite. I used to be a Liberal Supporter when I was youngster in Quebec until I grew up and moved elsewhere and saw what Trudeau’s policies did to the rest of the country.
Now even today the Liberals have turned into extremists forcing their agenda on the Canadian population with zero debate listening to special interest groups- whether it’s subsidized childcare paid from someone else’s pockets or putting Canadians lives in danger by letting the anti-terrorist provisions die.
By KPK on 02.24.07 7:05 pm
Con kool-aid. You almost seem drunk on it. Alright…. so pretty sure here that that $100 credit for parents was a CONSERVATIVE idea, no?
Aaaand the ol’ con spin on “soft on terror” or “soft on terrorism” is already an old drawn out adage. This lapse will NOT, repeat NOT endanger Canadian lives, not now, not ever. They have NEVER been used, they are VERY VERY close to being violations of rights and to state something so useless, so trashy (almost BUSH like) as to say that the liberals are being “soft on terrorism” is a sick joke.
Put the cup o’ kool-aid aside for a minute and think with a clear head here.
I’m not saying the liberals are the be all end all here, but come on…. how people can defend this “new government” and their neat little slogans is utter bullshit. They do not deserve ANY support from the public. Not how they are governing this great country.
Loraine Lamontagne
“I want to know whether or not my MP has a brain, not only an ability to read.”
There is a poignant concept that should scare the Hell out of many candidates! LOL
I use the same method. I will not vote for an idiot, and do not care about the party. Yes, as I have said, I am a member of the Green Party. Why? Because the candidate in my riding is light years ahead of clowns like TonyClement and the former MP, who did do a good job, but became a PMO Kool-Aid drinker (Liberal BTW) after 12 years of service to this riding. The NDP candidate took off on vacation and failed to campaign. Simple logical choice.
I want representation. As to ‘Two-Tier’ Tony Clenment, I do not even waste my time communicating with him…he is clearly under the power of the Dark Emperor!
Riddle me this:
Q. How can you tell when a Liberal is lying?
A. You can see his lips moving.
Q. How can tell when a Conservative is lying?
A. You can see Stephen Harper’s lips moving.
Elections are not won by the opposition; they are lost by the government. When the Liberals appeared tired and uncaring, John Diefenbaker electrified the country. When the Liberals appeared aloof and condescending, Joe Clark “oops’ed” his way to a tottering minority. When Trudeau took his walk in the snow, Brian Mulroney, a Liberal in a “blue suit”, rocked the House. When two old men fighting got tiresome, and a few too many hands in the cookie jar were discovered, the Harpercrats rode in.
Harpo is displaying the same arrogance and disdain as the politicians he once derided when he led the NCC. As in Animal Farm, the faces of the new boss and the old boss are blurring in the sight of the electorate, and nothing really distinguishes one from the other.
Garth, I hope you can honestly tell us that Dion’s Liberals have learned ANYTHING in their time in the wilderness.
Otherwise, it’s “meet the new boss…same as the old boss” and we WILL get fooled again.
Q. What do you call 10,000 politicians and bureaucrats lying at the bottom of the Rideau Canal?
A. Too little…too late…
David Bakody,
“Of course the people dont want war…that is understood.”
Actually, there are those who do want war, they want to see their perceived enemies annihilated…just as long as ’someone else does the fighting and dying!’
There is no doubt that Hermann Goering was the Master Propagandist! A quote we should never forget!
Shannon: Being an “atheist” or “agnostic” or “humanist” should not imply you are without values. Most people’s values are instilled at a veryyoung age through their families, not a religious institution.
And the way the world is being run by leaders professing to be loyal to one God or another, I think, I may just prefer an “atheist” as a government leader.
Since I am basically uninformed in terms of the inner workings of caucus, I’m interested in those talking points. For some time now, every time I have heard an interview whereby a microphone is placed in front of a Conservative MP, regardless of the circumstance and/or topic of discussion, at some point the “after 13 years” reference to the Liberals is worked into the conversation in some manner. Very often that phrase is so out-of-place and disjointed from the rest of the piece that it is quite apparent that instructions have been passed down to MPs from on high, informing them that they must work it into the discussion whenever a microphone is before them. Is this how it typically works? I must say, it is getting tremendously noticeable and tiresome.
I always thought my mother was the master of segues, working talk of her dog into any and all conversations, but it seems that others too have such an affliction … but by design rather than natural inclination.
Garth,when are you going to start trashing your leader and your fellow Libs??????THis is so out of character for you!!!!I Can hardly wait.
And he I was, thinking the Borge were wired into their pianos…
Regards: Locutus
So Garth, less than 15% (22/162)…(101MP+61Senators) of the Liberal caucus got up to speak….
Why were there do little speakers at those mikes, given that the ATA is a very important piece of legislation? Are the Liberal MPs afraid to speak their minds in front of their leader?
And the security certificates are not part of the ATA. Two different legislations. In fact the security certificates have been around for over 30 years.
That was 22 speakers at a single caucus meeting. There were more who could not get on for lack of time. It was also 22 more speakers than spoke on this toipic at the Conservative caucus. That is about the dumbest comment I have read in the last three thousand. — Garth
“Con kool-aid. You almost seem drunk on it. Alright…. so pretty sure here that that $100 credit for parents was a CONSERVATIVE idea, no?”
Hardly, ever hear of the baby bonus? EVERY parent got it. Now they are saying screw the stay at home moms and pops, lets up their taxes to pay for a national daycare program.You can’t have a rational discussion about daycare until you come up with a fair way of financing it. No spin there.
“Aaaand the ol’ con spin on “soft on terror†or “soft on terrorism†is already an old drawn out adage. This lapse will NOT, repeat NOT endanger Canadian lives, not now, not ever. They have NEVER been used, they are VERY VERY close to being violations of rights and to state something so useless, so trashy (almost BUSH like) as to say that the liberals are being “soft on terrorism†is a sick joke.”
So if a terrorist plot is currently in motion and the police just found out about it, how long would they have to wait to get a warrant before something blows up?
It ain’t spin brother SJ.
I had a conversation with a mother of 2 young children. Her oldest a 5 year old is afraid that penquins are going to fall of the ice flows and drown. AND she’s OK with that…
So, I posed some questions to her…. What is she personally doing in not abusing our environment. Well, she and her husband both have mini-vans. She uses disponsal diapers. They live in a large home with high ceilings with pot lights, which she uses all the time.
But, she “recycles” pop cans and flyers. So she believes that they are teaching her children the right things about our environment.
See something wrong here folks?
Yea, landslide Tony Clement won his riding by a whopping 26,votes . Not this time .
Like I said…everyone sees thru you Garth… your last response to me was a perfect example of my points…..each post angrier, more desperate, and nonsensical…the only one crapping themselves is Grits having to deal with the CPC majority on the horizon…
Do you have anything like, new, to say? — Garth
Yea, landslide Tony Clement won his riding by a whopping 26,votes . Not this time .
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 02.24.07 9:36 pm
Really, how do you know? Did you do your own poll?
Garth, neither the photo of the Hon. Stephane Dion in “The Big Lie” entry nor the photo of the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper on the “Dear PMSH” entry two posts earlier were very flattering.
It is just unfortunate that both sides use this type of tactic to make the opponent look poor.
It reminds me of the time when the Liberals revelled in a very unfair picture of Robert Stanfield fumbling a football that made him look inept.
The facts are, both sides are doing this. I can’t help agree with Phil that you should have remained an Independent, and then at least you could speak as a nonpartisan towards those who don’t want to get caught up in these political games.
As it is, you are now seen increasingly as part of this same partisan, unfair process which seeks to caricaturize the opponent in a way that appeals to the baser emotions than to the high road of reason.
For example, after the emotionalism and uproar that took place in the H of C the other day to silence a speaker who was simply quoting from a newspaper article, nobody has done didly squat yet to tell us where the article was in error, or where it conveyed inaccurate information.
The public has a right to know these things, and the news media has a responsibility to publish what they know. If what they publish is in error, or is false, then give witness to the error in a reasonable manner, but don’t go around
drowning out your opponent with an emotional outburst at the fact that an MPs father-in-law is simply wanted as a witness. It is as simple as that.
“Have the police ever turned down powers when they were offered? No!”— Garth.
Garth, given that this statement is made within the context that the police have requested resources such as the Anti-Terrorism bill to resolve a long unsolved mystery, namely the people who are responsible for the Air India tragedy, that statement can only give credence to those who suggest that an anti-police bias is showing in this attitude.
The RCMP are the finest police force in the world, but unfortunately, your comment tends to portray them as power hungry who would would never refuse being given additional powers.
Well, I can tell you, that I would rather empower our trusted police than I would terrorist organizations who can only take comfort when we do not trust the police’s word enough to give them the powers that they say that they need to complete an investigation.
Having just been in Israel, the response of the Liberal Party of Canada reminds me of those lobby groups in Israel who say, “Let a terrorist attack come first, and then we will figure out measures to deal with it.”
It is like the houseowner who says, “Let my house catch fire first, and then I will consider buying a fire extinguisher!”
Those who do not adhere to that type of advice have been proven time and time again to have chosen the wiser course. Appeasement never addresses the problem.
That advocacy can be likened to a policy that advises closing the barn door only after the horses are out. That does nothing to give Canadians a sense of security.
If one obeys the laws of this great nation, they have nothing to fear from our police, who have the highest standards in the world.
The photo of Stephane Dion was a PhotoShop creation by the young warriors in the PMO. The PMSH photo was taken in the House of Commons when he was speaking, and is unretouched. It was moved by Canadian Press. By the way, have the police ever turned down new powers? — Garth
Garth, you know as well as I do that a photo doesn’t have to be touched up to be unflattering.
I did not take it, and remind you I published a similar photo two days earlier with the post “Shame, shame.” They were taken at the same time, and portray the man as he actually looks – without “FLIPFLOP” running through his disembodied head. — Garth
Noble lies and Regime changes:
Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception — Strauss’s “noble lie” — to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code. “Using metaphors and cryptic language,” philosophers communicated one message for the elite, and another message for “the unsophisticated general population,” philosopher Jeet Heer recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. “For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity.”
This explains a hell of a lot and is also Harpos hidden agenda .
Do you have anything like, new, to say? — Garth
Sure, answer my question…how does a self proclaimed life long Tory become a Liberal zealot in two weeks?
It actually took 14 months, and Mr. Harper made it easy. — Garth
It ain’t spin brother SJ.
By KPK on 02.24.07 9:02 pm
You know, I am a big supporter of the ideology that to much power can corrupt anyone. There are measures in place in Canada for the police to use to obtain the necessary information to get to the bottom of a case. There is sufficient powers for them to do their job, and do their job well I might add, with what is readily available and has been available for centuries.
If there is a suspected terrorist attack or planning, then the police should be on top of this ASAP and should NOT need the powers of detaining people indefinitely without probable cause.
There are “road blocks” in place in our justice system for a DAMN good reason. Reasons that not only keep our privacy and security in check, but maintain proper order. There are laws that need to be obeyed, processes that need to be followed, and taking away our basic rights as individuals isn’t going to make us any safer. It isn’t going to stop terrorists.
I know there are plenty of people out there WILLING to give up all their freedoms in life just to feel safe, but that will never make it right.
We live in a society that thrives off of the ability to do as we please within the boundaries of a civilized population, to not feel threatened or spied on 24/7 by big brother. Britain and america are turning into police states more and more everyday, by having cameras on every street corner, wire tapping entire populations, by detaining those they “fear” “MIGHT” be “POSSIBLE” terrorist, or have terrorist links.
I do not, nor do I WANT to live in a country that puts that much “security” before its rights of citizens. There is no such thing as freedom in a place where you can be hauled off without ANYONE knowing for an indefinite amount of time.
This bill may not go so far as doing any of this, but it is a step in THAT direction and I, and I can only speak for me, will forever loath the possibility of my freedom being stripped away for fear of what MIGHT happen.
I cannot put my security above my freedom. Not to that extent.
Dear Leader :
As sheriff Gum Boot !
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/charlie/My%20Documents/harper.jpg
“… to silence a speaker who was simply quoting from a newspaper article…”
Nike, you are carrying simplicity too far. The “speaker” was the Prime Minister of Canada who – by no means simply – was quoting not from “a newspaper article”, but from a specific one alleging a connection between an alleged terrorist and the father-in-law of a sitting MP, the whole intended to imply that the Libs were trying to protect their terrorist supporters by changing the ATA.
I do not know how close the MP’s father-in-law was to the alleged terrorist, but I do know that the RCMP has had 20-odd years to find out and let us know. Harper even trying a dumb stunt like that shows that he is not fit for that office.
The RCMP may have been the best police force in the world, but they have done some pretty smelly and/or inept things in the last few years, as in destruction of evidence, fortuitous failure to investigate allegations of internal malfeasance within the one-year time limit specified in their act, strange happenings in the administration of their pension fund, and that sterling example of security operations, Arar.
You are right that all sides slag each other, which is no reason for Harper to do it more egregiously. Hardly the change I voted for.
It’s frankly depressing to see how those who support Harper simply do not grasp the obvious.
If that is who remains, if that is his base, I suppose we should count ourselves lucky, because, that does not represent the masses.
Nike Nichols said:
“The RCMP are the finest police force in the world…â€
Sorry, I had to stop reading there…
Jingoism, as a replacement for good sense, is dangerous – especially when dealing with police powers and the types of personalities that are attracted to police work.
After a couple of deep breaths I went back to what Mr. Nichols wrote in his next paragraph:
“Well, I can tell you, that I would rather empower our trusted police than I would terrorist organizations who can only take comfort when we do not trust the police’s word enough to give them the powers that they say that they need to complete an investigation.â€
This is how fascism starts. With the permission of the arrogantly unthinking and the fearful.
The rapacious, who so palpably control this country for their own advantage, (hidden as they are behind facades of good haircuts and glib sound bites), are pulling out all the stops in this attempt to finally frighten us all into subjugation. Our national police, historically the front line workers in the control of the citizenry, are primed and ready to do their duty to “protect the stateâ€. All the irrefutable evidence relating to the politicization of the RCMP over the last ten years has lead me to that conclusion.
Providing our police forces with more ways to abuse the rule of law should not be acceptable to anyone concerned with liberty and the rights of the individual in this, OUR democracy, Canada.
Back to Mr. Nichol’s post:
“Having just been in Israel, the response of the Liberal Party of Canada reminds me of those lobby groups in Israel who say, “Let a terrorist attack come first, and then we will figure out measures to deal with it.â€â€
My goodness! Mr. Nichols appears to be recommending that we handle our security issues like they do in Israel where they’re doing such a magnificent job of it!
I despair, I really do, when I see this kind of evidence of the shredding of personal responsibility for our collective emotional and moral health and good governance – all in the name of “securityâ€.
“I don’t want to think about it. Let my Leader decide what’s best for meâ€, seems to be the way things are going with authority figure suck-ups these days.
I just hope there aren’t too many like you, Mr. Nichols. Canadians can’t afford to subsidize your fear with the theft of our freedoms.
I am sure most Canadians will not take the time (nor should they) to understand who is telling the truth and where the political mischief hides.
I’d say they SHOULD and starting with the liberal party is as good a place as any.
I think its time to actually refute these lies with TRUTH and substance. I think its time to show everyone what parliament COULD be. This blog is a great place to start shedding light on these subjects. An even better place would be the liberal website.
And you want to know an even better idea? LIBERAL BLOGS. Liberal MP’s on the liberal website blogging to their constituents. Its right there. Waiting to be utilized, waiting to be exploited for the good of Canada.
Digital Democracy is a great place to be the frontier party on. People WILL respond with something as….. revolutionary, as this. Get your party ahead of the curve Garth. Many people will appreciate it.
In the mean time. Keep the debate relevant and make sure Canadians know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…..so help us god.
By SJ on 02.24.07 1:12 pm
Garth, I agree with Herb, unless the Liberals have something up their sleeve and plan to bring out all the lies, unkept promises, actual increases in taxation to lower & middle income citizens, etc. during the campaign. But, will it be too late with all the smear tactics & lies by the Harperites.
That PMSH is one oogly booger, eh?
No wonder his wife thinks Gates is ever so much more sexy cuz of his bucks.
Hey, them’s the facts eh.
Lord though, he’s got a mug on him to stop a mad cow.
Yeesh.
That’s just talking about his looks. Short conversation that one.
His policies suck.
The few policies he’s brought forward are shy of details, and have pretty much divided the country (which he pretty much hates anyways), and he’s done fret none or very little in actual policy or leaderly in about a year.
Gol’darnit, if Harper be a yearling 5 years ago, one should pretty much expect he’d have some sort of hang.
Sadly, no.
Hence, gelding, though at this point even gelding will not ensure there’s any sort of good horse under that hat. Lame horse, big hat, tight vest, no thunder… it’s a crap shoot.
Any fool bet on Harper horse race is a gambling fool, addicted or just plain iggy about horses.
He can look mean, he can kick the cans out of his paddock, but can he run the course?
Harper as a racehorse? Nah.
Supreme Court of Canada Ruling
Citation: Charkaoui v. Canada Citizenship & Immigration 2007 SCC 9
Date:February 23, 2007
Docket[s]: 30929, Adil Charkaoui
31178, Hassan Almrei
30762, Mohamed Harkat
Other formats: PDF WPD
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc9/2007scc9.html
http://www.thestar.com/OpinionPopImageGallery/127057
Forwarded to Pieter van mortgage Loan, house litre (down a quart) c/o parleyment du Canada, with appropriate annotation and comment … in hope the cheerfully chubby cherub will continue to attempt to exploit divisive ATA provisions.
http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070305_103074_103074
Capital Diary: week starting Feb. 23
On the PM ’s Valentine’s day and a floor-crosser’s regrets?
MITCHEL RAPHAEL | Mar 5, 2007 |
“The keynote speaker that night was international trade minister and floor-crosser David Emerson. The chairman of the CABC and VP for government relations for oil and gas company Nexen Inc., Dwain Lingenfelter, introduced Emerson as an MP who has seen things from “a few perspectives” in Ottawa. When the minister took the podium, he said that when he told Bill Graham he was going to leave the Liberals and cross the floor, the interim leader told him that he might regret it and to think twice. Emerson shocked the crowd when he said he wished he had listened to Graham. (Can you double floor-cross after you double-cross your party?)”
Anyways, as soon as I read the article, I sent an e-mail to the Great Waldo to tell him to quit canvassing for charitable contributions for New Orleans and Katrina … ‘cos we had already contributed $720 Million under the softwood lumber agreement as well as another $ ½ Billion to defray the US Lumber Lobby’s legal costs.
“However the Sun got the information, it blows to pieces the integrity of the whole provision to have the government, especially the prime minister reinforcing it,” Mendes said Friday. “You’re not supposed to divulge any information concerning those hearings.”
Yet PM Harper tries to quote quasi-news into the Parliament Record. Kudos for the Liberals who shouted him down (historic), and kudos to the other opposition parties who did not support Harper rule. Kudus to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has and shall continue to uphold Canada.
How’d you like to be the Canadian person subjected to Harper rule? No amount of money or truth will set you free for years!
Canadians best wake up. Wake up or break up. Harper is all for Deep Integration. Harper has genuflected upon the altar of USA, going so far as to hail the US as a “light and beacon in the world” and blithly ignoring Canada’s rights and freedoms, Canada’s Charter.
Is Harper Canada’s version of the United State’s Stonewall Jackson?
–The lie’s so big it’s almost laughable.Big Lies.That is a lie. who is telling the truth.
–Stephen Harper’s political honesty and way of doing business
—“us against themâ€
—Harper dictates
—“The Big Lieâ€
lie—this little word keeps poping up in discussions of harper.
———————————–
–how do you spell liar?
H–A–R–P–E–R
I think Justin Trudeau is so much more like his mother, not saying thats bad because she did a lot for bi-polar people but coming out with mental illness.
Dion doesn’t fit the leadership hat, as excited as you are that his secretary calls you once a week. Do you think she passes on her thoughts.
See Garth you just needed a little attention and now you have a secretary that is instructed to give it to you.
Jack Layton is going to kick Dion’s but.
So Garth, based on your statement “It actually took 14 months, and Mr. Harper made it easy. — Garth”, can we presume that in a few years, when Mr. Harper steps down, you will abandon the Liberals and return to the Conservatives?
I read the letters in the Ottawa Sun this morning, one of which repeated the rumour that Mr. Dion forced his caucus to vote against extending the terrorism legislation, a step towards–according to the writer–endangering the lives of “all Canadians.” The Sun’s comment was, “He’ll pay at the polls.”
The sad thing is that if there’s a terrorist attack in Canada, a lot of people will point to the recent Supreme Court ruling and say that the attack could have been avoided if the Supreme Court of Canada in February 2007 wasn’t stocked with activist judges.
If it’s in the Sun, it must be true. — Garth
Homer, The SCC did not strike down the SC law, they had to problems with two sections of it and gave the govt a year to fix them and if they don’t they will then strike down the whole law. If you read the decision or the whole article rather then the headlines or what the pundits are saying in the first thirty second blurb on the evening news, which are rather misleading, compared to what is actually stated then you will more then likely agree that it is a fair compromise. From my un-legal trained mind it doesn’t look like that hard of a fix, perhaps Garth can correct me on that.
Garth is the Cindy Sheehan of Canada.
It is hard to believe you ever considered yourself to be conservative – in fact you were once considered to be the most conservative of the conservatives (more conservative than Harper). But now everything out of your mouth could easily have come from Layton’s. How do you sleep at night?
SLG,
“What’s happened to Mike Duffy?â€
He wants to be one of the First Elected Senators! After his recent heart surgery he was on ATV stating there was nothing wrong with our health care and people who need help get it quick. I wish Mike well but this was definate Stevie boy plug. I waited months and it was far to close and many have never made it Mike!
Garth is the Cindy Sheehan of Canada.
It is hard to believe you ever considered yourself to be conservative – in fact you were once considered to be the most conservative of the conservatives (more conservative than Harper). But now everything out of your mouth could easily have come from Layton’s. How do you sleep at night?
By ferrethouse on 02.25.07 11:09 am
Posts like your reek big time.
I have news for you ferret, the Prime Minister of Canada was and still is a Alliance/Reform politician, hidding under the Conservative banner. The true Conservatives were nothing like what PPSH wants us to believe. Check out his histroy and his policies with his old party and I’ll bet the similarites will speak for themselves. Actually, he’s running his government in the exact copy of the Reform/Alliance party.
How can Garth sleep at night? I’m sure a lot better since he was booted out. I say BRAVO Garth, maybe we’ll see some of his old party members following in his footsteps when they’ve been smothered and whipped enough.
There has NEVER been a government in Canada or in any other country for that matter who totally governed the way Canadians expect them to and there never will be. Most of us go to the polls choosing the one who we believe will do the most good for ALL CANADIANS based on what they have done while they were in power. So far, watching a man rule like a dictator leaves a pretty scary feeling and more reason why we should be voting him out regarless of what promises he makes. We all know how trusting those are.
Attacking Mr. Dion is simply chidish. How can anyone insult a man whom we know little of? Do we know him as the present government want us to believe?
I personally believe that the Harper Government is scared shitless of him and using smear to make us believe he is gutless. Well, there are a lot more of us who are willing to wait until an election is called and Mr. Dion runs his campaign before we judge Mr. Dion.
Ferrethouse; Thank goodness for Cindy Sheehan. She helped the Democrats get majorities in the House and the Senate. Way to go!!
KH: the governments predicament is that the SCOC ruled that as it is written the law contravenes the Charter. They said accused have to have access through some means to have the charges and evidence perused and weighed by counsel.
Homer C.: So!!! Harper’s alternative is to stack the courts with activitist judges–only they’ll be activist Conservative judges.
He’s a real Con artist.
I said: In other words: When it comes to Security Certifcates and the sunsetting ATA provisions, both are fruit, but one’s an apple the other’s an orange and the SOC only ruled on the apple!
It would be a different matter if the orange was ever squeezed into action. — Garth
Going back to my original point of asking you to be careful not to bend the truth, the SOC ruled on Security Cerificates not the two ATA provisions, and were specific in that their judgement applied when a person was to be held “for a significant period of time.” Security certifcates, a person could be held indefinitely, ATA I believe only 72 hours.
As I say apples and oranges, and no one, including yourself, should use the SOC ruling against the two sunetting provisions. The SOC ruling does not apply. Thats the sort of twisting truth I would expect from PMSH et al.
Now if the orange were squeezed, then the SOC would have to rule on them at that time.
I am against renewing the two clauses, but the SOC judgement on security certificates is not a reason.
Dube,
Just a little clarification:
“And he I was, thinking the Borge were wired into their pianos…
Regards: Locutus”
‘Borge’ was a comic pianist named Victor. A very funny man actually!
Borg was part of the Borg-Warner Company, also the trophy sponsor for the Indianapolis 500, and the name of the alien cyborgs, hence ‘Borg’ created in Gene Roddenberry’s ‘Star Trek’
Hopefully, we will not have the same problems when ‘Borat’ comes out on DVD March 6th? LOL
KH,
“If you read the decision or the whole article rather then the headlines or what the pundits are saying in the first thirty second blurb on the evening news, which are rather misleading, compared to what is actually stated then you will more then likely agree that it is a fair compromise.”
I am definitely starting to like your contributions. That is actually and precisely what the SCoC ruled. How refreshing. Welcome to the fray BTW!
Jackie Chan’s Left Hand,
“Yea, landslide Tony Clement won his riding by a whopping 26,votes . Not this time.”
Not correct Jackie…After a judicial recount Clement won by a mere 28 votes. That is official! Elections Canada
Regardless, your point is correct…Certainly no landslide…not even a minor rumble, except the results. Closest in all Canada!
Dube,
BTW, thanks for the memories. I saw Victor perform live and he is even funnier in person than on TV.
Garth,
I am not in the government.
I find this tremendously confusing and outright wrong. The ‘government, as I define it, is comprised of the HoC, the Senate, and the PMO, and the bureaucrats employed therein, is it not?
PMSH, is PM solely because the CPC has a MINORITY advantage in HoC seats. They do not have a MAJORITY, and therefore, cannot enact laws without the consent of the opposition parties.
They certainly do NOT have unlimited authority, nor are they the entire ‘government’ I count you and all other ELECTED MP’s as members of the government, and with equal responsibilities to conduct our nation’s business.
Seriously Garth, have I disclosed a psychological problem that is possibly at the root of how things are viewed in Parliament? Maybe this is where all the blaming stems from in the minds of the current Harper government?
Judy, That is actually the point I am trying to make concerning the SCC ruling, they did not strike the SC down, the delayed striking it down to allow the govt if it so wishes to changes a few proposals which on their face do look like the suggested improvements are warranted. There is no reason a special council couldn’t be present to hear the evidence on behalf of the person being held and also no reason why a hearing couldn’t be held within 48 hours depending on the availability of witness etc but 120 days does seem an often long time to book a flight if one is needed. As to the rest of the law, they did not seem to have a huge problem with it and as a matter of fact totally ignored an argument by a Queens Law Professor that would of forced these cases to be dealt with Criminal Code standards vice Immigration standards.
Bill M, you quoted and said…
Garth,
I am not in the government.
I find this tremendously confusing and outright wrong. The ‘government, as I define it, is comprised of the HoC, the Senate, and the PMO, and the bureaucrats employed therein, is it not?
And I was thinking exactly the same thing. But not just the Harper side of the aisle, but across the country. The blaming goes on everywhere.
Tho it is interesting that I cannot find anyone out here on the west coast who will admit to voting conservative or for Harper (or that that they ever will), for all that the polls put out by CanWest have them and him oh so far ahead.
Garth, you are in Government. Each one of you in the HoC are in the minds of every ordinary canadian. Even Don Bell is. And you might mention it to him for me. I’d love it if he’d start a blog. Hell, I’d even work on it!
Thanks very much. Your an example to the lot of them !
KH–thanks for the clarification. Actually, I supported the judges’ decision, too, and like you, I found it was pretty satisfactory on all sides. However, I viewed the online comments on yesterday’s Globe and Mail story on the SCC’s decision, and found that a lot of talkbackers were aggressively against the decision. A few wrote that Canada will now become either a haven for terrorists, or a target. One wrote, “Terrorists 1, Canada 0.” That’s what I meant by my comment: that in the event of a terrorist attack (which we pray never happens, but perhaps or probably that’s wishful thinking), a certain element will blame the Supreme Court decision for it, and not ideological, political or religious fanaticism.
Garth–I read the Sun on Sundays for its sports and entertainment (both of which can often be found in its political coverage). Today, Lorrie Goldstein wrote an article about “Kyoto crackheads,” and Pat MacAdam wrote one about global warming “Chicken Littles” such as David Suzuki. It’s interesting how the word “alarmist” refers to left-wingers that believe in the imminent threat of global warming, and to right-wingers who believe in the imminent threat of terrorist strikes.
Just listened to head apologist for the neo-Nazis Allan Gregg beaking off about how the neos are assured of a victory in the next election .
This is the same idiot who said on election night that the Harpoites would win 157,seats based on his polling numbers.
Sheesh! could he have been more wrong ?
Same goof who worked on the attack ads that made sport of Jean Chretiens facial tick.
Yea, he’s a real winner and someone the nazis should definitely listen to .
Homer C,
“I read the Sun”
Aye, Lad, you are far braver than I!
I use the Sun for a place to place my overruns, drips, and nasties, when eating at Wendy’s, not having a birdcage to make use of it!
Jackie Chan’s Left Hand,
I trust you meant the neo-Nazis? AKA, RNC or CPC! LOL
Jackie chan, using the nazi reference is about as low as one can stoop.If you want anyone on here to take you serious, think before posting such heinous name-calling.
Im sure Garth will agree on this.
As all comments are pre-screened,pre-edited for comment I’d say you are dead wrong .
If the shoe fits…….
paulsstuff,
Lower than Harper’s attempt to read the Vancouver Sun article into the Hansard Record?
Have you considered the ‘New Government of Canada’ has refined and enhanced the propaganda techniques employed by the aforementioned fascists? Maybe it should be the ‘New and Improved Government of Canada’, eh?
Hey, if it can work for detergents and soaps…it should be no problemo for those bending over to ‘receive’ the latest installment of Harper’s version of truth!
Jackie, I have to agree, Please refrain from rhetoric and help the debate out with factual, civilized and comments that advance the debate . I am sure that most bloggers in here will agree with me that all your doing is forcing people to ignore your comments and to not take serious your point of view.
More propaganda from ‘Dear Leader’ and Big Blue .
Look at who is spinning these tales .
No surprise.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182857
“Lower than Harper’s attempt to read the Vancouver Sun article into the Hansard Record?”
Absolutely. I think Harper was a moron to bring it up, But under no circumstance do i think referencing anyone as a Nazi is acceptable.
I’m sure most agree.
paulsstuff,
Unfortunately, there are few historical comparisons to Harper’s venue..That certainly is at the top of the list of many who read the reality!
It does, likewise, show a complete lack of origninality on Harper’s part!
“Increased police powers which override human rights. In war, maybe. In peace, never.”
You are forgetting one thing, Garth. We are at war. We have troops on foreign soil trying to fight the kind of thing that this bill that the liberals seem so keen on ending was put in place to protect us against… you can argue all you want about the war being just or unjust, but the fact is, the Liberal party put us into the war, and now seem to be against the kind of laws that it put into place itself… When a group of people were plotting to kill our elected leader and bomb our citizens, how can you say we are not at war? It’s just ludicrous.
Hi Garth The air indie did that happen wen the conser were in power?And thy did do nothing ? And there goos other 200 mil to a war why dont thye syart at home were people are need the help Special hospitals the homeless low income housing The cons are full off hot air to send mony there and cut so many programsIm all for it to help those people but it going to be like iraq wath a waist.
Actually, from the news reports, Dion is calling a whipped vote. I haven’t read the over 100 comments on here so it might have been mentioned already. I just think that the whole truth should come out not just partial truths.
Maybe you should bother reading what other people wrote, instead of thinking they care what you write. — Garth
Again I submit that on the news, Dion is whipping the party on the vote of the sunset clause. I am stating this fact just because I want the whole truth out, not the half-truths.
Garth, I know you don’t like the facts, and you try to use insults when speaking to me. You only make yourself look bad. But, that’s your perrogative on how you speak to others who don’t believe what you write and say. I’ve noticed though that you never confront the message, just the messanger. Again, that speaks volumes. Interesting though that you’re attacking me just after calling MP Jay Hill, evil. You’ll never see me using that type of rhetoric.
And there goos other 200 mil to a war Ann D said “And there goos other 200 mil to a war.why dont thye syart at home were people are need the help Special hospitals the homeless low income housing The cons are full off hot air to send mony there…”
Actually Canada went into Afganistan on October 7,2001. The Liberal government had a strong majority in both the senate and house of commons. They sent us to war, not the conservatives. If you must place blame, place it where it is due.
“The new Conservatives who post here frame all issues in the “us against them†framework. If you are not with them on every issue you are “with the Liberals.â€
The Liberals are famous for this mentality… That news story where Goodale rants and raves about how conservatives are trying to erase from the history books all good things the liberals ever did… and then when i found out that the Liberals did the same setup multiple times…it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so damn pathetic.. And then I watch as the CBC plays this clip ad nauseum… At least CTV had the balls to report the whole truth instead of using MY hard earned tax dollars to discredit all opposition. The CBC promotes this us-verses-them attitude every day.
If only there was a way for me to opt out of paying my tax dollars to fund this partisan propaganda machine or relocate my portion of tax payed to fund the CBC to a worthy cause like poverty or environmental concerns…
“If it’s in the Sun, it must be true. — Garth”
If it’s on the CBC it must be leftist.
you richt troy there i was never a lib Im now i dont want a dictator and a conart as prime minster and a menippalater I will never vote for harper He MP have no richt to there opion Just he say This country is just runned by one man He will control his mp and wath thy have to say And the conserv were in controll wen air indie habben thye never did any thing for those people