Opposition To Vote Against Human Smuggling Bill

[Evening Star]

It surprises me that people are so willing to believe the Liberals would never try to hide behind the Constitution or the Charter to avoid taking a stand on an issue that might expose what they really believe. It also surprises me that anyone would believe that any political party would be above making up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill.

I never denied the possibility that the Liberals could be bullshitting. (Other major groups have also raised similar concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, however.) However, you and Argus both stated that you find it hard to believe that the Conservative government might cynically put forth unconstitutional legislation while also seeming fairly confident that the Liberals are cynically bullshitting.

[Wilber]

I never denied the possibility that the Liberals could be bullshitting. (Other major groups have also raised similar concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, however.) However, you and Argus both stated that you find it hard to believe that the Conservative government might cynically put forth unconstitutional legislation while also seeming fairly confident that the Liberals are cynically bullshitting.

The difference being if the legislation is found in violation of the Charter, the Conservatives will wear it. By simply opposing it without providing alternatives the Liberals risk nothing. The courts will eventually have the last say on whatever legislation is passed because you can bet your butt there are dozens of immigration lawyers waiting to test any changes in the present legislation. I would just like to know what measures the Liberals would take to deal with this issue.

[nicky10013]

What I scoff at is your partisan hyperbole that serves nothing, but your own petty interests.

From a guy who says he's non-partisan but picks up all the PMO talking points, I find this statement to be a little more than hypocritical and every bit hilarious.

Who gives a crap what the "right wing in all their dogma can't" admit they are as bad as the Liberals? You admit your stink, but do nothing to clean yourself up. Good for you.

I said sometimes the tactics are the same. Politics is politics. That doesn't mean what the parites believe in aren't completely different. You call me daft later in your post. The fact that you can't grasp this simple concept suggests the exact opposite.

Yeah, he predicted he would win. He seems to have a better grasp on it that Ingatieff. No wonder

How can you excoriate Ignatieff for predicting he'll win and not Harper? Especially since Ignatieff hasn't had his kick at the can yet? Especially considering that Harper got the chance to fight 2 elections; a chance that Ignatieff won't get?

AGAIN: Why the double standard?

So you don't understand how government works?

Yep. I do indeed. Please, tell me. If you're so learned, why don't you regale me with how YOU believe government works. Then we'll compare notes. Considering you can't tell the difference between political ideology and political tactics, something tells me we'll all have a laugh over this. Well, mostly everyone. Not you.

Funny, I was thinking your were incapable of simple thought.

That's a problem how?

They are the government, they were elected to form the government. The LPC don't even have the balls to form a coalition, nevermind their whining about "procedure."

So what would you say if they DID form a coalition? That they're seperatist traitors organizing a coup? It happened the last time there was an attempt at a coalition.

This is yet another example of CPC supporters moving the goalposts to attack the Liberals whenever they see fit.

You talk about balls alot, why not just come out and say you're an ardent supporter of Harper and the CPC? In my opinion, taking a swing without acknowledging what side you're playing for lacks the same balls you want others to have.

What, are you afraid?

Are you kidding me?? Have you been following along or are you just spinning away in your little idealogue tornado? Think for a minute, you admit the LCP is just as bad as the CPC. No kidding. Don't you think practically every other rational Canadian can see that as well? Why bother with change when it isn't offered? And the CPC government is working out OK, why not keep them in since the alternative is just as bad as they themselves admit?

I'm not spinning. Like I said, some of the tactics are the same because it's politics. Ideologies aren't the same. Furthermore, calling me ideological is hilarious. I'll support anything that has been proving to work. The party is far more about pragmatism than ideology and that's something people such as yourself just can't get their head around. If you don't have a position you're willing to die for, that automatically makes it weak. No, the "come hell or highwater" attitude displayed by the CPC is weakening our country. We need a party in there who is willing to compromise for the greater good of the country. The CPC isn't it. The NDP isn't it.

Taking a stand and leading what exactly? The race for number two? Again?

I asked you a question. You accuse me of spinning but what exactly is this? I'll ask again:

So, what is taking a stand and leading and what is being an apologist? I'd like to hear it out of the horse's mouth. You say there's a very thin line between that and dogmatism. I say, those definitions can be changed for political expediency.

Because that's politics toots. And if you are incapabe of raising the bar - and be seen doing it - then there is no leadership and there never was.

Are you serious? You're obviously quite the supporter of Stephen Harper who on many occaisions, twice where he's had to suspend parliament, has lowered the bar. According to this, why is he a leader? Can you answer that for me?

No, you admit the politic tactics are the same - the same lying, the same bullshit, the same disingenuous spin, the same manipulative crap - that lost the last two elections for the LPC - and you are expecting some sort of sympathy? Puh-lease.

No, no sympathy. Just wondering why the double standard. The CPC has done the exact same thing yet you hold them to be above all that. You call their lying, and bullshit leadership. I want to know why.

Liberals To Kill Tories' Controversial Human Smuggling Bill

I thought taking a stand was leadership?

So do nothing. Hope for an election. In the meantime Canada has no response to human smuggling. Excellent "leadership."

Let me refresh your memory from yesterday:

Now take a look at the quotes from the news story above. Even YOU think it makes sense to revise and work on the Bill and I think that is a sensible course of action. But the so-called "leadership" of the LPC has something else in mind and it certainly doesn't appear to have anything to do with a Canadian response to human smuggling. Well, that's politics for ya!

Sometimes political matters trump other matters. Sometimes the party has to use certain issues to win political support. So what would you have them do? Work with the CPC and avoid a victory? Oh, of course you would because this is all this was ever about. It doesn't matter what the reality of the political situation is here, this is about how bad the Liberals are and how good the CPC is. You call into question the Liberal leadership on their action on this, but where is the leadership in terms of Harper? Do you actually think he really wants to combat human smuggling in terms of helping people? No, he wants to appease the people who hate immigration and obsessed with "line jumping." That's a political calculation. Why aren't you heaping a pile of shit on him? Oh, that's right. As if you'll ever answer this question anyhow.

Considering he accused the Liberals of being just as guilty, which I personally think is crap, yeah I would say it's non-partisan.

But you are partisan and an apologist, so you would see it as crap. Even though you admit that working on this Bill is a good idea. Obviously you didn't get the message right away.

I'm a partisan and I'm not apologizing for it. Nor will I apologize for what I think they do is wrong. You on the otherhand, well, this is another case of the pot calling the kettle black. You obviously feel you're above all this when you're worse than I am because while at least I'm willing to call out my party on what I think they're doing wrong, you're obviously not capable of doing the same thing.

So either have some balls and come out and say it, or you can continue the hypocrisy. Either way is fine with me.

I am not "disputing the facts" I am saying they are irrelevant. As in, who cares?

So, they're relevant when it comes to Ignatieff but irrelevant when it comes to Harper. Gotcha. Yet another double standard. Why? What makes Harper so much more of a leader than Ignatieff? By all your standards you've set here, Harper is easily worse. So, why?

If you are describing the current state of the LPC leadership then I approve this message.

Nope, just laughing at the mental loops you have to go through to assure yourself of why you support Harper without actually saying it.

Have some balls and just say it. Calling other people a coward while not even admitting what you actually believe in from behind a computer screen? Hilarious.

[Keepitsimple]

It's amazing how people take a simple argument and tie it all up in complications invoking the Charter of Rights. Using the smuggled Sri Lankans as an example - people who allegedly paid thousands of dollars for the "right" to be smuggled into Canada. Why didn't these people simply buy an airline ticket or passage on a boat and arrive to claim individual refugee status? A lot cheaper. The proposed legislation is pretty clear - make it crystal clear to everyone thinking of trying to pull a fast one through "mass arrival" (AKA Smuggling) that there is a big disincentive waiting for them if they decide to try and take us for suckers. There's a process - follow it! The Sun Editorial covered it nicely:

Full steam ahead on anti-smuggling

StoryCommentsEmail StoryPrintSize A A AReport Typo.The minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper remains bound and determined to table its proposed human-smuggling legislation, just as the opposition parties remain determined to scuttle it like a rust-bucket ocean freighter.

Minus its illegal human cargo, of course.

While we were huge proponents of firing a shot across the bow of the MV Sun Sea last August, and forcing its 492 Tamil queue-jumping fraudsters back to Sri Lanka, nowhere did we suggest a second shot to midships would ever go beyond a warning.

But this did not stop the critics from believing otherwise, or for them to now scorn Harper's proposed legislation to combat human trafficking by creating what we applaud as a punitive two-tier refugee system.

Why? Because the punishment proposed for human smuggling fits both the crime and the delineation.

If refuge-seekers are prepared to pay profiteers upfront, and be packed away like sardines on a ship in order to breach our shores in potentially endless numbers, then they'd best be prepared to sit in mandatory detention for a year and forsake any right to then apply for permanent residency.

Without such tough measures, there will be flotillas on the horizon with virtually each and every sunrise.

With such tough measures, however, word will spread quickly that the cost and the certainty of a negative outcome are not worth the misery.

Other editorialists have taken their own shot at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, stating his "get-tough rhetoric" is "meaningless" without a willingness to work with the Harper government to thwart the continuing threat of mass arrivals on ships operated by criminal gangs.

This, unfortunately, is asking too much of a man who knows so little about how frustrated and angry Canadians truly are about the mollycoddling offered to these illegal insurgents - and we include the queue-jumpers who came ashore without provable links to Tamil Tiger terrorists.

Ignatieff would rather play politics, even though Immigration Minister Jason Kenney long ago stated he was prepared to work with the opposition to tweak Bill C-49 - just not to the point that it takes out the sting.

And a punitive two-tier approach is that sting. Otherwise, it's ships ahoy.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/12/03/16421546.html

Edited December 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

Partisan bickering, as usual from this forum. I've never voted for the right wingers, Cons or Libs... but I have no issues with this legislation.

Several pages of posts ago, I asked those folks who were against this legislation a couple basic questions that no one has answered. Pretty fundemental questions to the whole issue...

Here I go again:

Can we agree that 11% of people skipping their hearings and 38,000 people unaccounted for is a real problem? If you disagree, let's hear why it isn't a problem...

If we don't detain people until their status is determined, how do we ensure that they don't just dissapear?

[Argus]

Well spoken, Smallc. It surprises me that people are so willing to believe that the Conservatives would never try to bend the Constitution or Charter to get what they want but also ready to believe that the Liberals would make up some bullshit about the Charter in order to block a bill.

The Liberals have been blocking reform to immigration and refugee handling for decades, and everyone knows it, and knows why. This latest mouth noise about "oh we think it might be unconstitutional" is just another in a long, long line of excuses.

[Argus]

You seem to be implying that the Liberals are in favour of human smuggling, which is about as preposterous as your other idea relating to Parliament's ability to pass unconstitutional legislation.

The Liberals are not in favour of human smuggling, but they don't really care about it much, and more importantly, their immigration and refugee policies have been completely comporimsed for a long, long time by their close ties with the immigration industry - an industry they largely created.

[Argus]

No one is hiding behind anything. The Liberals don't think that the bill is constitutional.

Funny how neither the NDP nor the BQ challenged its constitutionality, eh? They opposed ti because their lefty ideology has more sympathy with brown people claiming persecution than with Canadians. The Liberals, however, know that such sympathy is not playing well with the public so they made up another reason to oppose the bill.

[Argus]

The fact that the Liberals are setting themselves up as supporters of the Charter is far more important than a single issue.

Only the naive believe the Liberals care about the Charter or anything else other than their own immediate electoral hopes. If they thought there were votes in it they'd vote to machinegun boat people the moment they stepped ashore.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

I never denied the possibility that the Liberals could be bullshitting. (Other major groups have also raised similar concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed bill, however.) However, you and Argus both stated that you find it hard to believe that the Conservative government might cynically put forth unconstitutional legislation while also seeming fairly confident that the Liberals are cynically bullshitting.

Well, let me put it this way. I have not seen the Conservatives do that before, but I have seen the Liberals lie about their stands on various issues, and the reasons for those stands, nearly continuously for about thirty years.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Argus

[Evening Star]

Examples have already been given in this thread of the Conservatives trying to bend the Constitution or Parliamentary procedures/conventions.

Btw, repatriating the Constitution and creating the Charter in itself was a political risk for the Liberals (that was arguably partly responsible for their subsequent electoral defeat). I'm not sure either that their implementation of official multiculturalism and liberalization of immigration were driven by polls/popularity in the first place. I do believe that their commitment to these things goes a little further than sheer expediency, at least for some Liberals. Mind you, I generally hold the present-day federal Liberal Party in a fair bit of contempt as well.

[Evening Star]

Opposition parties have proposed alternative solutions btw: http://www.canada.com/news/pushes+punish+human+smugglers+only/3773218/story.html

This Star editorial gives a critical view of the bill: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/900840--playing-politics-with-refugees

[Saipan]

So what would you say if they DID form a coalition?

I'd pop my corn and watch. I hope and pray that they do. And get punished again.

[Smallc]

Mind you, I generally hold the present-day federal Liberal Party in a fair bit of contempt as well.

So do I, but that doesn't really change the way that I see thin particular issue.

[Shwa]

From a guy who says he's non-partisan but picks up all the PMO talking points, I find this statement to be a little more than hypocritical and every bit hilarious.

Small minds find small things amusing. Knock yourself out.

I said sometimes the tactics are the same. Politics is politics. That doesn't mean what the parites believe in aren't completely different. You call me daft later in your post. The fact that you can't grasp this simple concept suggests the exact opposite.

Right you already admitted seeking out the lowest common demoninator is some sort of victory for the LPC. Doesn't matter what a party's platform is, if their tactics are the same old, same old - well check the latest polls. Canadians have had enough. You don't get it, Igantieff doesn't get it and until the brighter lights in the party are in charge, the LPC's victory cheer is going to be "We're #2! We're #2." They're #2 all right.

How can you excoriate Ignatieff for predicting he'll win and not Harper? Especially since Ignatieff hasn't had his kick at the can yet? Especially considering that Harper got the chance to fight 2 elections; a chance that Ignatieff won't get?

AGAIN: Why the double standard?

"Politics is politics" is what you are saying, so why the complaint? Check the polls.

Yep. I do indeed. Please, tell me. If you're so learned, why don't you regale me with how YOU believe government works. Then we'll compare notes. Considering you can't tell the difference between political ideology and political tactics, something tells me we'll all have a laugh over this. Well, mostly everyone. Not you.

Sorry, do you own research. May I suggest the poli-sci program at the University of Calgary?

That's a problem how?

Exactly.

So what would you say if they DID form a coalition? That they're seperatist traitors organizing a coup? It happened the last time there was an attempt at a coalition.

They're 'separatist traitors' only because they lack the brains and vision to sell it first to their own party, then to Canadians as a viable option. The Liberal wagging and then tail-turning on the "attempt at a coalition" was embarassing. If they had a strong leadership cadre they would be in government right now. Instead all we got is some political fashion mavens too worried about optics.

This is yet another example of CPC supporters moving the goalposts to attack the Liberals whenever they see fit.

You talk about balls alot, why not just come out and say you're an ardent supporter of Harper and the CPC? In my opinion, taking a swing without acknowledging what side you're playing for lacks the same balls you want others to have.

What, are you afraid?

I'm a Liberal who has been voting Liberal for the past 25 years. What, are you afraid to hear that? Do you think that some LPC apologist garbage suddenly makes me a CPC supporter because I dare criticise the party? That is how out of touch you are really are. Even you admit that this legislation is supportable, but the LPC has certainly whipped you into shape pretty good.

I'm not spinning. Like I said, some of the tactics are the same because it's politics. Ideologies aren't the same. Furthermore, calling me ideological is hilarious. I'll support anything that has been proving to work. The party is far more about pragmatism than ideology and that's something people such as yourself just can't get their head around. If you don't have a position you're willing to die for, that automatically makes it weak. No, the "come hell or highwater" attitude displayed by the CPC is weakening our country. We need a party in there who is willing to compromise for the greater good of the country. The CPC isn't it. The NDP isn't it.

And neither are the LPC at this time. Thus, better the devil you know, than the devil you don't and Harper likes hockey.

I asked you a question. You accuse me of spinning but what exactly is this? I'll ask again:

So, what is taking a stand and leading and what is being an apologist? I'd like to hear it out of the horse's mouth. You say there's a very thin line between that and dogmatism. I say, those definitions can be changed for political expediency.

An apologist gets some satisfaction of being 'no worse' than the other party because "politics is politics." And why would someone get satisfaction of this degree? Because they follow the party line to a tee and are willing to sacrifice their integrity for power. That is this version of the LCP right there. There is nothing wrong with questioning the leadership of the party, the local candidate or executive of the riding association. THAT is democracy. Being a shill is not.

Are you serious? You're obviously quite the supporter of Stephen Harper who on many occaisions, twice where he's had to suspend parliament, has lowered the bar. According to this, why is he a leader? Can you answer that for me?

Once again, since I dare criticise the losers I am automatically a "supporter of Stephen Harper." Silence! The grand poobah demands silence! Piss off.

No, no sympathy. Just wondering why the double standard. The CPC has done the exact same thing yet you hold them to be above all that. You call their lying, and bullshit leadership. I want to know why.

Here is an interesting clip from an editorial from the Star as posted by Evening Star:

It is inconceivable that the government was not advised that key elements of Bill C-49 were unlawful. It is more likely that the government did not care. The government may instead have anticipated two possible outcomes. The first is that the opposition parties would vote down the bill as bad policy and bad law, in which case the Conservative government could get political mileage out of saying that they wanted to get tough on smuggling, but were thwarted by an opposition that was “soft on smuggling.” The second is that the opposition parties would let the bill pass to avoid political fallout, in which case the courts would strike down the law. The Conservative government could then blame the courts for obstructing their “get tough on smugglers” and “queue jumpers” agenda.

Harper loves hockey, so you can bet he plays the dump and chase game. Are you familiar with the tactic?

I thought taking a stand was leadership?

Then you got alot to learn.

Let me refresh your memory from yesterday:

Sometimes political matters trump other matters. Sometimes the party has to use certain issues to win political support. So what would you have them do? Work with the CPC and avoid a victory? Oh, of course you would because this is all this was ever about. It doesn't matter what the reality of the political situation is here, this is about how bad the Liberals are and how good the CPC is. You call into question the Liberal leadership on their action on this, but where is the leadership in terms of Harper? Do you actually think he really wants to combat human smuggling in terms of helping people? No, he wants to appease the people who hate immigration and obsessed with "line jumping." That's a political calculation. Why aren't you heaping a pile of shit on him? Oh, that's right. As if you'll ever answer this question anyhow.

Considering he accused the Liberals of being just as guilty, which I personally think is crap, yeah I would say it's non-partisan.

So instead of calling the CPC bluff, instead of taking that appeasing horseshit and turning the tables, all we get is "politics is politics." Oh well. Same old thinking, same old box. For chrissakes, the Star figured it out, you think some brain in the LCP would see opportunity, but nope, they try and spin principles, do-nothing and hope for an election. Meanwhile the CPC is harvesting voters on this issue. Do you really think they really want to combat human smuggling in terms of helping people?? Gawd...

I'm a partisan and I'm not apologizing for it. Nor will I apologize for what I think they do is wrong. You on the otherhand, well, this is another case of the pot calling the kettle black. You obviously feel you're above all this when you're worse than I am because while at least I'm willing to call out my party on what I think they're doing wrong, you're obviously not capable of doing the same thing.

So either have some balls and come out and say it, or you can continue the hypocrisy. Either way is fine with me.

Already covered that above. So long as you find succor in second place, you'll be just fine.

So, they're relevant when it comes to Ignatieff but irrelevant when it comes to Harper. Gotcha. Yet another double standard. Why? What makes Harper so much more of a leader than Ignatieff? By all your standards you've set here, Harper is easily worse. So, why?

He is the Prime Minister. The CPC is the ruling party. Again.

Nope, just laughing at the mental loops you have to go through to assure yourself of why you support Harper without actually saying it.

Have some balls and just say it. Calling other people a coward while not even admitting what you actually believe in from behind a computer screen? Hilarious.

I think I have made it perfectly clear what I believe in. What I don't believe in is simply sucking back the garbage and somehow thinking it is noble because "politics is politics" after all and us Liberals have to stick together at all costs. Not with Ignatieff.

Bring back the Rhinos so people have a real alternative to vote for.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Shwa

[Saipan]

Excellent post.