Harper Links Liberal to Air India

[jefferiah]

Just for the record, Harper linked a Liberal MP to a character who is involved in the investigation. He never said Bains had anything to do with Air India. In fact, I dont think any of us know what Harper was going to say since he never got to read his article because the Liberals stamped their feet immediately and started bawling. But at most he was implying that Bains personal interest in the matter could jeopardize the decision over the anti-terrorist affair. That is not slander. He was not accusing anyone of a crime.

Right. He was simply reading a newspaper because QP is just so boring there is nothing else to do. The article just happened to link Mr. Bains' father-in-law to the Air India investigation. Harper had absolutely no intention to imply that Mr. Bains is related to terrorists and that Liberals do not favour extending the clauses in order to protect his father-in-law and because they like terrorists (and pedophiles if I may add).

Well I am a Conservative and I didnt interpret it that way, Saturn. Aren't you going a bit overboard there? He wasn't calling Bains a terrorist, but saying that he may have had a special interest in the matter. If I am called for jury duty and it turns out I know (and I am good friends the defendant) the prosecutor might reject me as a jury member. Now I wouldnt say that his belief that I may have a special interest means the prosecutor is saying that I am a criminal. I know this is quite different from the actual situation, but what I am pointing out is that you are saying Harper is calling the man a terrorist when I dont think anybody but the Liberals who made a huge stink over it took it that way at all.

[jefferiah]

And this is what I mean by the Liberals taking every little thing and turning it into something its not. I think most Canadians are smart enough to see through it as well. The Liberals of course want Harper to mean that "Bains is a terrorist" so they can have something to complain about. Notice how they take every opportunity to blow up a little thing and demand an apology for it. Stronach the Dog. The elaborate conspiracy to hide Lester B Pearson. Seriously, the Liberals are horrible actors but nonetheless they play the game.

[na85]

That's correct. People join the NDP because their political leanings go that way, and the Tories for the same reason. Nobody joins the NDP or Tories because they are satisfied with how things are going and want it to continue. If you join the Liberal Party you're basically saying "This is how Canada should be run. I support this." So why join then? Not to improve things. No, you join the Liberals because you know they're the natural governing power and you want to get yourself a piece of the pie. You want power, money and prestige. It's a whole other mindset from those who join the NDP or Tories or Greens for that matter.

Your ability to make broad, sweeping generalizations is fantastic. Your knowledge of the intimate desires and motivations of every Liberal candidate in Canada is quite impressive. Please, share more of your wisdom with us.

[na85]

Also, and this is a general response;

Out of curiosity, am I the only left-winger in this thread who DOESN'T think PM Harper was trying to link the Libs to terrorism? I think at most he was trying to paint a picture of nepotism and bias as the Liberal decision-making criteria.

[scribblet]

And this is what I mean by the Liberals taking every little thing and turning it into something its not. I think most Canadians are smart enough to see through it as well. The Liberals of course want Harper to mean that "Bains is a terrorist" so they can have something to complain about. Notice how they take every opportunity to blow up a little thing and demand an apology for it. Stronach the Dog. The elaborate conspiracy to hide Lester B Pearson. Seriously, the Liberals are horrible actors but nonetheless they play the game.

I agree, IMHO most Canadians are not as partisan or politically minded as those on discussion boards, and the extreme radical interpretations of what was said are not main stream.

I also agree that the Liberals behaviour in parliament seems to be getting more disruptive and dishonorable.

[margrace]

Oh how quickly we forget, the Conservatives did everything to disrupt parliment when Martin was trying to achieve things. The problem on here and elsewhere is selective reading and hearing.

[Argus]

Isn't there supposed to be some political neutrality in these institutions? The politicization of police, army and the courts fits the Harper agenda in a way, since that agenda's so focused on crime and terror.

It's a very beneficial relationship - Harper gets his own private militia in the police and the military and they get their own private PM and benefactor. They lie and leak in his favour and he gives them more powers and funding.

You people display such nauseating hypocrisy it's impossible to take you seriously. I find myself without the patience to do more than point out your ignorance on a constant basis, as few of your are in any way worthy of respect and real debate.

The Liberals basically made the job of COD of the military and commissioner of the RCMP into puppets years ago. Past CODs salivated at the ringing of a bell and had knee pads in place whenever a Liberal cabinet minister dropped by, and the commissioner of the RCMP had no problems letting his officers be used like third world secret police to attack critics of the Liberal government. The PMO even used the RCMP to harrass and intimidate Francois Beaudoin, to raid his office, home and cabin, and threaten him with prison if he continued to talk about how Jean Chretien stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Business Development Bank. The Liberals stacked the benches with literally HUNDREDS of party aparatchiks, with greasy lawyers willing to bribe the party with free services, and with various incompetents who simply had the right political views.

And you all applauded like trained seals, none of you seeing a problem with any of that. You're now frantically hopeful for a return to those days, and yet you have the gall to snivel about Harper doing on a very, very minor scale, the kinds of things you applaud when your Liberals do the same.

[Canuck E Stan]

Oh how quickly we forget, the Conservatives did everything to disrupt parliment when Martin was trying to achieve things. The problem on here and elsewhere is selective reading and hearing.

Yes Martin was, really hard,almost all of it the week before the election.

[jdobbin]

Out of curiosity, am I the only left-winger in this thread who DOESN'T think PM Harper was trying to link the Libs to terrorism? I think at most he was trying to paint a picture of nepotism and bias as the Liberal decision-making criteria.

What exactly was the bias and the nepotism in the article that Harper was about to read?

[southerncomfort]

Isn't there supposed to be some political neutrality in these institutions? The politicization of police, army and the courts fits the Harper agenda in a way, since that agenda's so focused on crime and terror.

It's a very beneficial relationship - Harper gets his own private militia in the police and the military and they get their own private PM and benefactor. They lie and leak in his favour and he gives them more powers and funding.

You people display such nauseating hypocrisy it's impossible to take you seriously. I find myself without the patience to do more than point out your ignorance on a constant basis, as few of your are in any way worthy of respect and real debate.

=======.

And you all applauded like trained seals, none of you seeing a problem with any of that. You're now frantically hopeful for a return to those days, and yet you have the gall to snivel about Harper doing on a very, very minor scale, the kinds of things you applaud when your Liberals do the same.

Wow I'm impressed, excellent points.

[Catchme]

Isn't there supposed to be some political neutrality in these institutions? The politicization of police, army and the courts fits the Harper agenda in a way, since that agenda's so focused on crime and terror.

It's a very beneficial relationship - Harper gets his own private militia in the police and the military and they get their own private PM and benefactor. They lie and leak in his favour and he gives them more powers and funding. Nevermind that this is clearly against the interests of the Canadian public, who also gets to pay for it all.

Yes, but one wonders really why Harper is focused on crime and terror.

Crime rates have been going down for years.

Canadians are not overly concerned with a terror attack upon, albeit that pot was trying to be stirred with the tar sands pipeline hype. Though Canadians are more concerned now than they were before Canada started the mess in Afghanistan. *angusreid has a poll about this just go to the main site and chose terroriasm from the menu on the left.

This is a serious situation, information was leaked on Weds, that just on Monday the Harper government had said they could not give to the Judge in the Air India Inquiry, for reasons of national security. Someone leaked that to try and smear the Liberals and indeed the rest of the opposition. It was done in such a manner as to deflect away from another question, of an equally serious nature and that is muzzling judges and wanting to control the judiciary.

Yesterday, in contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that security certificates were unconstitutional and could not be done, the CPC they were keeping them in place. So, now we have a government ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

It would appear that they are going to ignore Supreme Court rulings until they have it stacked enough to do what they want.

This is a serious eroding of both due process and human rights. Say nothing of what the leakage against national security just to play politics means.

[geoffrey]

Yesterday, in contrary to the Supreme Court ruling that security certificates were unconstitutional and could not be done, the CPC they were keeping them in place. So, now we have a government ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

It would appear that they are going to ignore Supreme Court rulings until they have it stacked enough to do what they want.

Read Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 before you talk on the issue. That is not at all what the Courts said.

As well, Harper isn't 'stacking' the Supreme Court, no one has ever even suggested that, nor is it possible.

Where do you make up this crap? You should get a job with the CBC your so good at invention your own version of reality.

[hiti]

The Liberal Sikh MP Baines’ father-in-law already was questioned many years ago and will NOT avoid questioning on the Air India matter if the terrorism provisions aren't renewed. Besides those provisions are only five years old and were not intended to be used retroactively so are useless in the Air India bombing, which happened twenty or so years ago.

The real question here is how this matter got sent to the Vancouver Sun? This is a serious breach of RCMP security. So why are the RCMP again being political?

There is no way Baines must abstain from voting against these clauses. He was nine years old when his father-in-law was questioned.

It was commendable how the Liberals prevented Steve from voicing the whole slander against the MP Baines. Steve had no right to read that slander, which was a security leak and it is good that he was forced to shut up. Interestingly at the same time Steve was attempting to read the slanderous VS article during QP, his minions were sending out copies to all the news, media and journalists. So the excuse that nobody knows what Steve was going to say when he was cut off will not fly. Also the excuse that Steve was implying that Baines personal interest in the matter could jeopardize the decision over the anti-terrorist affair will not wash since the matter of Baines father-in-law being questioned by the RCMP happened around 20 years ago. Plus this clause that is due to sunset has no bearing on the Air India attack, since it can’t be used for crimes before its inception which was 5 yrs ago. This witch hunt of an innocent young MP was a deliberate move by Steve with malice intended.

The Liberals are not supporting extending these clauses because they deny the rights and privileges of Canadians. And that is how all politicians should be.

Steve’s calling the Tamil Tigers terrorists while their children are killed and their women raped by the Sri Lankan is typical.

Is Steve stacking the Supreme Court??? Not directly but he has jiggled the nomination committee and appointed his partisans who share his oft-expressed desire to change the face of Canada's judiciary -- which he has described as a group that holds a liberal bias, oversteps its role to make social policy, and is too soft on crime.. But that isn't the worst of it. Steve has rejigged the committee by appointing a 4th member which means there are now 3 members from the law society and 4 members from Steve's side. Guess which side has the deciding vote!!

Plus now there are only two categories, acceptable and non-acceptable whereas before there were three, very acceptable, acceptable and non-acceptable. And then he has the audacity to opine; "We want to make sure we're bringing forward the laws to make sure we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer. We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives."

Hey Steve....... the crime rate has been dropping!!!!

Quote:

Did the real Harper stand up?

Mr. Harper refuses to acknowledged there are sound legitimate reasons for opposing the kind of unfettered police power the legislation allows. Instead he is using the same tactics employed by the Republican Party in the United States — label anyone who raises issues of civil liberties or human rights as being ‘soft-on-crime’, or protecting terrorists.

Mr. Harper is playing wedge-issue politics, exploiting people’s fear of the unknown and their belief that such repressive laws would never be used against them or other innocent people.

It is absolutely incredible he can be so cavalier about this when less than a month ago he paid $11.5 million in compensation for the illegal and immoral detention and torture of Maher Arar. Mr. Arar’s ordeal occurred because of inaccurate information supplied by inept Canadian federal police officials. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=13236&sc=102

[Saturn]

The Liberal Sikh MP Baines’ father-in-law already was questioned many years ago and will NOT avoid questioning on the Air India matter if the terrorism provisions aren't renewed. Besides those provisions are only five years old and were not intended to be used retroactively so are useless in the Air India bombing, which happened twenty or so years ago.

Of course claiming that the provisions could be used to resolve the Air India case was hogwash. To link Bains to it based on this hogwash is uber hogwash. To say it in Parliament is an outrageous lie (but with Mr. Harper nothing surprises me anymore).

The real question here is how this matter got sent to the Vancouver Sun? This is a serious breach of RCMP security. So why are the RCMP again being political?

The answer to this question is pretty obvious. The real question is why the RCMP are allowed to carry on in this fashion? One figures they would refrain from such shit given it was all over the papers just a few months ago thanks to the Arar inquiry. The even bigger question is why the PM is not only allowing this behaviour but he seems to be encouraging it. Looks like he'll be outing CSIS agents in the House for whatever sins their spouses have committed against him. This is beyond appalling.

Mr. Harper refuses to acknowledged there are sound legitimate reasons for opposing the kind of unfettered police power the legislation allows. Instead he is using the same tactics employed by the Republican Party in the United States — label anyone who raises issues of civil liberties or human rights as being ‘soft-on-crime’, or protecting terrorists.

Mr. Harper is playing wedge-issue politics, exploiting people’s fear of the unknown and their belief that such repressive laws would never be used against them or other innocent people.

What's new? Deceit and fear is the conservative way to power.

[geoffrey]

Of course claiming that the provisions could be used to resolve the Air India case was hogwash. To link Bains to it based on this hogwash is uber hogwash. To say it in Parliament is an outrageous lie (but with Mr. Harper nothing surprises me anymore).

That's not what the Liberals are saying. Look at Bob Rae, who condemned removing these powers. And he's the former head of the inquiry, he might know something.

Why do the Liberals insist on holding an opinion outside of the view of anyone that knows something on the matter? Dion is incompetent.

I can just imagine Iggy, who's written extensively on why governments need these EXACT powers, is probably kicking himself having to support such an outrageous, not to mention dangerous, partisan point.

[Saturn]

That's not what the Liberals are saying. Look at Bob Rae, who condemned removing these powers. And he's the former head of the inquiry, he might know something.

I can just imagine Iggy, who's written extensively on why governments need these EXACT powers, is probably kicking himself having to support such an outrageous, not to mention dangerous, partisan point.

Oh, governments love having more powers and so do police forces. Who wouldn't? But these powers are far too much and are an excellent opportunity for the abuse of power and since neither the feds nor the RCMP are transparent or accountable in any way, shape, or form (despite all their pronouncements to the contrary), I'd be far more comfortable knowing that they have less powers to abuse.

[geoffrey]

Oh, governments love having more powers and so do police forces. Who wouldn't? But these powers are far too much and are an excellent opportunity for the abuse of power and since neither the feds nor the RCMP are transparent or accountable in any way, shape, or form (despite all their pronouncements to the contrary), I'd be far more comfortable knowing that they have less powers to abuse.

What are you talking about? The preventive detaining requires a warrant from a judge unless it's an immediate threat and in that case it requires the suspect to see a judge in 72 hours and have a lawyer immediately.

The compelling witness one has been completely accepted by the SCC and also requires a judge to make the order.

The SCC also strongly disagrees with you when they found the admendment to the Criminal Code in compliance with the values of a democratic society and the Charter.

So the SCC + Police + Government + Security Experts + Former Liberal Commissioner of the Inquiry + Liberal Chaired Senate Committee (though they recommend a 3 yr sunset) isn't not enough. In fact, one man, Mr. Dion, is far more an authority than all of them. His right hand man in The Lesser Evil argues for these EXACT powers for the government.

It's Dion vs. reality on this one. And I think, as long as CBC doesn't continue their 24/7 spin on this one, the people will catch on.

He picked a rather dangerous issue to play Mr. Leader on. It's divided his party greatly.

[hiti]

Of course claiming that the provisions could be used to resolve the Air India case was hogwash. To link Bains to it based on this hogwash is uber hogwash. To say it in Parliament is an outrageous lie (but with Mr. Harper nothing surprises me anymore).

That's not what the Liberals are saying. Look at Bob Rae, who condemned removing these powers. And he's the former head of the inquiry, he might know something.

Why do the Liberals insist on holding an opinion outside of the view of anyone that knows something on the matter? Dion is incompetent.

I can just imagine Iggy, who's written extensively on why governments need these EXACT powers, is probably kicking himself having to support such an outrageous, not to mention dangerous, partisan point.

Tell us the rest of the story.... Rae and the Liberals, as per the Senate report, will vote for the extension of the provisions but with revisions that would protect rights and freedoms, which Steve has rejected. So the vote on the extension must be no.

[geoffrey]

Tell us the rest of the story.... Rae and the Liberals, as per the Senate report, will vote for the extension of the provisions but with revisions that would protect rights and freedoms, which Steve has rejected. So the vote on the extension must be no.

They don't need to be amended, the SCC has already found the admended section of the CCC in compliance with the Charter and democratic values. Rae said he's concerned Liberal position would seriously impede the investigation. He's the expert of all experts here, he was in charge of the freaking investigation!

McLellan agrees, Manley agrees, EVERYONE agrees. Except Dion and bunch of ethnic MPs that may get in trouble with their constituants.

[hiti]

Tell us the rest of the story.... Rae and the Liberals, as per the Senate report, will vote for the extension of the provisions but with revisions that would protect rights and freedoms, which Steve has rejected. So the vote on the extension must be no.

They don't need to be amended, the SCC has already found the admended section of the CCC in compliance with the Charter and democratic values. Rae said he's concerned Liberal position would seriously impede the investigation. He's the expert of all experts here, he was in charge of the freaking investigation!

McLellan agrees, Manley agrees, EVERYONE agrees. Except Dion and bunch of ethnic MPs that may get in trouble with their constituants.

Yes they agree on the extensions with revisions that protect rights and freedoms.......... except Steve don't agree on the rights and freedoms. So the vote must be no.

See the Senate report.

[geoffrey]

Yes they agree on the extensions with revisions that protect rights and freedoms.......... except Steve don't agree on the rights and freedoms. So the vote must be no.

Do the Liberals not believe in the SCC decision, or are they so arrogant to believe they know better than the court on matters of constiutionality??

Steve agrees with the SCC position. Where do you side?

[hiti]

Yes they agree on the extensions with revisions that protect rights and freedoms.......... except Steve don't agree on the rights and freedoms. So the vote must be no.

Do the Liberals not believe in the SCC decision, or are they so arrogant to believe they know better than the court on matters of constiutionality??

Steve agrees with the SCC position. Where do you side?

What was the SCC position?

[geoffrey]

What was the SCC position?

Read: Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248

[hiti]

What was the SCC position?

Read: Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re), 2004 SCC 42, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248

Ahhhh... so that is why there was a sunset clause. These two provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act enabling "preventive arrests" and "investigative hearings" are an affront to Canadians and our rights and freedoms.

Read the appeal to the SCC on these Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code and that will tell you that the only thing saving this bill was the sunset clauses. http://tinyurl.com/yusgwt

The Montreal Gazette says:

quote:These laws won't be missed. Given the uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and fears that Canada could be next, they were an understandable reaction at the time. But the legislation marked a substantial departure for Canada - one that the government recognized by subjecting it to the sunset clause.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," said Ben Franklin more than 200 years ago, and his words ring true today.

Now, the five-year sunset clause on the provisions - which have never been used - is coming due, and the Liberals have shaken Stephen Harper's government by announcing that "on second sober thought," they would reverse course and vote against extending their own legislation.

Liberal John McCallum extolled his party's new-found respect for "individual rights" and discovered that "these laws are not necessary to protect Canada from terrorist threat."

He is right. The laws allowing for preventative arrest and the provision for compulsory testimony are an affront to Canadian values and justice.

Parliament is right to let the sun set on these laws.

[geoffrey]

Read the appeal to the SCC on these Application under s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code and that will tell you that the only thing saving this bill was the sunset clauses.

That makes no sense. What is justifiable by the constitution today isn't different tomorrow, or shouldn't be. If the SCC upholds a law in 2004, it would uphold the same law within the context of the same laws today.

We should review these laws in another 5 years, check 'em out, pass them again if there hasn't been any major misteps.

That's what the sunset is for. Say the CPC uses them to lock up 10 people (which they never could, but just say)... 5 years from now they no longer hold government because the people like 'what the hell was that?' so now the new government allows them to sunset and the people walk.

If no harm has been done by them, they shouldn't be allowed to sunset. Why did the SCC deem them reasonable in 2004 but you think they wouldn't today? Do you really believe they became a less justified exception to absolute freedom since then? Do you really think we are considerably more secure from terrorists today than in 2004 when they upheld the law?

No, of course not. The SCC will uphold them again if need be. They are justified in the view of the SCC in terms of pursuing the Air India inquiry and will remain so.

Really, what are the Liberals protesting?

I'll finish this up with a nice quote from that decision.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ.: The purpose of the Anti-terrorism Act is to prosecute and prevent terrorism offences. Although terrorism necessarily changes the context in which the rule of law must operate, it does not call for the abdication of law. The challenge for democracies in the battle against terrorism is to balance an effective response with fundamental democratic values that respect the importance of human life, liberty and the rule of law. Subject to interpretive comments, s. 83.28 of the Criminal Code meets that challenge.