Parliament Votes Against Extending

[Catchme]

No, geoffery they did not, the SCC made a whole list of add ons to the use of these clauses, if they were to be used.

The reason why the SCC struck down security cerificates was because they failed to use "due process" and to assure Charter freedoms. The very same Charter freedoms that the 2 sunset clauses breached.

Now, please put up a link supporting your contentions.

[BC_chick]

The Liberals are not going to implode over this vote. In fact they have been brought closer together as a team under Dion's leadership. Irvin Cotler said that he abstained from the vote because he did not agree with either side, especially the government's refusal to accept amendments to these provisions.

I initially agreed with Harper that adjustments be made to the provisions before scrapping them altogether. But when I saw the tactics he was using for not getting his way (ie smearing Liberals as trying to protect their own by rejecting the provisions), how could I support such jeuvenile behaviour? This is typical feet-stomping behaviour of a 3 year old. And I'm just a citizen, imagine how the Liberal caucus felt with such accusations against them.

Harper's tactics are too ugly for Canadian politics.... members of the opposition party on whom he relies as a minority government (and everyday citizens too really) are going to stop taking him seriously if he wants to call everyone who disagrees with him names. Martin a pedophile-lover. Dion a terrorist-coddler.

How old is this man again? He desperately needs to read "How to win friends and influence people" if he wants to get that majority.

[Argus]

Argus do you remember the Crisis in the early 70's when our rights were taken away from us, especially the people of Quebec. Maybe you wouldn't be so quite to lose your rights again if you thought about it.

What I remember about that time is that unlike any other western nation which was experiencing terrorism we crushed ours in its infancy and thereafter had no more trouble. Meanwhile, terrorist groups were murdering people all across Europe, Japan and the US. The only terrorist incidents we have seen since then have come from the foreigners the liberals brought into Canada.

[Catchme]

Argus said: The only terrorist incidents we have seen since then have come from the foreigners the liberals brought into Canada.

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

Moreover, your own opinion commentary rebutts your own opinion commentary, as first you said:

What I remember about that time is that unlike any other western nation which was experiencing terrorism we crushed ours in its infancy and thereafter had no more trouble

Which actually makes no sense either, as we Canadians were not experiencing terrorism, let alone any like other "western" nations were.

[guyser]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

[geoffrey]

We also had the Air India disaster... the plane might have exploded outside of Canada, but the attack was within. Didn't a package destined for Air India explode in Vancouver as well.

Besides that, pretending that we'll never be attacked is a rather foolish thing to do.

[blueblood]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

Good point, the War measures act put these little clauses in the Anti-Terror Bill to shame. I think you still get to see a judge with these, or go back to your original country, with the War Measures Act in theory, they could pluck you off the street at the discretion of the police officer/soldier.

Trudeau enacts it he's a hero, just imagine if Harper would enact it...

[Catchme]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

Pretty much all of that FLQ bombing has been debunked after the investigations happened, remember, the RCMP infiltrators were found to be planning and doing all of those acts, which lead to the formation of CSIS?

And yes, Trudeau's war measure act application did mean that. and is a good reason why we must stand against anything that erodes our individual liberties.

The Air India attack was not a terrorist attack against Canada.

[blueblood]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

Pretty much all of that FLQ bombing has been debunked after the investigations happened, remember, the RCMP infiltrators were found to be planning and doing all of those acts, which lead to the formation of CSIS?

And yes, Trudeau's war measure act application did mean that. and is a good reason why we must stand against anything that erodes our individual liberties.

The Air India attack was not a terrorist attack against Canada.

Remember there must be a balance. Right to a security of person is a very important right as well. Rights come with a responsibility, we should not abuse our individual liberties as well as say the FLQ and the guys from Toronto per se and that goes also for members of the RCMP/police force and the army, it's too bad they're under the microscope and the rest of society isn't. We have to let the authorities do their job as it's under their protection that we get to enjoy our individual liberties. We as a society must find a balance between our individual liberties and security.

[Keepitsimple]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

Pretty much all of that FLQ bombing has been debunked after the investigations happened, remember, the RCMP infiltrators were found to be planning and doing all of those acts, which lead to the formation of CSIS?

And yes, Trudeau's war measure act application did mean that. and is a good reason why we must stand against anything that erodes our individual liberties.

The Air India attack was not a terrorist attack against Canada.

I was living in Montreal at the time of the FLQ bombings - no they weren't debunked. They were pretty small in nature - but they did happen. Of more concern was the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte by the FLQ. They also kidnapped James Cross but fortunately, they found where he was before he could be murdered as well. In fact, after holding him for several weeks - they discovered the hideout and it was only three blocks from where I lived. Do not try revisionist history with the FLQ - they were serious times.

[blueblood]

What terrorist incidents have we had in Canada besides none?

FLQ were setting off bombs in street side postal boxes. That can be deemed terrorism. It led to Trudeau instituting the War Measures Act.

Meant you could be (and were) rounded up and put in jail w/o any due cause.

Pretty much all of that FLQ bombing has been debunked after the investigations happened, remember, the RCMP infiltrators were found to be planning and doing all of those acts, which lead to the formation of CSIS?

And yes, Trudeau's war measure act application did mean that. and is a good reason why we must stand against anything that erodes our individual liberties.

The Air India attack was not a terrorist attack against Canada.

I was living in Montreal at the time of the FLQ bombings - no they weren't debunked. They were pretty small in nature - but they did happen. Of more concern was the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte by the FLQ. They also kidnapped James Cross but fortunately, they found where he was before he could be murdered as well. In fact, after holding him for several weeks - they discovered the hideout and it was only three blocks from where I lived. Do not try revisionist history with the FLQ - they were serious times.

Did they find him with the full powers of the war measures act or the regular old way?

[Catchme]

Interesting the Keable Inquiry report that used to be on lin is now unaccessable!

Though there is information on it avaiable on line.

There were a couple of mail box bombs and thefts, etc but there ended up being more RCMP in the FLQ than FLQ they had the majority.

In fact, there may be a thread on this right here that was about the alleged re-emergence of the FLQ, that I noted a great deal of the Keable on report will look for it later.

The site below gives a break down of events.

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/maritimelaw/E.doc

[jdobbin]

It's going to be fun watching the liberals implode this spring.

I keep hearing about this. Will you implode if it doesn't happen?

[madmax]

There is little doubt that the Liberals and the Conservatives botched this up. Conservatives shouldn't be crowing that legislation they believed needed to be renewed, got voted down, while their only defence in debate was to call Liberals Soft on Terror or Supporting Terrorists, or Implying Fear as the best thing they had to offer. Totally useless, which is why they won't go to the polls over this and it won't help them come campaign time. Harper has a tendency to do or say things that should be left for partisan shills and not the Prime Minister of Canada. He looks bad in this, and he didn't get what he wanted, when it was probably doable considering the true feeling within many Liberal MPs.

The Liberals on the other hand have been ham fisted in trying to explain their decision to whip the vote. There could be legitimate reasons, but they haven't got them out clearly and should have done so before the vote. This more or less looks like, Harper is being stupid again, and Dion is deciding to not try to be reasonable with a polarizing politicizing Prime Minister.

While there are good reasons provided for and against this legislation, it appears like outside supporters of the legislation were made to look CPC pawns more then justifyably concerned citizens that they were.

Well, that's my rant for when things become polarized and parties are thinking more about themselves and scoring points, then the legislation and reasonable debate that is required before choosing whether or not to implement it.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals on the other hand have been ham fisted in trying to explain their decision to whip the vote. There could be legitimate reasons, but they haven't got them out clearly and should have done so before the vote. This more or less looks like, Harper is being stupid again, and Dion is deciding to not try to be reasonable with a polarizing politicizing Prime Minister.

Was any vote not whipped on this?

[blueblood]

The Liberals on the other hand have been ham fisted in trying to explain their decision to whip the vote. There could be legitimate reasons, but they haven't got them out clearly and should have done so before the vote. This more or less looks like, Harper is being stupid again, and Dion is deciding to not try to be reasonable with a polarizing politicizing Prime Minister.

Was any vote not whipped on this?

Yah but I don't think the tories, NDP, or BQ put up as big a stink about it as say the one MP who voted with the government.

[jdobbin]

Yah but I don't think the tories, NDP, or BQ put up as big a stink about it as say the one MP who voted with the government.

Don't they though. Wasn't an NDP member in Manitoba punished for not voting for a whipped vote? Haven't Conservatives in the Senate been punished for not voting according to a whip? BQ members I have no idea about.

[blueblood]

Yah but I don't think the tories, NDP, or BQ put up as big a stink about it as say the one MP who voted with the government.

Don't they though. Wasn't an NDP member in Manitoba punished for not voting for a whipped vote? Haven't Conservatives in the Senate been punished for not voting according to a whip? BQ members I have no idea about.

I was referring to the anti-terror bill instance.

[jdobbin]

I was referring to the anti-terror bill instance.

Did they make a big deal of it? They said it was whipped and it was. Since the Liberals created the law, there were bound to be supporters of it originally. All things considered, one MP voting against is not that bad.

[Catchme]

The Liberals on the other hand have been ham fisted in trying to explain their decision to whip the vote. There could be legitimate reasons, but they haven't got them out clearly and should have done so before the vote. This more or less looks like, Harper is being stupid again, and Dion is deciding to not try to be reasonable with a polarizing politicizing Prime Minister.

Was any vote not whipped on this?

The NDP they have been consistent on this from the get go.

There is no news coming out about repercussions from the Liberals today, so perhaps the vote wasn't whipped there either.

Maybe Dion just said: "do what you want I willing to gamble that the many more will see that the sunset clauses break the Charter and it won't pass"

That would solve any revolt within, if it wasn't. They could choose not to be there, abstain or vote for an extension with the CPC. Instead of voting against their party majority, perhaps the 11 just decided to stay away.

[geoffrey]

Did they make a big deal of it? They said it was whipped and it was. Since the Liberals created the law, there were bound to be supporters of it originally. All things considered, one MP voting against is not that bad.

Does that mean the Liberals all admit they were wrong and were attempting to deprive Canadians of their rights the first time?

Or is it just politically tasty for Dion to pretend to be Mr. Leader on a high profile issue when in fact any expert in his party disagrees with the stance he took?

[hiti]

After all the 9-11 hype, this law went to extremes but the good part was these two sunset clauses.

Canadians with Dion won their rights and freedoms back while Steve lost as his mask slipped and his petty, nasty persona was exposed.

[geoffrey]

After all the 9-11 hype...

[Catchme]

Did they make a big deal of it? They said it was whipped and it was. Since the Liberals created the law, there were bound to be supporters of it originally. All things considered, one MP voting against is not that bad.

Does that mean the Liberals all admit they were wrong and were attempting to deprive Canadians of their rights the first time?

Or is it just politically tasty for Dion to pretend to be Mr. Leader on a high profile issue when in fact any expert in his party disagrees with the stance he took?

Actually, Dion did admit they were wrong to have put the clauses in and noted it was a good thing they were sunset.

What expert disagrees with him?

[hiti]

After all the 9-11 hype...

Jeff Sallot, writing in today's Globe and Mail, shows the prime monster was merely blowing smoke:

"What's changed in five years? Even immediately after the 9/11 attacks, many MPs were never convinced that authorities needed the extraordinary powers of preventive arrest and investigative hearings.

"Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a law professor and civil-liberties crusader, says he swung back and forth on the issue. It was one of those questions on which people of good will could honestly disagree.

"'It's a judgment call,' he said.

"He and many other MPs insisted on building procedural safeguards into the Anti-Terrorism Act. The extraordinary powers, for example, could be used only with the explicit approval of a federal or provincial attorney-general. Police and judges couldn't go off willy-nilly on their own, holding people and interrogating them.

"Even with these safeguards, many MPs worried that once the powers were on the books, it might be impossible to get rid of them even if experience showed that they were never needed. Thus, a five-year sunset provision was included in the legislation, specifying that the powers would lapse unless the House and the Senate renewed them with a parliamentary resolution.

"As it turns out, the powers were never invoked in the past five years. The RCMP report they have quietly disrupted several terrorism plots in that time without ever arresting anyone.

"However, two other terrorism cases have attracted attention. An Ottawa man, Momin Khawaja, was arrested here and charged with conspiracy in a plot that was being hatched in Britain. He is alleged to have offered to build a bomb trigger for the British conspirators.

"The other high-profile terrorism allegations -- also still before the Ontario courts -- involve 18 men. Last year, police rounded them up in the Toronto area and charged them.

"If the police and security agencies are correct, they've successfully foiled more than a dozen plots without ever resorting to the extraordinary arrest and investigative powers." -end quote

Steve's fear mongering didn't work because Dion and the Opposition parties believe that Canadians deserve their rights and freedoms. So roll your eyes at that.

Steve thinks that civil rights should continue to be suspended to compensate for shoddy police work. The RCMP bungled its first investigation by destroying evidence; it has had three years since the acquittals of two prime suspects to invoke investigative hearings. Why hasn't it? Its defenders say there wasn't time; witnesses are hard to locate.