03.06.2015 09:38 AM

Dear Tom: ten reasons why Trudeau is right to support C-51

Dear Mr. Mulcair:

Your New Democrats, won’t commit to scrapping C-51 in the unlikely event you ever attain power, are presently attacking the Liberal Party leader for indicating support for the anti-terror law. You and your colleagues are being wilfully obtuse, and shameless hypocrites, too. You are, after all, the same guy who demanded extra security for himself – because of apparent terrorist-related worries.

Here are ten reasons why Trudeau is doing the right thing:

  1. Canadians have considered the law, and overwhelmingly support it.  Polls show about 82 per cent of Canadians support, or strongly support, C-51. Their opinion matters – to all but the NDP, that is.
  2. The law reflects with what other Western democracies already have on the books, and you know it. Canada had no law against promoting or advocating terror. We needed one.
  3. The law contains robust measures for judicial oversight, as well as by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, whose membership has included  former NDP Premier Roy Romanow, former NDP Premier Bob Rae, and former NDP cabinet minister Frances Lankin.  Are these folks far-Right lunatics, Tom?
  4. Anti-terror police action “shall not” be taken if the action in any way “contravenes a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” – or even if the action “contrary to other Canadian law.” The cops need to prove to a judge that they aren’t violating the Constitution, reverse onus style, before they’re allowed to act. Pretty high threshold, Tom.
  5. C-51 explicitly excludes from its ambit “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.”  That’s what it says, and your NDP knows it, but won’t anywhere admit it.
  6. The bill is consistent with what Liberals legislated following the 9-11 attacks. The NDP opposed those, too. Surprise, surprise.
  7. C-51 would give cops warrant powers to prevent terror attacks, and not merely watch them unfold, as in the past (cf. Air India, what Bob Rae wrote about Air India). To obtain the time-limited warrant, however, agencies must appear before a judge and show “reasonable grounds” that national security itself is at risk. No simple task, Tom, and you know that, too.
  8. There’s an anti-terror “peace bond” in the proposed law, giving judges limited authority to withhold passports or impose travel limitations, like at bail hearings. The peace bond provision is “sunsetted,” and is identical to what Prime Minister Chretien introduced in 2001. You opposed those, too.
  9. The bill gives police the power to detain a potential terror suspect, sure.  Under the new law, they will be able to hold someone for seven days, up from the current three. Not exactly Stalinist Russia.
  10. The bill targets online hate, specifically the promotion of genocide.  The Criminal Code has such a provision, and in the past half-Century or so, it has been used once – once – against a jihadist who had called for the “extermination” of all Jews, but who leisurely left Canada before he could be charged with anything.

And so on, and so on.  C-51 will be subject to Charter challenges before and after the fact.  That’s good.  It is being subjected to an avalanche of debate, inside and outside Parliament.  That, too, is good.

The law will almost certainly be amended.  It will change.  Also good.

Bill C-51 isn’t perfect, Tom, but it’s a reasonable response to the dangerous times in which we live. You know that, too – otherwise, you would be promising to kill the bill if you ever become Prime Minister.  But you aren’t doing that, are you?

No, you’re not.

Sincerely,

Etc.

 

55 Comments

  1. sezme says:

    No inclination to get into points 2-10, but as to the oft-quoted 82% of Canadians who support the bill, that’s actually 82% of Angus Reid Forum members (who are paid for their opinions btw, and chose to answer an online poll) as of Feb 19th before there was much public discussion of the relative merits of the bill.

    Warren, unless you’re worried that he’s in danger of winning the debate, why do you care what Tom thinks?

  2. Paul Brennan says:

    Hi – Agree Warren

    his message his wrong and his delivery always has that arrogant tone… this is guy who wants extra protection for himself after the tragedy on the Hill….I saw him on newsclip last night and then the bearded captain from hotels.com commercial came on – if Mulcair trimmed himself up a bit he could play that role

    • Warren says:

      Excellent point – forgot about the security thing. Will add!

    • ron says:

      Brilliant personal attack, PAUL.
      About as effective as Justin trying to suck and blow at the same time on Harper’s terror bill. Justin is no leader – readily demonstrated on this serious issue.

      • Gunther Grosskamper says:

        LOL!!! About time you started listening to me… Gunther Grosskamper shared Justin Trudeau’s photo.February 19 at 7:19am · Winnipeg · Edited ·
        From the CBC article regarding –
        “Tom Mulcair says NDP will oppose anti-terrorism bill C-51”
        “Government trying to ‘posture and position’: Mulcair” = TRUE; BUT…
        Look at yourself in the mirror Mr. Mulcair… You’re doing exactly the same thing, AGAIN, with you’re posturing and positioning on Bill C-51!
        Mr. Mulcair, what exactly has your opposition to EVERYTHING Harper and his gang of CONS have done since 2011, when the NDP became the OFFICIAL OPPOSITION, actually ACCOMPLISHED?
        That’s correct, absolutely NOTHING…
        Since it was you, the NDP and your voters along with some 40% of Canadians that didn’t love Canada enough to even vote in 2011, that gave Harper the majority he craved to destroy everything Canadians value most about Canada… Shame on you for doing Harper’s bidding once again regarding Bill C-51 by falling into his trap and helping Harper’s real purpose of damaging Justin Trudeau and the LPC enough to prevent Harper’s defeat at the polls in 2015…
        Here’s an example of Justin Trudeau’s REAL leadership in action…
        While I have not necessarily agreed with this course of action initially, I now fully understand, and therefore support, the reasoning behind it…
        The only big question that remains is, “do CANADIANS as a whole, regardless of political stripe, understand the sound and thoughtful reasoning of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada in the same way Justin Trudeau understands Harper’s ploy, and in actually fighting this overreaching Bill C-51 smartly?”
        With a Harper MAJORITY Government, where the opposition parties have absolutely NO POWER to prevent any Bill brought forward by the Harper Government from passing, this course of action is, quite obviously really, the most reasonable, and perhaps only, one to take at this time, without much question…
        In short, unless the Harper Government were to actually implement any changes to Bill C-51 the Justin Trudeau Liberals and Mulcair led NDP proposed, a highly unlikely scenario, Justin Trudeau will be in a position to both turn Bill C-51 against the Harper Government during the coming election, and subsequently honour his commitment to making those changes as promised, or even repealing the entire Bill C-51, once Justin Trudeau and the LPC form Canada’s next Government…https://www.facebook.com/JustinPJTrudeau/photos/a.101277015648.106166.21751825648/10153160601230649/?type=1 Link to the CBC article – http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-ndp-will-oppose-anti-terrorism-bill-c-51-1.2961509

  3. Anders says:

    So what do we have here? Justin accepts C-51 with some reservations, while Mulcair sorta accepts the need for C-51 but with reservation over the Liberal position.

    Then we have this: “What’s special about this case, Clark said, is this bill runs the risk of increasing the likelihood of dangers for Canadians at home.”

    Ex-minor-PM Joe Who is scaremongering with “Police in your home”!

    Wotta bunch of yapping losers!!

  4. Kelly says:

    First off, I am not a member of the NDP and second I will vote Liberal based on the electoral dynamics of the riding in which I live (a vote for the NDP here is literally a vote for the Conservatives, thanls to our phony steam age FPTP electoral system).) That being said, I think that almost all 10 of the posted arguments are bad. Here are a few reasons why, numbered against some of the worst ones:

    Point 1. Now we are going to make law based on popular opinion? You can’t be serious. If there was any reason to be thankful for the charter, this bad argument is the best reminder of why. Over 100 of Canada’s top legal experts and 4 former PMs — including your own former boss — have publicly stated their opposition to this bill.
    Point 2. Yes we do need one. The problem is this bill’s provisions are far, FAR, too vague. Dangerously vague. “Terrorism offences in general” means what, exactly? What if someone publishes their support for atrocities committed by far-right militias from Western Ukraine or for atrocities committed by Kurdish militia against capture ISIS militants? What if someone encourages people to donate money to Greenpeace so they can go and disrupt the baby seal hunt? That will hamper the Canadian economy. Is Greenpeace a terrorist organization, now? On top of that, Ed Snowden reminds us we have the weakest oversight of security services of any country in the Western World. See next point.
    Point 3. The oversight measures a very weak. That is the main reason the NDP opposes this bill as written. The Security Intelligence Review Committee reports to Parliament only once a year and it only meets 9 times a year. On its own site the SIRC admits it can’t address all the issues and must prioritize. Yes, the committee has some respected NDP members, it also has a Harper appointee sitting in a Panamanian jail.
    Point 4. Where has the NDP specifically opposed this requirement?
    Point 5. So Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela fit the definition of terrorists now? What if the law is an ass? Or more to the point, what if bad laws are written by assholes?
    Points 6 and 8. You use the NDPs opposition to past bills as proof that their opposition to this particular bill is unwarranted. A first year philosophy student could drive a Mack truck through the logical fallacy in the middle of that argument.
    Point 9. I don’t think the NDP has an issue with that point.
    Point 10. If promotion of genocide is already in the criminal code, why do we need to re-invent the wheel while wrapping all kinds of troubling provisions around it?

    Generally speaking the NDP is not against enhanced security legislation, rather they are opposed to this particular bill as currently written. They want more full discussion and amendments made BEFORE the bill becomes law. That is the whole point. Trudeau’s stance is weak. Give the cons a pass now and then make amendments later. Talk about having it both ways? And what about the people who will be swept up in this legislation in the meantime? What about them? How many more Maher Arars will there be? What about Occupy? Idle No More?

    All the NDP (and Jean Chretien and 100 other legal scholars and former PMs) want is to make proper amendments now. Harper wants to rush this through so he can fight an election on it, and possibly, use it to oppress and silence certain types of opposition. The cynicism in that stinks. Trudeau doesn’t seem to know what he wants.

    • ron says:

      Well stated, Kelly.

    • Emilie says:

      Kelly, I really am sick and tired of all the Trudeau bashing without due diligence on the facts… you eloquently state Mulair’s position and that is the EXACT LPC and Trudeau’s position that Mulcair came out with AFTER JT…. there was not one word about amendments or discussion by the NDP until AFTER JT’s statement on bill
      c-51…. I know that the media has their own agenda but I expect the voter to inform themselves of the facts before spouting off…. and thank you WK for finally recognizing the political brilliance of JT…. like PET said “just watch me” ….

      • Mark says:

        The NDP and the Liberal positions are not the same. The Greens and the NDP have the same position, that being that Bill C-51 is unacceptable in its current form. The Trudeau Liberals and the Harper Conservatives have the same position, that being that Bill C-51 is acceptable in its current form. But the Liberals and the NDP do NOT have the same position.

        The Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals have both said they will vote for Bill C-51 in its current form, and they both voted “yea” for Bill C-51 at second reading. By contrast, the Greens and the NDP both said that they will not vote for Bill C-51 in its current form, and they both “nay” for Bill C-51 at second reading.

        Before second reading, the NDP proposed an amendment, which is a great read. See http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/full-text-of-the-ndp-motion-on-c-51-1.2963747 Co-incidentally, the Harper Conservatives and the Trudeau Liberals voted “nay” against the amendment, while the NDP and the Greens vote “yea” for the amendment.

        • StewB says:

          I expect the Liberals (and Conservatives) voted against the NDP motion because it was redundant. It attempted to block procedure, stating that “This House decline to give second reading to Bill C-51… “. It is normal procedure to bring any Bill forward for second reading, so that each member of the House may freely vote either Yea or Nay on the second reading.

    • Mark says:

      Regarding point #4, in fact Warren is mistaken in what he asserts. Warren says, “Anti-terror police action ‘shall not’ be taken if the action in any way ‘contravenes a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'”.

      However, Bill C-51, s.42, adds a new section to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, 12.1(3), that reads,

      (3) The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law, unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1.

      Important here is “unless the Service [aka CSIS] is authorized to take them by a warrant”. So, this bill openly allows CSIS to “take measures” that contravene the Charter! It allows judges to issue warrants to that effect!

      Warren is alone in not grasping this. It’s widely understood elsewhere. It’s been mentioned on both the CBC website and in the Globe and Mail. They had an editorial strongly condemning Bill C-51 for this and other reasons. Their editorial is here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/parliament-must-reject-harpers-secret-policeman-bill/article22729037/ From that editorial: “Agents will only need a warrant for activities that might contravene Charter rights or the law.” So again, Warren is clearly wrong and alone in his assertion that Bill C-51 does not allow police-action that contravenes the Charter. In fact, it actually provides a mechanism for CSIS to contravene the Charter. PET must be rolling in his grave.

      I’ll let Tom Mulcair himself have the last word:

      “Unlike the Liberals, who supported this bill without even reading it and abdicated all power to negotiate amendments, the NDP took the time to read, think about and analyze this long and complex piece of legislation. The NDP will not support the Conservatives’ Bill C-51 in its present form because it has too many flaws and will undermine the rights of Canadians. Bill C-51 is sweeping, dangerously vague, and ineffective. It does not do things that are proven to work, and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians.

      “The Prime Minister should know that it is not either the environment or the economy. It is both. It is not either free trade or human rights. It is both. It is not either public safety or freedom. It is both.

      “The Conservatives are once again offering us a false choice. We should not have to choose between our freedom and our safety. It is our duty to protect both for everyone at all times, at every opportunity and in every way.

      “We can and we must have both at the same time. We are convinced that we can have them both.” — Tom Mulcair, Feb 18, 2015

  5. wsam says:

    Ammendments should be before the bill becomes law. Use the opportunity to strengthen the already strong narrative that Conservatives hate and distrust ordinary Canadians who are not part of their base and might hold non-Conservative ideas, especially about the Environment. What proof do we have this bill won’t be used to attack Canadians legitimate environment concerns?

    This bill grants addtional powers to a Conservative Party who has consistently shown itself willing to act outside the law. Just as they have turned Revenue Canada into a tool to harass charities Conservatives dislike, they will use this bill to attack their ideological enemies, such as Greenpeace. This is the ‘Label David Suzuki a Terrorist Act’.

    Use this to reinforce Conservative negatives.

  6. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    I support this bill in principle. What has me concerned is that Clark, Turner, Chrétien and Martin are pushing for even more robust judicial oversight. Thoughtful people deserve to be listened to.

    Does Harper really want to forego increased oversight? I hope that is not the case.

  7. Mark says:

    I think you’re wrong in what your claim in point #4. You state that “The cops need to prove to a judge that they aren’t violating the Constitution, reverse onus style, before they’re allowed to act.” But Bill C-51, s.42, adds a new section to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, 12.1(3), that reads,

    (3) The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law, unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1.

    So, this says if the Service is authorized by warrant, then they can contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They don’t need to prove to a judge they are not breaching the Charter. Rather, under this law, they would be able to apply to a judge TO ACTUALLY BREACH THE CHARTER. So contrary to what you have stated, this law actually provides a window that previously didn’t exist for the authorities to contravene the Charter.

    By not opposing this, Justin seems determined to tear down his father’s legacy.

  8. MississaugaPeter says:

    IMO, organized crime has been and continues to be a greater threat than terrorism, but nothing like Bill C-51 has or will be enacted against organized crime because of the fear that it may impede all our rights and is just so “1984-like”.

    IMO, Bill C-51 is a direct response to ISIS/ISIL. That’s it. IMO, BILL C-51 IS AN ISIS/ISIL VICTORY.

    They have succeeded in fear mongering. Blow the living daylights out of them and we will be rid of them. I’m a pacifist, and was against Afghanistan and Iraq involvement, but I have no problem with bombing the shit out of ISIS (as I would not have had a problem bombing the shit out of Nazi Germany during World War II).

    We did not need Bill C-51 after 9/11, we do not need it now!

    I am an Orange Liberal. If all things are equal on policy between the Liberals and NDP except this, I will vote for Muclair. And like the UBC students (who I believe punk WK would have been among when in university), there are many others who will also.

    • GFMD says:

      Organized crime? Dude, tobogganing has proven to be a greater threat than terrorism in Canada, by number of deaths in the country. And all those deaths were children. Every. Single. One.

      (ooooh, see how compelling my arguments are when there’s a period after each word).

    • Africon says:

      Peter – interesting approach to this conundrum.

      “IMO, organized crime has been and continues to be a greater threat than terrorism”.
      Agreed that this is a huge and unaddressed problem but do not kid yourself – there is a relationship between terrorism and organized crime.

      “IMO, Bill C-51 is a direct response to ISIS/ISIL.
      That’s it. IMO, BILL C-51 IS AN ISIS/ISIL VICTORY.”

      Nope, I don’t think so – Jihadism began long, long before ISIL appeared and this Bill is a response to extremism in European, ME and Africa plus approaching election/opportunity. I do not see creating a police force as a victory for criminals which is in effect what I think you’re saying.

      “They have succeeded in fear mongering. Blow the living daylights out of them and we will be rid of them.”

      Not likely, methinks, not without occupying several countries for a few decades.
      Sure looks like they got to you and have blown your pacifist principles apart.

      “I’m a pacifist, and was against Afghanistan and Iraq involvement, but I have no problem with bombing the shit out of ISIS (as I would not have had a problem bombing the shit out of Nazi Germany during World War II).”

      I too was against anything beyond driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan which was done in a few weeks.
      They got their start in Kashmir and being bombed like hell by the Russians changed nothing.
      In hindsight, Iraq was a huge mistake but of course if Saddam did have the means to use his WMD beyond his own borders who exactly would have been blamed – GW perhaps? And by you perhaps?
      Try telling the Shia and the Kurds that he had no WMD. No easy answers for any leaders IMO.
      Do you really think that you (or Mulcair) would have supported that right wing hack Churchill in the 30’s when just a very small number of “incidents” were occuring? Read the book – “A man called Intrepid” by a Winnipeger, William Stephenson.

      Did the west bombing the shit out of Libya accomplish anything?
      I do not believe that the west bombing the shit out of ISIS will either.
      At the end of the day “they” will have to sort it out themselves just as the eastern europeans did – sounds harsh – true.
      Strangely the west did not bomb the shit our of the Hutus in Burundi or was is the Tutsi that was also harsh.
      Yet they now seem to be in better shape than most of the ME.
      Perhaps arming the Ukrainians MIGHT be more useful but really, who knows? Not SH, not JT and not TM.

      Now if the NDP would get behind the Eastern pipeline so that we become self sufficient and never buy any more oil from the ME,
      THAT would do more than most of the above actions, IMO.

      • MississaugaPeter says:

        Africon, fair commentary and done in a very civil manner.

        Awesome!

        No time to refute/explain further, but appreciate your time and response. Will try later.

  9. ron says:

    Good point, Mark.

  10. wsam says:

    Our current strategy of blasting ISIL appear to be handing Iraq to Iran.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/05/for-god-and-country-and-iran/?utm_content=buffer3d4de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    So, on the foriegn front Canada is pursuing a policy which at best can be described as counter-productive and at worst helping Iran, who at least two of our actual, present allies Saudi Arabia and Isreal, detest. On the domestic front we are granting our security services the ability to breach our charter rights (thanks Mark for actually taking the time to read it) because two mentally ill losers attached themselves to ISIL’s international jihadi cause via online forums and then murdered Canadians soldiers in order to create terror.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  11. davie says:

    2001 in Quebec City and the gathering for the OAS economic show, and we had in Canada a really effective and irritating protest organizer who was standing on the street with a couple of pals, just a day before the conference started, when a van of plain clothes pulled up, bundled the effective and irritating protestor into the van, and they took him to lockup until after the conference was over. He was released without charges.
    What is odd to me is that people who argue that we should not give government wide powers are the very ones arguing that this added set of secret powers is just dandy.
    What bothers me especially is that the government and its backers are saying that legal protests can carry on without this bill kicking in. That same government, to me, as been pretty free labeling people and groups as illegal or terrorists.

    For me, this bill has its beginning with Rexton and Burnaby Mountain. The Sunni group in Iraq, and the murders of the two soldiers here in Canada are being used as excuses for this bill.

  12. Matt says:

    Sadly, Trudeau’s 180 degree turn on the terrorism file (supporting C-51 and last week saying the Liberals may support a mission extension in Iraq) has more to do with falling Liberal poll numbers than an actual realisation that Islamic radicals in general and specifically ISIS are a threat that must be dealt with.

    • Lance says:

      Maybe, but It is more important to have his support, no matter how cynical the reason. To me, that trumps any partisan consideration.

  13. edward nuff says:

    last week or the week before Rex Murphy covered this topic. The show started with Kenney blathering his talking points and one or two others. Then, fifteen or twenty of the most cogent people I’ve heard in years weighed in on why Bill C-51 was a bad idea. THEY RIPPED IT TO SHREDS. I have no idea how they got past the minders but it was amazing to hear real Canadians speak out and so well. Ol Rex was speechless. As for the 82 % do you really expect me to believe 82% actually read the bill. Please. The potential for abuse here is staggering.

  14. The justification for the Bill lies largely in the cliché “we live in dangerous times.” According to Steven Pinker and others who have examined the history of violence in the long term, we don’t. To the contrary, we live in perhaps the safest time in history.

    But about that terrorism thing. Last year two Canadians died in terrorist attacks. Now I don’t mean to demean anyone’s death—all life is precious—but two deaths in a nation of 33 million is trivial. The chance of a Canadian being killed by a terrorist is absolutely remote. Even in the land of 9/11, the threat of harm from terrorism is insignificant. The average American is five times more likely to be killed by a lightening bolt than by a terrorist, 25 times more likely to drown in his own bathtub.

    This omnibus monster Bill C-51 can only be justified by panic or demagoguery, neither a valid basis for policy.

  15. Glenn says:

    I sincerely dislike a poll of 1509 Canadians deciding the fate of the other 30M+ Canadians.
    Bill was done too fast, without, I believe, enough real discussion.
    Why rush blindly into a potentially bad bill?

  16. Brammer says:

    Exactly. Why the big friggin rush to ram our version of the patriot act through parliament?

    I am extremely disappointed that Trudeau chooses to support a Bill that is going to eviscerate big chunks of the very document Trudeau senior created. To those who support C51 – take a look at the list of esteemed statesmen and judicial officials who are opposing this and ask yourselves again, why the big rush?

  17. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    This is about giving CSIS a cloak of seeming invincibility, at a cost. All good and well but what about changing the law to allow CSIS to be more than just a domestic intelligence agency? It’s fine to have bureaus in Washington, D.C., London and Paris but serving only as a liaison is like having one hand tied behind your back…

  18. wsam says:

    We don’t live in dangerous times, we live in dumb times.

  19. Hugh says:

    # 1 is wrong. Those polled didn’t know what was in the bill.
    Criticism of c-51 is widespread and growing.
    We don’t want a police state.

  20. Scotian says:

    I think there is an important aspect to this discussion that is being ignored, and it directly applies to why Trudeau’s Libs giving this token support (and it is token, it is unnecessary in a majority, and it is clear from their actual language on this bill that they are more conceding the potential for need then their actual belief there is need for it combined with their clear issues on the oversight/review aspects) is an unfortunate yet sensible move by him and his party. We have in the Harper government the first Canadian federal government that will clearly use national security legislation, not just policy, but legislation, for blatantly partisan electoral purposes, and who through their actions in minority as well as majority government have shown little to no interest in evidence based committee hearings to improve legislation (again, unlike any prior government) especially from opposition members and have routinely choked off the ability of opposition members to even call experts that might challenge the Harper POV. In other words, we have a unique government playing by rules unheard of/unprecedented within Canada, and therefore expecting the other parties to respond in the traditional Canadian manner to fight back is essentially asking for them to stay disarmed against Harper as they have been for the past decade now.

    It was clear to me from the moment and manner that this legislation was announced that its purpose was not so much aimed at international security concerns as it was at domestic political calculations and concerns. We already know that a major part of the Harper re-election campaign is on security issues since the economy started failing them as their main approach. We know that they were clearly attacking Trudeau and the Libs as unfit due to lack of experience and seriousness on the security file and using the Iraq vote last fall as one example (and that was clearly working, and it was I thought one of Trudeau’s worst moments as leader) and therefore going with something this broad was almost certainly bait for both opposition parties but especially the Trudeau Libs (We all know it is and always has been the Liberals that Harper primarily loathes and targets and sees as the primary electoral threat, not the NDP, this is clear public record, you can disagree as to whether he is right to think so, but that he does how can one not?) to oppose and therefore box them in on the weak on security charge.

    By doing what he did Trudeau managed to avoid that all but impossible box to get out of. He reminded people that it is his party that has experience governing, which is a good message for him. He also reminded Canadians that not so long ago we did not treat policy disputes in black or white terms, including, one might argue especially national security issues, and he is seeing whether there is still a hunger in the wider public for the more nuanced approach to politics we once valued so highly. He also is showing part of his election platform by making clear that the amendments his party will put forward if not accepted by the Harper government (which almost certainly will not happen) will form part of his election platform and therefore gives Canadians some idea of where he and the Libs stand on security issues, and that will have appeal to many in the soft center right voters Harper gained in 2011 who have become quite uncomfortable with him since.

    What people need to remember about Trudeau and the Libs is that he and his party are neither fully progressive nor fully conservative, they are a pragmatic centrist fusion, which has always been both their main strength as a governing party and their weakness because it makes them look less “principled” than strongly ideological parties. So he cannot always appear to be on the side of progressives, nor can he be always on the side of conservatives (note the small c please, not the Harperism that has taken root within the CPC but more traditional Canadian conservativism), he must walk the tightrope of both at the same time if he and his party are to truly be able to beat out the Harper CPC in the next election, and the way he defused this clear claymore aimed at him and his party by Harper actually gives me hope he has the ability for it despite his occasional stumbles.

    I am not arguing the bill itself here, others have done so on both sides and that is important, I am trying to provide a perspective that I believe is also important because of the nature of the government putting this legislation out during its majority tenure that goes to why this perspective needs to be considered. I LOATHE having to take these kinds of political concerns on national security issues and legislation, and prior to the rise of the Harperium I never felt the need (security issues are near and dear to me, long family history involvement not just with military but also including in the RCMP intelligence unit, now CSIS). I will say that I do not believe that if we had the Libs in current majority that this bill would have been brought forward, and if there had been a security bill brought it would have dealt with primarily updating the information sharing in a much saner manner, indeed done much as they did the 2001 updates, and with much better oversight as they had been on the path of doing when they were finally brought down as a government. It also would not have been done with this kind of reckless speed and disregard for the views and concerns of the opposition parties, we know this because of how they acted in 2001.

    So next time when you want to simply bash Trudeau for his actions/decisions here, keep what I just wrote in mind please, because I strongly suspect he and those around him are, and with good cause. If he was pulling this during a minority Parliament, then I would be furious, but nothing he nor the NDP can do in the House can stop this, we know Harper almost never changes bills due to pressure from within the House or the wider public, and this close to an election on what is clearly going to be his election question the idea he would appear “weak” and give in to pressure on security legislation when he is clearly going the “strong leader” approach frankly strikes me as moronic to even consider. This way Trudeau pulls the worst poison aimed at him out, yes he takes some heat and a hit on the progressive side, but for him and the Libs to win they most of all need to gain back the millions of right leaning centrists who in 2011 swung to Harper despite their issues with him rather than to Layton when he and the NDP were on the rise when the Lib leader of the day was clearly unacceptable and never should have been leader to begin with.

    Trudeau is right to support this POS in the way he has, not so much for the reasons Warren lays out IMHO but because given the realities of our current political environment and government as I just laid out it was necessary to sacrifice some now to prevent a much greater loss in the Fall and risk yet not just another Harper government but majority government. Sometimes being a leader means having to make such ugly choices for the greater good, and I really see this as one of those situations, and good on Trudeau for doing so. That does not change BTW my personal view that this legislation is also a POS, but that was not the point/perspective I felt was being overlooked here on why Trudeau is right to act as he had here. Life is rarely fair and many times manifestly unfair, and you have to swallow some garbage to survive to do the right thing, it may not be pretty, it may seem unprincipled, but it is unfortunately the nature of reality/life itself, and from my reading of human history something that has never really not been with us since we first started writing things down.

    It again comes down to this question. Is getting rid of Harper the most urgent need for Canada or not? If you believe yes, then you have to take whatever steps are necessary to do so, and this is what I see Trudeau and the Libs doing here. Part of what allowed the rise of Harper is this belief of some that voting the lesser evil is worse than not voting at all, that you always have a good option if you look hard enough, believe hard enough, have enough faith, or simply stay principled enough. Sadly the real world has shown that this is almost always not the case, and in the real world when you get someone willing to manipulate such beliefs as callously and harshly as Harper has, well this is what you get.

    P.S.

    Warren, sorry, I know you’ve said recently not to be so wordy, but it is my writing style, I am not so good at short form writing, especially on important matters like these. I do though make all comments original to the place I put them, and I do try to make my entire argument within in them so as to not be making multiple comments all the time. So I please ask your forgiveness keeping all this in mind. Thank you.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      Scotian,

      One of your posts is definitely worth ten of mine. Thank you so much.

      • Scotian says:

        Ronald O’Dowd:

        I’ll leave it up to you to decide relative value to your own comments versus mine. I do thank you for the compliment. I am truly just one politically aware and informed citizen who is voicing his view, not for a party, not for a leader, but solely for myself and to an extent my wife, but that is because the last decade converted her from hardcore Dipper to Trudeau Lib, she has chosen a partisan position, whereas I come at this as I always have, stopping Harper who I see as the true threat for Canada and Canadians (not conservatives for those that see no difference, I see a MASSIVE difference between the two, there is a reason you will never find me referring to the CPC and especially Harper as Tories, I know what Toryism is, and THAT the Harper CPC is clearly not) in not merely ideology but operational practices. IOW, Harperism is inherently anti-good/competent government whatever the policies being crafted and where they fall on the political/ideological spectrum.

        I am by both training from school and by personal nature an essay type writer when it comes to things like politics and other real world issues. I also talk in the length that I write, it is simply how my brain works. In fact I actually envy those who can do short and pithy while staying fully on point, but that is not my strength. I do think that my style has a place that has been more and more lost in our political discourse, part of what I believe is why things have become so lowest common denominator is that lack of detailed nuanced discussions in more than 140 characters at a time. I realize this is not the norm anymore, and that for many I take too long to bother with, but it is what I think when I write it, I am creating everything original when I write it, I almost never repeat/cut and paste a comment anywhere (I qualify because I have in less than a handful of times over a decade), and I never write a comment until I have read not only the post but all comments in that thread to that point.

        So I hope some find it of value, as you apparently do, and I am grateful to places like this blog for me to speak in the first place, and one of my main reasons for commenting here is because I believe this site attracts a higher quality politically informed reader than many. Like him, hate him, agree with him, disagree with him, or whatever in between, Warren Kinsella does have a well deserved record as a capable political operator and therefore fairly seen as an expert voice on Canadian politics, and so would attract the eyes of those who are also similarly such and those who want more than just fluff, be it critical fluff or blowjob fluff, political analysis. I value not just his posts but the comments of his regular readers, even those who I am in violent disagreement with. I try to offer my best to all of them as well as Kinsella when I chose to write here on a post, as I would hope all do.

  21. MgS says:

    Warren,

    Frankly, Bill C-51 is an overreaction in my opinion. There may be some justification for some of the measures, but the problems are so fundamental, and the definitions of terms used so broad that it effectively creates an environment where legitimate political commentary can arbitrarily be declared “supporting terrorism” with frightening ease. Even if there is “judicial oversight”, these broad definitions are a tool which can be used by politicians to silence their critics.

    Harper has already started waging this kind of war of silencing in going after environmental lobbies. Bill C-51’s critics are right to be very concerned by the prospect of our government using the powers in this bill to further stifle dissent. As demonstrated after 9/11, when various extended powers were made available, they were never used. The powers to stop people from travelling smack of Soviet-era Russia, when travelling outside of your home country required reams of paperwork documenting where you were going and for how long. Unnecessary, and ultimately a failed approach.

    The Harper Government has not demonstrated that there is a clear need for this legislation, nor have they reflected on the fact that every “terrorism” arrest in Canada after 9/11 was done without the use of extraordinary powers. If this legislation is truly needed, then let’s have the discussion around what and why it is needed, and what kind of oversight is appropriate to ensure that the agencies empowered with these authorities do not abuse them to the detriment of Canadians.

    I think we would do far better to consider carefully the reasons for groups like ISIS and what gave rise to them in the first place. The article below is surprisingly clear-headed on the matter, and opens the discussion as to what a little introspection might reveal.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adil-e-shamoo/why-isis-exists_b_6812872.html

  22. Marcus says:

    #TITANICBURN Point: Warren.

    Bring on October. This lamentable experiment with the NDP being anything other than a protest movement was fun, but really REALLY needs to end.

  23. terence quinn says:

    The good folks in dipper land must be going apoplectic over your blog. They had the election in the bag with that stand.

    By the way I am currently in China and once again know Trudeau was right in his previous comments on China. This is avery dynamic society on the verge of cleaning up rampant corruption which will slow down growth a tad but open the market up t real competition. They are increasing their focus on making their goods and services comply to western standards and now embrace technology even more so than we do in the west.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      You are praising central planning based on $1/hour minimum wage ($200/month)? Massive manufacturing has already left China (i.e. Chinese factory owners already moved 5 years ago most clothing operations to $40/month Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia) because manual labour is much cheaper elsewhere. China has to hit western standards quickly like Japan did 30 years ago and South Korea and Taiwan did 15 years ago. They are in a rush against the clock before India’s corruption and infrastructure problem is resolved. China’s central planning collapses when the masses begin to realize the American dream – that hard work will get you anything you want – does not apply.

      “Open up to real competition.” China is already the wild, wild west of competition. Go to Yiwu, 1 1/2 hours by bullet train southwest of Shanghai. But that is changing so, so quickly.

      Less competition in seeking greater efficiency is the future, just like the consolidation that occurred in North America and Western Europe 50 years ago, Japan 30 years ago, South Korea and Taiwan 15 years ago. At the semi-annual, Canton Fair (in Guangzhou), where the whole world meets (English is the language, everything is quoted in U.S. dollars), there are less and less Chinese manufacturers. Yes, Ali Baba and Made-in-China are two reasons, the third is consolidation and Chinese manufacturers going to cheaper manual labour markets. The problem is that technological advancement is extremely dangerous in China. Can you imagine if Apple and all Japanese and South Korean companies embraced German robotics instead of using manual assembly lines. In Shenzhen alone, 1M-1.5M considered good jobs, would disappear if Apple products stopped getting assembled piece by piece in long, manual assembly lines. Yes folks, your iPhone and my iPad are made piece by piece in long, 200+ person assembly lines where at the end EVERY piece is tested.

      Terrence, don’t praise until you understand the situation. If we allowed $1/hour labourers our $30B transit infrastructure problem would be resolved and we could build a Burj in every North American city next year.

  24. terence quinn says:

    Canada got its massive transportation corridors through central planning and medicare was driven the same way.

    Is china a democracy? No.

    As for the $1 an hour pay, that is obvious hearsay from the peanut gallery sitting here in Canada. It costs the average industrial employer over $10 an hour to keep a worker employed housed and fed in most cases. I see those wages in Dongguan, Shanghai suburbs and towns well north of Beijing. Your $1 an hour is a myth and exists only in very rural and agricultural areas for the most part.

    There are well over a hundred million cars on the road. Do you think they bought those making $1 an hour. I have been to shops where apple phones are assembled and the people are nor making $1 an hour. Shenzhen is one of the fastest growing Cities in China and will soon have 7 subway lines and now has traffic jams that make the 401 look like a walk in the park. You also forget that if China automated things like the Apple production line hundreds of millions would be thrown out of work. Now they have jobs in Cities, away from the abject poverty of their ancestral villages, while the economy transitions to a modern one which will still take several years but is quickly moving in that direction.

    I understand the situation much better than you as we actually run businesses in China and are not simply spectators or arm chair QB’s.

    Chinese domestic consumption is rising so fast that exports are not needed as much as the were say 10 years ago although they are still a big part of the economy.

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      What central planning is Trudeau suggesting? Please tell before the election.

      Agree, not a democracy.

      Sorry Terence, no industrial employer is paying anywhere close to $10/hour (including housing and feeding the staff). That would be over $1,600 a month. The average salary for an office worker in downtown Shanghai is less than $4/hour – minimum monthly salary in Shanghai (highest in China) is RMB1820/month (US$290; a 20+% increase from last year) – and they must pay for their own food and accommodation. Labourers are paid less than that. All I can figure is you are being lied to. Have you even seen the conditions that industrial employees live in? Usually 2-6 in a room no larger than my child’s bedroom. Food is significantly cheaper in China than in Canada.

      Foxconn (Apple’s main manufacturer) is paying just above Shenzhen’s minimum wage. Note: Minimum wages in most cities are different from the rest of the province.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html

      I actually understand the situation since I have had an office in downtown Guangzhou (China’s third largest city) for years (so I am no spectator or arm chair QB), and have been doing business there for almost a decade.

      • terence quinn says:

        Central planning is not on the radar as best I can see but improvement of the transportation corridors across the /country might be driven by the Feds.

        I did not say the employer was paying $10 an hour. I stated it costs the employer $10 and up to keep the employee fully engaged. That includes tool uniforms, housing and food in some cases among other salary benefits. I see payroll data regularly from companies we are associated with so I fully know what the costs are. I was in an International ladies day meeting on Saturday with 50 women from our Company and the all make at least $5 an hour in Dongguan which is not Shanghai.

        If you take an average across the country you are correct about labourers but in the major cities the are paid at least that as base salary. Don’t forget that idf their housing is not supplied many of them live in government subsidized apartments.

        I too am no spectator but have involvement not only in Dongguan and Shenzhen but also in Shanghai, Dondang, Chengdu and Zhoushan. So please don’t try an educate me. I see direct payroll costs regularly around the Country.

        I note your foxconn link is from two years ago. Thing are changing faster than you realize. BB’s are now also being made there as well. We have hundreds of employees on direct payroll, not just a representative office.

        • MississaugaPeter says:

          I will again state: “no industrial employer is paying anywhere close to $10/hour (including housing and feeding the staff).” No where in China are industrial workers costing their company’s over $1,600 a month. No where. If that was a Chinese factory’s cost, it would relocate further inland or overseas. Industrial employees are considered disposable and any company that is showing you these numbers is keeping two sets of books.

          More up-to-date Foxconn salary information (October 2014):

          http://tech.sina.com.cn/it/2014-10-13/07539687538.shtml

          Google translation: It is understood that the basic salary of 2000 yuan Foxconn employees, and the rest are relying on overtime to get a monthly salary of about 3,000 yuan -4000 yuan.

          RMB2000/month = USD$320/month. That is still less than $2/hour.

          Foxconn is opening operations in India because wages are getting too high in China.

          Minimum monthly wages (hourly wages are rarely referred to) in Shenzhen, have grown 80% in the last 5 years, from RMB1,000/month (USD$160/month) in 2009 to RMB1808/month (USD$288/month).

          I will concede that $1/hour no longer exists in China’s biggest four cities. More like $2/hour now. But $1/hour exists in most of the rest of China. When it does raise everywhere to $2/hour, most factories will move west, just like the clothing industry already has.

          What was my initial premise? Your praise of Trudeau’s praise of China’s undemocratic government’s actions is wrong. It is easy to do expansion at $1/hour. China is slowing down and is facing increasing headwinds as the cost of labour increases. If India successfully tackles it’s massive corruption and infrastructure problem, China’s central planning government will collapse due to massive unemployment and resulting civil unrest.

          • terence quinn says:

            One final statement. I see actual payroll data every quarter broken down in pretty specific formats for hundreds of employees across China. I leave it at that.

            One ore thing. We recently interviewed several engineers for a management position based in Shanghai and the salaries demanded were on average $130K USD per year.

  25. Joe says:

    In principle I oppose C 51 for the same reason I opposed Dion’s carbon tax. I have always believed that public panics create bad policies. In the case of Dion the ensuing years have shown that there has been no global warming and the carbon tax would have done nothing but add to the size of government and the cost of living with a likely side effect of a short term recession. I don’t know all the details of C 51 but I do have concerns that government prying into private affairs is never a good thing even when done with the best of intentions. This will have virtually no effect on me but nevertheless I prefer a weak government to a powerful government when it comes to conducting my own business.

  26. Kelsey says:

    Forum Research now shows support for C-51 is plummeting. I think you’re underestimating how big opposition to this bill is getting. Just look at the size of the street protests against it *across* the country. Unprecedented.

    Trudeau’s support for the bill is becoming a serious liabiity to the party and a missed opportunity to unite the anti-Harper vote. Even more so when polls show that many Conservatives (13%) strongly oppose the bill as well.

    As for judicial oversight within the bill: It’s a joke. They are setting up a system similar to U.S. FISA courts which Edward Snowden’s leaks very clearly proved had become a rubber stamp. What else do you expect when the only people in the room making a decision is a Judge and a Prosecutor?

  27. Mike Arsenault says:

    This bill is WRONG for Canada, and you, Mr. Kinsella, know damn well that 82% of Canadians don’t support it!

    We do NOT need to buy into this fear machine they want to sell to us. What part of “Strong AND Free is so hard to understand? You must be aware that the strength only comes from the freedom. I wrote this piece myself for my friends and family on facebook, but have been finding a good response to it. I will post it here for you all to consider and reply to if you wish. Thank you for taking the time to read it, I am certain that you will at least find that I care deeply about this issue, and about the future that we will be entering into if we are foolish enough to allow our fears to fool us into giving away some of the only things that make Canada a better place to live than many others.

    PLEASE, EVERYONE. GIVE ME JUST A FEW MOMENTS OF YOUR TIME.
    I spent the last hour and a half working on this piece, because i can’t be quiet and let this happen without raising my voice in every way i can.
    According to the latest poll, 74% /// UPDATE!! SUPPORT FOR C-51 IS GOING DOWN! Keep informing everyone you know about the dangers of this legislation. We CAN make a Difference!!/// of Canadians still support this proposed bill ( C-51), which will allow domestic spies to have police powers, track and record ANY and ALL internet and wireless traffic WITHOUT a warrant. And that’s not all.
    I want to ask all of you, truthfully, solemnly, and from all the deepest care in my heart, to please educate yourself about what this bill really means, and why you should care about it. I am here, ANYTIME of ANY DAY, to help anybody who feels they do not understand what this bill means, or why we should worry about it, to gain a deeper understanding.
    Anyone who knows me should know that I’m not really on the “left” or the “right”. I say this because this is most certainly an issue that even the most polarized folks from the left or the right should find common cause in.
    We are about to give our government and spy agencies a whole lot of power.
    They are claiming that they need these powers to protect us from terrorists and criminals.
    I maintain, and feel I can prove it to a very convincing level, that not only should we not fear terrorists to the point that we should be sacrificing our personal liberties, but sacrificing these liberties is NOT even going to make us any safer from terrorist attacks!
    I know that it might seem like you won’t really NEED the kinds of freedoms they are taking away anyway, but the thing about these kinds of freedoms is that they are the backbone that democracy is made of, and when, not if, but WHEN that backbone is challenged, we WILL need those freedoms, or there will be nothing to stand in tyranny’s way.
    Please, don’t let anyone tell you that caring about this is “overly dramatic” either. It’s NOT.
    Our ancestors spilled blood by the bucket for us to have these rights and freedoms. I don’t think us raising a bit of a ruckus to make sure they aren’t swept out from under us by our corporate overlords is overly dramatic by comparison, AT ALL.
    The ability for peoples in a free society to have dialogue with each other, WITHOUT the fear of having their conversations monitored, IS ESSENTIAL to the healthy functioning of freedom and democracy!
    We NEED to be able to have unrestricted dialogue with each other, or democracy doesn’t work. PERIOD. The internet is, like it or not, the public commons of today’s society. If people are scared, for whatever reason, that their speech is going to be monitored, or even recorded so that it can be analyzed later should the “need arise” , then an honest dialogue cannot take place between the citizenry. The citizenry will, and I posit, already HAS, begun to censor itself. When that happens, we have essentially added thought crime to the rules of our society.
    Please, this is more important than anything else these parties are going to do this election cycle. We need to make sure this doesn’t happen, or it WILL signal a very real loss of footing on the slippery slope that is every democracy’s trap: the trap of trading liberty for security, which of course inevitably ends in having neither liberty OR security, nor deserving of either. The deserving part implies that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to safeguard that freedom, lest it be ripped from our grasp.
    And I have to ask: Is the responsibility for the freedom and liberty of you, your family, your brothers and sisters, your community, not a valorous and worthy task?
    Is it not something each of us should take into our hearts, and learn what knowledge we must, stand together when we must, to safeguard?
    You CAN and ARE part of something extremely Valuable and Important.
    Our grandfathers and grandmothers went to war to protect our democratic way of life. They didn’t do it so we could sit around and let it all be taken away without any resistance.
    One more point, to help put this in another perspective.
    Most of us old enough to remember the end of the cold war, remember the name Stazi.
    The Stazi were the East German secret police.
    (they were intelligence agents who were empowered with the ability to arrest and detain east german citizens who were suspected of activities which were perceived to be a threat to east germany – Exactly what bill c-51 will allow Canada’s CSIS to do)
    The Stazi were famous for the amount of surveillance they undertook. The name Stazi became an interchangeable name for an overpowered, oppressive surveillance state.
    Our western countries called out the Stazi to no end for their human rights abuses, their oppressive and undemocratic spying on the everyday people of East Germany.
    I think I remember people being shocked to hear that something like 25 or 50% of the east german population had been spied on, or had files composed about them and their activities during the reign of communism in East Germany.
    Our country, Canada, was one of the many western nations, the so called “Free World”, that made no bones about protesting East Germany’s surveillance state as undemocratic.
    So, just to put that in perspective. The amount of information that was collected by the East German Stazi about their citizens, is MINUSCULE in comparison to the amount of information that is being collected by the new surveillance apparatus that will be completely legalized by our allowing bill c-51 to become law.
    So, is it just normal for for everyone to be spied on like that now? Are we saying that the Stazi actually had it right all along?
    WELL? Because Either massive surveillance of the population, accompanied by a domestic intelligence agency empowered with police powers is a good thing or it isn’t. It’s no different if it’s the Canadian government or the East German government that is doing it.
    Now is the time, now is YOUR TIME TO DECIDE.
    Guys. Our country is stronger with it’s freedoms intact. Our freedoms are THE only thing separating us from being the kind of country that…we don’t want to be.
    Don’t let them sell you the fear of terrorism. There’s two groups who really seem to want us to be scared of terrorists.
    One group is the terrorists.
    And the other group is always some government or leader who is trying to convince you that you have to give up more of your freedoms and liberties in order for them to protect you from the terrorists.
    Terrorists can’t destroy us. They can only make us scared enough to destroy ourselves, that’s the whole idea of terrorism – to cause the target to destroy itself or alter its policies because of irrational fear.
    And make no mistake, terrorism DOES have an objective. Sure, many of the individual agents of terror are exactly what they appear to be: Angry, misguided, disenfranchised and radicalized individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe will be a ticket to a better afterlife.
    But these individuals ARE serving a higher purpose, whether we, or they, realize it. Those who are the leaders and inspirers of terrorism, such as Osama bin Laden, DO have a plan. Their plan is to use terrorism to destroy the western nations, so that their version of their religion can take over the entire world.
    The way terrorism works towards this goal is not by destroying the target societies outright. The terrorists know that they will never have the technology or the manpower to win in a head to head fight, they know they can never actually bring our countries down, not even with the worst attacks they can manage.
    No. The way terror works is the same way that a swarm of biting flies can kill a large animal such as a horse. The horse expends more and more of its energy thrashing against the flies, and eventually, the flies will drive the horse insane, and in it’s thrashing and bolting, it will eventually cause mortal damage to itself – snared in a fence, trapped in a bog, broken legged at the bottom of a ravine, out of energy and too far away from food, water, and shade.
    Such is the effects of terrorism on OUR societies. The fear of the attackers causes us to thrash about, attacking other nations out of our fear, taking away the rights and freedoms of our own citizenry, out of fear, spending ourselves into debt fighting wars that don’t seem to accomplish the goal of stopping terrorism, and if anything cause the enlistment rates of the terrorists forces to swell.
    Our response to terrorism is what ends up accomplishing the terrorists goals! – Lowering the quality of life in the target countries by sapping their resources, lowering their amounts of civil liberties, increasing militarism and divisions within the target societies, and causing their economies to go terribly into debt with the cost of trying to fight against an enemy that cannot even be located and measured in a way that even lends itself to a military solution!
    This is EXACTLY what people like Osama bin Laden hope will happen when they plan attacks against us!
    So when, if, we pass laws like bill C-51. Bills that take away long established standards of civil liberties in our societies, without an expiry date even mentioned ( have any of you noticed that in their bill, which they propose is needed to protect us from this “threat”, that their is NO EXPIRATION DATE? So what if the threat was defeated {of course, we all know that it never will be, will it…}, shouldn’t there be something in there so that our liberties are restored when this mission is successful? Of course their isn’t because everyone knows that this war is never going to end, is it. IS IT?
    The thing we must realize, is that bin Laden and his Ilk are extremely PATIENT. They are believers in an afterlife where they will be rewarded for helping to bring about the destruction of the west. It matters NOT to them if that destruction happens in their lifetime, or if it happens 300 years from now. As long as they have advanced the goal of their “clash of civilizations” they have satisfied their own requirements for getting into the afterlife.
    Don’t be fooled into thinking that the terrorists are all like the mentally unstable radicalized loner who assaulted parliament hill. Those men are just pawns, serving the greater goal. The goal of destabilizing western nations, even if it takes centuries to do it.
    When we pass a law like this C-51, we can consider such a law to be a major victory for those whos aim is to destabilize our country, whos goal is to make our country that much of a worse place to live, a place that is less free, and more afraid. A place that resembles, just a little more, a large number of the locations that these terrorists come from in the first place.
    Wait and see. If this law passes, you will see terrorist leadership celebrating it as a victory, because they will see it for what it IS: the horse becoming just a little more mad, a little more scared, and a little more reckless
    It’s up to us to stay strong and free.
    Hitler took advantage of the fear created by an attack on the German house of parliament to get an “emergency decree” passed which suspended civil liberties in Germany…
    The ones trying to take away civil liberties now are using an attack on our houses of parliament as part of their rationale.
    Selling us fear to march us down the garden path.
    Don’t buy what they’re selling you guys. We are, and will always be, stronger WITH our freedom than without it.
    The True North is only Strong BECAUSE it’s free

  28. King Prick says:

    The same people that believe in Bill C-51 believe that lowering corporate taxes is good for the middle class. C-51 will lead to only one thing: erosion of our rights and liberties. The leader that runs on rescinding the bill gets my vote in the next election. Pandering to US paranoia is just plain stupid. I don’t care who hates who. It doesn’t affect me. That’s the real truth in all of this. Hate mongers and douchebags tend to hang out with hate mongers and douchebags. Also by naming it an anti terror bill kind of makes it unfair to the public. We’re all against terror, (especially the type being instyigated by our own government,) but think for a moment how any of those in favour of this bill would feel if the bill was referred to by another name; say, “the anti-freedom bill,” or the “shit all over the Charter of Rights and Freedom’s bill,” or the “police state bill.”

    Look, I get it. Terrorism sucks but come on!!! When’s the last time we were attacked by radicals in this country? We went through the FLQ crisis and even then; after people were murdered; we didn’t go this far. I’m ashamed of Canada. We let this happen.

  29. Michael MacDoandl says:

    Mulcair made it C-51 versus legalization
    as if we had to choose one or the other.
    People fought over which one was more important..
    while all along the liberals plan on amending C-51 anyways
    http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/bill-c-51/?shownew=1
    We can have both.
    I’m voting for the guy that wants to bring all of us from different causes together to beat harper
    instead of the guy that wants to turn us against one another for the good of his party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*