03.05.2015 09:46 AM

Trudeau is right, the UBC students are not



  1. Kelly says:

    No. The Liberals are wrong on this. This is a secret police bill. More people are harmed crashing into moose and eating tainted meat in Canada than are harmed by terrorists. Current laws are adequate. Snowden himself has said Canada has the weakest oversight of its spy services of any in the Western world. You’d have to be a sucker to go along with this bill. It won’t keep you safe but it will make it easier to oppress opposition to unethical resource development or even potentially be used to oppress organized labour (no more wildcat strikes?) this is an assinine bill.

    • Simon Frisch says:

      Yup, and it will expose professional agitators mostly coming from the US to organize public protests against the government…. like the G20, climate change demonstrations, anti-oil sands opponents, and others. Surely, we want to know about foreign intervention in Canadian matters otherwise our sovereignty is at risk.

      • Derek Pearce says:

        Foreign agitators are responsible for the G20 protests? BC bands opposed to Northern Gateway are foreigners? You need more than kool aid you’re getting a vitamin deficiency.

    • Peter says:

      It won’t keep you safe but it will make it easier to oppress opposition to unethical resource development…

      We keep hearing that argument from Dippers and Greens. What kind of opposition are you thinking about? Petitions? Protest marches? Editorials? Hunger strikes? Or do you have some more “direct action” in mind by those who just know in their bones what is ethical and what is not and therefore get a pass on democratic process and the rule of law.

      Plus, with respect, unless you work for CSIS (or ISIS), you have no idea what will and will not keep us safe. Safety, however, is not the only public motivation. If it were, we’d close the borders and become a glorious isolationist Switzerland. People want to stop cowering and fight back.

  2. Michael says:

    He’s not entirely right, but he’s probably strategically right. He says it right there: He believes the Cons will have trouble in the coming election if they don’t put in oversight. Meaning? If you want oversight, vote Liberal instead.

    I am not a C-51 supporter, as such; I agree more oversight, and perhaps other changes, are needed. But the principle underlying the legislative change makes sense to me, and I support that (i.e., I support the initiative, though I’m reserved on the implementation).

    As for the moose and tainted meat comparison with action against terrorism, sorry, but that perspective is seriously flawed. More people die in car crashes than plane crashes: are we suckers to go along with pilot licensing and flight safety rules? Also, see my alternative meme here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796213344624&set=a.10150582148374624.389111.604014623&type=1&theater

    • Kelly says:

      Sorry. I’m not meaning to make light of terrorism, just to put things into perspective. We have a government that is fear mongering. Terrorism is awful. But we already have tools. It’s criminal activity. Calling it “war” is hyperbolic. Terrorism is a tactic used by all militaries in all wars. Bombing and artillery fire is a terror tactic. Torture is a terror tactic. Flying around a group of journalists in a helicopter and mowing them down with a 50-caliber machine gun is a terror tactic.

      Worst of all, this bunch of cons simply cannot be trusted with this much power. They have shown contempt for parliament, they’re secretive and have a habit of recruiting candidates and appointing officials who get charged and convicted of crimes. Harper is turning us into a nation of hypocrites. Teaming up with Saudi Arabia and Iran to fight ISIS? Seriously? It is to laugh, except lives are going to be ruined by our lousy policy. Do you want someone like Jason Kenney sitting up at night going through your browser history? At the very, very least, this bill needs to add robust parliamentary oversight to its administration and clearer definitions.

  3. Christian says:

    No. Trudeau and the Liberals are wrong. The bill is too broad with too little accountability and oversight. It contains provisions that will allow CSIS to override the Charter through judicial warrants (in other words give the government cover for breaching the Charter). It should be withdrawn and re-written with the appropriate oversight measures included. I see no reason why this cannot be done now.

    On another note (based on the limited amount of material in the article mind) I don’t think Trudeau did himself any favours in the eyes of the students (the ones he wants to motivate to vote for him). Came across as just another slippery politician.

  4. MississaugaPeter says:

    Agree with you WK on need to go after ISIS, but am against C-51 without significant, significant revision.

    Trudeau and his posse worst nightmare: having to appease the Blue Liberals (to avoid a Conservative majority) but losing Red NDPers (like these students) in the process. I think some of the posse thought they would be able to emulate the NDP all the way to election day. Mr. Grumpy Muclair must have a smirk on his face and be sighing of relief.

  5. Jeff says:

    If the Liberals and NDP both opposed this bill it very well could lead to that snap election all these people seem to think will happen. I personally think the Tories would look horrible if they broke their election law and don’t think it will happen but this is something that they could at least sell. A referendum election on foreign and domestic terrorism policy would be a huge strategic blunder for the Liberals.

    • André says:

      A snap election on both the Budget and Bill C-51 could be a winner for the Cons. Those two issues would cover the economy and security. Harper’s rationale would be that he wants another 4 year mandate to implement his Budget and C-51 and he can’t wait another 8 months because of the urgency of the situation. What would Canadians say if presented with such a message? Who would they want to lead the country under those circumstances. Trudeau? Mulcair? Harper?

  6. André says:

    Bill C-51 is also intended to snoop on the opposition parties if they are infiltrated with a terrorist element supporting jihadis. We know that ex-MP Liberal Omar Alghabra shouted after his 2008 election victory “Islam wins, Islam wins”! It’s even on youtube. Alghabra is a senior advisor to Trudeau and his contact into the muslim community in Canada. Omar likely arranged Justin’s visit to that mosque labeled as ‘terrorist’ by the US authorities. Ironically it appears that Trudeau strategists have gone over to supporting C-51 for appearances to most Canadians; but assures that he will make changes to the law to make it ‘better’. Undoubtedly, Justin will make the law toothless against terrorist elements within the muslim community.

  7. Bill MacLeod says:

    Trudeau is right. Kinsella is right.

  8. Mervyn Norton says:

    I’m with Warren on this one. As I noted in this space on Feb. 4: “Trudeau demonstrated more policy and political maturity today when he said the proposed new anti-terror legislation needed improvement but would be supported by Liberals with the intention of giving it ‘robust oversight and appropriate review if we have the honour of forming government in the next election.'”

    Critics, including both Liberal and NDP leaders, share positions about the need for substantial improvements in a bill that will inevitably pass, but there are different political tactics evident in “support but later amend” (Liberal) vs. “oppose but later amend” (NDP). Voters will sort out their own preferences at election time.

    Both opposition parties normally vote against omnibus budget bills, to take another example, and are thus exposed to being accused by Cons of not supporting ANYTHING in the budget. With this bill, the Liberals don’t want to be exposed to charges of being “soft on terrorism.” Do optics matter? You bet. This confirms that Liberals believe they need to win more voters from Cons than NDP camps, as the polls show they are now doing.

  9. Jim Walsh says:

    I’d be willing to bet every dollar I have ever earned, and will ever earn, that Justin Trudeau has never read Bill C-51, and wouldn’t understand it if he tried to.

    That said, the vague idea that the Liberals would somehow “fix it” if they were to get in power is silly. Their support is not even needed to pass the bill. If they have misgivings about it as written (and they should), then they just grow a pair and say so. There is no hyper-urgent threat that the Bill is suddenly going to protect us from. Do it right, or not at all.

  10. wsam says:

    More oversight

    • Simon Frisch says:

      …. but not by all political parties because that will only politicize the process. Look at the NDP filled with crypto-separatists and the Liberals with Islamists advising Trudeau. If you think that’s okay then C-51 will be totally compromised and Canada’s security futile.

  11. Africon says:

    When have students ever been right about anything?
    Bunch of inexperienced airheads that have been fed a bunch of pap by a bunch of inexperienced airhead professors that fear free speech above all else.

    Justin is a fool if he thinks he’s gonna get many votes from venues that UBC.

  12. Northern PoV says:

    Trudeau’s reaction to C-51 says much more about us (the voters) and the corporate media news-and-polling engine that manufactures consent than it does about the party and their leaders.

    Trudeau’s team knows that we are trapped in a contrived nightmare where-in a couple of mentally deranged men, in separate isolated incidents, are suddenly existential threats because they wrap themselves in the cloak of a foreign, exotic cause while murderers with “domestic” rationalizations (such as Nazi-like hate or anti-police hate) who achieve much higher body counts are ignored.

    We have an election this year. Harper is winning it at the moment. The Liberals are the only alternative that our deluded and somnolent electorate might choose to replace Harper. Trudeau’s invisibility on this issue is simply the result of a mature, disciplined, well calculated analysis: oppose Harper vigorously on this bill gives the CONs a huge wedge to squeak out another win.

    • André says:

      And now with the terrorist attack on 4 Conservative MPs in Quebec with the “white powder” envelopes and overt threats will swing Quebec voters to the Conservatives. No ‘anthrax-style’ envelopes were sent to the Liberals or NPD MP offices in Quebec and it’s only the Conservatives who are the enemies of the terrorists in Quebec.

      The enemy of my enemy is my Conservateur amis et alliés. Try to trump that! Can you say Post-Budget Spring Election?

  13. davie says:

    I sometimes catch Minister Blaney being interviewed on the media, or listen to him answer questions in House of Commons. The evasions, tangents and forced connections themselves fill me with doubts about this bill and the whole terrorism thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.