Kennedy says that the allegations are "totally baseless".
He must be referring to the following from Kay's editorial:
Among veteran Liberal insiders, it is believed that the several hundred Sikh convention delegates Bains and his allies led into the Dion camp (via Gerard Kennedy) came with a price: an end to the investigative powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was opposed for predictable reasons by various Sikh, Tamil and Muslim organizations.
Well, I would welcome a house-cleaning here. Let's get it all in the open. How about we have an inquiry?
Jack's Newswatch has also picked this up. He has a great analysis of his own as well, "Raising Public Awareness".
* * * *
UPDATE: This is BIG! Separate post-worthy even; but I'm tired - Tom Wappel spills the beans! Read all the details at the CTV site. All the things that Dion denied; all the spin. It's all there just as the Conservatives said. Other Blogging Tories are covering this as well.
...It was only after a caucus committee meeting on Feb. 5 that he learned the new leader had decreed "a 180 degree reversal'' of the Liberal stance on the issue.
"Under no circumstances did I expect that it would be anything but a formality and, yes, we'll support the extension . . . To me it was a total shock,'' Wappel said.
Having recommended renewal of the measures in the sub-committee report, Wappel said he had no choice but to support the government motion.
"I have to stand by what I wrote in October. Otherwise I can't live with myself.''
50 comments:
Since NP printed the story, doesn't that mean that the lawyers of the NP will be squaring off against the LPC on behalf of Kay?
Bring it on :D
Yeah! I would expect that the NP legal department would have checked that out very carefully before it went to print.
This should be very interesting.
Except for wailing from Liberals like Kennedy there is not going to be any action taken. The LPC membership itself would have to demand an accounting of the party's convention events. Good luck!
Remeber that I said just a few days ago that Harper's plan ( assuming he's a Machiavellian ) could be to elicit the over the top response of the LIberals?
Does this qualify?
Have we seen any clearer evidences of their arrogance and disdain for ordinary Canadian citizens?
Just add these incidents to the ever growing list of examples and wait for the next set of TV spots exposing the Libs at their game.
Poilievre vs. Holland on Duffy after the commercial break... rubs hands together and waits.
I like the "inquiry" idea Joanne. I have finally sorted out that stupid google blog.
I scrapped the old one and started a new one... with a not so secret agenda.
Come by for a visit when you have a chance.
Poilievre is my new hero.
When you get a chance, view the video from Duffy and watch smart, sly and humorous sarcasm kick the arse of righteous over-the-top red-faced indignation.
Molar, I saw it. He was great!!! Holland looked like he wanted to paste him one.
Don't forget to add Denis Corderre marching with Hezbollah to the list of support for terrorists. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the ethnic groups in Corderres riding
"The LPC membership itself would have to demand an accounting of the party's convention events"
Let's see now....50 thongs @ $20 each is $1000.
Maybe that's why Iggy looks so miserable all of the time. He's wearing an uncomfortable thong....is Dion??? Goodale???
The mind boggles. :-)
Thanks, Rene. That's a good point, and well worth remembering.
Maybe that's why Iggy looks so miserable all of the time. He's wearing an uncomfortable thong....is Dion??? Goodale???
And that is something worth forgetting!
Yes, in the week where families of terror victims were in the news, pleading for Canada to do everything they could so others would not suffer the same fate,
the PM was talking about the importance to Canadians of this legislation,
law enforcement was worried about future attacks, for all Canadians
the liberals were deathly concerned about, and openly advocating for......THEMSELVES.
They couldn't have been more blatant about Liberals only being worried about liberals at the time of this critical debate.
The Canadian public:
"for the sake of Canadians, don't don't let the legislation die"
The Liberals:
"for the sake of us, we're calling our lawyers"
joanne,
brilliant. we need an inquiry. we need a chance to prove that not only Jon Kay, but Tarek Fateh, had it all wrong about the Gerard Kennedy campaign.
this is a national interest issue.
Nice try biff.
The claim that the sun has now set on security is laughable. Air India can use subpoenas to compel testimony. Terrorist suspects can still be picked up. Existing "probable cause" powers do allow stopping an act before it starts.
The Liberals stood up for Canadians remaining free of possible police fishing expeditions.
They stood up for the Parliamentary legislative committee process being respected, rather than being contemptuously ignored.
The CPC had yellow journalists, traumatized (and duped by them) terror victims, a whole array of anon trolls on the blogs as well as media shills, working in an orchestrated campaign of slurs and innuendo. All to gain some partisan advantage. All to establish that they can ignore the input of the commons committees that review legislation, so that any bill they wish to ram through need only be delayed until the last minute, then bring out the slurs, lies and innuendo.
Dion whipped his caucus. Harper whipped up hysteria.
Dion used his party to defend civil liberties. Harper used a series of pawns to try and erode them, and to assassinate the character of as many of his opponents as possible.
Then Lorrie has what sounds like a very good column, a plea for decency, even putting in possible apologies from both sides.
But it is another piece of "strategy" so you can claim to be reasonable. Just like "we offered compromises and were rejected".
Sorry Karl, it won't work.
You know LS sometimes you think like a person who has experienced breach birth!
I don't know, PGP. I think Red Tory took over Liberal Supporter's body; er, keyboard.
And the same ones that claim ever so proudly that Dion whipped his caucus,(the vision brings laughter) are the ones that critcize Harper for being a controller. We haven't heard Harper tell his caucus how to vote ,have we?
Dion should bring his lawyer with him to the debates as well.
(lawyer interjects) "I'm instructing my client not to answer that question"
Dion: "I've been instructed by my lawyer not to answer any questions, although he has said I can give the following statement:
I get prize for saving the birds, the sea birds".
Lawyer: "ok we'll have to shut it down, if you want more answers you'll have to get a subpeona"
Biff, that's hilarious!
It reminds me of something I saw on Mike Duffy tonight. Two journalists were being interviewed towards the end.. It could have been Robert Fife that said they were getting tired of having to review the tapes to try and figure out exactly what he says; sometimes they have to play them over and over.
I just wish all MSM would quote him exactly as the words come out of his mouth and not bother polishing up the grammar, etc.
No, RT has not taken over my keyboard. But it seems Don Rickles has taken over here.
I thought you would all be hiding under your beds, now that there is absolutely no security from terrorists in Canada.
Glad to see you're not actually afraid. So if you claim Al Gore is blowing smoke because his house is, well, blowing smoke, then it would fit that your jocular mood here indicates we are not actually in more danger from terrorists today, than we were yesterday.
the danger is the same. our ability to do something about the danger has changed. Its a fine nuance that likely confuses the fanatics supporting the Liberal party.
Baloney
hey liberal supporter,
why not go get rid of your life insurance (or ask your parents to do so),
then await that nagging "what if" thing,
that'll get you kinda close to the right feeling.
ouch! the burn sizzles.
take this slow, fella:
the danger of a fire does not diminish with the purchase of a fire extinguisher.
the danger of a heart attack does not diminish with the purchase of a defibrilator.
the danger of a car accident does not diminish with the installation of an air bag.
the danger of a cut does not diminish with the purchase of bandaids.
tell me when this sinks in because you may still be smoking in bed thinking the smoke detector keeps you from torching yourself and your family to death.
the danger of your child drinking poison does not diminish by writing the telephone number for poison control on a fridge post-it.
the danger of falling from a trapeze does not diminish from the installation of a safety net.
the danger of an infection does not diminish with the purchase of antibiotics.
as for baloney - the danger of dying from nitrite-triggered cancer does not diminish with the availability of chemotherapy in your neck of the woods.
please, please let me know when this complicated thought has made it through all that feel-goodiness.
well, the danger of dying does diminish, but not the danger of getting a nitrite-cause cancer.
stick to lean turkey slices and you'll be fine.
our ability to do something about the danger has changed
I can see the danger level increasing if we adopt a foreign policy like the US.
Otherwise, the policies we have in place now are sufficient. They have been protecting us thus far --
Why compromise on human rights for a useless policy?
Is it because the ATA would have most likely infriged the rights of people with arabic names... come on cons..admit it..
C'mon chucker,
the cost is just tooooo high though.
So you've got some guy, who a judge believes on reasonable grounds is about to committ a terrorist attack, killing innocent women and children,
based on evidence the police have accumulated,
holding this "would be child killer" is just tooooo draconian.
the fair thing to do, is, you know, wait till he kills the kids,
THEN arrest him for murder.
so what that the SCC found that this was constitutional, a reasonable limit, having regard for the extreme potential cost of finding otherwise,
would be terrorists, should according to Dion,
be given super, duper, extra special even more than the Supreme Court of Canada would grant kinda rights!
as I just commented elsewhere:
Ever heard of "buffalo insurance"? That is insurance that only pays if you are hit by a buffalo going south on a Tuesday if the sun is shining. That is what you wanted us to buy, and at too high a price.
Yes, you will have arrest your hypothetical terrorist after he acts. You pick him up, he cools his heels for 72 hours, then goes out and acts as planned. Or does 72 hours somehow change his mind, which the 24 hours we currently have would not?
No? This doesn't make you safer on the face of it? Oh, maybe there's a loophole. Any provision that you can't "preventatively arrest" the guy as soon as he steps out the police station? For another 3 days? Now we're up to close to a week. Would your job still be there if you disappeared for a week? 9 days? 12 days? They don't have to tell anyone you are incommunicado.
As of 5:47 today, you cannot call the cops and tell them "that Liberal Supporter guy supports the Liberal Party, the party of terrorists. I know I can't prove that, but I'm suspicious."
So if you can convince the police to be suspicious, they can lock me up for 3 days, then let me go, then do it again. Any reason they can't? You haven't been charged, so habeas corpus doesn't come into ir. You haven't been tried, so double jeopardy doesn't come into it. You're just locked up. At least they can't throw away the key, because they have to release and rearrest you every three days.
This is the kind of thing that can happen with hastily drawn legislation. That is why the 11th hour "compromise" was completely disingenuous, contemptuous of the lawmaking process, and was simply an attempt to bully the Opposition, making them fear that some of the lies and smears might stick. Well it might stick, but it didn't work.
Ohh,
Lib supporter, you mean convince a Judge,
or are judges views only to be trusted when we're talking about same sex marriage.
Otherwise judges shouldn't be trusted with upholding our rights, lets just let the would be terrorist go?
"So you've got some guy, who a judge believes on reasonable grounds is about to committ a terrorist attack, killing innocent women and children,
based on evidence the police have accumulated,"
If the police had evidence, you can hold the person. The disputed provisions removed the requirement for evidence or "reason to believe" and replaced it with mere "suspicion".
That was the whole problem with it. They can grab you on suspicion for 24 hours already. In that time they can find some evidence. Unless you plan to kill people with your bare hands, there would be weapons, bomb materials, something physical that would allow them to keep you, like the 17 in Toronto are still locked up.
Joanne
the decision was made Feb 05
long before Kim was encouraged to write
long before the Prime Minister started to read Kim's story
see a pattern
Florence
No, I mean convince the police. That was all that was required. The 24 hour hearing with a judge would allow you to be held 3 days, again, only on the peace officer's suspicions. No proof required. The judge is required to demand no more than that. "Reason to believe" is a higher standard than "suspicion". The reason could be flimsy, but there has to be a reason under current laws.
Yeah,
I'm sure if they were suspected of planning on killing you Lib supporter, you'd be cool with them walking??????
No problem if its someone else in the cross hairs right?
Hey,
Lib supporter,
you know much more about protecting the rights of Canadians than the Supreme Court of Canada.
SSM, they're decisions are good.
If they rule to balance rights while protecting Canadians,
well,
as long as Lib supporter isn't in the cross hairs,
screw the SCC, and let the would be terrorists walk.
They would walk after 3 days anyway, wouldn't they?
Or would they keep getting re-arrested?
The only reason the SCC did not strike down the ATA was that it had a sunset clause it it, which was followed.
Had your people bothered to listen to the Commons committee's amendments, the law would have been extended.
If you believe that security is more important than our freedoms, then the terrorists have won.
When will you be getting your chip implanted?
"I can see the danger level increasing if we adopt a foreign policy like the US."
yes, because terrorist attacks against the US and US assets have... wait for it.... dropped.
USS Cole anyone?
African embassy bombings anyone?
9/11 anyone?
And then.... 6 years of NOTHING.
Uh-huh. Bullshit.
And Saddam is dead. That's as lovely as the Ode to Joy.
La! La! La! La! LA! La! La! La! La! La! La! La! La! La-la!
La! La! La! La! LA! La! La! La! La! La! La! La! La! La-la! (you must sing it to make sense of it).
Joanne
many newspaper articles are read in the House of Commons
why all the liberal hysteria?
I think the liberals protest too much
where there is smoke there is fire
Florence
that plot to behead the Prime Minister was foiled because there
was an informer
you can't always count on that
And Kay refutes the refuters:
"In Tuesday's edition of the Post, I wrote a column in which I detailed the manner in which certain blocs of Liberal delegates, voting along ethnic lines, influenced the result of December's Liberal leadership convention in Montreal. In particular, I reported on the claim — originating with well-placed Liberal insiders — that Stéphane Dion's decision to nix the expiring provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act was part of a quid pro quo with Muslim and Sikh delegates who'd originally backed Gerard Kennedy.
The Liberals, predictably, are denying that a quid pro quo took place. There is nothing I can say to that except that I stand by my sources. But I can say something more substantial to the specific charge leveled by MP Omar Alghabra, who falsely alleges that I misrepresented his actions at the Montreal convention.
In my article, I wrote the following: "Muslims, too, vilified [Bob] Rae in Montreal. As Tarek Fatah reported, the president of the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) circulated an e-mail to Muslim delegates warning them that Rae's wife is a member of a Jewish advocacy group, and that they shouldn't 'elect a leader who supports apartheid.' Alghabra, a former CAF president, stood by mute while these events unfolded."
In this Macleans article, posted on Wednesday, Alghabra claims I made this up. "That is absolutely not the case," he told the magazine. In the reporter's words, "[Alghabra] noted that he had actively spoken out against such discrimination — providing a letter from Canadian Jewish Congress president Ed Morgan thanking him for his 'vigorous condemnation of the antisemitic attacks against Bob and Arlene Perley Rae.'"
But the letter from the Canadian Jewish Congress proves nothing — and Alghabra knows it. I got hold of a copy. (Readers may see a PDF of the letter here.) The date on it is Dec. 21, 2006 — more than two weeks after the Dec. 2-3 Liberal convention ended. This hardly qualifies under the qualifier "while these events unfolded." (A phone call to the CJC I made today confirmed that Alghabra expressed regret only after the convention was over.)
Readers may draw their own conclusions about what this says about Alghabra's broader effort to disparage the claims contained in my column."
Here:
http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/02/28/fallout-to-my-column-on-national-security-vs-liberal-ethno-politics.aspx
Biff - Awesome!!! Thanks for this.
And in other news:
- the libs are proposing a carbon tax (yup even though Dion opposed one as environment minister)
Yeah, Dion's sprint left means....higher gas prices everyone!!!
(theglobeandmail.com)
Tango Juliette sez:
"...If you believe that security is more important than our freedoms, then the terrorists have won..." ~liberal supporter
What a typically brilliant G"W" Bushian Republicanized US-copying straight-man LS has morphed into. That whole line about "...then the terrorists have won..." was lunch and dinner for many comics and late nite talk show hosts for a few year after 9/11.
As well, LS muddies the to'n'fro by deliberately, it would seem, switching channels on the issue.
One would be hard pressed not to concede that there is more than some merit in his defense of the Dion position, at the level of "legal process." There is far less merit in his descent to the shrill denigration of those who do not share his dear leader's position, and in his callous, vicious and grossly insensitive attacks on those Canadians who lost family members in NYC 9/11.
There exists absolutely no merit whatsoever in the fact that LS has not presented one single, viable shred of information regarding the reasons behind the action, nor any valid info about the totally surprising and unheralded act of a 180 degree reversal (turn-around, flip-flop -- whatever you want to call it), primarily in response to the "force of will" and "control freak" machinations of the Man Who Calls His Dog Kyoto.
LS devastatingly demonstrates his Statist's view of his beloved Civil Liberties and Freedoms for Canadians, when he attacks the widow's and the orphan's freedoms in expressing their views.
My family roots are in what was once the empire of the Iron Curtain. Nice place LS, you would have fit right in, as a big-shot mouth-piece. I recognize the drift, the slant, the tone and the direction of your writing. The phrase I think you're searching for, to slam most of your (real and imagined) opponents with, would easily be that brutal Stalinesque zinger "...counter-revolutionary conduct, of word spoken or written, and of deed..."
What seems to be at the heart of this shit-storm is "entitlement," the vaguely hinted-at contention that the LPC has "what it takes" to be able to handle the powers of the sunsetted clauses of the ATA, and the "scary" Conservatives (a "fass-iss"government, according to MP Rastani[?] on CBC) most clearly do not.
Again, typical thinking of Totalitarian Statist strongmen dictators.
Unfortunately, for all Canadians, there exists no clear and compelling explanation that would make us all feel some degree of comfort about our own freedoms and security.
The neck-snapping about-face by the newly-minted and possibly-tainted LPC leadership, and by a fractious and deeply divided, though not quite thouroughly cowed, three-whipped caucus, on the two ATA clauses newly sunsetted, all combine to beggar the imagination of the least politically inclined citizen.
My questions to LS would be: Why the dramatic, last minute "about-face" by your party?
Remember, if PMSHarper can be questioned and belittled, by your side regarding what you call has last nimute conversion on the road to environmentalistas Damascus, then we citizens, all of us, (including widows, orphans, mothers and fathers of 9/11 victims) have every right to question your leader's thinking and motivation on these issues.
why the suspicious-appearing, partisan attitude towrds proferred concilliation and compromise?
In the Bolshevik Terrors, those citizens had much in the way of gallow humour.
"We pretend to work while the State pretends to pay us." Lotta millionaire Party and Politburo Members then, with their purloined, adscam-like rubles bursting the vaults in their numbered Swiss Bank Accounts.
"We believe that the State cares for our security and that we are free." But the State ran the purges AND the Gulag Camps. Counter-revolutionary. Catch 22. Or Cdn. Forces Queen's Regulations (Army)- Section 118. They're all the same. In these foregoing scenarios, he small guy doesn't have a chance.
With grovelling Doctrinaire, Elitist Entitlementarianists snouting and aggitating to regain what they believe to be their rightful and divinely-appointed place at the coffers of the Nation, Canada will see nothing good come of these LPC anger-ridden graspings and clawings.
I, for one, shall never again fall for anymore of your Librano buffalo-scat.
And check THIS out:
"Leadership losers draw Liberal salaries
But party won't say how much Kennedy and Hall Findlay earn
JANE TABER
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay are receiving salaries from the Liberal Party to help prepare for the coming election, but how much they earn is being kept secret.
The lack of transparency is causing concern among some Liberals and leading to speculation that private deals were made because Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Hall Findlay were the two leadership candidates who dropped off the ballot early and threw significant support behind Stéphane Dion. The secrecy is also driving speculation among some Liberals that Ms. Hall Findlay and Mr. Kennedy are earning big salaries."
And Rae, who didn't support Dion, JUST COINCIDENTALLY ISN'T getting a liberal salary.
That'll be great for fundraising eh?
"Dear Liberals, help support Dion's backroom deals, while screwing our former frontrunner, Bob Rae"
Anon, yeah. Thanks. I just caught that too. It's mentioned in the next post. Please keep feeding me tips.
Awesome, guys! Thanks so much.
As always our friend TJ cleans up, sets the record straight!
These lib supporters are sounding desperate in their attempts to not see the link between Dion and the context of the Bolan report.
Tango Juliette a.k.a. anonymous sez:
The Kennedy - Hall-Findlay Benevolence Society is gearing up to do big BIG things. To wit secret sums of money to ciphers and opeartives of the back-room boys. Thes are the same back-room boys who would have the Nation believe that the LPC is teetering on the brink of fiscal collapse, right?
Are the stooges being paid-off with pudgy brown envelopes full of cash? The Libs don't like this line of questioning? Then cough up who actually did get the money stolen from the taxpayers. 21 to 25 riding associations divvying up one million minimum? Wow! GK & MHF EACH puportedly knocking down $100,000 to $180,000 per annum. Undoubtedly there have got to be perks, expenses, bonusses, etc., which, as good Librano soldiers, they are naturally "entitled" to as well, wouldn't you have to agree? Super WOW!
Who knows who else is already snout deep in trough-land, and just how deep do they deep-throat into our tax money?
\
Gotta luv it, baby!
Post a Comment