As the CPC is busy establishing itself as a centrist party, the Liberals and NDP seem to be stumbling over each other in an attempt to assume the role of 'Natural Left-Leaning Party of Canada'.
This in itself is rather amusing, but lately it is proving to be a possible threat to Canadian safety.
As the National Post reports today (under subscriber lock), Liberal MP John McCallum revealed Friday that the "Liberals plan to vote this week with the Bloc and NDP to strike down the two most controversial provisions of [their own] 2001 anti-terrorism law."
The Liberal decision means the minority Conservative government will not have the votes needed to approve a motion extending the provisions for three years.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day reacted by accusing the Liberals of bailing out of their own legislation and the war on terrorism.
As recently as October, the Liberals had said they would support extending the provisions that allow preventative arrests of terrorist suspects and investigative hearings.
The provisions, which have not been used, were subject to a five-year sunset clause in the 2001 legislation, and are set to expire at the end of this week unless the Conservative motion is approved by the House of Commons and Senate.
Mr. McCallum said the measures are no longer needed.
What? Is global terrorism no longer a problem? Why put the safety of Canadians at risk unnecessarily? Isn't it good to have these measures in our back pocket?
The Kyoto bill was bad enough, but now we see that the Liberals are even willing to risk national security when it comes to political gain. Does this party have no moral values at all?
I wonder how quickly they would change their minds if Dion was PM and a terrorist plot was uncovered to have him beheaded!
Scary thing is, the NDP is looking better as the official opposition party. The Liberals don't even deserve that.
* * * *
Update: You can get more hypocrisy here.
Chucker Canuk has a great post today - "Grits were actually for public security before they were against..."
Tuesday Update: N.P. - "Cannot 'slack off' terror watch, Day says."
Update: You can get more hypocrisy here.
Chucker Canuk has a great post today - "Grits were actually for public security before they were against..."
Tuesday Update: N.P. - "Cannot 'slack off' terror watch, Day says."
14 comments:
"Is global terrorism no longer a problem?"
...not if you're not living in the real world, it isn't. :-)
However, we have Jack Layton, the ace in our pocket. He wanted to sit down and talk with the taleban. That was too dangerous. But, at least when terrorism plots (hopefully) are uncovered before they can actually kill anyone, we can detain them until Jack has time to get there to talk with them.
Then, I'm sure, they will all see the light and change.
anon #83
The Liberals will blame Canadians themselves for being attacked, no biggie.
Remind me again Joanne, how many times have these provisions been used since the legislation was introduced...? Feel free to round off to the nearest ZERO.
Ah, so the only value in having these provisions is "after" people are attacked, and killed.
You first, red tory.
anon #83
Anon -- Way to miss the point entirely. The existing provisions of the Criminal Code have been more than satisfactory to deal with threats BEFORE they happen. Perhaps you can indicate specifically how they are lacking.
So the hansard, the policy committe work, everything that goes into putting together legislation ........
or did the libs just slap it together without any deliberation.
Perhaps the party that put it in place, and now wants to scrap it, can tell us what has changed.
The existing provisions of the Criminal Code have been more than satisfactory to deal with threats BEFORE they happen.
They have been so far, RT, which is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case.
To use an analogy: It's like taking numerous holiday trips to your favourite fun-in-the-sun destination without having needed to use the medical insurance you purchased, so you decide to take a holiday trip without it, only to be seriously hurt in a traffic accident when you're there.
No, Red Tory, it's you that missed the point, and you do it intentionally. There are lots of preventative measure we have in society that work for the security of all. Your security, mine, and everyone else's shouldn't be a political issue.
anon #83
Joanne, I saw you ask on Officially Screwed about the news of Al quaeda listing the Alberta oil sands as the place to attack, because of Alberta supplying oil and gas to the U.S.
The story is in Friday's National Post, not Saturday's.....sorry.
It's on page A5, on the right hand side, under World News.
The truly odd thing about is that the fiberal MPs on the committee studying this extension, voted to extenc this 5 years. Perhaps dion forgot to talk to them.
Anon #83 -- Preventative measures become political when they infringe on civil rights.
Brian -- It's a good analogy, but somehow it misses the mark. I'd still like a Conservative supporter to explain how the existing provisions of the Criminal Code are lacking in this regard.
Roy -- They voted to extend it contingent on the recommendations of the sub-committee being made as amendments to the Act. The Conservatives chose to ignore them.
Red Tory....for heaven's sake, all preventative measure infringe on civil rights. That's the price society has to pay at times, for security.
The War Measures Act??? Trudeau? The FLQ???
Speaking of Trudeau, check out this article in today's National Post.
Margaret Trudeau: Quitting pot eased mental illness
Man, that was a sick time in Canadian politics.
anon #83
As far as body parts go, could we please refrain from referring to them here? Thanks.
Post a Comment