Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Ye reap what ye sow, Harper.

Just to recap for you: Harper and his band of Conservatives have for weeks been charging the Liberals and Dion with being soft on terror. Harper has gone so far as to openly claim the Liberals are against extending the sunset clauses in the terror bill due to wanting to protect Navdeep Bains father-in-law – a smear and slur he has refused to apologize for. The Tories have politicized a Government of Canada’s website, charging the Opposition with being soft on terror (in reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling on security certificates), and backed down only after everyone noticed it and knew it was a breach of protocol.

Now, on the day before the vote in the House to extend or kill these provisions, when the Conservatives realize their smears and taunts and charges haven’t budged Dion or his position, Harper decides to suddenly announce he is willing to compromise on the clauses (with more taunting thrown in at Dion while asking for this, I might add)? After 6 months of doing nothing on House Committee recommendations on this bill?

Sorry.. but if they were looking for compromise, the Tories should have looked for it weeks or months ago, instead of politicizing the terror issue for partisan and electoral reasons (a la Republicans post 9/11). This also may seem obvious to most, but you also don’t put other people or parties in a spirit of compromise by literally calling them pro-terrorist or accusing them of trying to protect an MP’s family. That alone isn’t reason to kill these specific clauses – the unnecessary infringement of rights and civil liberties are reasons enough – but Harper’s lack of diplomacy and tact and lack of class has come back to bite him.


13 comments to Ye reap what ye sow, Harper.

  • mecheng

    [quote post=”274″]Mecheng – quoting the National Post is hardly credible. And if you paid attention, you’d know Dion is pretty passionate about civil rights.

    I know you don’t believe that it is credible, but now the National Post, and the Vancouver Sun have carried bits and pieces of the story. If the mock outrage drags on long enough, other media will eventually say something as well.

    I must also say, dismissing an article just because it was published in the National Post, is a pretty simplistic argument. As someone who leans towards the right side of the political spectrum, the G&M and the Star tend to drive me nuts, but I don’t necessarily discount what they say.

    As far as Dion being pretty passionate about civil liberties…I would never have known. (I’m not saying that he isn’t, you just wouldn’t know it from what you see in the media, including the G&M and the Star.)

    And I do read a pretty good cross section of papers and blogs. After all, I’m commenting here, aren’t I?

  • The thing is: we have Harper’s statements, and we have polls showing the Canadian public massively disapprove of his smear on Bains and a majority think he should apologize. The proof is in the pudding Erik, and it will be a pleasure for me to see the defeat of this sleazebag we have for a PM and the sleazebag Conservative Party.

  • Quote from Scott: All we have to do is point to the Republicans down south, show that they use the same loathsome tactics.. and say to the public, “IS that what you really want in our politics?”

    Umm. OK. Be sure to do that, guy, because it didn’t work last time and, with actual PM time under his belt, that advert would be laughed out of the arena.

    But, say, why not do the “In our streets, In our towns …” one again, Scott? They provided gales of laughter and amusement last time. Nation-wide. All parties. In our Country. In our houses. I’m not allowed to make this up!

  • Mecheng – quoting the National Post is hardly credible. And if you paid attention, you’d know Dion is pretty passionate about civil rights.

    So, I suggest you read a few more quality papers, like the Toronto Star.. or even the Globe and Mail which has its moments.. and read a few additional blogsites other then the Blogging Tories, and you might get some better perspective.

  • Erik, you’re acting deluded again. I’d suggest you’d better check the well water – it appears to be contaminated with something that’s severely affecting your judgement.

    The Canadian public will not buy the extremist rhetoric and smear tactics that are emanating from Harper and his neo-cons. All we have to do is point to the Republicans down south, show that they use the same loathsome tactics.. and say to the public, “IS that what you really want in our politics?”

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has validated the stance of the Liberals with their separate ruling on security certificates – both are showing that fighting terror means respecting human rights and civil liberties – and staying within the confines of the Charter.

    Most Canadians outside of a few rednecks respect both the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights.. and all Dion and the Liberals have to do is keep pointing to that decision to say they are on the same side of the issue as the Supreme Court.

    Your soft on crime/soft on terror meme might work in redneck country.. but nowhere else

  • Scott, you are looking for forests when amongst the trees.

    The big picture is that the public now is SURE (thanks again to the Libs keeping the Bain thingy in extended news cycles, eh?) that Dion and the Liberals (not to mention Dipper Jack and Whacko Gille) are “soft on terrorism” in addition, of course, to being soft on crime.

    So when election time rolls around, all the CPC has to keep saying are the Soft Phrases, intertwined with, “well, we tried out three compromises but Dion wasn’t in the mood”. Them, “He can’t lead, he can’t compromise, he can’t have a view or position for more than 10 nanoseconds, he’s soft on crime …”, the litany goes on, followed by the ballot question, “What IS Dion and his Liberal Party any good at, I wonder”, followed by imagery of Sponsorships past, Gomery, Dingwall. You get the idea.

    Hell, if I was a graphic artist, I’d do the advert for free. Just for the pleasure value. (Be still my Precious … soon now …)

    And Princess Steffi has done it all by himself. Wonderful man. With a bit of assistance from those two “winners”, David Herle and Scott Reid, of course.

    And don’t forget the new material that’s going to come bouncing up out of the FOIA madhouse post April 1st. April Fools!!

    I love it! But that’s what Harper and the CPC has sowed. And Steffi has reaped for them. Good man, Steffi.

  • mecheng

    jimbobby, I don’t disagree with you that being locked up for three days in Syria could suck. But we are in Canada, and although I personally have never been in jail, I do have some friends who have been, and their reports are that although it is unpleasant, they didn’t feel personally threatened. And regardless of where your from, getting locked up is probably going to be scary.

    (I’m talking overnight in jail, not 6 months in a penitentiary or anything like that.)

    And my understanding is that if these provisions are applied, there is an automatic review to determine if it was appropriate/justified. That would be a significant deterrent to a cop frivolously using these powers. (Especially post-Arar incident)

    I agree that getting locked up is a violation of your freedom, but ONLY if you are not guilty of an offense.

    Maybe I’m totally wrong on this subject, but I would think that I am representative of a significant proportion of people on the issue. I have a passing knowledge of the subject, don’t have significant experiences with the police or the justice system, and tend to believe that the majority of cops are trying to do the right thing.

    And knb, the reason that I have the that impression Dion is flip flopping (to my knowledge) he never said anything negative about the subject until a few weeks ago. And when he did, a bunch of his MP’s immediately spoke out against it. And the former minister of justice (also a liberal) who enacted it. This sure makes it look like the liberals current position is a dramatic about face on the subject.

    Personally, I’m pretty ambivalent about the issue. The optics are horrible for Dion though. It just looks like he is taking the stance of opposing for the sake of opposing to a new level.

    And that article in the National Post has just turned this into an issue that looks TERRIBLE for Dion.

  • Mecheng sez – “I hardly consider holding someone for 72 hours without charges to be an egregious violation of freedoms.”

    Well,Mecheng, maybe you ain’t ever heard what happens in some other countries where some o’ detainees may have come from. Some Canajun immigrants come from countries where the police ain’t always the good guys. Gettin’ hauled off t’ jail without any charges an’ havin’ only the cops’ word that yer gonna get let out in 3 days — now, that’d probbly scare the livin’ shit outta some immigrants who come from torturin’ places like Syria an’ Palestine an’ Iran an’ China.

    Now I don’t know where yer from Mecheng or if you ever seen a bad cop or ever heard about an innocent feller gettin’ locked up an’ the other convicts beatin’ the crap out of ’em. Maybe yer from someplace where justice always prevails an’ if somebuddy’s innocent an’ they get locked up, they don’t worry on accounta they got faith that justice will prevail.

    I figger gettin’ locked up is, by definition, a violation of freedom. Gettin’ locked up even briefly on suspicion without evidence enough to lay charges is a worse violation of freedom. If they got enough on suspect to hold him fer 3 days, they oughta have enuff t’ lay charges.


  • knb

    My impression of the situation is that up until a few weeks ago, the Liberals and the Conservatives were both planning to vote to extend these provisions

    That may be your impression, but can someone please point to when Dion has ever said he’d support it without some balance?

    I have only ever heard him speak to this issue, while referring to some measures to ensure rights.

    If he has actually said that he’d vote against sunsetting the clauses, without some counter balance, then, mea culpa. If he has not, then all this reference to “flip-flopping” has been created out of whole cloth.

  • Anonymous

    Dion is wasting everyone’s time.

    So are you.

  • mecheng

    I hardly consider holding someone for 72 hours without charges to be an egregious violation of freedoms.

    I’m not going to comment too much on the investigative hearings, because I haven’t done any research into it, and don’t know enough about it to make any sort of a statement about whether or not it is a terrible violation of our rights and freedoms.

    What I will say is that when I see the Liberal party do a complete about face on the issue (of sunsetting the clauses) and start screaming like this is a monstrous assault on human rights, I tend to zone out. Like I said, the 72 hour detention seems reasonable to me, and I wouldn’t consider this to be a violation of my rights. If people blow the 72 hour issue out of proportion, my assumption is that they are also blowing the investigative hearing issue out of proportion (to score political points).

    The problem is I hear everybody screaming about how bad these provisions are, but nobody has come out and explained to me what is wrong with them other than saying that they are a violation of our rights. Saying that doesn’t make it so.

    Maybe somebody has made these arguments, but I haven’t seen them. And I probably pay more attention to the news than Joe average.

    My impression of the situation is that up until a few weeks ago, the Liberals and the Conservatives were both planning to vote to extend these provisions. That meant there was no need for “compromises” at this time. That doesn’t mean that they can’t debate the issue, come up with ways to make the ATA better, and implement these suggestions at a later date.

    Pulling support at the last minute just reeks of gamesmanship.

  • As I understand it, the Liberals asked the Tories to accept the Committee looking to reform the Anti-Terrorist legislation…when Harper decided not to accept these recommendations, and the Tories refused, the Liberals decided they couldn’t trust this government (with good reason) to make the changes they felt were needed on the Anti-Terrorism Act on good faith, hence their withdrawal of these 2 key clauses.

    On the contrary, Dion isn’t wasting time. He’s ensuring people maintain and keep their civil liberties and human rights, even for people like you who apparently don’t want them.

    In that sense, he’s being more generous toward people like you then say, Benjamin Franklin would be (one of the founders of the Declaration of Independence), when he uttered these words:

    “Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security…”

  • mecheng

    [quote post=”274″]Sorry.. but if they were looking for compromise, the Tories should have looked for it weeks or months ago,[/quote]

    Umm…this doesn’t make sense. 3 weeks ago there was no purpose in compromising, as there was no indication that the Liberals planned to sunset the clauses.

    That is why this whole situation looks opportunistic on Dion’s part. How stupid can you get? Agree to something until it’s too late to make changes, and then change your opinion so that the government loses a vote.

    Dion is wasting everyone’s time.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.