Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Seeing this makes me proud to be Canadian.

The NY Times praises Canada for its Supreme Court Decision to restore rights:

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States…. The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote…Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties.

Those same lawmakers can also look to Dion and Layton and Duceppe and their MP’s who combined against the Conservative government’s fear and smear tactics and were not intimidated from voting to make sure that human rights and civil liberties are not trampled. They, along with the Canadian Supreme Court, have begun to swing the pendulum back toward what a free democratic society should be… and still maintain security legislation that can protect us.

The progressive politicians did their job last night, for ALL Canadians – even those who would throw away our rights without a moment’s hesitation and engage in the same contemptible smearing and mudslinging the Conservatives have attempted to use in order to politicize this issue.

It is not Dion or the Liberal Party or the BQ/Duceppe/NDP/Layton that are beholden to extremist factions – the accusers need only look in the mirror to find them.


11 comments to Seeing this makes me proud to be Canadian.

  • Gayle

    Yes – but the dead fish is NOT on the table – except for a few anonymous trolls who post this crap and wait for something to happen.

    As it turns out, apparently Kennedy was asked about this and he denied it (I read that on a blog which purported to copy this straight from an article, but did not source the article so I will have to try to find it).

    In any event, it would be next to impossible to sue this reporter because of the way the reporter phrased the allegation – these guys do not take courses on how to avoid being sued for nothing.

    Again, why are you insisting the liberals defend themselves from an unsubstantiated allegation? Why are you not demanding the reporter substantiate the story? There is a reason the conservatives are not publicly making the same demands you are making on this blog – it is because they know that if the story cannot be substantiated they will look stupid, so instead they have their little minions post the story anonymously everywhere they can in the hopes that the media pick up on it and demand answers from the liberals.

    If this were truly the serious issue you and the reporter claim it to be, the conservatives would be all over it.

  • Gayle: It’s still libel, even if the shield is used, since the onus is one the reporter to confirm … and if there was not another confirming source …

    Yes, I know it’s often not worth persuing legal action for the reason you mention. On the other hand, quite often a technique of threatening action, or serving papers and proceeding no further, turns the “bad news” off and acts to refute the allegations. But the Liberals have done neither.

    And, BTW, why would I want to see this clarified? The dead fish is on the table for all to see., and the smell continues to waft over Steffi and company, and provide continuing visual imagery to the CPC. Better a diehard Liberal supporter take action to remove the carcass and stench than me. For sure!

  • Gayle

    I guess I should have said the reporter does not accuse Dion – he uses an unnamed “well informed” person to shield himself.

  • Gayle

    But that is where you are wrong Eric. First, suing this guy just draws attention to the article (an article that is not getting much attention outside the conservative blogsphere). Second, the article does not come out and accuse Dion of anything (unlike the conservative MP’s radio interview yesterday). It is all innuendo.

    What you should be doing is demanding the reporter provide the facts, not that the liberals provide the denials.

  • Gayle, was your comment for me or Scott? My comment was sardonic (I thought I tried hard enough, but …). I also believe it’s probably true or papers would have been served on Kay and the Post within 15 seconds of publication. Sane as the VanSun article. No one has denied one iota of the article.

  • Gayle

    “Sure, Scott. And Jonathon Kay’s Feb 27th piece in the National Post (National security vs. Liberal ethno-politics) is a complete fabrication.”

    Are you saying it is not? Do you have any evidence? (evidence – not speculation, not some “well informed” unnamed, unknown source – evidence).

  • Quote: “It is not Dion or the Liberal Party or the BQ/Duceppe/NDP/Layton that are beholden to extremist factions – the accusers need only look in the mirror to find them.”

    Sure, Scott. And Jonathon Kay’s Feb 27th piece in the National Post (National security vs. Liberal ethno-politics) is a complete fabrication.

    Your words are certainly creative, though.

  • Timothy Webster

    Here is a good technical summary of the changes.

    The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.

    Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge.

  • Timothy Webster

    The Canadian justices rejected the law and restored rights because of the judicial independence.

    The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes.

    Harper wants to name police representatives and crime victims to the judicial panels, is to insure that laws that curtails basic rights and civil liberties are not struck down in the future.
    Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the indepence of the judicial. A police representative can fill one of the three appointment available to the federal government.

    My question is why does Harper want this so badly. Regardless of the answer we should all be very afraid.

  • Timothy Webster

    This is exactly why we need an independent impartial judicial system. The Conservative Government want to add another federal appointment and remove the indepence of the judiciary.

    The Conservatives are not adding a police representative. The Conservatives can apoint a police representative from the three appointments currently available to them. The Conservative Government seeks to undermind the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, because the don’t like the Canadian justices rejecting their government’s supported terrior laws. Laws which curtail basic rights and civil liberties.

    How can anyone of us look at ourselves and support a government that desires laws that curtails basic rights and civil liberties.

  • All Canadians should feel a little prouder today.

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