Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


Worth repeating

Mike from Rational Reasons rebuttal in the 159-124 message thread to a conservative poster’s assertion that “These measures were not abused so the clause should have been extended.” is worth repeating:

Why? Not only were they not abused, they were not used. The potential exists for abuse and the police seem to be doing just fine without them, so why have them around. Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who wanted these measures to be extended to make the case. They needed to show, quite forcefully, that these measures must continue. They did not. The best they came up with was “it will scuttle Air India” – which didn’t hold water considering:

– that the RCMP and government’s own reluctance to provide un-redacted evidence to Justice John Major is threatening to scuttle the enquiry.
– that the RCMP, who have been investigating this crime for 22 years, have had access to these provisions for 5 years and never used them.
– that the Conservatives themselves agreed in committee in October that the renewal would only apply to future, new investigations not past one (thus excluding Air India) and as late as yesterday morning, Harper offered to agree to THAT agreement, essentially scuttling the Air India investigation as he implied the Liberals would do.

All of this for measures that are a clear danger to our civil rights, that have never been used – the police have foiled plots since 9-11 using good old fashioned police work (Toronto 17 anyone?). Clamouring to keep these measures to “protect” us from terrorism, despite the fact that we are more likely to die in a car accident, by drowning or by taking prescription drugs that by terrorist acts, seem rather silly. Cowardly almost.

I’m glad they are gone – good riddance to bad, unneeded laws with a huge potential for abuse.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Mike.


3 comments to Worth repeating

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    This is the most important point, I think: “Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who wanted these measures to be extended to make the case.” EXACTLY!!!

    And the idea that the Tories espouse that these never-used provisions were protecting us from terrorism is ludicrous. As I’ve commented elsewhere, this notion that these provisions were “protecting us” reminds me of the Simpson’s episode where Homer convinces City Hall to start a “Bear Patrol” (complete with stealth fighters) after a single bear wanders into Springfield and is caught. He then credits the patrol with keeping other bears away. The following (paraphrased) exchange is educational in this context:

    Lisa: That’s specious logic Dad. By that logic, I could say this rock is keeping tigers away.

    Homer: Ooooo. How does it work?

    Lisa: (sigh) It DOESN’T. But I don’t see any tigers around. Do you?

    Homer: Lisa, I’ll give you $100 for your magic rock.

    Lisa: (sigh) Here, take it.

    These two provisions were the real world equivalents of Lisa’s rock. They never did anything to protect us from terrorists, yet people insist that we can’t let them expire, because they’re protecting us from the terrorists.

    My point is, we need a Bear Patrol.

    With stealth fighters.

    Lousy bears.

  • Well said! I couldn’t add anymore!

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