Today's Prediction: Mayhem
Later today, the Parliament of Canada will vote on extending the Anti-Terrorist Act sections regarding investigative hearings and preemptive detentions. I now summon all of my unholy powers of prognostication and predict the following:
1. The extension will not pass
2. The government will instantly launch into a tirade about the opposition being "soft on terror"
3. The opposition renew its demands that Harper apologize for his earlier smear
4. The media will eat this up and feed the frenzy more
And for the next two weeks, we will hear nothing but angry recriminations from all sides, with everyone painting the other guy as the most evil of evil.
Enough.
Firstly both the Liberals and Conservatives have flip-flopped on this issue, both for political reasons. In October, during the hearings on this in committee, both agreed to extend the measures for 3 years, provided they were not used for past investigations and so long as they were to be used only for "imminent threats". But Stephen Harper and the government decided not to accept these recommendations, instead trying to keep the measures in place as is. For 6 months they did nothing, expecting this to be rubber stamped, despite not having been used since they were passed. The Liberals under Dion decided as well for political reasons, to ignore what they agreed to in committee and come out against the measures with only a few weeks to go, stirring controversy.
Now, I oppose the measures, and indeed the whole act on principle, but that makes me no friend of Dion in this. This seems more of a move designed to score political points and attack the Conservatives, than anything else. If he were truly principled, he wouldn't have supported creating the measures in the first place.
The fact is, both the Liberals and Conservatives are manipulating this for politics, not for policy.
As I have pointed out previously, in your lifetime you are in more danger of being hit by a car, or to drown or to die taking prescription drugs than to die in a terrorist event. But according to some, if you suggest that giving the state extraordinary legal measures and powers is too high a price to pay to protect us from something so unlikely, you are "soft on terror." How absurd. It is a waste of resources and does not protect us from anything. If thinking that erosion of civil liberties and vast spending on a security infrastructure is too high a price to pay for such a small threat makes one "soft on terrorism" than I am proudly "soft on terrorism" and "steadfast for liberty."
Likewise, at a time when crime is near a 30-year low, some feel it necessary to change the rules in order to get judges on the bench who will be "tough on crime". Of course overlooking that since crime is low and continues to drop, there is no crime to get tough on and no need to politicize the judiciary. Well if not buying into the "tough on crime" mythos when crime rates have been falling for 17 years makes me "soft on crime" than I am proudly so. There is no reason to "get tough on crime" when the crime rate is falling.
Its clearly no longer about the policy, or about the action or about honest debate. Its about who can scare us the most into voting for them. The Conservatives are using the terrorist and crime bogeymen to scare us. The Liberals are using the Conservatives to scare us, with their "hidden agenda". Both are taking turns with the environment, in a cage match for the bottom of the barrel.
Nothing of substance is getting done because the only thing happening is maneuvering for power using playground bullying and name calling. It the politics of fear and anger, rather than substance and action.
So watch my prediction. The circus will start in a few hours. And after its is all as said and done, nothing of substance will become of it all. Another election, another minority, slaking for that knockout punch that gives it the temporary dictatorship called a majority. More squabbling in order to get power for power's sake. On and on, possibly for years.
I wonder what it will take for people to refuse to vote for these politicians? Or to refuse to vote at all when they have no real choice.
Perhaps only time. Sit back and let the fun begin. it is going to be a very long time before there is any civility in parliament again, if indeed there ever was.
Labels: pandemonium, predictions, uncivility
posted by Mike @ 10:07 AM
37 comments
37 Comments:
Nope... allowing the sun to set is not a flip-flop; the sun set clause was a legislated option. Exercising a forethought option is not a flip-flop. Calling it a flip-flop is just partisan propaganda.
"Sit back and let the fun begin. it is going to be a very long time before there is any civility in parliament again, if indeed there ever was."
This is probably the most important statement I've read anywhere in a while. I'd like to emphasis the part that everyone needs to take heed of:
"if indeed there ever was."
I've recently been digging into the historical record to look at the roots of the political, social, and cultural alienation of not only the First Nations but also the 'Euro-Canadians' (because to call them just Canadian excludes everyone who isn't with from the term "Canadian" which is clearly an ignorant move) in Northern Ontario, and the Provincial Norths in general. There has never been civility in any Canadian parliament that I've been able to discover since Confederation, or before it for that matter.
True there may be pockets of maturity here and there, but by and large, we, as human beings, are an ignoble, disrespectful, and dishonourable species when given any chance to grandstand, whether the camera or television have been invented or not. When so much is at stake, because indeed whether we support the state or not it is powerful, everything goes back to the sandbox, when nothing was at stake, and in some miraculous way the important questions, issues, and policies are turned into clumps of mud to be thrown around willy nilly (which I've been informed is a technical term that refers to the act of simultaneously willing and nilling at the same time, ultimately resulting, it seems, in houses of parliament).
But anyways, let us hope that we can make a change, that change is indeed possible, and that we will see it come about.
Cheers
walks,
I was referring to the agreement reached in committee in October as the basis for the flip flop, and now changing their minds again.
I'm merely pointing out that there's enough flipping and flopping on this issue for everyone.
I would LOVE the sun to set on this, for obvious reasons. I'm just disgusted by the circus that will follow either way.
quote, "I would LOVE the sun to set on this, for obvious reasons. "
Then you had better join the circus because if the Harper Tories win the propaganda war on this they will win the election and reinstitute secretive arrest and detention.
We don't need, nor should we want, secretive arrest and detention in Canada.
"if the Harper Tories win the propaganda war on this they will win the election and reinstitute secretive arrest and detention."
Unfounded strawman. Good try. Better luck next time.
quote, "Unfounded strawman. Good try. Better luck next time. "
The only party supporting secretive arrest and dentention is the CPoC. They have been insisting on it for five (5) months - with no compromise.
Well Walks, he is going to lose today, so when the propaganda war begins, I may join in out here, but I won't go near the House, because it won't make a difference. At risk of sounding cynical, Cliff over at Rusty Idols has it down - if the Liberals were in power right now, this would already have been passed.
I don't trust either of them.
Andrew, it may seem like a straw man but Walks is right on one thing...the CPoC are here right now because they wanted the measures to continue as is and would not compromise. Had they accepted what the committee had said, this would be a non-issue in the house. Now it appears they get nothing except a canard to use against the Liberals, which perhaps was the point the whole time.
And that only re-affirms my position that this is all political fear-mongering and positioning by both parties. And its disgusting.
quote, "I don't trust either of them."
You can trust the CPoC to stick to its position of secretive arrest and detention. They want it, they like it, they are on the record demanding it.
Walks with coffee-
The provisions you are talking about are on the softer end of provisions in place in nearly every western nation. More stringent provisions are found in: France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Norway, Spain, UK, USA and Australia.
Are all these governments wrong?
PS- Did you see the conservative offer to compromise yesterday? Did you see the liberal response? So who is not open to compromise on this issue, again?
Anon,
"The provisions you are talking about are on the softer end of provisions in place in nearly every western nation. More stringent provisions are found in: France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Norway, Spain, UK, USA and Australia.
Are all these governments wrong?"
Uhmm, yes.
Liberty and Freedom are not a popularity contest. I'm sure a date rapists is much more gentle than Bernardo or the Green River Killer, but that hardly changes things.
"Did you see the conservative offer to compromise yesterday? Did you see the liberal response? So who is not open to compromise on this issue, again?"
An offer made at the last possible minute, after smearing and MP and his family in the House? Gosh, that was well-timed and genuine. If the Cons were serious, they could have made that offer two weeks ago, or two months ago. Doing it at the last minute makes them look desperate. All we need now is Harper to appear on TV to appeal directly to us...Harper made the offer because he knew, after his behviour last week, that it would be rejected. Another instance of doing a dance for the sake of political maneuvering, rather than really getting things done.
Notably Annonymous mistates the facts.
For example, the UK does not allow arrest and detention without representation and review.
Typical propaganda technique of Harper Tories. They lie about the facts.
As for the compromise... what compromise? Where is it in the legislation that is being voted on? The facts are the working of vote and who votes for it and against it.
Harper Tories are for secretive arrest and dentention. Let the record so show.
*applause* and amen.
I'm not 100% convinced that these provisions must be sunsetted, (you make a good argument though), but agree 100% that any clear discourse has clouded the issue and made it difficult if not impossible for the average citizen to understand the variables involved. For such a serious issue, that is a crying shame.
Walks with Coffee-
The only thing more dissapointing than liberals is their hypocritical supporters.
The UK policy is identical to Canada's, except for the time frame. Judicial knowledge of detention in 72 hrs in Canada vs 48 hrs. Why do you need to lie to make your point?
Seconly, do you read the news? There has been several reports regarding the governments willingness to compromise in order to uphold the terror provisions. Are you so misinformed that you dont even read the newspaper.
Not that it would shock me, but its shameful for you to lie so blatently, and then accuse others of the very same actions.
But as a liberal, you must be used to seeing the very worst in others, as you see it in yourself?
Anonymous lies as follows: "The UK policy is identical to Canada's, except for the time frame. Judicial knowledge of detention in 72 hrs in Canada vs 48 hrs."
The Supreme Court of Canada's days old decision says you are a liar. The SC 9-0 recommended that Canada adopt the UKs approach... i.e. because we currently are not the same.
You lie anonymously to support your militant Harper Tory position.
Let everyone note that a Harper Tory is deliberately lying anonymously to make false claims to support secretive arrest and detention.
If the Conservatives go with the "soft on terror" rhetoric, their is convincing rhetoric from the other direction - the Conservatives could be called "soft on freedom" or perhaps "frightened of freedom" if you happen to like alliteration.
You know, the more I think of it, the more I like "frightened of freedom" to battle "soft on terror", since it could potentially cover so much more ground against social conservatives. (And my apologies in advance to Andrew and Dino and Olaf and Greg S and all the other conservatives who don't deserve that moniker.)
Of course, finding a way to twist the spin in the other direction doesn't help anyone with the "no civility" issue, so my apologies to Mike too.
WWC-
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court Decision on Security Certificates has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was the ATA, in case you forgot.
Why do you need to make up strawmen, and change the subject? Let the Record show that not only does WWC not read the newspaper, she doesnt even understand the seperate issues at stake here.
Her blind partisanship is clearly evident.
Deanna-
The worst case scenario in the improper use of the two ATA sections would be illegal detention for 72 hours. Plus, there is legal remedy available to anyone who feels wronged, and an extension of the sunset would mean a review of the powers again soon. (presumably to analyze if the powers are being used improperly).
Now, why dont you outline for us what the worst case scenario is for the police being unable to apprehend a suspected terrorist just before an attempt at murdering innocent civilians?
Which side are you on?
Anon,
Your ignorance is showing.
1) Walks was showing a pattern of the CPC supporting secretive arrest and detention, whether via the ATA or Security Certificates. The principles behind them are the same - that the police can arrest you, and hold you for any period of time without charge and only present evidence to a judge, rather than in an open court where the accused could defend themselves. That was true for the ATA sections which, thankfully, were sunsetted and for the Security Certificates
2) Uhmm Walks is a man. I'm pretty sure you must think he is MWW, but he isn't.
Whether it be by SC's or ATA measures, the CPoC was quite happy to support secret arrest and secret trials, detention without charge. Can you name any other countries that like to do this (besides the US)?
I think it's been pointed out that the sections haven't been needed in the five years since they were brought forward, and I think it's wise that we do not give our governments too many powers to restrict our freedoms.
It seems to me that our police forces have sufficient resources in order to deal with a terrorist threat, and the anonymous commentator is simply fearmongering.
"Now, why dont you outline for us what the worst case scenario is for the police being unable to apprehend a suspected terrorist just before an attempt at murdering innocent civilians?"
Are you fucking kidding? Can you read? If so, pick up the Criminal Code. Not only can the police arrest someone if they believe upon reasonable and probable grounds they are about to commit an indictable offense (like say murder...) SO CAN YOU AND I. Yes, sunshine, in the event of apprehending a terrorist just before attempting an attack, by the citizen's arrest provision in the code, you could also arrest them.
If the attack is as imminent as you state, then it is assumed the police know about it. If they have enough information to infer that an attack is about to take place, you can easily take that information to a judge and get a warrant to arrest the suspect (and gather further evidence). If the judge says no, for some reason, then it is assumed that if the police really believe that an attack is imminent, they have the suspect under surveillance. They simply need to wait until the guys puts on the bomb vest, or buys the guns and arrest them then, as above.
In short, no special power needed. Which is why these things haven't been used and why the Toronto 17 were arrested before an attack using the exact same measure I just described.
So I suspect Deanna and I are in the side of freedom and liberty. Whose side are you on?
The CPoC from the PMO to most lowest level activists know me by name. I am Eugene Parks of Victoria - sticking it right back at Harper's political bully bs.
Annon, is just trying to divert attention to me rather than his militancy.
But, the CPoC has shown its true colours this week and have annoymous lying bullies here as their supporters. Nuff said about him and his leader.
Holy cow, you show a couple liberals their ignorance and look at the namecalling and swearing!
Lets go over this point by point:
(1) Walks was showing a pattern of the CPC supporting secretive arrest and detention, whether via the ATA or Security Certificates.
Not that I knew of. We were talking directly about the ATA, and then he flew off about how different britain's policies were. In FACT, the UK allows preventative arrest (the same as defined by the ATA, as I wrote above). Then, he set up a strawman regarding the same policies about security certificates, which I never said. Its a poor debate tactic used when one is losing badly. Yes, Canada and the UK have slightly different policies regarding Security Certificates, but (until yesterday) nearly identical policies about domestic preventative arrest. You do understand the difference between the two, right?
(2) The principles behind them are the same - that the police can arrest you, and hold you for any period of time without charge and only present evidence to a judge, rather than in an open court where the accused could defend themselves.
Well, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a quote to help educate you:
Much of the existing criminal law is designed to find and punish those responsible for acts that have already occurred. This approach is often inadequate for terrorist crimes, where the goal is to create fear and instability by targeting the general population and where the perpetrator often commits suicide when carrying out the attack.
The Criminal Code amendments enacted by the ATA created a new ability to impose a "recognizance with conditions" on a person in order to prevent a terrorist attack. While this is often described as "preventive arrest", the ability to arrest without warrant applies only in exceptional circumstances. For example, if an imminent attack is to be prevented, there may not be enough time to go before a judge to get a summons issued.
In all cases, the police or peace officer must seek the consent of the Attorney General and then go before a provincial court judge to lay an information and have conditions imposed on a person where it is believed on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will occur. In this way, the exercise of police discretion is both limited and judicially supervised.
There must be a reasonable belief that the person is about to carry out the attack, or is involved in facilitating it, and the police need reasonable grounds to suspect that the recognizance or the arrest of the person is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.
A detained person must be brought before a provincial court judge "without unreasonable delay ", and, in any event, within 24 hours of his or her arrest. If a provincial court judge is not available within those 24 hours, the person must be taken before such a judge "as soon as possible ". Once before the judge, if, for whatever reason, the recognizance hearing cannot take place at the same time, the hearing can only be adjourned by the judge for a maximum of 48 hours.
Just in case you missed it. Maximum time is not an indefinate time. Maybe you were thinking more about something else?
Uhmm Walks is a man. I'm pretty sure you must think he is MWW, but he isn't.
Which could be true, and I admit I am ignorant on the subject. But I doubt its a "Real Man", if you know what I mean... hahaha.
Whether it be by SC's or ATA measures, the CPoC was quite happy to support secret arrest and secret trials, detention without charge. Can you name any other countries that like to do this (besides the US)?
Yes, did you read the list above? I studied this provision, I should know. Feel free to look it up for yourself!
PS- Can you name the last party to enact the most restrictive legislation in Canadian civil rights history? I'll give you a hint, it was enacted during another terrorist peroid, by the PM you have tatooed on your balls.
Are you fucking kidding? Can you read? If so, pick up the Criminal Code. Not only can the police arrest someone if they believe upon reasonable and probable grounds they are about to commit an indictable offense (like say murder...)
If this is true, then why did the Liberal Party of Canada enact this? Dumb? Mistaken? Or are you talking out your ass again??
More quotes for you own education: Before the enactment of the ATA in 2001, the Criminal Code did not adequately address the unique challenges posed by international terrorism. Mass murder by suicide bombers or hijackers may not be an entirely new phenomenon, but it is one being further developed and increasingly used by terrorist groups. Using the Criminal Code to prosecute such crimes after the fact was inadequate to ensure Canadians' security. We needed better investigative tools and other mechanisms to detect terrorist plots and prevent attacks from taking place. We also needed an approach that would allow us to pursue those who, by indirect means, facilitated terrorist crimes.
Prevention and deterrence have always been central goals of our criminal justice system. The ATA allows us to pursue a comprehensive strategy of preventing terror attacks and disrupting terror networks in ways that were not possible before 2001.
Keep in mind this was written by the Liberal Party before they lost power.... so it might be lies... eh?
So I suspect Deanna and I are in the side of freedom and liberty. Whose side are you on?
Again, what is the worst case scenario on your side? And mine? Case closed there.
But, the CPoC has shown its true colours this week and have annoymous lying bullies here as their supporters. Nuff said about him and his leader.
Seeing as you have absolutely no clue about what you write, dont read the newspapers, and call names, I think its suffice to say "Shut the fuck up you ignorant peice of leftist shit. Go back to drinking the white man's breafast beverages. And read the damn paper" Ahhh, now I feel better.
"If this is true, then why did the Liberal Party of Canada enact this? Dumb? Mistaken? Or are you talking out your ass again??"
I haven't the slightest idea. At the time it was enacted I was in the NDP and I was against it from day one. And if memory serves, Walks was in the same party as Peter McKay, who was also against it at the time.
Beyond that, the fact that this had never been used and the police have actually solved imminent attacks with good old fashioned police work - warrants, probable cause - shows that these provisions are not needed to protect us from the incredibly unlikely event of a terrorist attack.
"Prevention and deterrence have always been central goals of our criminal justice system. The ATA allows us to pursue a comprehensive strategy of preventing terror attacks and disrupting terror networks in ways that were not possible before 2001."
And have never been used to do so. But on more than one occasion, the Criminal Code as it existed before 2001 has. See above.
"Keep in mind this was written by the Liberal Party before they lost power.... so it might be lies... eh?"
Could be. But I am not nor have I ever been a Liberal, so I don't know. I have always been against it, for all of the reasons cited here. and Walks has never been a Liberal as far as I know.
""Shut the fuck up you ignorant peice of leftist shit. Go back to drinking the white man's breafast beverages. And read the damn paper" Ahhh, now I feel better."
Gosh, that's intelligent. Sorry, I meant the ramblings of a slack-jawed racist idiot, who apparently thinks Walks is a "leftist" and, apparently, not white. You post at SDA, don't you?
Mike is da man!
The other guy posts annoymously with racist comments in order to defend his desire for secretive arrest and detention. But at least, he's consistent with the views of the Harper Tories I know... "birds of a feather" as they say.
And mike is also correct, I've never been a Liberal.
"Again, what is the worst case scenario on your side? And mine? Case closed there."
Thank God we're not yet at the point of creating ALL laws based on "worse case scenarios."
Worse case scenario for jeep drivers - their jeep over turns while driving off road - which a jeep has the ability to do because of it's higher ground clearance.
So, let's create laws banning all Jeeps.
Some Albertan Jeep drivers might be too tempted to go off roading, ya know?
We need to protect them from themselves - as well as protect their family members and friends who might be passengers when the temptation strikes.
Hey Anon... just wondering.. do you support the long gun registry? The philosophy behind it is "worse case scenarios" too.
Yup, Statists always "win" hands down on ALL "worse case scenarios."
Mike email me your email address. Eugene
Eugene,
Oops. Its showing in my profile now.
Funny how Ian Scott rushes in with another Strawman.
Where did I say all laws should be based on the same principle?
So beat that darn strawman to the ground Ian... beat him dead. Then read about logical fallacies.
Cheers!
At least Mike can admit he is talking out of his ass!!
Quotes from Mike:
Anon: If this is true, then why did the Liberal Party of Canada enact this?
Mike: I haven't the slightest idea.
(But yet Mike feels qualified to comment on why they were implemented... smart one!)
Anon: Quote on why Security Forces need extra preventative measures.
Mike: Could be. But I am not nor have I ever been a Liberal, so I don't know.
I think that pretty much ends this conversation. Mike has no idea why the provisions were introduces, or what they were supposed to do. He directly contradicts quotes from police and security staff without any source beyond his own mastery.
He is backed up by a guy who doesnt read newspapers or understand what the difference between SC's and the ATA. And who's only response is to lie and project his lies on others.
And another guy who is slaying strawmen by the thousands.
You all look like fools! Try reading about that which you post, next time?
Richard, is that you again?
You were the one that said that your idea of how this should operate was based on the "worst case scenario" - Ian is merely pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies with that idea.
Worst case scenario is basing decisions on fear.
Rather than look at what is possible look at what is likely.
Of course even this argument is a straw man of your creation. I still haven't heard any good reason why the government should have the power to arrest and detain someone without probable cause or due process for even 5 minutes, let along for 48 or 72 hours (ATA) or indefinitely (SCs) or to conduct secret trials where even the accused could not see the evidence against them. Considering the likely hood of a terrorist attack, it seems to be overkill. And no one has yet told me how this is going to be better than the current criminal code, which has been used to catch potential terrorists, while these measures have not.
Frankly, I think this could open the door to boondoggle pretty quick. Look at the US DHS - a money sucking black hole of a bureaucracy that wastes billions trying to protect Americans from some bogeyman that isn't there, against a danger that is, relatively speaking, minor, even after 9-11. Don't fall for the fear, Richard, its just a way to trick you into supporting a government plan to redistribute your hard earned money into the coffers of corporate welfare queens like Boeing, or Bombardier or any one of a number of smaller companies here in Ottawa. Don't let them exploit your dislike and distrust of non-whites and non-Christians to make you a cheer leader for a system that will pick your pocket on a daily basis.
Don't be a sucker.
"He directly contradicts quotes from police and security staff"
Aren't those the guys who also want to have a Long Gun Registry. Well if they want it I guess the argument is over. We must have a Long Gun Registry then, right? Better register your guns!
As for your other nonsense, I was answering why the Liberals enacted them. I have no idea why they enacted unneeded (and never used) laws. You think it might have been a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11, rather than a well thought-out legal need? Ya think? It could have been lies, and a power grab by the Libs that they now oppose merely because they are out of office. Don't ask me to guess how a Liberal thinks...
And I quoted EXACTLY the parts of the conversation I was referring to, not what you are implying in your post. Stop lying.
But as I actually have a degree in Law-Crim, I think I have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion. My "mastery" is "the police and security staff".
But tell me, do you know why they were implemented? How do you know this? Do you agree with the Liberal Party of Jean Chretien?
Do you really believe everything the "police and security staff" tell you?
Jesus Richard, and you call me a fool? Wow.
Mike, why do you hate freedom?
(rolls eyes)
Nasty,
Just Cuz!
James,
Nasty is a buddy and is being sarcastic, of course. But man, the rest of this thread sure needs an eye rolling...
From Ian Scott:
"Funny how Ian Scott rushes in with another Strawman."
Not a strawman at all. You need to brush up on logic a bit, Anon.
You made a statement:
"Again, what is the worst case scenario on your side? And mine? Case closed
there."
I'm testing the validity of that statement, universally.
But thanks for the admission that you don't base laws on any bedrock
principle.
*****
Posted by me due to blogger word-verification screw up
Mike:
What the hell are you talking about now?
Not a strawman? Where did I say that all laws should be based on the worst case princple? Still looking? Me too!
Now, if we extrapolate YOUR logic (that a universal test should meet ALL rules) then we might as well throw out your fire alarm, house security, airbags on your car, etc., only because you've never used them, they must not be needed, right?
Oh BTW, I see you've been defending Robert Mclelland's blatant racism elsewhere. Congrats, thats a nice badge to wear.
Er, not me, that is a repost for Ian...
BTW, go over to Olaf's where I explain why I defended Robert. And then read what Peter Rempel has to say before you get all smug.
Post a Comment
<< Home