Mulcair opposes Harper's police state bill while Trudeau folds like a cheap suit

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm
Mulcair opposes Harper's police state bill while Trudeau folds like a cheap suit

Today Tom Mulcair gave a vintage performance denouncing how the so-caled anti-terrorism C-51 is a threat civil liberties goes way too far and is a threat to civil liberties. Justin Trudeau folded like a cheap suit meekly backing Harper's attack on human rights. When a reporter asked him if he was supporting the bill because polls said it was popular "Cry Baby" Trudeau turned red and had a mini-tantrum accusing the journalist of personally attacking him ("Mummy, that bad man is criticizing me...waaaaaah!")

nicky

In future years this will be a source of pride for the NDP just as opposing the infamous War Measures Act eventually was for Tommy Douglas.

Trudeau should hang his tousled head in shame. 

josh

Yep, NDP stepped up.  Liberals came up small.

NorthReport

No wonder the NDP opposes C-51.

 

Canadian mounties' secret memo casts doubt on climate change threat

Intelligence report identifies anti-petroleum movement as a threat to Canadian security and suggests those concerned with climate consequences occupy political fringe

 

A tar sands mine facility near Fort McMurray, in Alberta, Canada

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think the LIberals were backed into a corner.

As much as I and anyone else who cares about civil liberties,the populace has drank the kool aid.

As much as I applaud the NDP for having the fortitude to pan this monstrosity,this will not work well in the polls.

It's time to face the reality of modern Canada. A fascist police state.And Canadians couldn't be happier.

NorthReport

Mulcair is pummeling Harper in QP right now. Harper is usually on his game but Harper looked weak and defensive this morning under Mulcair's onslaught.

addictedtomyipod

Trudeau uses QP question to not talk about C-51 today.

josh

alan smithee wrote:

I think the LIberals were backed into a corner.

As much as I and anyone else who cares about civil liberties,the populace has drank the kool aid.

As much as I applaud the NDP for having the fortitude to pan this monstrosity,this will not work well in the polls.

It's time to face the reality of modern Canada. A fascist police state.And Canadians couldn't be happier.

Don't agree.  At least as to NDP.  A lot of people are uncomfortable at the thought of losing civil liberties.  And NDP will get credit from many of them for taking a stand against the bill.

Stockholm

I'm not so sure about that. PET brought in the War Measures Act in 1970 and the conventional wisdom was that it was sooo popular that he would be unbeatably popular forever. The conventional wisdom was also that Tommy Douglas had committed political suicide by opposing Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties...and let me remind people that the October Crisis was about 100 times bigger a deal within Canada than anything happening right now with ISIS etc... By the spring of 1971 the Liberals were back to being marginally unpopular, the NDP was back in the high teens and even won traditionally Liberal Brant in a byelection and in 1972 the NDP had its best result ever and the Liberals lost 40 seats - no one seemed at all impressed with Trudeau's declaration of martial law anymore.

Last year in Quebec, many people also thought it was political suicide for Couillard and the Quebec Liberals to oppose the PQ hate campaign against Muslims - remind me who won the election.

People will only care about civil liberties if articulate spokespeople speak out about how they are threatened. If everyone in the opposition was as weak and vacillating and gormless as Justin Trudeau then of course people will suppport what Harper is doing because no one will be making the case for the alternative. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I think the LIberals were backed into a corner.

As much as I and anyone else who cares about civil liberties,the populace has drank the kool aid.

As much as I applaud the NDP for having the fortitude to pan this monstrosity,this will not work well in the polls.

It's time to face the reality of modern Canada. A fascist police state.And Canadians couldn't be happier.

Don't agree.  At least as to NDP.  A lot of people are uncomfortable at the thought of losing civil liberties.  And NDP will get credit from many of them for taking a stand against the bill.

I hope you're right. I'm just looking at the Cons recent surge which is a symptom of their racist police state stance.

It looks to me that Canadians are pathetic losers and bigger idiots than Americans voting for Bush twice. You'd think we'd learned something from our neighbours to the South. Ignorance is bliss,I suppose.

Stockholm

alan smithee wrote:

 I'm just looking at the Cons recent surge which is a symptom of their racist police state stance.

There is a difference between some short term "rallying around the flag" when security seems threatened and people supporting all the specifics of an Orwellian "anti-terror" bill.

Unionist

Bravo for Mulcair - and more importantly, for the vast ranks of party members, supporters, and especially youth, who brought about this stand, just as they made him change his stand on the Israeli aggression against Gaza last summer. This is how it's done. Cynicism feels so great, but it doesn't generate much in the way of results. If alan smithee is right about public opinion, then stands like this will help to change it. Let Trudeau and his sycophants pander to whomever they choose.

 

NorthReport

An alternative to Harper's approach, where it seems RCMP are now targeting climate change activists.

On the Impossibility of Fighting ISIS

"I have come to the conclusion that there is no military solution to this issue that can be generated by the U.S. But I believe there is a political solution."

How to think about the next war, as we consider getting into it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/on-the-impossib...

NorthReport

What's happening to Canada?

Canadians might be most concerned about your increased dictatorial policies and practices, as well as this bill’s provision for secret law and courts in the name of fighting terrorism—too vaguely defined. Study what comparable practices have done to the United States – a course that you seem to be mimicking, including the militarization of police forces (see The Walrus, December 2014).

If passed, this act, piled on already stringent legal authority, will expand your national security bureaucracies and their jurisdictional disputes, further encourage dragnet snooping and roundups, fuel fear and suspicion among law-abiding Canadians, stifle free speech and civic action and drain billions of dollars from being used for the necessities of Canadian society. This is not hypothetical. Along with an already frayed social safety net, once the envy of the world, you almost got away with a $30 billion dollar purchase of unneeded costly F-35s (including maintenance) to bail out the failing budget-busting F-35 project in Washington.

You may think that Canadians will fall prey to a politics of fear before an election. But you may be misreading the extent to which Canadians will allow the attachment of their Maple Leaf to the aggressive talons of a hijacked American Eagle.

Canada could be a model for independence against the backdrop of bankrupt American military adventures steeped in big business profits…a model that might help both nations restore their better angels.


http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2015/02/whats-happening-...

NorthReport

Le beau risque

There are big political risks for the NDP in challenging Harper's anti-terror Bill

The Prime Minister's game is an appeal to irrational and inchoate fear. And, for now, he appears to be winning.

After all, even some of those who say they utterly despise Harper appear, at this point, to be convinced by his appeal to fear and fear alone.

The Liberals don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

They have agreed to support Bill C-51 before there has been even one minute of debate on it in the House -- let alone consideration, with expert witness testimony, by a House committee.

The thankless task of doing legislative due diligence and fulfilling the constitutional role of a parliamentary opposition falls to the NDP.

A number of experts and journalists are encouraging the NDP to "screw their courage to the sticking place" and give Bill C-51 a thorough going-over, without fear of anxious and terrified public opinion.

Taking up that challenge will win the Official Opposition respect among members of that distinct minority group.

But how will it impress the voters, especially in the NDP's current stronghold of Quebec?


http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/02/there-are-big-pol...

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist wrote:

Bravo for Mulcair - and more importantly, for the vast ranks of party members, supporters, and especially youth, who brought about this stand, just as they made him change his stand on the Israeli aggression against Gaza last summer. This is how it's done. Cynicism feels so great, but it doesn't generate much in the way of results. If alan smithee is right about public opinion, then stands like this will help to change it. Let Trudeau and his sycophants pander to whomever they choose.

 

Agree on all points. This issue is too important to base your position on polls rather than principle.

nicky

video of comments by one strong principled leader and one intimidated weakling:

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news/2015/02/18/mulcair-liberals-intimida...

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. PET brought in the War Measures Act in 1970 and the conventional wisdom was that it was sooo popular that he would be unbeatably popular forever. The conventional wisdom was also that Tommy Douglas had committed political suicide by opposing Trudeau's suspension of civil liberties...and let me remind people that the October Crisis was about 100 times bigger a deal within Canada than anything happening right now with ISIS etc... By the spring of 1971 the Liberals were back to being marginally unpopular, the NDP was back in the high teens and even won traditionally Liberal Brant in a byelection and in 1972 the NDP had its best result ever and the Liberals lost 40 seats - no one seemed at all impressed with Trudeau's declaration of martial law anymore.

Well, you forgot the Quebec part of that equation.  The majority of Quebecers supported Pierre Trudeau in every election - even the one election he lost to Joe Clark.  Trudeau won the large majority of seats every time, including a record 74 out of 75.

So the War Measures Act was certainly not something most Quebecers had a problem with at the time.

nicky

debater, did you see Justin's speech in the Commons that just concluded? vacillating and embarrassing. A contemptible weakling

Aristotleded24

I've been unavailable all day, and have to head back out for a bit. Is there anywhere I could see today's performance of QP and the relevant speeches referenced in this thread?

nicky

a24, try

http://www.cpac.ca/en/

Debate is live now but you shd be able to see archived videos tomorrow

Debater

nicky wrote:
debater, did you see Justin's speech in the Commons that just concluded? vacillating and embarrassing. A contemptible weakling

I see you're engaging in your usual objective, non-partisan analysis.

And Stockholm's thread title is also a model of objectivity as well.

nicky

I note that you have not disagreed with me

Debater

I can do so now if you wish, but would it make any difference?

I note that while I've been posting threads about Conservative misdeeds (Dean Del Mastro breaking Elections Laws, Harper attacking Radio Canada, Joe Oliver giving a contract to Guy Giorno & CPC MP's misusing House expenses) the NDPers here are posting threads mainly on Justin Trudeau, as usual.

Why is that?

nicky

Why is that Debater? This is a forum in which few posters promote the Conservative agenda so we really don't have cause to debate them.

On the other hand we are often provked by a bunch of Justin groupies and sycophants trying to convince us that he is the Child of God. This results in some reasonable modicum of rebuttal to the nonsense that some Liberal trolls so reflexively and mindlessly shower on us.

terrytowel

Tom Mulcair called Justin Trudeau "pathetic" for his support on the bill.

clambake

He's right. I'd also use the word "cowardly".

Brachina

https://openmedia.ca/blog/momentum-thousands-speak-out-ndp-announces-opp...

 

 I know that the bill is popular in the polls, but I honestly believe that for those passionate enough about the issue for it to sway their vote the majority are opposed to it and growing. I think Trudeau is now caught again between two poles and it's going to burn him and tear him apart. Polls can be misleading they lack nuance and insight and context and so much more vital things and factors.

Debater

nicky wrote:

Why is that Debater? This is a forum in which few posters promote the Conservative agenda so we really don't have cause to debate them.

On the other hand we are often provked by a bunch of Justin groupies and sycophants trying to convince us that he is the Child of God. This results in some reasonable modicum of rebuttal to the nonsense that some Liberal trolls so reflexively and mindlessly shower on us.

Let's re-write your post a little bit to reflect a more objective assessment of this forum.

Most threads here are attacks on Justin Trudeau & the Liberals which portray them as right-wingers who are just as Conservative if not more so than the Conservative Party and which ignore the numerous progressive achievements & legislation that the Liberal Party has passed in its history.

Most Liberal posters here, while supporting Justin Trudeau, do NOT think he is the Child of God and do NOT agree with everything he does.  They do, however, think that Trudeau & the Liberals are best-positioned to defeat the Conservatives and that the good in the Liberal Party definitely outweighs the bad.

welder welder's picture

And I thought Trudeau's demanding of amendments but still backing Bill C-51 looked weak,impotent,and hamfisted...

And frankly,it looked like a weakminded attempt at pandering to potential right of centre "law and order/security" voters...

nicky

Welder, you might add to your impressive list Trudeau punting on the climate change issue  by saying he will leave it to individual provinces. 

I think Pierre would have had second thoughts about supporting his increasingly right-wing son.

welder welder's picture

Debater wrote:

nicky wrote:

Why is that Debater? This is a forum in which few posters promote the Conservative agenda so we really don't have cause to debate them.

On the other hand we are often provked by a bunch of Justin groupies and sycophants trying to convince us that he is the Child of God. This results in some reasonable modicum of rebuttal to the nonsense that some Liberal trolls so reflexively and mindlessly shower on us.

Let's re-write your post a little bit to reflect a more objective assessment of this forum.

Most threads here are attacks on Justin Trudeau & the Liberals which portray them as right-wingers who are just as Conservative if not more so than the Conservative Party and which ignore the numerous progressive achievements & legislation that the Liberal Party has passed in its history.

Most Liberal posters here, while supporting Justin Trudeau, do NOT think he is the Child of God and do NOT agree with everything he does.  They do, however, think that Trudeau & the Liberals are best-positioned to defeat the Conservatives and that the good in the Liberal Party definitely outweighs the bad.

 

I'm not an NDP partisan by any means...

 

On some social issues,the Liberal party HAS been progressive in the past...No question about it.Many times ,historically speaking,that has happened when the Liberals have been in a minority position and were pushed in that direction by the NDP...Medicare being the prime example...

Even on economic issues back then,under Pierre Trudeau,the Liberals were (for the most part) progressive...

But,that was over a generation ago and on most (if not all economic issues) the Liberal partyhas fallen for all things "market based" and neoliberal...

At the moment,the Justin Trudeau Liberals support: Current levels of corporate taxation,CETA,FIPA,Keystone XL,the status quo in the Senate, Bill C-51,and,Eve Adams....And that's just off the top of my head!

Aside from the floor crosser,all those things are measures the Harper Government* supports vociferously...

 

Not so "hopey/changey" is it?...How would a Liberal defeat of the Harper Government actually change things,economically speaking, if the Liberals back the same economic agenda?

welder welder's picture

Being a hardline federalist,I doubt Pierre Trudeau would have let the provinces to decide anything in the national interest...

nicky
Debater

Ah, yes.  John Ivison.  A right-wing columnist who is one of Harper's biggest supporters and who regularly bashes the NDP, but who gets quoted by NDPers when he occasionally says something positive about Mulcair (usually in order to take a swipe at Trudeau to help Harper).

nicky

I don't think John Ivison is the only journalist who will be castigating Justin for his cowardice, weakness and hypocricy.

welder welder's picture

I think it's also instructive to note here that Bill C-51 is all about electioneering...

The Harper Government* is using the events of October to scare as much of the populace as they can into giving in on security legislation...

 

Clearly,Mr.Mulcair is taking the opposing view about civi liberties...

 

Mr. Trudeau has to do a delicate dance,considering there are probably more right of cente member/and voters available to him in October than on the left.This is why,in my view,he's equivocating....

welder welder's picture

Debater wrote:

Ah, yes.  John Ivison.  A right-wing columnist who is one of Harper's biggest supporters and who regularly bashes the NDP, but who gets quoted by NDPers when he occasionally says something positive about Mulcair (usually in order to take a swipe at Trudeau to help Harper).

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Mulcair looked as good today as he did almost two years ago during Duffygate Part 1...

 

He expertly dissected and deconstructed the fallacies of the bill and made the Liberals look weak and impotent in the process...

nicky

Here is an interesting tweet from a non-"right-wing columnist"

Jodie Emery ‏@JodieEmery  7h7 hours ago

Great to see NDP defending liberty “@CTVNews: Anti-terror bill is vague, ineffective, over-reaching: Mulcair http://ow.ly/JgWv6  #cdnpoli

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I'm glad to see this happen...a little slow but the NDP has in the end taken the right position on this issue.

NorthReport

Harper usually a good performer in the House has been stung by Mulcair's performance. That was clear by Mackay's response to the question put to him about the definition of terrorism today as outlined in the accomanying article.

Someone used the word "frightened" to describe Justin's position on the anti-terror legislation today.

I think welder's assessment of Justin trying to appeal to some right-wing voters is spot on.

The Liberals are run by the right-wing Martinites now, that's been clear ever since Chretien was ousted in a putsch way back when.

Tom Mulcair says NDP will oppose anti-terrorism bill C-51

NDP leader says Conservatives are playing politics with Canada's freedoms

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-ndp-will-oppose-anti-te...

 

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

If you were watching the dismal Evan Solomon's coverage of C-51, they had an on-line poll on the side of the screen. At the end, 1300 CBC-NN viewers had bothered to take the poll. Over 90% were against increased security measures! The NDP is totally onside with public opinion on this matter. If you are trying to convert a Conservative voter, C-51 is a great talking point.

Harper's feeble partisan attempts to attack the NDP in the face of his bogus legislation was the most pathetic performance seen today. 

The NDP's firm stance on this will appeal to anyone who appreciates civil rights. The problem for the authoritarians is that through their actions, more and more individuals, families, and neighborhoods experience their injustices. And out of these people who are just disposed of like so much chaff, they get their worst enemies.

 

Debater

montrealer58 wrote:

If you were watching the dismal Evan Solomon's coverage of C-51, they had an on-line poll on the side of the screen. At the end, 1300 CBC-NN viewers had bothered to take the poll. Over 90% were against increased security measures! The NDP is totally onside with public opinion on this matter. If you are trying to convert a Conservative voter, C-51 is a great talking point.

I enjoy the P&P polls, but they are basically for fun because they're a non-random sample of viewers who watch the show.  They are not a random national poll of Canadians.  Thus far, most Canadians have been in favour of the new anti-terror measures, including Quebecers in the Leger poll last week.

It's possible that it can change over the course of the year, but who knows.

Aristotleded24

Debater, what do you think about C-51? Do you support the position your leader has taken? Do you disagree? Is it not that simple? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts aside from mentioning any of the party leaders or what they have said?

NorthReport

Good day for Mulcair but a sad day indeed for Trudeau.

NDP steps up in opposition to Harper’s new anti-terror legislation

“There will be a consequence in terms of social licence for a clandestine service empowered to act in violation of the law and the Charter, especially in communities that feel targeted,” Forcese and Roach warn. “In the final analysis, the increased skepticism and the new doubts about the [Canadian Security Intelligence Service] stemming from the new powers may be the most dangerous aspect of this law proposal.”

As if on cue, just this week Montreal’s La Presse obtained a 44-page internal RCMP document titled “Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment: Criminal Threats to the Canadian Petroleum Industry” that does not require a particularly paranoid mind to be interpreted as evidence that the environmental movement is already being targeted as a national security threat.

The intelligence assessment employs such woefully sloppy language and engages in elisions so lazy as to leave the impression that its authors cannot properly distinguish between extremist violence directed at targets associated with Canada’s oil industry and sensible, genuine and broad-based opposition to expansion of the oil sands generally and to pipeline projects specifically.

While the assessment takes pains to distinguish between lawful protest and criminal activity, the document also confirms the folly Forcese and Roach have identified in national security definitions so loose that they fail to properly distinguish between dangerous criminal activity on the one hand and protest that is merely unlawful on the other.

Without such clear distinctions, it is not wildly implausible that the new powers in Bill C-51 would grant CSIS the authority to carry out covert surveillance and dirty-tricks operations against groups that stage street protests without obtaining the appropriate parade permits or engage in acts of non-violent civil disobedience, like sit-ins in front of bulldozers at pipeline construction sites. There’s a difference between Raging Granny sing-alongs and the rampages of Black Bloc hooligans throwing garbage bins through Starbucks windows.

At the same time, it’s all good sport when environmentalists wrest banner headlines with loud proclamations that Stephen Harper’s wicked Conservatives are determined to criminalize activism in opposition to Alberta’s oilsands infrastructure, but it’s no great stretch to situate certain sorts of “environmental activism” within a national security ambit, even one that includes, God forbid, “terrorism.”

Dated Jan. 24, 2014 and stamped “Protected: Canadian Eyes Only,” the Critical Infrastructure Intelligence Assessment enumerates several cases that suggest a very real “national security” threat at the margins of environmental activism.

At Elsipogtog in New Brunswick in October 2013, during the course of protests against a natural gas exploration project supported by the mainline First Nations in the province but opposed by a minority of aboriginal activists and “environmentalists,” six RCMP vehicles were burned, 40 people were arrested and a variety of weapons were seized, including “improvised explosive devices.”

Prime Minister Harper is obviously counting on the Liberals to keep their heads down

In Quebec, the vice-president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute had his car blown up. In British Columbia, several natural gas pipelines have been bombed. The house of a former Syncrude president was firebombed in Edmonton. On it goes.

Prime Minister Harper is obviously counting on the Liberals to keep their heads down, lest Justin Trudeau say something memorably inane, and so far, the Liberals have been obliging. It’s also a fairly safe bet that the Conservatives are all depending on the New Democrats to revert to the wishy-washy inarticulacy that marked their polemics and posturings on matters related to terrorism and national security during the decade that followed the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

It needn’t be this way. It shouldn’t be this way. Thomas Mulcair has been presented with an enormous challenge here, an opportunity to show that he’s capable of statesmanship and sobriety in the face of an exceedingly complex and furiously contested arena of public policy. It’s a chance for him to shine.

He should take it.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/18/terry-glavin-the-ndp-steps-up-in...

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

It’s also a fairly safe bet that the Conservatives are all depending on the New Democrats to revert to the wishy-washy inarticulacy that marked their polemics and posturings on matters related to terrorism and national security during the decade that followed the atrocities of September 11, 2001.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/18/terry-glavin-the-ndp-steps-up-in...

Not exactly a complimentary column on the NDP either, is it?

Terry Glavin is a right-winger.

I'd beware of quoting him.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I don't give a rat's ass about "What's Good for Mulcair" or "What's Good for Trudeau"...or "what's good for Elizabeth May" (who incidentally came out much more forecefully from the get go against this legislation).   This isn't about what's good for party leaders.

There's something much more important...namely the basic civil liberties of the people of this country.   

 

NorthReport

I do care whether or not it is good for Mulcaur because without the NDP this legislation would be a done deal
It probably is anyway but at least with the NDP there will be some opposition to it

Now imagine if Mulcair was in power right now instead of Harper

thorin_bane

Odd most of the libs all quiet now...well except for the the person who never answers any questions. Look over there, there is nothing to see here. Typical.

jjuares

For me this renders all discussion of strategic voting moot. I care too much about civil liberties in this country to ever consider the Liberal Party as even vaguely progressive. They just ended up supporting the most brutal, repressive piece of legislation vomited forth from the Harper gov. And that is saying a lot.

mmphosis

I'm also not an NDP partisan by any means...

The New Democrats have joined the Green Party in opposing the Conservatives new Anti-Terrorism bill. (netnewsledger.com)

Thank you Thomas Mulcair.

-----

To the Liberals credit, they did join the NDP in accusing the Conservatives of breaking the law:

National News: Conservatives accused of breaking the law to hide the full cost of war in Iraq (northumberlandview.ca)

Canada's Iraq Mission Will Cost $128M To $166M, PBO Estimates (huffingtonpost.ca)

Quote:
At the moment,the Justin Trudeau Liberals support: Current levels of corporate taxation,CETA,FIPA,Keystone XL,the status quo in the Senate, Bill C-51,and,Eve Adams....And that's just off the top of my head!

and, I would like to remind everyone that Justin Trudeau, just like the Conservative party, voted against Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

<rant>If the polls are any indication, and I don't think that they are, we may have a minority Conservative government with the Justin Trudeau party as the ... get this ... "opposition."  ... if this bill is any indication, more like a coalition of Justin Trudeau and the Conservative party.

What we really need is a coalition to bring about MMPR.  A coalition based on the platform of bringing in MMPR, the popularity of Justin Trudeau, and the political savvy of Thomas Mulcair would surely be able to bring this about.  My fantasy is that our elected representatives would work together and dispel the crazy making.  I am definitely far too cynical for political discussion.</rant>

Pages

Topic locked