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

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

radiorahim wrote:

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.   

I agree, and i also appreciated May's strong statement that she came out with almost immediately.

I never expected Mulcair and the NDP to support this bill though.  I always expected opposition, and I thought they telegraphed that well enough.  While I did read news articles that tried to imply that the NDP was undecided (eg. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/liberals-ndp-treading-softly-over...), none of these articles ever gave any evidence that the NDP was actually considering support.

While I'll say again that May's initial statements were great, the Green Party is essentially a party of one representative.  If the Greens were to win 5 seats in the next election, that would be viewed as a very successful result.  On the other hand, the NDP have close to a hundred MPs and a viable shot at forming government in the next election.

Because of the NDP's position (which is different than that of the Greens), I could understand Mulcair taking more time to make a statement.  This would be both to consult with all his MPs (as to any preferences they may have on the best way to oppose the bill) as well as to construct the best possible argument and focus of objections (necessary to hold up to the much higher level of scrutiny his statement will receive than May's).

Would you accept that there are some valid reasons for Mulcair to take more before explicitly voicing his opposition and the supporting arguments?

Slumberjack

Must be nearing election time.  Mulcair has seen fit to toss a rare bone to a long suffering base, who have had so little to chew on for such a long time that they must now be gumming on it in their geriatric years.  But what has he really done with this late in coming awareness that a base must be given something with which to head into an election?  He's managed to shore up, elevate, and advertise the main plank the Harper gang has been standing on all these years.  Keeping us 'safe' from whatever.  In that he doesn't seem to be actually concerned about overreach of the state security industry, but more about attempting to advertise that in substance there may exist some difference between himself and Herr Harper after all.  It should stand out as an unconvincing and thoroughly dismissive gesture to the rank and file.

Slumberjack

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

There is that, but what does party politics have to do with alleviating any of those pressures when their words are so meaningless?

nicky

It is noteworthy that none of our usually reliable Liberal posters have actually supported Justin's position on C-51.

Debater, who is otherwise quick to support the Liberals in everything, has avoided Aristotled's  question in #43 above as to where he personally stands. Similarly no word from Pondering who usually goes on ad nauseum about how Justin was born in a manger. Or even the wild Ajaykumar whose Liberal cheerleading knows no bounds.

And they are not alone in their reticence. Look at Twitter and comments to stories on th Toronto Star webpage. The Liberals are running for cover on this issue. No one is standing behnd Trudeau.

Coming on the heels of the Eve Adams debacle and his obfuscation on climate change Justin is looking pretty indecisive and right-wing.

NorthReport

Part of the problem here is the use of the word terror or terrorism as it is being thrown around like a ping pong ball. Violence or even extreme violence perhaps, but terrorism?

New poll finds Harper’s anti-terror bill is a political juggernaut

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-finds-harpers-anti...

NorthReport

Bill C-51: Strong support for proposed anti-terror legislation, but additional oversight wanted too

Nearly half of Canadians say draft law “strikes right balance”, fully one-third say it doesn’t go far enough

Canadians are firmly supportive of Bill C-51, the federal government’s proposed anti-terror legislation that contains a range of measures that would, among other things, provide law enforcement agencies with expanded powers.

Four-in-five (82%) adult Canadians surveyed online by the Angus Reid Institute say they support the draft law, with fully one-quarter (25%) saying they “strongly” support C-51.

Key Findings:

  • Support for some individual elements of the legislation is stronger than for the draft law as a whole
  • One-in-three (36%) respondents say the bill “does not go far enough”
  • Most Canadians (69%) want additional oversight to ensure law enforcement’s powers aren’t abused
  • The majority (63%) also say they trust those agencies to access and use Canadians’ personal information only for anti-terrorism purposes and nothing else


http://angusreid.org/c51/

NorthReport
josh

Slumberjack wrote:

Must be nearing election time.  Mulcair has seen fit to toss a rare bone to a long suffering base, who have had so little to chew on for such a long time that they must now be gumming on it in their geriatric years. 

 

Got to admit, had to laugh at that one.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mulcair is right and the NDP is on the right side of this issue.

Unfortunately it's on the wrong side of public opinion. I understand why the Liberals are supporting it,It's what the people want.

clambake

alan smithee wrote:

Mulcair is right and the NDP is on the right side of this issue.

Unfortunately it's on the wrong side of public opinion. I understand why the Liberals are supporting it,It's what the people want.

Furthering the notion that the Liberals are a useless party that only exist to be in power.

sherpa-finn

Indeed, the fine Liberal art of selling one's principles for the proverbial mess of pottage.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

clambake wrote:
alan smithee wrote:

Mulcair is right and the NDP is on the right side of this issue.

Unfortunately it's on the wrong side of public opinion. I understand why the Liberals are supporting it,It's what the people want.

Furthering the notion that the Liberals are a useless party that only exist to be in power.

Maybe so but they are trying hard to stay in step with public opinion. It will only help them in the long run.

Face it. Canadians are losers, Look at the links NR posted. Canadians don't give a damn about civil liberties.

NorthReport

Ex-PMs call for CSIS oversight as Conservatives rush C-51 debate

Harper government moves time allocation on anti-terrorism bill

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-pms-call-for-csis-oversight-as-conser...

clambake

I think it has more to do with how the issue is framed in the media, rather than Canadians not caring. Like when people are polled if they want lower taxes (they do) but when the issue of cutting services comes up, the response is the opposite.

At any rate, this issue illustrates why the Liberals are not worth supporting and that there should be more efforts for electoral reform, rather than strategic voting.

MegB

radiorahim wrote:

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.   

 

I concur. It should also be said that C-51 is a direct attack on Indigenous peoples who are leaders in stewardship of the land.

Jacob Two-Two

clambake wrote:
I think it has more to do with how the issue is framed in the media, rather than Canadians not caring. Like when people are polled if they want lower taxes (they do) but when the issue of cutting services comes up, the response is the opposite.

At any rate, this issue illustrates why the Liberals are not worth supporting and that there should be more efforts for electoral reform, rather than strategic voting.


This is exactly right. The Liberals are gonna get bitten in the ass with this, mark my words. Emotional issues like this change on a dime and run hot and cold. Everyone freaks out, then everyone calms down. Chasing the polls like this is a good way to both find yourself on the wrong side of the issue, and have nobody respect how you got there.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
It is noteworthy that none of our usually reliable Liberal posters have actually supported Justin's position on C-51.

Debater, who is otherwise quick to support the Liberals in everything, has avoided Aristotled's  question in #43 above as to where he personally stands. Similarly no word from Pondering who usually goes on ad nauseum about how Justin was born in a manger. Or even the wild Ajaykumar whose Liberal cheerleading knows no bounds.

And they are not alone in their reticence. Look at Twitter and comments to stories on th Toronto Star webpage. The Liberals are running for cover on this issue. No one is standing behnd Trudeau.

I remember in the initial phases Wayne Easter was guarded and expressed similar concerns about the bill as the NDP, then Trudeau turned around and announced his support with or without ammendments. It makes me wonder how Trudeau makes his decisions, and more specifically why he doesn't seem to trust the judgement of people within his party and caucus who would be knowledgeable and well-versed on issues, people such as Wayne Easter.

Aside from being bad for the country, this does not reflect well on him at all.

mmphosis

alan smithee wrote:
Face it. Canadians are losers, Look at the links NR posted. Canadians don't give a damn about civil liberties.

I do follow NR's links -- thanks NR.  national post, globe and mail, angus reid poll, fill_in_the_blank_with_corporate_sponsored_poll_news_agenda, etc...

I am not buying it.  I am cynical, but I don't think Canadians are losers.  We don't give a damn about politics.  The cry of so-called "terrorism" has used been manufacture crises to try to force through an ill-conceived right wing (red -- folding like a cheap suit, and blue -- shilling in a cheap suit) agenda.

I am glad that the NDP has come out against this bill.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

And although "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", it seems to me that the NDP brain trust was checking with the weather people first.

Quote:

I concur. It should also be said that C-51 is a direct attack on Indigenous peoples who are leaders in stewardship of the land.

Agreed.

The name of the game with Bill C-51 is to first label political opponents "terrorists" and then once you've done that, the whole Harper style COINTELPRO regime will come down on people.    Except for one thing of course.    While much of COINTELPRO was found to be illegal, Bill C-51 will make COINTELPRO style activities by the police and spies legal.

In El Salvador during the 1980's, once you were labelled a "communist" or "terrorist", it was open season on you by the death squads.

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Imagine, the NDP want to get elected so Mulcair can stop this kind of draconian legislation, eh! 

The NDP opposed the War Measures Act in 1970 and they are opposing C-51 as well.

They are being totally consistent.

What's not to like?

NorthReport

How Quickly Politics of Fear Could Transform Canada

Is Harper pushing us towards a new McCarthyism?

 

    

HarperValentine_600px.jpg

Cartoon by Greg Perry.

Related

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, unless thwarted by a surge of surprising voter intelligence, has found the winning formula. Leading his coven of three-piece-suit and pearl necklace know-nothings, he will rally the electorate in a rout of the mortally dangerous non-Christian hordes within and without our borders, saving God from Allah and leaving Trudeau and Mulcair gasping for air, something they excel at.

As Harper whips up fear of a Muslim enemy he will make it simple to allow hate to spread without appearing to do so. In fact Harper need only mumble "not all people... many are fine, innocent... blah, blah, blah" and play the civil libertarian role.

It's classic George W. Bush, a fellow intellectual of the right, who parlayed the hateful Saddam Hussein and those who looked like him into two election victories from which the world will likely never recover.

This point, however, is critical. The condition that must be present to make it all work -- a clear, comprehensible threat to our society -- is in fact present. I accept that radical Islamist jihadism is dedicated to destroy its enemies, its followers will cheerfully die for their cause, and it must be defeated. This threat is for real and not a CIA plot as the U.S.-hating left would have us believe.

But, as the famous Yankee ballplayer Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà vu all over again." We've been there before, not long ago, and there are lessons to be learned about how a threat from without can be used by politicians to cow and control their own populace.

 

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/16/Canadian-Politics-of-Fear/

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The threat of a Canadian McCarthyist state is tempting me from doing away with pseudonyms.

Blacklist me,motherfuckers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBvjXhUSUpU

NorthReport

That Angus Reid poll up thread did not ask what is the ballot box question

Had they done that I believe that the economy which seems to be tanking
would take precedence over extreme violence

I think people need to reread the Angus Reid poll completely

sherpa-finn

And now 4 ex-PMs, 5 former Supreme Court Justices and 7 former Liberal solicitors general and ministers of justice come out against C-51.

(That sound you hear is Justin Trudeau spinning in his political grave.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-oversight-urged-by-ex-pms-as-conservatives-rush-bill-c-51-debate-1.2963179

NorthReport

Opposing C-51 could be a big winner for the NDP as Mulcair may be a lot wiser than many Canadians have given him credit for.

More and more Canadians are beginning to see the wisdom in the NDP's position.

By-the-way did anyone listen to Rex Murphy on the National tonite? If not I suggest you do.

NorthReport

Ralph Nader: Stephen Harper is selling the politics of fear

Former U.S. presidential candidate urges prime minister to rethink 'paranoid' anti-terror bill

A former candidate for the U.S. presidency has come down hard on the Canadian government's new anti-terrorism bill, calling it a crass effort to "sell the politics of fear."

Ralph Nader says Prime Minister Stephen Harper is exaggerating the threat of Islamic terrorism and his paranoia has now exceeded "Washington's chief attack dog, former vice-president Dick Cheney" — and he has written a letter to Harper to express his concerns.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ralph-nader-stephen-harper-is-selling-th...

NorthReport

What would be very helpful is for some progressive police to speak out  against C-51 soon.

Anti-Terror Bill Presents a 'Bogus Choice': Mulcair

'We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety,' says NDP leader.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair

The federal New Democrats will officially oppose the Conservative bill, Mulcair said today.

Related

The federal New Democrats will oppose the Conservative government's new legislation aimed at stunting terrorist attacks, stating the bill has "several serious problems" including a lack of oversight for the new powers it would grant the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, allows for authorities to "disrupt" suspected terrorist activities and make preventative arrests of suspected terrorists. The bill also criminalizes the spreading of terrorist propaganda.

Critics in the media and government have said the proposed legislation is too broad, leaving it open for abuse by the government.

In Ottawa today, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said the bill is too vague and "likely ineffective," while it undermines the freedoms that define Canadian values.

"What Stephen Harper is proposing is a bogus choice," Mulcair told reporters in French. "We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety; we have to deal with both at the same time."

Conservatives contend the bill strengthens the ability of law enforcement to intercept and stop terrorist activities by expanding on current laws.

Mulcair said the Conservatives must not "railroad" the bill through Parliament, and that his party will do everything possible to ensure it is properly debated and amended.

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/02/18/Anti-Terror-Bill-Bogus-Choice-Mulcair-...

onlinediscountanvils

radiorahim wrote:

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

You're probably right.

radiorahim wrote:

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

Oh, snap! Surprised

 

NorthReport

 - from the comment section


anne cameron • 9 days ago

Amazing, really. And Intriguing. This huge spy system, costing who knows how many billions per year, eavesdropping on all of us, and the purveyors of child pornography seem immune. These spy guys seem able to hear people whispering to each other in hidden alleys and even , who knows, closets, but they can't slam down on those who get their kicks watching little children abused and tortured. Makes a person suspect the spies aren't all that good at their jobs. Also makes a person wonder how much of the incredible profit from porn is winding up in which pockets.
It's true.. I've seldom met a conspiracy theory I didn't find interesting... almost as interesting as the question HOW MUCH is all this snooping costing us? And why not use that money for social improvement programmes?
Jeebus, it's like something out of MAD magazine. Black spy vs white spy.
And to think they linked arms and marched chanting Je Suis Charlie because of their commitment to free speech.
Amazing. Really.

 

  • Aaron Sheldon  anne cameron • 9 days ago

    In the 2014 fiscal year CIHI spent ~$100,000,000 on analyzing health care information to improve the health of all Canadians.

    https://secure.cihi.ca/free_pr...

    (quick plug for the CIHI online health system reporting:http://yourhealthsystem.cihi.c... )

    Yet in the same fiscal year ~$450,000,000 was spent on a basically useless security establishment, at least in the broad statistical sense of population health benefits.

    http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/r...

    WE AS A NATION CHOOSE TO SPEND NEARLY 5 TIMES AS MUCH MONEY ON EVENTS OF SUCH RARITY THAT THEY CANNOT EVEN BE CALLED AS RISKY AS LIGHTNING STRIKES.

    For example ~7% of Canadians suffer from diabetes, ~200,000 Canadians are diagnosed with cancer, ~30% of all deaths are directly attributable to heart disease. Yet less than 1 in 10,000,000 are physically impacted by anything that can even be approximately squeezed into the label of terrorism, a percentage so laughably small as to defy comparison with the health risks we truly face.

    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-...

    http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer...

    http://www.heartandstroke.com/...

    As to the lack of competency, in many ways the scale with which the security establishment is collecting data has created a disincentive to fostering technical analytic expertise. Why bother inventing nuanced techniques to extract as much information from the smallest amount of data when you can just collect and store it all? With respect to analytic capabilities, particularly algorithmic market segmentation, the private sector is light years ahead of the security establishment; hence the security establishment piggybacks on the techniques used in the private sector. The combination of strong financial incentives, and the throttling of data because private sector servers can only extract data from clients directly connected to them, has lead to an explosion of sophisticated analytic techniques. On the other hand, the security establishment seems to prefer an attitude of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/02/10/Privacy-Protection-Got-Tougher/

jjuares

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

You're probably right.

radiorahim wrote:

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

Oh, snap! Surprised

 


The obvious rejoinder to this silliness is, well he didn't, and they didn't.

NorthReport

Well said jj

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

NorthReport
sherpa-finn

radiorahim wrote: "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

Just for historical accuracy, it was "watch the pawking metaws"  1:31  https://vimeo.com/72540087

NorthReport

Tks for the great memories s-f 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Just for historical accuracy, it was "watch the pawking metaws"  1:31

LOL

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Nice post Rosskoffsky.

You will find the volunteers for all the parties have some respect for the wishes of the electorate. You may not get them to join you. But getting Conservatives to sit at home is the next best thing. For many Conservatives, the choice is 'Conservative' or 'don't vote'.

Centrist

Stockholm wrote:
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.

That was before my time. But ya raised an interesting point. So I decided to review the Quebec '68 fed election results v. the subsequent '72 Quebec election results in terms of popular vote share:

1972 (with changes):

Lib: 48.9% (- 4.7%)

PC: 17.4% (-4%)

Social Credit: 24.3% (+ 7.9%)

NDP: 6.8% (-0.7%)

Unless the right-wing QC Socreds were anti-1970 War Measures Act, I am at a loss trying to figure out how the 1970 matter affected Quebec public opinion at the ballot box in 1972.

 

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

You're probably right.

radiorahim wrote:

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

Oh, snap! Surprised

 

Not following leaders should not preclude following what they are actually doing.

Let's start with the oft quoted "left" writer at the Toronto Star, Thomas Walkom.

I am not at all surprised that the same sources that were spinning up fair tales of possible Tim Hudak/Andrea Horwath coalition during the last Ontario election campaign (while they were leading us down the path of endorsing "strategic voting" in favour of electing one of the most reactionary governments in Ontario history ostensibly because the NDP wasn't "progressive" enough) are the same ones now whinging about the apparent "hesitance" of the NDP to denounce Bill C-51 out of the gate.

If anyone should be suspect lax principles and lack of political acumen it is these who proposed that the Wynne Liberal economic plan was the most "progressive in recent memory".

There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the NDP were going to vote against Bill C-51 right from the get go, despite Mulcair playing coy with the press for effect. If Walkom, despite his sagacious pretensions, was less prone to a wandering intellect in liu of keen observation he might have noted that Bill C-51 is twinned with Bill C44, the bill that expands CSIS operations to Canada, which the NDP just voted against, and so would vote against the expansion of powers provided to that organization for those operations.

That should be obvious.

Moreover, Walkom might have noted that had Mulcair and his cohort imagined any other outcome, it would be unlikely that Don Davies and Craig Scott have would have been peppering the internet with blog postings and twitter remarks denouncing Bill C-51 in most uncertain terms since they voted "Nay" on Bill C44. Certainly, had there been any doubt both would have been whipped into silence, until a decision was made.

Has anyone from the NDP actually spoken for it?

Waiting to make an assessment of "fine print" on any bill or agreement proffered by the government is "vintage" Mulcair, and part of his "adult conversation" styling, which has been at the heart of his "serious" parliamentarian image, since day one of his election to the NDP leadership.

Also, it does not hurt at all to lead the media out before reeling them in to capture more spotlight, prepare ones powder, and define a strategy, before, one jumps all over a bill like this which is clearly going to be central to Harper's fear mongering campaign in the next election. Nor does it hurt to energize the membership, and the public by engaging them in the debate either.

And, even if we are going to accept the more cynical view of the Mulcair and the NDP, and assert that the standpoint of the NDP is defined entirely by electioneering, we also note that there is absolutely no percentage in the NDP cozying up to Harper when it has a good chance to define itself on a "bedrock" left-wing civil liberties issue, and distance themselves from the Liberals at the same time.

Does anyone actually think the NDP would have a chance of winning the next election, if it sided with both the Tories and the Liberals on this issue? There was nothing to be gained electorally from supporting this bill.

It is the Tory "wedge", and you are either "with us or against us".

Certainly not when the NDP is polling marginally in third with between 20% and 25%, when it needs to protect its base, and can afford to take risks. This move has secured the support of votes from "democrats" of all political stripes, left, center and right, and will make the NDP base almost unassailable to Liberal "strategic voting".

Am I surprised that Walkom and others who have expressed a certain amount of misguided animus to the NDP in the past, are making a big deal of out the NDP's "hesitancy" to come out with a knee-jerk attack on Bill C-51 right off the bat? Not at all.

If one thing should be recognized after the last Ontario election, anything coming out of the Toronto Star editorial team, should be read with a a great deal of circumspection.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
It's classic George W. Bush, a fellow intellectual of the right, who parlayed the hateful Saddam Hussein and those who looked like him into two election victories from which the world will likely never recover..

">http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/02/16/Canadian-Politics-of-Fear/

I think this is actually worse than what we saw under George W. Bush. Remember that in the wake of 9/11, he urged Americans to not take out their anger on the Muslim community in the US, and he always talked about either specific people for enemies (i.e. Sadam and bin Laden), or raised the general spectre of "terrorism." I don't ever recall him or anyone in his administration being as blatantly Islamophobic as Harper is currently.Yell

Debater

radiorahim wrote:

If Mulcair had come out in favour of Bill C-51 in some way, shape or form the "NDP can do no wrong" brigade on babble would be defending Mulcair.

"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" as Bob Dylan sang in "Subterranean Homesick Blues" when he was alive.

And although "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", it seems to me that the NDP brain trust was checking with the weather people first.

Yup.  The NDP took its time before coming out against the legislation.  And according to Chantal Hébert, it was Ed Broadbent & Roy Romanow who seem to have given Mulcair a kick in the butt:

-

The internal debate over the NDP’s stance on the Conservative anti-terrorism legislation was settled some time before Thomas Mulcair made his decision to oppose Bill C-51 public on Wednesday.

That the die was cast was obvious as of the moment NDP elder statesmen Ed Broadbent and Roy Romanow co-signed an open letter in the Globe and Mail last week calling for the bill to be defeated or withdrawn.

Mulcair, Broadbent and Romanow have locked horns in the past — notably at the time of Jack Layton’s succession — but in this instance any light between their positions would have split the party wide open.

http://www.ourwindsor.ca/opinion-story/5345069-opposing-bill-c-51-less-d...

NorthReport

More nonsense as Rokossovsky has already pointed out up thread

Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it fact

Rokossovsky

Bullshit.

That isn't what that article says and you know it.

It says that the way the NDP was going to vote "was obvious as of the moment" these guys signed that letter and sent it to the Globe and Mail. The decision was made prior. As would be completely obvious because it makes no sense that the NDP would vote against giving CSIS statuatory domestic powers in C-44, and then vote for enhancing those domestic powers of that organization through C-51.

No one in the NDP has uttered a peep in favour of the Bill, and Craig Scott and Don Davies have been lambasting it on twitter and facebook for weeks. If there was any doubt about the NDP position, all and sundry would have been whipped into silence.

The only people who might think otherwise are people who have not been paying attention, which according to Ipsos Reid is about 56% of Canadians who admit to knowing squat about what is inside the bill, even though 78% of the population support it "in theory".

Wow.

Debater

Actually, Mulcair & the NDP appeared to be considering supporting the bill a few weeks ago.

Here's a January 30 article from Radio-Canada:

Appui prudent du NPD au projet de loi antiterroriste conservateur

(Cautious support from the NDP to the Conservative anti-terrorism bill)

https://twitter.com/RadioCanadaInfo/status/561264871904264192

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

jjuares

Rokossovsky wrote:

Bullshit.

That isn't what that article says and you know it.

It says that the way the NDP was going to vote "was obvious as of the moment" these guys signed that letter and sent it to the Globe and Mail. The decision was mad prior. As would be completely obvious because it makes no sense that the NDP would vote against giving CSIS statuatory domestic powers in C-44, and then vote for enhancing those the domestic powers of that same organization through C-51.

No one in the NDP has uttered a peep in favour of the Bill, and Craig Scott and Don Davies have been lambasting it on twitter and facebook for weeks. If there was any doubt about the NDP position, all and sundry would have been whipped into silence.

The only people who might think otherwise are people who have not been paying attention, which according to Ipsos Reid is about 56% of Canadians who admit to knowing squat about what is inside the bill, even though 78% of the population support it "in theory".

Wow.


Thank you. I was going to point this out. Debater doesn't seem to understand the article he supposedly read. She doesn't say the die was cast when Romanow and Broadbent wrote the article but it became obvious then. As a member of the NDP I don't think there would have been a split if Mulcair had voted for this odious bill but more of an intraparty riot. I am absolutely disgusted with the Liberals for supporting this anti-democratic bill and shame on those posters who try to detract from their hand holding with Harper while he trashes civil liberties in this country. Why don't you try to defend Trudeau's support for this idiotic piece of legislation on its merits.?

Debater

jjuares, did you see the French story from Radio-Canada I just linked above?  It shows that as of January 30 the NDP were considering supporting the Conservative bill.  So there you go.

And while I do not support the bill myself, what has been ignored above by some NDP posters is that Justin Trudeau & the Liberals have repeatedly criticized the lack of oversight in the Conservative legislation and have said that they will strengthen oversight if they form government.

jjuares

NorthReport wrote:

Well said jj

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.


The Liberal position is pathetic-absolutely.

Debater

Le chef du NDP, Thomas Mulcair, a une impression plutôt favorable du projet de loi, qui vise notamment à donner au Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (SCRS) de nouveaux pouvoirs pour contrer les projets de voyage de présumés extrémistes, interrompre des transactions bancaires et intervenir secrètement sur des sites web radicaux.

Le texte permettrait également à la GRC d'obtenir plus facilement un engagement à ne pas troubler l'ordre public afin de restreindre les déplacements d'un suspect. Il est prévu aussi d'allonger la période permise pour les arrestations préventives et la détention.

« Tous les partis politiques au Parlement souhaitent la même chose, c'est que les Canadiens vivent en sécurité. Alors, si le projet de loi peut faire ça tout en respectant leurs droits, il aura notre appui. Il y a déjà des éléments là-dedans que, c'est sûr, on va appuyer. Pour l'ensemble du projet de loi, on va attendre l'ensemble de notre analyse », a expliqué Thomas Mulcair.

« S'il y a des éléments là-dedans qui méritent notre appui - puis la suggestion de criminaliser l'incitation à un acte terroriste me semble bien avisée - on va l'appuyer.  »— Thomas Mulcair

« C'est un projet de loi qui touche et modifie cinq lois différentes au fédéral, c'est substantiel », a-t-il rappelé. « On a des équipes qui l'analysent depuis que ça a été déposé et on va prendre le temps de donner un avis circonstancié ».

À la question « le projet de loi des conservateurs va-t-il trop loin? », le chef du NPD a répondu : « Pour l'instant on n'a rien vu là-dedans qui nous permet de dire ça. Par contre, on va prendre le temps de l'analyser. Avec M, Harper, il y a toujours une petite pilule empoisonnée pour s'assurer que ça provoque un peu de controverse ».

---

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2015/01/30/003-projet-loi...

 

jjuares

Debater wrote:

jjuares, did you see the French story from Radio-Canada I just linked above?  It shows that as of January 30 the NDP were considering supporting the Conservative bill.  So there you go.

And while I do not support the bill myself, what has been ignored above by some NDP posters is that Justin Trudeau & the Liberals have repeatedly criticized the lack of oversight in the Conservative legislation and have said that they will strengthen oversight if they form government.


Now I understand why you would want to concentrate on some preliminary remarks by Mulcair rather than contrast the final position of Trudeau and Mulcair because as a highly subjective partisan like yourself your party comes off looking quite badly. Nonetheless that is the most objective and honest thing to do. And of course Mulcair's objections go far beyond Trudeau's suggestion that it is a case of more oversight being needed. Because as has been pointed out by many that the terms are being defined so broadly that even more rigorous oversight may in of itself be insufficient. Here's a thought why don't you level some criticism at Trudeau. He is far more likely to change his position if people in his own party register their objections than let say some old lefty like myself.

Rokossovsky

Please folks, feel free to trash the NDP all day long for real things, but don't get suckered by this crappy Liberal spin, again.

Don Davies explains clearly the process of decision on Facebook:

Quote:
"The bill requires analysis: what anti-terrorism measures exist now? What measures will the bill add? Does it violate the Charter? Are there unintended consequences? Is the bill necessary at all? What do security experts and civil liberty groups say? What do Canadians in general think? All of these questions need to be evaluated, and the bill has only been out 3 days. The House is also adjourned next week, so we will discuss as a Caucus when the House resumes. I also see that yesterday Trudeau and the Liberals have decided to join the Conservatives and SUPPORT C51 - a clearly unprincipled, fear- based and opportunistic move. The NDP will not act that way on such an important issue."

Yet, I guess, Tom Mulcair is supposed to pull a Justin and imperiously announce the party policy purely on his perogative without consulting even the Caucus when all members are present, or allow the membership the opportunity to have input.

So what do people want? An NDP run by "the leader" on whim? I seem to remember endless critique of the NDP caucus and Jack Layton for making up policy on the fly, without regard to the party policy book established at the conventions. Now, it seems the very same people are chastizing the NDP of having too much democratic process on making key decisions, about important issues.

Democracy is more than just about positions, it is all about "process", and it is good to see the NDP caucus following one.

Debater

I just linked & quoted a French article above in TOM MULCAIR'S OWN WORDS where he says that (as of January 30) the NDP was considering supporting the bill and thought that there were some good things in it.

They hadn't yet made their final decision, but it's right there in print that they were NOT always totally opposed to this legislation all along.  They were considering supporting it less than a month ago.

Pages

Topic locked