Mulcair is not soft on C-51: Michael Laxer is wrong

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Mulcair is not soft on C-51: Michael Laxer is wrong

+

NorthReport

The problem with making erroneous statements about the NDP's position on C51, or anything else for that matter, is that the mainstream press picks up and plays on this kind of absurdness. The following headline is an example:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1843737/given-the-power-mulcair-would-amend-an...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortunately Rabble's man on the Hill sets the record straight:

Michael Laxer is wrong: Mulcair is not soft on C-51

Laxer tried to make the argument that because Mulcair says he would amend C-51, were his Party to take power, not scrap it, the NDP leader has backtracked from his principled opposition to the Bill.

Nonsense.

The way laws are changed in this country is, in fact, through amendment. C-51, itself, is largely a series of amendments to other, existing legislation.

In power, the NDP could amend the anti-terrorist legislation in such a  way that the resulting new law (or, more precisely series of laws) would be radically diferent from what Harper's Conservatives (with Liberal concurrence) will pass in this Parliament. 

That is the way our system of legislation works.

NDP amendments would almost certainly include fundamentally changing the current wording in several parts of C-51 that criminalizes legitimate dissent and civil disobedience.

As well, we could expect amendments to institute Parliamentary oversight of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the police, and to limit the new extra-legal powers Harper intends to give CSIS.

We might also see tweaking of the information-sharing, preventive detention and  "no-fly list" provisions of C-51, which would not kill those parts of the legislation altogether, but would make sure they were Charter of Rights compliant and respectful of Canadians' privacy rights.

Plus, of course, a new government could amend C-51 or pass separate legislation to give the necessary resources to "soft" measure aimed at heading off so-called "radicalization".

And that new government could also decide to give the necesary financial and human resources to the police so that they could effectively do their job of protecting Candians' security while respecting their rights.

If the current Conservative government were to agree to fundamentally amend C-51, in response to the concerns of the NDP (and many others), it would be natural that the Official Oppostion could then vote for it. 

But saying that does not make the NDP soft on C-51.

And because the New Democrats and Greens believe the Bill in its current form is fatally flawed they will vote against it, which is hardly a wobbly position.

The Liberals, based on what they have said on the record, also seem to believe this Bill is bad legislation. Somehow they will nonetheless vote for it. That is what you might call a wobbly posiiton.   

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/03/michael-laxer-wro...

NDPP

NorthReport wrote:

The problem with making erroneous statements about the NDP's position on C51, or anything else for that matter, is that the mainstream press picks up and plays on this kind of absurdness. The following headline is an example:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1843737/given-the-power-mulcair-would-amend-an...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fortunately Rabble's man on the Hill sets the record straight:

Michael Laxer is wrong: Mulcair is not soft on C-51

 they will vote against it

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/03/michael-laxer-wro...

We'll see.

KenS

So, whats wrong with putting this in the existing thread?

I would like to see the thread closed.

Pondering

There is nothing wobbly about saying you will vote for a bill because you agree with it in principle but will alter it once in power because there is insufficient oversight.

The NDP has shown leadership on this and put forth amendments which is suitable given that they are the official opposition. Being the official opposition carries responsibility. You don't get Stornoway for free. The party in 3rd place has fewer seats and less authority. I suspect you will be discovering that again soon.

NorthReport

The Liberals had an opportunity for to implement oversight in 2004 and didn't - why does anyone think they would now?

jjuares

NorthReport wrote:

The Liberals had an opportunity for to implement oversight in 2004 and didn't - why does anyone think they would now?


The lack of oversight isn't the only thing wrong with this bill or for that matter it's not even the most important weakness. That is why the Liberal pledge on this is meaningless.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

The Liberals had an opportunity for to implement oversight in 2004 and didn't - why does anyone think they would now?

How is that wobbly, and Bill C-51 didn't exist in 2004 so you must be referring to some other bill. Trudeau only became leader in April 2013 so he had nothing to do with that bill.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  The lack of oversight isn't the only thing wrong with this bill or for that matter it's not even the most important weakness. That is why the Liberal pledge on this is meaningless.

Which aspects has the NDP criticized other than lack of oversight?

KenS

Which? Where do we start?

Nulcair has emphasised the scope of the bill the most, how under it anyone can be treated as a terrorist. Using concrete example of environmentalist and aboriginals.

Debater

Trudeau has taken strong positions on several issues that are very different from Harper.

And on some issues he has been far more honest & forthright than Mulcair has been.

1.  Justin Trudeau took the strongest pro-choice position of any Liberal leader in history.

2.  JT called for the legalization of marijuana (not just decriminalization like Mulcair).

3.  JT spoke out against the PQ Charter of Values first (Mulcair followed a couple weeks later).

4.  JT spoke in favour of doctor-assisted suicide last week and shared his own personal experiences with end of life issues in his family.  (What is Mulcair's position on this issue?)

KenS

There is nothing the least bit different about how Trudeau tacks on C-51.

On every issue where there are losses or potential losses from taking one side, he picks some minimal and general as possible criticism of what Harper is doing. That way it can be read favourably by people inclined towards both sides of the issue. If you like Trudeau's criticism, thats what you hear. If you like or mostly like what Harper is doing, Trudeau's criticism is not that strong or clear. [Doesnt work with the NDP or Con partisans, but their votes are not in play anyway.]

The only difference with Trudeau specifically on C-51 is that this time his little pirouette gets shown up.... because the battle lines are getting drawn sharply and quickly.

janfromthebruce

The NDP reasoned amendment to Bill C51 would have scrapped the bill, so no surprise that Liberals joined hands with Cons and voted it down.

Full text of the NDP motion on C-51

New Democrat public safety critic Randall Garrison proposed the following motion, which would, if adopted, see the House decline to proceed further with the legislation:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, because it:

a) threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms;

b) was not developed in consultation with other parties, all of whom recognize the real threat of terrorism and support effective, concrete measures to keep Canadians safe;

c) irresponsibly provides CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight;

d) contains definitions that are broad, vague and threaten to lump legitimate dissent together with terrorism; and

e) does not include the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities ‎on measures to counter radicalization of youth.

Under the Standing Orders, a "reasoned amendment" like the above is one of the very few motions that can be put forward at second reading.

So if that doesn't mean scrap it, than we are all blind and lack literacy.

So just to insure we all read the words:

the following motion, which would, if adopted, see the House decline to proceed further with the legislation.

What was interesting about that one Global article that Laxor and Liberal partisans zoomed in on is that the original header changed after the initial story because it was so "misleading". No where in the tape was the word "repeal" spoken. Global was playing silly bugger. 

Do search of text and it doesn't come up. Also note what the head line changed from its original in bold:

Now: Mulcair won’t commit to scrapping anti-terror bill, if ever in power

yet the link says this

Before: http://globalnews.ca/news/1843737/given-the-power-mulcair-would-amend-anti-terror-bill-not-repeal-it/

As Mulcair said prior to the vote and the putting of the amendment, they were committed to changing it. Here's what Mulcair said:

If you became the government would you scrap this legislation. We'd change it for sure. Would you scrap it: Well it hasn't been adopted yet. So first I'm going to do my job as opposition to try get those changes, push those through, every step of the way. ... but we will go back. We will do both, protect Cnds, and will protect right and freedoms.

Of course, in leading up to putting the amendment which would have "scrapped it" one cant say what one will do if the legislation didn't exist anymore, hence Mulcair saying "it hasn't been adopted yet".

janfromthebruce

Meanwhile Trudeau has supported Harper on everything that undermines our sovereignty: FIPA, TPP, BILLC51, and now contemplating extending the mission in Iraq.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

There is nothing wobbly about saying you will vote for a bill because you agree with it in principle but will alter it once in power because there is insufficient oversight.

The NDP has shown leadership on this and put forth amendments which is suitable given that they are the official opposition. Being the official opposition carries responsibility. You don't get Stornoway for free. The party in 3rd place has fewer seats and less authority. I suspect you will be discovering that again soon.

Huh? Liberals proposed a sunset clause for C-13, and claimed it as a victory that they got a 7 year end point, when they asked for 3. It is fortunate that some of us have memories, and can distinguish argument from spin. You are just trying to justify inaction, and lack of clarity from the Liberals by arguing on"form". Any MP can propose amendments, its just that the official opposition is afforded more opportunity to do so.

The only reason that I can imagine that the Liberals have not so far proposed amendments is for the simple fact that they are trying to scoop the NDP on third reading by cutting a behind the scenes deal, probably using Dimitri Sousa as the intermediary.

Some kind of toothless oversight provision, and a meaningless "sunset clause", as a Liberal amendment. That way Harper can keep Trudeau in the game for a little while longer, since Trudeau can claim "victory" on point, and justify voting for it. Harper gets brownie points by appearing "reasonable".

Some such nonsense, no doubt.

Both agree that the NDP can not be as strong as it is, and they will work together to defeat them. Harper can handle a minority with a Trudeau led opposiition, and the Liberals hope to win the next time out, as long as they sink the NDP. Harper can retire before the end of the next parliament, opening the way for Trudeau to be PM in 2019.

 

 

welder welder's picture

Debater wrote:

Trudeau has taken strong positions on several issues that are very different from Harper.

And on some issues he has been far more honest & forthright than Mulcair has been.

1.  Justin Trudeau took the strongest pro-choice position of any Liberal leader in history.

2.  JT called for the legalization of marijuana (not just decriminalization like Mulcair).

3.  JT spoke out against the PQ Charter of Values first (Mulcair followed a couple weeks later).

4.  JT spoke in favour of doctor-assisted suicide last week and shared his own personal experiences with end of life issues in his family.  (What is Mulcair's position on this issue?)

The Justin Trudeau led Liberals also support:

1.Current levels of corporate taxation.

2.CETA (sight unseen,by the way)

3.FIPA

4.Keystone XL (does nothing for long tern sustainable Canadian jobs)

5.The status quo in the Senate

6.Eve Adams

7.Supporting The Harper Government* on Bill C-51 (minus the usual weasel words,of course)

8.Using the CPP as a slush fund to finance infrastructure projects (The Liberal love affair with Triple P's coming through again..What could possibly go wrong?)

Wait a minute!!!!...That's The Harper Government's* economic agenda with a photogenic smile...

So much for "hope and change",Liberal style...

Stockholm

The NDP was 100% pro-choice a generation ago when the Liberals were still infected with viruses like Tom Wappel

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

The NDP was 100% pro-choice a generation ago when the Liberals were still infected with viruses like Tom Wappel

No it wasn't.  The NDP has often quietly allowed a few candidates who are not pro-choice, such as Des McGrath in Newfoundland a few elections back.

And it's also had a few social conservatives in its caucus over the years such as Bev Desjarlais who voted against gay marriage.

So all parties have their 'viruses'.

ajaykumar

NDP can shout all it wants that trudeau isnt progressive because progressives dont win elections. Centre right voters do. people want corporations to exist. people still have to find work outside of cushy government jobs where you are not held accountable for your work. Trudeau is right to take the position he has. There isnt a lot of difference between the NDP and the cons as their base is in the west. And whats so progressive about eugenics? Why was the NDP so quiet on the Quebec charter of values? Why is the NDP supporting some pipelines and not others? why is ndp for free trade with some places and not others? what are mulcair's views on israel? I have not heard that the NDP will repeal c51, it will amend it like Trudeau. 

 

Rokossovsky

ajaykumar wrote:

NDP can shout all it wants that trudeau isnt progressive because progressives dont win elections. Centre right voters do. people want corporations to exist. people still have to find work outside of cushy government jobs where you are not held accountable for your work. Trudeau is right to take the position he has. There isnt a lot of difference between the NDP and the cons as their base is in the west. And whats so progressive about eugenics? Why was the NDP so quiet on the Quebec charter of values? Why is the NDP supporting some pipelines and not others? why is ndp for free trade with some places and not others? what are mulcair's views on israel? I have not heard that the NDP will repeal c51, it will amend it like Trudeau. 

 

Thanks for establishing the right wing credentials of the Liberal party. Many have been making these points, but it is good to hear it from the source. Frankly, my understanding is that this board is not for the discussion of "base principles" but for discussion based on progressive-left principles.

Quote:

babble: discussion board

As part of rabble.ca, babble was created to ensure that readers and participants could explore a wide range of issues of interest and concern in interactive and dynamic ways.

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

But here we have the "real" progressive discourse going on for sure, talk of "cushy government jobs" and "unaccountable" civil servants, no less. And conspiracy theories about eugenics, and a laughable attempt to poison the well by "questioning" Mulcair's, whose wife is a Sephardic Jew, for his position on Israel.

Flagged. How many Mitt Romney's does this board really need?

jjuares

Rokossovsky wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:

NDP can shout all it wants that trudeau isnt progressive because progressives dont win elections. Centre right voters do. people want corporations to exist. people still have to find work outside of cushy government jobs where you are not held accountable for your work. Trudeau is right to take the position he has. There isnt a lot of difference between the NDP and the cons as their base is in the west. And whats so progressive about eugenics? Why was the NDP so quiet on the Quebec charter of values? Why is the NDP supporting some pipelines and not others? why is ndp for free trade with some places and not others? what are mulcair's views on israel? I have not heard that the NDP will repeal c51, it will amend it like Trudeau. 

 

Thanks for establishing the right wing credentials of the Liberal party. Many have been making these points, but it is good to hear it from the source. Frankly, my understanding is that this board is not for the discussion of "base principles" but for discussion based on progressive-left principles.

Quote:

babble: discussion board

As part of rabble.ca, babble was created to ensure that readers and participants could explore a wide range of issues of interest and concern in interactive and dynamic ways.

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

But here we have the "real" progressive discourse going on for sure, talk of "cushy government jobs" and "unaccountable" civil servants, no less. And conspiracy theories about eugenics, and a laughable attempt to poison the well by "questioning" Mulcair's, whose wife is a Sephardic Jew, for his position on Israel.

Flagged. How many Mitt Romney's does this board really need?


Yes, it was not only a right wing rant but a very strange one with some disconnected ideas.

wage zombie

Debater wrote:

And it's also had a few social conservatives in its caucus over the years such as Bev Desjarlais who voted against gay marriage.

What happened to Bev Desjarlais once she voted against gay marriage?

Rokossovsky

Shot.

takeitslowly

janfromthebruce wrote:

Meanwhile Trudeau has supported Harper on everything that undermines our sovereignty: FIPA, TPP, BILLC51, and now contemplating extending the mission in Iraq.

 

Yes

MegB

ajaykumar wrote:

NDP can shout all it wants that trudeau isnt progressive because progressives dont win elections. Centre right voters do. people want corporations to exist. people still have to find work outside of cushy government jobs where you are not held accountable for your work. Trudeau is right to take the position he has. There isnt a lot of difference between the NDP and the cons as their base is in the west. And whats so progressive about eugenics? Why was the NDP so quiet on the Quebec charter of values? Why is the NDP supporting some pipelines and not others? why is ndp for free trade with some places and not others? what are mulcair's views on israel? I have not heard that the NDP will repeal c51, it will amend it like Trudeau. 

 

As has been pointed out, attacks on labour ("cushy government jobs" that are currently under attack by the Harper gov't) you violate babble policy. This is the second time in almost as many days that you've violated babble policy by using oppressive language. Here's your 48 hour vacation from babble. Please use the time to think about why you want to participate here.