Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Canada’s resistance to losing liberty is not being ‘weak on terror’

The Toronto Star has an editorial today hailing the Supreme Court decision to declare the current Security Certificate system unconstitutional and ordering the government to re-write the law to make it comply with the Charter. What caught my eye was this part of the editorial:

This ruling reinforces a healthy national reappraisal of terror laws….opposition parties are facing down the Conservatives by opposing any extension of two never-used anti-terror laws, which expire this month. “Preventive arrest” lets the authorities detain people for 72 hours and then hold them for a year without charge. “Investigative hearings” let authorities compel people to give evidence even if it incriminates them. This needlessly empowers police, restricts judicial oversight, overrides the right against self-incrimination and hamstrings the innocent. The Supreme Court ruling is part of a healthy pushback. Canadians are reaffirming ancient freedoms and the common law, and refusing to see them eclipsed by terror. We will be a stronger society for it.

Absolutely. Dion and his fellow opposition members are not being “weak on terror” by opposing the sunset clauses, despite the Conservatives attempts at slurring them with that accusation, and the Supreme Court is not being weak on terror for striking down the Security Certificates in their present form. All that they’re saying is that any anti-terrorist laws should not sacrifice democratic freedoms and civil liberties. I don’t believe the majority of Canadians wish to follow or emulate the path of the US with its shameful evisceration of habeus corpus for individuals, and the Conservatives attempts to paint those who support that view as being “soft” or “cowards” will result in a severe blow back to them from the public.

Share

5 comments to Canada’s resistance to losing liberty is not being ‘weak on terror’

  • Hmm, you’re sure your neck of the woods doesnt have a water alert that way to boil before using? Because it looks like you’ve gotten into some bad stuff :em43: (and yea.. I know where you’re internet’ing from Erik.. I grew up not far from there).

    Seriously though, I’ve already publicly declared on a couple Tory boards that Dion and the Liberals would end up winning.. so yea.. I’ve no problem paying the piper if they lose.

  • “Karl Rove/Dick Cheney, Republicans, House (of Reps), etc.”

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Did you forget the Archbishop of Boston on purpose? And don’t forget Hugo Chavez, Gloria Estevan, and your Korean affiliate, Kim. Or wasn’t your tinfoil hat aligned for best reception? Oh, boy, that’s really good. Nothing like destroying your own post in absurbities like that!

    Scott, when someone has had a silver spoon in their mouth, and has never got their hands dirty in the private sector, and has managed nothing more than rustling up his own glass of water (and there’s no proof of that), it’s going to take some time to make him a credible and effective “leader”. And that’s assuming he has what it takes. Unproven.

    If I were you, I’d be interested in who is pulling Steffi’s strings. No, really, I’m serious. When someone is that weak, somebody’s running backstop. Find that person, and you have the answer to a lot of things, including where your party is headed on the political spectrum which, if my reading of chicken entrails is correct, is possibly a bit hazardous downstream. Oops, sorry. I should care? (Yes, I should. Always keep voting alternatives viable and, since I will NEVER vote NDP — again — well, you get the idea.)

    Not the next election, guy, and that’s the deathknell for Steffi. And history will record Steffi’s attributes as the ones the CPC (and the other opposition parties) painted him with.

    I will dutifully eat crow, publically on your blog, if I am wrong about the next election. Will you reciprocate?

  • Glad to see you agree Erik that the public will not tolerate this Karl Rove/Dick Cheney type smear efforts the Conservatives are doing of painting defenders of civil liberties “soft” or “cowards” or “weak on terror”. We’ll have to work on the 2nd part however.

    This is Canada, not the US, in case you didn’t notice Erik. That type of smearing and fear-mongering won’t be tolerated up here (and if you hadnt noticed, the Republicans attempted to use it in the 2006 midterms and lost control of both houses of Congress, so its starting to not work down there, either).

    Don’t let it stop you from your delusions however, that this is somehow a winning issue for Harper.

  • I agree. And the Liberals own both statements and wear them poorly.

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