Or should that read “Canadian Wing of the Republican Party”? The Republicans have long been using fear mongering and hyperbole as a way to win votes. They never failed to call Democrats weak on terrorism or sissies. I thought Canadian politics was at least a small step above that sort of dirty politics but the Tories seem to be pulling us down to that nadir.
The Toronto Star reports that Tory MP Pierre Poilievre (Nepean-Carleton) charged, “there is an extremist element in the Liberal Party generally that has been very vocal in opposing measures that are designed to combat terrorism.” The measures Poilievre is talking about allow:
1) suspected terrorists (read: innocent people) to be detained without specific charge for up to three years, and
2) courts to force testimony about alleged terror plots at investigative hearings.
So people who oppose detaining innocent people and prefer we not force testimony are extremists?* That sounds fairly liberal (the small ‘l’ is intentional) to me, and, in spite of what many Tories believe,
-----
* How does one “force” testimony? Torture?
Unfortunately, Sean, liberals in Canada are also fans of using the words "extreme" -- it's usage is not limited to the MP from Nepean-Carleton. I recall, during two different elections, various liberals referring to the Conservative Party, and Mr. Harper specifically by name, as being an "extreme right-wingers".. so, I'm afraid, I have to use my standard argument: let those without sin cast the first stone, which means no stones will be thrown by any member of the liberal establishment.
ReplyDeleteSecond, if this position taken by the Conservative Party is "extreme", then can you please explain to me why it was a former government -- I will not name which one -- that implemented it? Clearly, it is hard to argue that the Conservative position is extreme given that their position has, and probably always will be, these tools are needed unless there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary to say that these are being abused. Furthermore, if this position is "extreme" or represents the "Republican Party of Canada" -- two insults which clearly liberals in Canada have no problem throwing -- then explain why 1) a former PM 2) two different Deputy Prime Minister 3) a former Minister of Justice 4) Bob Rae and 5) A Liberal-dominated Senate committee and a Commons subcommittee -- were all in favour of this "extreme" position. Must we conclude from this that Bob Rae has gone full circle in his political career, and should now be sitting on the Blue benches?
I have followed this debate quite closely over the past two weeks, and I have yet to hear a reasonable argument to explain the reversal of the Liberal Party's position. Mr. Dion said that the Liberals can't violate civil liberties today, then pretend to fix them tomorrow. I suspect that this new position has more to do with political electioneering on his part than an actual principled position on a serious subject. What's even more depressing is that Mr. Dion, so confident that he made the right decision (read: he told people what to do) that he forced the whip on the issue...
Alas, the moniker that liberals in Canada are soft on terrorism will be played loud and clear during the next election. Canadians don't really know much about "civil liberties", security of the person, and all those vague abstract buzz words that academics and elitist tend to use -- they DO understand "soft on terrorism" which does not boad well for your new leader.
Oh, and one last thing: "The Republicans have long been using fear mongering and hyperbole as a way to win votes."
ReplyDeleteHow would you characterize Mr. Martin's attempts in the last two elections, and Mr. Chretien's attempts before that, at demonizing the Conservatives/Alliance and their leaders particularly as being "scary" with "hidden agendas" who will throw out rights and bring Canada back to the middle ages.
Politics is politics; those that attempt to claim the moral high ground inevitably get sunk in quick sand. You chastize the Conservatives for playing dirty politics -- but probably more so because this time it's not your party throwing the dirt.
You should come down off your high horse and realize that the Liberal Party is just as guilty as the Conservatives; you can not claim the moral high ground on this issue, or most issues, since your past speaks more louder than your words.
The Liberals implemented this program, with the wise limitation of demanding a future review, in the immediate aftermath of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on North American soil and under extreme pressure from a panicked Bush Administration. (How's that for a long sentence?) Sorry if our initial reaction was a little extreme, but it happens.
ReplyDeleteBesides all that, this is not really what the article was about. Whether or not the mentioned tools are extreme, it certainly is NOT extreme to be opposed to them. That is the point. Perhaps those tools are needed, but arguing they are not is certainly not extreme. This is a Conservative throwing around big, mean words and evidence of (here comes your favourite term) political electioneering, or (one of my favourite terms) fear mongering.
And one final note: it was okay for Liberals to call Harper and his team "extreme right-wingers" because that's what they are. They've proven themselves to be rightists in a minority government where compromise is a prerequisite for existance. I don't want to see how far right they actually would be if they had the luxury of a majority in the House.
"it was okay for Liberals to call Harper and his team "extreme right-wingers" because that's what they are."
ReplyDeleteThen I would retort by saying that it IS extreme to be opposed to the ATA measures. Furthermore, with the comment that it was due to wise Liberal thinkers to have the sunset clause. If you had done your research, you would know that in its original, as presented to Parliament form, the ATA measures DID NOT include the sunset measures; these were put in place after 2nd reading at the beheast of various interest groups.
I am quickly developing the opinion that in politics, neither side is truly ever right, nor are both sides always wrong.
"The Conservatives are extreme, but don't dare call my Liberal Party extreme, because those are big, nasty evil words".
That phrase is increasingly becoming a Liberal call sign, and makes the whole party sound dumb and wimpy-ass (is that a good term to use as opposed to "extreme"???
I'm not a big fan of 'dumb', but 'wimpy-ass' is very high on my list of good terms!
ReplyDelete