Liberal leader Stephane Dion says he will oppose extending certain provisions of the Anti-terrorist Act because they infringe on civil liberties.
Well since when do the Liberals care about infringing on civil liberties?
After all, this same Liberal Party imposed a draconian gun registry, which infringes on the civil liberties of gun owners.
This same Liberal Party supports the archaic Wheat Board monopoly, which infringes on the civil liberties of western grain farmers.
And this same Liberal Party enacted an undemocratic election gag law, which infringes on the civil liberties of all Canadians.
Maybe it's time Dion admitted the truth: the Liberals don't really care about protecting freedoms. All they really care about is pandering to their left wing base.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think you've just coined a new party tag Gerry to go along with Libranos of Adscam fame.
"LIBOCRISY" is the best definition of a party of "Librocrats" under Mr. Dion that I've read yet. I can just envision the policy re-drafting as we speak.
I support protecting civil liberties in all areas, although within reasonable limits so I agree with Dion on the terrorism law.
On the Gun registry, I don't support the right to keep and bear arms since guns are a dangerous product, but support scrapping the gun registry simply because it is a waste of taxpayers' money and relative to its costs has been very ineffective.
On the Canadian Wheat Board - I fully agree here.
As for the Gag Law - I fully agree under the current provisions, but would support one if the limit was substantially higher say $10 million. But considering that buying one ad during prime-time would put one ever the national limit, then yes it is too low.
Other areas of infringement on civil libeties is the Offical Languages Act and Quebec's racist, language laws and their attendent discrimination against Englisn speaking Canadians.
Anonymous - Bill 101 is a provincial law, which I totally oppose, but I am not sure most federal Liberals support it. In fact I suspect most Anglophone federal Liberals would oppose it.
As for the Official Languages Act, I fail to see how it violates anyone's rights. Banning the use of a certain language violates rights, but providing service in additional languages doesn't. There are argument as to whether bilingualism is necessary or not, but calling it a violation of rights is clearly going overboard. I do support bilingualism though as I believe both English and French speaking Canadians should be able to have access to their government in their own language.
"I support protecting civil liberties in all areas, although within reasonable limits so I agree with Dion on the terrorism law."
Wrong again Miles. You know why the Liberals are doing this - because Dion bought and sold his soul to Al-Qaeda and Sikh terrorists. JUST ADMIT IT. Here's a link, connect the dots yourself if you can:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3ffbc4b0-1129-420b-8b1b-cd95b9d1e2e1
"On the Gun registry, I don't support the right to keep and bear arms since guns are a dangerous product."
In 2002, there were 816 gun-related deaths. By contrast, there were 74,626 cardiovascular-disease related deaths (heart and stroke disease, etc.) and 1,157 fatalities involving impaired drivers.
I agree with banning guns, IF AND ONLY IF WE BAN CARS, BUTTER, SMOKING, AND ALCOHOL for starters.
Seriously, if you idiot Liebranos take away my right to drink, to drive soberly, eat red meat, cheese, and smoke big cigars...I hope I still have a right to carry a gun(just sayin').
I bet all the First Nations would really appreciate it if all those restrictive gun laws applied to their hunting and fishing livelihoods too.
I will NEVER vote Liberal again in my life....NEVER. Truth is the Liberals lied to voters when they made Harper out to be scarey. He's not at all. What's scarey is how the real leader of the Liberal party...Iggy insulted the victims of 9/11 and the Air India disaster yesterday. Shame on you Miles for supporting a leader
Wrong again Miles. You know why the Liberals are doing this - because Dion bought and sold his soul to Al-Qaeda and Sikh terrorists. JUST ADMIT IT
Nonsense. Many Liberals opposed it from the beginning. Protecting civil liberties is not some radical left wing idea, it is a very mainstream idea. This type of smearing is exactly what turns moderate Canadians off about the Conservatives. The Bush-like rhetoric may work south of the border, but it won't work here.
As for gun laws, the other products you mention are not meant to kill people, guns are made to kill. Should we be allowed to carry machine guns, grenades as well?
I will NEVER vote Liberal again in my life....NEVER. Truth is the Liberals lied to voters when they made Harper out to be scarey. He's not at all. What's scarey is how the real leader of the Liberal party...Iggy insulted the victims of 9/11 and the Air India disaster yesterday. Shame on you Miles for supporting a leader
I am proud to have a leader who stands up for civil liberties and won't give into fearmongering.
Miles,
1. The anti-terrorism act passed overwhelmingly in 2001
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/
Have the circumstances changed? Has the threat of terrorism decreased?
If yes, then you've just admitted that Bush's strategy is working. If the threat has not decreased and in fact INCREASED, please explain why your party won't support this bill.
Also please explain what civil liberties we've actually lost in 5 years by having this law on the books. The answer is none.
STOP DEFENDING TERRORISM, miles.
2. Guns help people survive and it's a way of life, especially First Nations so if starving poor Indians is your Paul-Martinesque idea of enlightened social policy, then so be it. Not only that, many people are target shooters.
Here's a question even someone as stupid as you can answer - do you support disbanding the army just because they're meant to kill? The police force? Older fogeys who just like antique guns sitting on their mantlepiece simply b/c it was designed to kill? How about farmers fed up with gophers digging into their corn fields?
Carrying guns is an unalienable property right.
But then again, commies like you don't support property rights anyways - but that's too American according to you Liebrano bigots.
The anti-terrorism act passed overwhelmingly in 2001
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/
Have the circumstances changed? Has the threat of terrorism decreased?
If yes, then you've just admitted that Bush's strategy is working. If the threat has not decreased and in fact INCREASED, please explain why your party won't support this bill.
Also please explain what civil liberties we've actually lost in 5 years by having this law on the books. The answer is none.
The act should have never passed in the first place. Right after 9/11, many were shocked and passed the act more out of emotion than thought. With 5 years time passing, it gives one time to reflect and decide accordingly.
STOP DEFENDING TERRORISM, miles.
I am not defending terrorism. I don't see things in black and white like you do and nor do most Canadians. Such simplistic approach just shows why the conservatives shouldn't be in government. One can disagree with terrorism without favouring stripping people of civil liberties. Since the terrorists want us to have fewer civil liberties, I would argue restricting civil liberties is giving into them.
Guns help people survive and it's a way of life, especially First Nations so if starving poor Indians is your Paul-Martinesque idea of enlightened social policy, then so be it. Not only that, many people are target shooters.
I have no problem with people owning rifles or target shooters. However, there is no need to carry a gun in your suitcase. I believe people should be able to legally own long-guns, while hand-guns should be severely restricted and limited only to collectors and target shooters and law enforcement.
Carrying guns is an unalienable property right.
Actually no they are not. Many countries that have property rights do not include the right to bear arms. Like all rights, they are subject to reasonable limits within a free and democratic society.
But then again, commies like you don't support property rights anyways - but that's too American according to you Liebrano bigots.
I support property rights, but property rights is about ensuring that proper compensation is offered to anyone who has their property expropriated. Property rights does not mean you can own whatever you want. Even the United States, which has property rights in its constitution, restricts people from owning certain things. Using your logic, that means one should have the right to have a marijuana grow-up, since marijuana is just as much a form of property as a gun is.
Post a Comment