Anti-Terrorism Provisions
Now the anti-Terrorism act is coming up for renewal, Stephane Dion has decided he will not support renewing it. This has created some problems as some Liberals including Bob Rae, Anne McLellan, and John Manley have argued the Liberals should support renewing it and some members are even openly talking about breaking party ranks. On this issue I support Dion's stance, but I believe he should allow those who wish to break party ranks to do so and then live with whatever the outcome is. As we approach an election, we cannot have a divided party and people upset with the leadership so by letting them vote their conscious, at least they will stay loyal to the party. In addition having divisions in the party is not totally a bad thing. As a centrist party, there are very few issues that are party will be 100% united on and we should use that to our advantage arguing we are a big tent party rather than an ideological one.
As for my view on the anti-terrorist act, I believe it was an overreaction to 9/11 and not necessary. And before any Tory bloggers come on and accuse me of being soft on terrorism, I would like to say I fully oppose terrorism, but I am a strong believer in civil liberties and don't believe a government should ever use national security to restrict civil liberties. This has been abused way too many times in the past and that is why as a matter of principle I don't support it. In addition this would be a victory for the terrorist. The best way to stand up to the terrorists is to continue living our lives as normal since this will send a message that they cannot create fear and terror, which is their exact goal. I also am quite upset Harper is calling opponents of this soft on terrorism. I believe one can share the same goals, but believe in different means of achieving it and I wish Stephen Harper would step away from his black vs. white/either-or mentality. I know there is a strong rationale for this in the sense that when a middle ground alternative exists, people tend to choose it, while if there is a choice between two extremes, this will naturally favour the Conservatives as you will have four parties fighting over the left wing choice, while the Conservatives clearly staking out the right wing choice. But while it may be political advantageous, it is still the wrong way to govern. In closing I draw a quote of Benjamin Franklin who once said Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security.
As for my view on the anti-terrorist act, I believe it was an overreaction to 9/11 and not necessary. And before any Tory bloggers come on and accuse me of being soft on terrorism, I would like to say I fully oppose terrorism, but I am a strong believer in civil liberties and don't believe a government should ever use national security to restrict civil liberties. This has been abused way too many times in the past and that is why as a matter of principle I don't support it. In addition this would be a victory for the terrorist. The best way to stand up to the terrorists is to continue living our lives as normal since this will send a message that they cannot create fear and terror, which is their exact goal. I also am quite upset Harper is calling opponents of this soft on terrorism. I believe one can share the same goals, but believe in different means of achieving it and I wish Stephen Harper would step away from his black vs. white/either-or mentality. I know there is a strong rationale for this in the sense that when a middle ground alternative exists, people tend to choose it, while if there is a choice between two extremes, this will naturally favour the Conservatives as you will have four parties fighting over the left wing choice, while the Conservatives clearly staking out the right wing choice. But while it may be political advantageous, it is still the wrong way to govern. In closing I draw a quote of Benjamin Franklin who once said Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 12:42 PM
7 Comments:
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, also disagrees with Dion.
But I'm sure Dr. Did Little is much smarter than the S.C.C. and the myriad of lawyers and constitutional experts who prepared the constitutional reference.
Good luck with this one.
Actually, maybe Dion doesn't think the Supreme Court is wrong,
its just that Dion wants suspected terrorist, to not only have constitutionally protected safeguards,
but super duper extra "just-for-terrorist" safeguards.
Chuckles - Constitutional or not, I don't feel it is necessary. It is important to note the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the bare minimum amount of rights governments must provide, but it does not stop governments from providing extra rights.
Actually, maybe Dion doesn't think the Supreme Court is wrong,
its just that Dion wants suspected terrorist, to not only have constitutionally protected safeguards,
but super duper extra "just-for-terrorist" safeguards.
This is just ridiculous. I am so sick and tired of people who don't support the neo-con war on terror being called terrorist sympathizers. Almost all Canadians want to stop terrorism, they just have different views on how best to do it.
argh, I'm still having trouble logging into my blogger account
Anonymous - They are a pain in the neck. The previous system worked just fine.
Miles said: "This has been abused way too many times."
Uh, its never been used, do your homework...
Anonymous - I am talking about these types of provisions that have been used in other countries. I would rather we give people too much freedom than too little.
And please note this is consistent with my views across the board. I am a strong supporter of both economic and individual freedom, whereas the Tories appear to only support the former and the NDP only support the latter.
Post a Comment
<< Home