Liberal Party A Haven for Terrorists

[Colpy]

How Air India plays into this is, Bains Father in law is a person of interest and the RCMP would like to compell him to answer some questions. Under the extended provisions, he would have had to. Now thanks to the partisan politics of Dion, he will not have to.

Seems pretty convenient to me and a tad

to me.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/184339

You and I part company on this one Bear.

Yes, the Liberals love any group that can get them votes, including the LTTE (the Tamil Tigers) who invented suicide bombing, and have murdered tens of thousands. Yep, if you can win them a riding, the Liberals don't give a damn how many people your group has murdered......that's for sure.

But it seems to me that what we are supposed to be defending from terrorists is a system and its institutional framework that is the foundation of our political culture...........and the rock that culture of freedom is built on is individual rights, the roots of which can be traced back almost 1,000 years.

I think the Supreme Court is exactly correct in throwing out the extrordinary clauses that allowed secret trial without disclosure of evidence. I think the Liberals are correct in allowing the more onerous parts of the Anti-terror Bill to die, although I know they are playing a political game.

The only thing that has come close to driving me from the CPC has been their stance on the restriction of civil liberties.

As Ben Franklin said "Anyone that sacrifices Liberty for Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety" (paraphrased)

 

[CDNBear]

OH, see I- in that case, if it was so important, WHY didn't they use the provisions in the FIVE YEARS they were on the books??? This whole "OH NO- we were just about to use those!!!" is pathetic and I really don't believe it for one second- then having the 9-11 families step up the day before the vote and beg for the extension made me wonder "okay, is the them, the RCMP, WHO is the actual interested party??"... to have the Cons yell "playing politics" whilst engaged in such obvious chicanery is just offensive to my intellect

And the 9-11 families were the real question mark for me- the "investigation" into that was folded up right quick, case closed, without answering ANY of the really good questions, and it was done WITH the new "terror laws" of both countries- how come they haven't been pushing for a REAL investigation since day one?? Why now, when the possible tools were suddenly threatened, did it come ot the fore?? Looks like anothe example of "NO WAIT- we were just gonna use that!!" to me

And I still question how "haven for terrorists" and "providing material support for terrorists" differ, to repeat "haven for terrorists" is MORE than enough justification to bomb the CRAP outta something and using it in the manner the title of this thread does is dangeroulsy blurring lines in my view

Hey, I can only go by what I can find, that leaks out of the hallowed halls of justice. I thought the same as you, in regards to what took so long, (glad my Dad uses the internet to email and nothing more) the RCMP has been a lil slow these days and rather innept as well. That may very well be the reason. The other is, perhaps they just found info, that was crucial to the case and his name came up.

In either case, I hardly find the title as emotional or silly as those plopped on Bush or Harpo, I think with all the the rampant stupidity floating around the LPoC caucus at the moment, it suites them and fits quite well.

I for one see their actions, at the Kebec "peace" rally and this lil affair, as an afront to the safety and security of this nation. They seem all to willing to ***** themselves out to groups that support terrorism.

I won't apologise for my feelings, nor my opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

You and I part company on this one Bear.

Yes, the Liberals love any group that can get them votes, including the LTTE (the Tamil Tigers) who invented suicide bombing, and have murdered tens of thousands. Yep, if you can win them a riding, the Liberals don't give a damn how many people your group has murdered......that's for sure.

But it seems to me that what we are supposed to be defending from terrorists is a system and its institutional framework that is the foundation of our political culture...........and the rock that culture of freedom is built on is individual rights, the roots of which can be traced back almost 1,000 years.

I think the Supreme Court is exactly correct in throwing out the extrordinary clauses that allowed secret trial without disclosure of evidence. I think the Liberals are correct in allowing the more onerous parts of the Anti-terror Bill to die, although I know they are playing a political game.

The only thing that has come close to driving me from the CPC has been their stance on the restriction of civil liberties.

As Ben Franklin said "Anyone that sacrifices Liberty for Safety deserves neither Liberty nor Safety" (paraphrased)

I would otherwise agree with you Colpy, if the provisions had been used to any extent that even remotely looked like what you fear. But they were not.

Even (I can't remember the Liberal Ministers name) , a know human right shill, abstained from the vote, because he supported it. But was to affraid to go against the wishes of their Dear leader.

You're preaching to the choir, on civil liberties here Colpy. I know where you're coming from, but I don't think the provisions in question would have been used in such a manner. Contemplating them to be used as such, sorta discredits our justice system.

I rather think higher of them then that, and I've had my civil liberties violated once or twice my friend.

 

[mabudon]

No sweat for not apologizing man, you know I won't do the same either- some of my actions have demanded apologies in the past, but opinions are kinda "sacred"

and as for "persons of interest" in the Air India bombing- I don't understand how access to a possible material witness would not be allowed under our current laws, if this could be explained I might change my stance a little but it seems like pure political BS to me at this point, personally I think the Air India bombing is a little like a large-scale Ionnero incident (SP?? the obvious hit-job on them folks last year that was somehow blamed on the Mexican police). Whoever knows what happened and why is likely WELL protected and possibly even dead by now from all I can gather from the "news" and investigation will be obfuscated professionally, internationally rendering any search for "justice" at this late hour fruitless- much like, again, the 9-11 incident

 

[CDNBear]

No sweat for not apologizing man, you know I won't do the same either- some of my actions have demanded apologies in the past, but opinions are kinda "sacred"

and as for "persons of interest" in the Air India bombing- I don't understand how access to a possible material witness would not be allowed under our current laws, if this could be explained I might change my stance a little but it seems like pure political BS to me at this point, personally I think the Air India bombing is a little like a large-scale Ionnero incident (SP?? the obvious hit-job on them folks last year that was somehow blamed on the Mexican police). Whoever knows what happened and why is likely WELL protected and possibly even dead by now from all I can gather from the "news" and investigation will be obfuscated professionally, internationally rendering any search for "justice" at this late hour fruitless- much like, again, the 9-11 incident

I would otherwise agree, but one of the provisions would render a person guilty of "contempt", if they were to not give testamony. In this case the Darshan Singh Saini, would have been compelled to answer some questions.

Regardless of the perception of political hackery, I would have liked to have heard his answers.

 

[Tonington]

Isn't failure to appear in court when you've been served with a summons or subpoena an offence allready?

 

[CDNBear]

Isn't failure to appear in court when you've been served with a summons or subpoena an offence allready?

Although one can not plead "The 5th" in a Canadian court of law, a one is merely compelled to appear, you can not from my experience be compelled to bare witness.

But in this case, I believe it is under the terms of "questioning", outside the perview of the Court. You would be compelled to answer to the questions of law enforcement, as apposed to a Judge or Crown attorney.

 

[Kreskin]

In reality no one can be forced to say anything.

 

[#juan]

This topic is mainly Liberal bashing for the sake of Liberal bashing. If we are going to find politicians guilty by association, I'm sure we could find lots to blame Tories for. It is interesting that the Liberal bashers conveniently forget Mulroney's debt that their grand children will still be paying off. The Liberal party a "haven for terrorists"is nonsense and so is calling Chretien a fascist. Chretien was not a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler was a fascist. Both Mussolini and Hitler killed all their desenters. As far as I know Chretien never killed anyone.

 

[CDNBear]

In reality no one can be forced to say anything.

I would otherwise agree, but I personally found incarceration has deterred me from committing offences in contrary to the CCoC, I think the threat of such, would be quite compelling, to just answer questions. Whether you're honest or not is another matter all together, non?

 

[CDNBear]

This topic is mainly Liberal bashing for the sake of Liberal bashing. If we are going to find politicians guilty by association, I'm sure we could find lots to blame Tories for. It is interesting that the Liberal bashers conveniently forget Mulroney's debt that their grand children will still be paying off. The Liberal party a "haven for terrorists"is nonsense and so is calling Chretien a fascist. Chretien was not a fascist. Mussolini was a fascist. Hitler was a fascist. Both Mussolini and Hitler killed all their desenters. As far as I know Chretien never killed anyone.

It is not Liberal bashing, it is questioning of their motives.

Why are you still beating that horse, it's dead already. Get over Mulroney already.

I don't believe I said Cretien was a fascist.

But I doubt you will agree with anything anyone says about the LPoC, lest it be, They're great!!!

Why do you want to beat this poor old guy anyways???

You got something against horses?

 

[#juan]

It is not Liberal bashing, it is questioning of their motives.

Why are you still beating that horse, it's dead already. Get over Mulroney already.

That debt has cost Canadians over half a trillion dollars. The interest on the debt is about $35 billion dollars a year or $95 million a day. I'll get over Mulroney when the debt is paid off.

 

[CDNBear]

That debt has cost Canadians over half a trillion dollars. The interest on the debt is about $35 billion dollars a year or $95 million a day. I'll get over Mulroney when the debt is paid off.

So in other words you really have nothing to add to the rather civil and meaningful discussion at hand, cept to try and turn it into a Lib vs. Con debate yet again?

Your blind loyalty to the LPoC is very troubling.

 

[Briteyes]

I have read the article you posted and I found no facts to back any of that up. We have a charter of rights and freedoms and this anti terrorism act goes against that. It was put into place for a limited time and now that time is up. To link extended family with members of parliament is wrong and prejudicial. May I remind everybody of Mr. Stephen Harper’s cabinet who were directly involved with the Ipperwash fiasco which actually killed someone. With your analogy they should have all been charged with the murder of Dudley George. The desperation of the Harper government still amazes me. If you want facts about the Stephen Harper government and how anything that comes out of his MP’s mouths is directly choreographed by Stephen Harper and his inner circle, just look at the lack of experience his parliamentary secretary has. I guess CDN Bear you failed to realize the sarcasm in Rick Mercers blog. It must be nice to take the writings of a famous comedian and take it seriously. If the Stephen Harper government had any real information do you not think they would have made it public by now. They are famous for their attack ads. Here are some interesting facts from reputable places about our Mr. Harper. Excerpts from the Firewall letter

The most recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal politicians who accuse us of not sharing their ``Canadian values'' have no compunction about appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country. ​

Once Alberta's position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending the reform agenda your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples, lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector; easing conditions for charter schools will help individual freedom and initiative improve public education; and greater use of the referendum and initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government. ​

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the Constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans. ​

Sincerely yours, ​

- Stephen Harper, president, National Citizens' Coalition ​

- Tom Flanagan, professor of political science and former director of research, Reform party ​

- Ted Morton, professor of political science and Alberta senator-elect ​

- Rainer Knopff, professor of political science ​

- Andrew Crooks, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation ​

- Ken Boessenkool, former policy adviser to former Alberta treasurer Stockwell Day​

PS: This letter represents our personal views and not those of any organizations with which we are or have been connected.​

And here is the link http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/Linksresources/_archives/2006/11/26/2526389.html
Here is a link to a speech he made in 1997
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/elxn
_harper_speech_text_051214/20051214/
Now for his cabinet Having been forced to count convention fees as donations, the report indicates the Conservative party then discovered three delegates — including Harper — had exceeded their $5,400 annual limit for political contributions. As a result, the party refunded $456 each to Harper and the other two delegates.
The party has also been forced to send belated 2005 tax receipts to the roughly 3,000 delegates who attended the convention, with instructions on the complicated process required to retroactively claim the tax credit."The Conservative Party of Canada does not believe that delegate fees paid to cover the basic costs of a convention should be subsidized by taxpayers through the political tax credit system," says a letter accompanying the receipts.
"However, we have recently been advised that Elections Canada takes the position that the amount of a convention fee paid by a delegate, less the value of certain ‘tangible benefits’ received such as meals, is to be treated as a political contribution by that delegate."
Attempt to amend act fails in Commons

Lets not forget two tire Tony (affectionately called by most Ontarians) a leading architect for the common sense revolution in Ontario.
Flaherty twice ran for the leadership of the Ontario Conservatives (in 2002 and 2004) and was perceived as too right-wing to lead the party.
Now lets not forget about David Emerson who now in a Mcleans article states that he now regrettes switiching to the tories. Here is an exert “When the minister took the podium, he said that when he told Bill Graham he was going to leave the Liberals and cross the floor, the interim leader told him that he might regret it and to think twice. Emerson shocked the crowd when he said he wished he had listened to Graham.” For the entire article here is the link http://www.macleans.ca/homepage/magazine/article.jsp?content=20070305_103074_103074

 

[CDNBear]

And of course all that means nothing at all what so ever. This isn't about Libs vs. Cons. This is about the optics of the situation. Your post only hilites the fact that you haven't read the thread, just the OP. The conversation starter. At least #juan read some of it.

Please don't try and tell me anything about Ipperwash, I've read it all and for reasons of my Native status, been on the side of the Natives from day one. I would like to know how Harpo had anything to do with Dudley's death. That I believe is just another typical Liberal diversion tactic.

Seeing as you can not converse on the same level as mabudon, perhaps you should call it a day for now. Just until you've caught up.

But thanx for coming out anyways.

 

[L Gilbert]

Someone mentioned a while ago something about ChRETIeN not having killed anyone. Although I have no proof to the contrary, his finance minister aPAULing Martin did indeed balance a budget on the backs of seniors and seniors programs. I am pretty sure one doesn't have to go far to find a senior that wasn't severely affected by this and wouldn't be surprised to hear of a couple seniors who froze to death the next winter because they didn't have the money for the power bill. I am also pretty sure that Cons have caused a lot of grief to seniors and others, too. So what would be more effective: being shot by ChRETIeN or having him cause you to be frozen to death?
The whole goddam problem comes down to the fact that these people are so far removed from the public they are effectively useless to us and so are the parties. And it isn't all their fault, people in Canada are so lazy they cannot seem to pick up a pen (or whatever) once in a while and write/email/phone politicians to give em sh|t.
The parties don't really give a damn about the quality of job they do as gov't, they're too busy figuring out how to grab and stay in power.

 

[Logic 7]

Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre appeared on radio in Ottawa recently with explosive information. In a discussion about terrorism he revealed that the Conservatives now know that the Liberal party is a haven for extremist groups and that Liberal leader Stephane Dion has collapsed under their power, a puppet for said extremist elements – who one assumes are pro terror.......[/URL]

But who are the terrorists?

The one who defend a land, and try to withraw the occupation power, or the one who engaged wars based on lies, trained bad peoples in their own country to keep a destabilized country , like cia/mossad did on many occasion??


think about it.

Hezbollah isnt a terrorist organisation, it is a resistance organisation , just like the patriots who saved United states of America in 1800 ,

 

[westmanguy]

I was watching a news investigation story today, and this man who bought military style weapons and sent them to Hezbollah in Lebannon committed an illegal act in the USA, he fleed to Canada, and guess what Canada doesn't consider that illegal!

So Canada won't send this person who sent weapons to a terrorist organization back to the USA to be prosecuted.

And people have the nerve to say Canada is NOT a terroist haven

This was on The Big Story on the FOX News Channel.

Rights and liberties have to come to a stop for national security

Anyone forget the terrorists from 9/11 came from Canada, some of them did.

 

[Logic 7]

I was watching a news investigation story today, and this man who bought military style weapons and sent them to Hezbollah in Lebannon committed an illegal act in the USA, he fleed to Canada, and guess what Canada doesn't consider that illegal!

So Canada won't send this person who sent weapons to a terrorist organization back to the USA to be prosecuted.

And people have the nerve to say Canada is NOT a terroist organization.

This was on The Big Story on the FOX News Channel.

Rights and liberties have to come to a stop for national security

Anyone forget the terrorists from 9/11 came from Canada, some of them did.

Those who give up liberties for national security, are plainly chicken at the highest level.

Who are those terrorist who did 9-11? do you really know?

According to FBI, nobody did. www.fbi.gov

 

[Tonington]

I was watching a news investigation story today, and this man who bought military style weapons and sent them to Hezbollah in Lebannon committed an illegal act in the USA, he fleed to Canada, and guess what Canada doesn't consider that illegal!

So Canada won't send this person who sent weapons to a terrorist organization back to the USA to be prosecuted.

And people have the nerve to say Canada is NOT a terroist organization.

This was on The Big Story on the FOX News Channel.

Rights and liberties have to come to a stop for national security

Anyone forget the terrorists from 9/11 came from Canada, some of them did.

You wouldn't have a name or a link for this fellow would you? I'd like to see that, I'm sure the picture isn't as cut and dry as was framed on FNC.

The only time I would endorse the rights and liberties of anyone falling short to national security is if that person is found guilty. Due process must be followed for the simple fact that no matter what anyone says, there are still privileged groups in our society. We know immigrants tend to settle in the same areas. The fact that these darker skinned people could be taken away because they go to the same mosque or temple is absolutely hegemonic. How do you think a Christian would feel if their rights were taken away for being at the same pro-life rally as a suspected abortion clinic bomber? This is the privilege I am talking about. The laws as they are would say these people are as guilty as an aquaintance and can be taken away without due cause.

We have a system to deal with crime, and it is based upon ideals which give us all equal rights before the law. If you want to get angry ask for more money for intelligence services. Taking away any rights in the pursuit of justice is basically stepping back towards chaos, the very thing our laws are meant to suppress, instead of our rights.

Does anyone know the facts surrounding this man involved in the Air India, relevant facts which would put him in contact with these terrorists in an illegal capacity? Not circumstantial stuff like: he was here at the same time as this guy. Show connections. Otherwise without any evidence that wrong doing was going on, standard police interviews and forensic evidence are required. This Conservative member should have made his case to a judiciary committee before going public. Just the same as Democrats were attacked for not bringing evidence forward when they found out about Rep. Foley.

Once rights have been established, it's wrong to take them away. As far as I'm concerned, the current situation isn't anywhere close to where I would even consider martial law as a remote possibility.