Good News For Canadians! Good News For Civil Rights!

Great post, I was as happy as you were when I heard it.

”The Prime Minister's tone did not change Tuesday. He said Mr. Dion “denigrates the police in this country.”"

Perhaps Harper misread his reply, I'm sure he must have meant “denigrates the police STATE in this country.”

I have said it before, and I will say it again, Harper is unfit to lead this nation, and I do not believe that Harper's loyalties are to Canada in any way, shape, or form.

Sadly this despicable quisling has kindred spirits in the opposition, as well as the bureaucracy.

But still, good news IS good news.






---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Let's not forget that it was the Liberal party that enacted this illegal legislation in the first place. Why did they do it? To protect the people of course. So, why did they take it away? Well, again to protect the people!

These hypocrites must have a very hard time not pissing their pants laughing away while they make believe they're opposing each other.

Now I'm certain that despite this vote some of the anti-terror "laws" remain in place - that's how we keep on creeping farther and farther away from being as free as we once were.

I'll ask the question again. How does the upholding of
civil liberties for all Canadians attack the character of
the police?

The only one being denigrated here is the Conservative
Party, because of their reluctance and inability to stand
up for Canadians rights and freedoms. It's very sad that
this alleged leader is so far removed from the true
Canadian ideology.

"I'll ask the question again. How does the upholding of
civil liberties for all Canadians attack the character of
the police?"

Even if one were to NOT uphold the civil liberties for all Canadians it would still not be attacking the character of
the police!

Why are you calling the Liberal party hypocritical when current leader Dion used HIS authority as leader to help get rid of a bad piece of legislation put into place by one of his predecessors.

Is Dion to be held responsible for the sins committed by those leaders who had the position before him? Think carefully before you answer.

I think your zeal is getting the better of your logic.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

"I think your zeal is getting the better of your logic." <br><br> I see your point, and perhaps I've overreacted, however I'll try explain what's been bothering me some more. The basic thing with me, is I like to see problems solved for real, rather than have them simply bandaged up and left to fester. <br><br> I'm *very* happy to see this draconian "anti-terror" legislation get tossed, and it is possible that Dion is being sincere when he says he's protecting Canadians - although why should I trust his sincerity considering that most politicians have proven themselves to be habitual liars? I tend to side with experience. <br><br> I want to point out that many of the same people who supported the enactment of this insane "anti-terror" legislation (while knowing full well what it meant), were also seen voting against it, as if they suddenly realized that they had made a mistake (yeah sure). <br><br> I'm not buying into the sincerity of this maneuver, which I think was done purely for political reasons alone and not because it was the right thing to do (which it was). Dion knows that the government (independent of what party is in power) has lost a great deal of confidence. The 9/11 scam has been exposed and has lost its power to create foolishness, and if I'm to give Dion credit for anything, it's only that he appears to understand that the jig is finally up. <br><br> Keep in mind NOTHING has so far been done to make certain that we don't see more abuse of government power. <br><br> I'll be first in line openly applauding Dion if he has the balls to really stand up for Canadians and does something of significance, such as getting rid of the governments ability to pass illegal legislation in the first place. <br><br> The problem in my view is not with any specific legislation, but with the governments legislated ability to pass illegal legislation in the first place. I've mentioned it several times in these forums that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not what many think it is - it does NOT fully protect us from government abuse because it specifies that the government can do whatever it pleases without consequences by placing the authority of defining what is and what is not a fundamental "right" or "freedom" into the hands of career politicians and bureaucrats (Federal Judges are political appointees after all). <br><br> If the Charter had been given real teeth, then the anti-terror laws would not have materialized at all. Further, there would be serious consequences for enacting and enforcing laws that violated the Charter - of which there currently is no such thing. <br><br> This article I found explains the situation with the Charter (also explains why the Charter ended up without all of the teeth that it should have had): <br><br> <a href="http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/federal/parl.htm">Supremacy of Parliament and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</a> <blockquote> :<br> <br> ... some of the champions of the principle of Supremacy of Parliament would have opposed the Charter altogether if concessions to the principle of Supremacy of Parliament were not made. As the November 1981 constitutional conference between the provinces and the Trudeau government made it clear, the latter had either to accept concessions and maintain a measure of supremacy in the legislatures or else there would be no Charter of Rights. These factors explain why some restrictions were written into the Charter of Rights. <br><br> :<br> <br> "Conclusion <br><br> The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has curtailed, to some extent, the principle of Supremacy of Parliament in Canada. It cannot be said that the legislative bodies in Canada can do as they please as was the case once upon a time. They have been restricted by specific provisions of the Charter. Neither can it be said that Canada has moved into a system of unfettered Supremacy of the Constitution (Charter). The restrictions of the Charter are too considerable not to recognize them. Thus, Canada has created a mixed system. In a country that prides itself to be reasonable and to govern by compromise, the Charter may be said to be typically Canadian." </blockquote> I wonder, has it ever been "typically Canadian" to introduce laws where for example, "glorifying terrorism" (whatever that may mean) could land you in prison, or at best have your name placed on a "watch list"? Note that when the government glorifies "warfare" which is a form of terrorism, is always considered to be perfectly legal! <br><br> I can see that we're at least better off with an imperfect Charter than without, but I always like to see imperfect things be improved rather than left to stagnate. Given the abuse of power we're still suffering under due to the 9/11 scam, it should be clear that fixing up the holes in our system that allow reactionary politicians to make a mess out of the country should be given a high priority. <br><br> Dion's move voting down the anti-terror law was a good one, and I have to applaud it, however he'll have to do a lot more than that to earn my confidence. In addition, I will never give any of the politicians that supported the anti-terror law my confidence no matter if they voted this law down or not. Voting the law down, while a good move, only serves to confirm very poor judgment in the first place - and I'm being very kind with those words, because in my view I think that the passing of the anti-terror law was a serious crime against Canadians by itself.

I can agree with that.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Harper's just venting because he's being resisted.

You know, rather like the bully who calls a woman a slut simply because she said "No".

Same mindset, probably same guy.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

I think it is important to remember that not all of the legislation has lapsed,
only some of it. The good news is that it is a start. I am not all that concerned
about laying blame on who started it, or how it was reinforced but more on
how it is going to be dismantled. Maybe it was a popular move, maybe some
that voted for it are still stuck in the 'we were right' mentality, but most
people who have read the act realize it was a reactive piece of legislation at
best.

More jails, more rules do not protect, nor create a better society. It would not
have prevented any of the events that have terrorized people around the
world. If we had open investigations into many of these events I think it
would more clearly indicate why they happened and we would see that more
laws are not the answer.


---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

I agree with you. However those who would seek absolute control would fight tooth and nail anything that would diminish their sense of power.

Who knows what they would do in order to avoid exposure?

That Harper is braying like a wounded jackass and pretending to care about the perceived status of the police is almost laughable.

Imagine what Canada would be like if that monster ever got a majority.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Actually Deacon, because I strongly believe in the power of imagination, I will
not imagine that situation, not even in my wildest nightmares!

I would prefer to imagine a Canadian government which is truly open to the
people of this nation, something that looks at the people with respect and
honours them in every way.
Instead of seeing us as the enemy, I would like to see government
representatives embrace an understanding that they indeed work for the
people. So that every single decision they make is based on this thought,
'how does this create a positive environment for the people of this nation,
how will this decision make people's lives better, how will future generations
write about this decision... am I participating in empowering the people to be
the best they can be, am I enhancing the planet by this decision or am I
assisting in the enslavement of the people and stagnating
their opportunities for gowth?'

Now that is something I will imagine, even in my waking hours! When
politicians evolve to the point where they forget that their own career is the
most important part of the equation, or that the label they wear means
nothing in comparison to the people they are accountable to and the threat of
being tossed out of the party or not belonging to the group becomes so
insignificant in their daily lives and they are not afraid to say I am responsible
for my actions....we will truly have evolved! So that is where my imagination is
living these days....call it utopia if you want, but I do believe that inside every
human being there exists the potential for sound moral decisions, and I don't
think this kind of moral assessment is limited to deathbed reflections......any
one else up for those kinds of positive imaginings??

---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere