11 February 2007

Steffi the Safety Elephant

UPDATE: 14 Feb 2007 - What now, oh wise Steffi?

Al-Qaeda has called for terrorist strikes against Canada's oil and natural gas facilities to "choke the U.S. economy."

Stephane Dion and Taliban Jack know that Canada is "number one with a bullet" on the Taliban's shitlist. They know there's a pretty good chance that there will be a major terrorist incident... that will cost Canadian lives.

The Liberals know all this, because the anti-terrorism measures designed to prevent such attacks were introduced after 9/11 by, well... the Liberals.

So they must realise the danger of renouncing their support for those laws at this particular point in time.

Turns out... they're willing to take that chance.
-- OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion will join forces with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP next week to strike down the two most controversial anti-terrorism measures introduced by the Liberals in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Looking for any way to try to undermine the Stephen Harper government, Stephane Dion is teaming up with Taliban Jack to try make cheap political points.

That's how desperate Steffi is... he's playing with the safety and security of Canadian citizens.

Let's see what he says when the first bomb goes off.

RELATED: Let's just suppose...
“I ran to help and I saw destruction everywhere, along with charred bodies and body parts. Blood was spilled across a big area,” he said.

“I carried six people who I thought were still alive but then realized they had died after being torn apart by shrapnel.”
What would you say then?

LAST WORD: Hmmm, a total flip... since October?
As recently as October, the Liberals had said they would support extending the provisions that allow preventative arrests of terrorist suspects and investigative hearings.
Gee... what's changed since then, Mr. Dion?

Technorati Tags: , ,


wilson61 said...

Dion likes to skate on Jack's ice.
So while he's there, center is all ours!

Neo Conservative said...

this is a huge roll of the dice for the libranos.

if steffi and jack commit here... and something, god forbid, goes boom... they are way more than finished.

two words... neville chamberlain.


Anonymous said...

Are you nuts?
Harper has un-charged people sitting in limbo. If anyone knows about the danger our troops may be in it's Harper and Khan, and they're not saying.
Harper owns this.

Adrian MacNair said...

The motion asks MPs to extend two unused sections of the Criminal Code for another three years. One, called preventative arrest, lets police detain terrorism suspects without warrants. The second, called investigative hearings, allows police to force individuals who may know about a terrorist plot to share their information in a closed-door court.

The opposition is rescinding on measures they felt were too grand and sweeping as a retaliatory and sudden changes to laws more based on emotion than prudency.

Furthermore to your article, I don't believe Canadians have anything to fear from the Taliban. They are a disorganized militia funded by religious idealogues in Western Pakistan. What we need be careful of is Islamic extremists in Canada.

Laws are required to protect us against insular Islamic groups which are able to operate within the freedoms of the law that protect their very subversive behaviour. So preventative arrests and detainments without charge are not conducive to our safety and liberty. Censuring and monitoring of Islamic hate groups is.

Peter Loewen said...

I am inclined to agree with macnair: given that we've been fighting the war against terror for five years with some success (no attacks and at least one major one prevented) and we've never had to use these provisions, then I think it's fair to at least talk civilly about rescinding them.

Ardvark said...

It is so nice to see that Liberals are willing to risk my life and safety for some (non existent) political gain.


Neo Conservative said...

sorry peter, have to disagree on this one.

we've been heating solely with wood for six years with some success (no fires) and we've never had to use our fire extinguishers or smoke/co2 detectors, but regardless, I think it's utter madness to talk at all about rescinding the mandated use of them.

it's certainly your right to disagree... but i think now is a bad time to back off on these laws.

the threat, as evidenced by the 17 arrests in toronto, is not primarily from the afghani taliban as mcnair points out... but homegrown supporters of the jihad.

and unlike the too typical rabid left-bot, who starts off his argument, "Are you nuts?", i don't accuse mcnair of being mentally ill... i just don't agree with his argument.

steffi and jack must also realise that if just one bomb goes off in this country after they make this stand, not only will those deaths be on their conscience... every seat in the country will go dark blue.


Anonymous said...


Are these sick people or what?
(real conservative)

Neo Conservative said...


not a rational idea. if just one terrorist incident occurs here, steffi will need to use his french passport to escape the storm of derision. jack and olivia will have to campaign in peshawar, if they ever hope to hold public office again.

i am in favour of another three year extension. use the susnset clause again.

because i firmly believe a terrorist incident is inevitable... and we need to be extremely vigilant and prepared to act.


Anonymous said...

The strategy attempts of late by the 3 left leaning parties is to get the Conservatives to commit to unrealistic goals relating to climate change that will certianly fail in hopes that when they do fail, they can slither out of their slimy manholes into phone booth , put on their capes , and save the day.

They are pulling off the same strategy here , but this one will backfire because there are Cells that will emmerge in Canada , and already have emmerged in Canada where this legislation may prove effective. The argumenmt from the left is that , to date , it has never needed to be employed . That may be good for now , but it may not be so good later.

Liberals introduced the motion in their 3rd Majority winning stint of parliament under Mr. Chretian. There has never been any reported abuse to date , because it legislation has never been enacted upon. We can conclude here that the abuse equasion is a total fabrication.

We see a merging trend here that the Conservatives may be able to capitalize on. If the other parties are prepared to weaken National Security , and continually try to box in Mr. Harpers Conservatives to cave in to unrealistic goals , and risking our national security. The Conservatives should attempt a bill of confidents explaining to Canadians of the nessessity of these provisions in our ant terrorist laws.

If anything , we should be looking at ways to increase our security when it comes to potential known Cell threats , not diminishing them. I feel a strong argument could be made , and the wavering leadership of the other parties could prove a strong point of distinction between the left , and Mr.Harper's Conservatives. This would also bring out some of the rivalling factions in the Liberal camp if a confidents measure where in place.

Canadians would clearly see that one party alone stands clearly strong on national security and will put their political lives on the line to defend it. That is a patriotic issue that will garner support if addressed effectively. This may force the Liberals to back their own bill , and see the foolishness of the risk's entailed.

Bottem line , Harper wins. He wins if the Liberals back off , and he wins if we go to the polls.

Timothy Coderre

Anonymous said...

Steffi will blame Canadians if we are attacked, our supposed contribution to the 'root causes' theory like poverty.

One of the 9/11 hijackers had a Mercedes waiting in the garage for him at home - if the Americans had bought him a Jaguar for weekends, perhaps that little lift out of his poverty would have changed his mind.

Neo Conservative said...

"the 'root causes' theory..."

which falls a little short when applied to the 'billionaire bin-laden' construction dynasty... or the billion dollar afghani heroin industry... but don't try to tell that to the leftbots.


Peter Loewen said...


The reason why we ought to be concerned about the more draconian elements of the security laws passed after 9/11 - in particular the two in question - is because they allow the police and intelligence authorities pretty clear avenues by which to abuse their power and trespass on others' rights. And this concerns me, both in principle and in practice. And I think it's a matter that we can civilly discuss without calling others names or assuming that they are not up to protecting Canadians.

Neo Conservative said...

"it's a matter that we can civilly discuss without calling others names or assuming that they are not up to protecting..."

peter... if you and i were sitting down over beers discussing the matter... i'm sure it would be thus.

the reality here is that dion is getting hammered on his leadership ability and his stand is a crass political stunt -- let's remember the liberals were for it... before they were against it -- to attack the conservatives.

the sheer hypocrisy makes my blood boil.

the fact is... we're at war.

the battleground will reach us, sooner or later... and to my way of thinking, extraordinary times require extraordinary measures.

just curious, but... if tomorrow, the jihadis triggered an explosion on the subway in toronto or montreal, with the accompanying loss of innocent lives... would you support the legislation then?

would dion or layton?



Peter Loewen said...


I trust that we would.

You know, I don't know if I would support it or not. If you agree with the principle that some rights can be violated - which is what you're arguing - then in my mind you still have to demonstrate the following: that the toll of prevented attacks would be greater than the toll of those who will get abused under these provisions. And I honestly don't know which is higher. But I do know that we haven't had to use these yet, so there's some evidence that they're not helping a tonne in the fight against terrorism. Over to you...

Neo Conservative said...

demonstrate the following: that the toll of prevented attacks would be greater than the toll of those who will get abused under these provisions

peter... your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose... and if you even threaten to punch me, i can have you arrested.

rights are a slippery thing, depending on your world view. in just about any arab country in the world... you have the right to shut up and obey the current dictator... or else.

in it's worst nightmare moments, canada is nothing like those countries.

now, to pick up the argument... there would have to be more people blown to smithereens... than the number of people subsequently arrested for suspicion of setting off bombs?

that requirement, as seen by the world trade centre attacks... is all too easily achievable... after the fact.

and that's really what we're talking about for now... nobody has been arrested, before the fact, under the provisions of this law.

still, i think it'd be better to prevent the homicidal carnage in the first place. my feeling is that this law, if necessary, is a tool that can potentially prevent slaughter.

I would likewise argue that aggressive policing and investigation have prevented many more attacks than all the 'politically correct posturing' by any individual, or political party... to this point in time.

i believe the potential for irreparable harm -- defined here as killing innocent people randomly -- overrides the concern about incarcerating people who have been seen to be plotting, like the toronto 17... against the state.

you see the law as overkill, but in fact, it hasn't even been used. I see it as a necessary evil... a tool to be wielded in a time of desperate need.

in any case, for dion this is all about the optics.

i don't see the liberals speaking up for these poor devils in toronto, or stepping up to post anyone's bail.

but that doesn't earn them any political points, does it?

over to you.