Harper doesn't mind if Taliban kill Canadian troops

Sometimes I wonder how the Liberals can resist getting down in the sewer with Harper. How about something like this from Mr. Dion:

Mr. Speaker, Harper accuses me of having more passion for Taliban prisoners than Canadian troops(Harper goes for jugular - again). But the reality is that the government's own actions have put our troops at risk. According to reports, 4 detainees have completely disappeared. Maybe they were tortured or killed. Or maybe they bribed their way to freedom and are now back out killing Canadian troops. Since we're not tracking them we don't know. Harper doesn't seem to care if our troops are being killed or people are being tortured. All he cares about is getting re-elected.

Pump up the rhetoric!

In his column today in the Star, James Travers accuses both Dion and Harper of descending to the worst depths of electoral partisan politics (PM, Dion dumb down public discourse). I think he may have a point. While Mr. Dion and the Liberals have been forced into a situation of having to defend themselves, by counter-attacking the opposition on a variety of issues, using that tactic on the environment, is a dangerous proposition, given the Liberal's own history, and the potential that the Conservative's may throw enough money at the problem to appease voters.

A better plan may be to continue to pressure the Conservatives to produce a plan of there own. Early indications are that the Cons will stick to a plan that focuses on intensity targets through 2012 and not requiring significant caps until at least 2020. The Liberals should then be prepared to provide the framework for their plan, and at least a swag on the true economic cost of sticking to an intensity strategy. This is better than descending into the same fear-mongering that Mr. Harper seems so good at. I for one believe that most people will respond more positively to reasoned argument, than the Rove style insinuation, lies and propaganda that the Conservatives embrace.

The one key point that Mr. Travers made that I think is critical for Mr. Dion if the Liberals fortunes are to turn around, is that he must be able to articulately explain his positions (on anti-terrorism, the environment, etc.) to Canadians. I think he did a reasonable job of this in the leadership debate. Since then he has struggled.

Dion on the Hour

Saw Monsieur Dion on The Hour tonight. Pretty good. The opening bit ("liberal media panders to Liberals") was funny, sort of. Dion was pretty good at articulating his plan and how this differs to what Harper is up to. One thing though. This guy has got to learn to loosen up. We'd forgive the butchered English if you'd only get a sense of humour dude!

I saw Stephen Harper on Best of Rick Mercer, and at least he knows how to play the straight man. Actually, my wife thinks I need a humorostomy as well so if you're interested Mr. Dion, maybe we could sign up for some classes or take one night a week to go to an open mike.

With respect Mr. Prime Minister, sphincter says what?

Well, the weekend has come and gone, but the furor around the Stephen Harper's comments regarding Navdeep Bains shows no signs of abating ("Harper says there was no Bains leak"). Meanwhile, the related issue of extension of the Anti-terrorism Act provisions, seems almost certain to expire at the end of the month ("No deal on anti-terror measures").

Mr. Harper (I just can't bear referring to him as the "Prime Minister" any more) continued with his bullying ways in question period today, accusing the opposition of attacking the RCMP's integrity by questioning the source of of the information regarding Mr. Bains' father-in-law. In my opinion, this seems to be exactly the right thing to do in light of the legislation that is being debated here. If the intent of the provisions is to ensure secrecy of the proceedings (including the investigation, you would assume), and there is a concern about the violation of citizen rights, then the fact that there was a leak should be of concern and should be raised.

Here's another thing that I have a problem with. On the one hand Mr. Harper was accusing the Liberals failure to support extension of the provisions was based on protecting Navdeep Bain's father-in-law from appearing as a potential witness. There was also the conjecture last week that, Bains, a new Liberal backbencher, could have this kind of influence because of the support he was able to deliver to Mr. Dion during the Liberal leadership convention. In essence this would amount to allowing policy decisions to be made by special interest groups.

But hold on a second. Isn't that exactly what Mr. Harper did last week in mounting his defense of extension of the provisions? Wasn't it last Thursday that he appeared with the victim's families association of the Air India attack? Wasn't his argument that the Liberals should support extension of the provisions because the victims families position that the provisions were critical for continuation of the investigation. While the victims families have every right to want to see justice done after 22 year, grieving, frustrated and angry relatives are maybe not the best group to make judgements that will best serve the country as a whole. And it is very unfortunate that Mr. Harper dragged the victim's families into the middle of what has turned into a toxic witches brew.

But then, that's Mr. Harper's style. Do whatever it takes to consolidate his hold on power and put forward his agenda. An agenda, that as we move closer to an election, looks increasingly like the one that progressives were afraid of. And one that confirms many of our initial concerns of Mr. Harper. So, again, I respectfully ask the member from Calgary Southwest, sphincter says what?

Should Anti-terrorism Act provisions be renewed?

Harper's blatant inference that the Liberal Party's opposition to renewal of provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act are based on the personal relationships of Navdeep Bain and a debt that Stephane Dion owes to the Sikh community, is simply ludicrous. No party would jeopardize the safety of Canadian citizens for a political debt and for Harper to suggest this is ridiculous. The only good news in all of the furor of the past couple of days is that the public once again gets to see the Mr. Hyde that Harper has managed to hide pretty effectively in the past six months.

It's a good thing too because it really wasn't shaping up to be a good couple of days for the Liberals with former Liberals and some current and future ones coming out for extending the
Investigative Hearings and Recognizance with Conditions provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act. Then there was today's Senate panel who today also recommended extending the provisions.
Not to mention the fact that Air India families came out in support of Mr. Harper and extension of the provisions.

Given these facts, should the act be renewed? I took a quick read of the contentious provisions this evening and while I'm no lawyer, I have to agree that there seems to be a real danger the provisions could put civil liberties at risk. For example subsection 7 of the Recognizance with Conditions provision seems to give pretty unlimited powers to impose recognizance or detention on both suspected terrorists and witnesses. Perhaps that's why the Senate panel recommended new safeguards be attached to the provisions. This indicates that even though they are recommending extension there is concern about the violation of civil rights. And the fact that a part of the Act has been struck down by an Ontario judge(Part of Anti-terrorism Act violates charter: judge), I can certainly understand why Stephane Dion is against renewing it.

At the very least careful consideration and thoughtful debate should be undertaken before extending these provisions. Unfortunately, Steven Harper really does seem to want to be the Decider, and so this sort of dialectic seems to be beyond his capacity.