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.

Andrew vs. Kim, old vs. older

Andrew Coyne's column (Liberal vs Liberal, grown-up vs child) in today's National Post, and reprinted on his blog contends that the debate over the now defeated Anti-terrorist Act provisions is really a fight "between its grown-up wing and, well, its Karygiannis tendency". The "grown-up" elements in the equation are those like Irwin Cotler, whose legal credentials and role as the director of McGill University’s Human Rights Program. Coyne's contention is that the fanatical "juvenile" wing of the party is ascendant in the Liberal party, and is having a negative impact on the Party's fortunes. I couldn't disagree more.

As Mr. Coyne points out times have changed, within the Liberal party and the country as a whole. But he is wrong in believing that this not a debate between security and freedom. Or that this is purely a debate that purely resides within the Liberal party.

The very fact there is turmoil within the Liberal caucus is a sign of a healthy democratic process -- as opposed to the autocratic approach that has defined the Conservative government during its short tenure.

In 2001 all Canadians were shocked by the events which transpired that led to the deaths of many innocent civilians -- some of them Canadians. More recently Canadians again were shocked by the violation of human rights by the U.S. government in the Arrar case. Times have changed and Canadians (and many Americans) are coming to the realization that such repressive measures undermine the very fabric of our democracy.

Mr. Coyne may be right that civil liberties have not withered but extending the provisions carte blanche, as the Conservatives demanded until the 11th hour, might have resulted in putting civil rights at risk. They were never used so we don't know. But in reading the provisions, it seemed to me that having an Attorney General who was open to "liberal" use of the provisions is all that we would need. And given the Conservatives hard line approach to law and order generally, it does not seem out of the realm of possibility that they would test the boundaries that the law allows.

And while I'd agree that for the most part the Investigative Hearings provision seems to have adequate protections (although I haven't yet been able to find sections 132 and 136, which are essentially the exception clauses), the Recognizance with Hearings provision is another matter.
While Mr. Coyne is correct in stating that suspects can only be held for 72 hours before being taken before a judge, he doesn't mention that the judge can order either a suspect or a witness detained based on the evidence provided by the arresting officer. Detention can be for up to 12 months. Then there's also a catchall that allows for detention for "any other just cause" (see sub-sections 6 and 7).

Given these facts I can't understand how Mr. Coyne (and the Conservatives) can so glibly dismiss the concerns over civil rights. Extending provisions that are open to abuse in the wrong hands should be of concern and warrant thoughtful consideration and debate, especially considering the current "tough on crime" and "tougher on terror" regime.

So yes, Mr. Coyne, times have changed. Hopefully the pendulum is swinging back to a time when reason and common sense will prevail over fear and intimidation.

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?