Bob Rae on Dion’s Anti-Terrorism Stance
February 27, 2007 · By Matthew
Dion is at it again! Despite sitting in the cabinet which passed the Anti-Terroism Act, he has changed his position on yet another important issue facing Canada today. His collegues in cabinet, Bob Rae and the Liberal-dominated Senate have all urged Dion to reconsider this stance which jeopardizes the security of Canadians at home, but Dion has chosen to side with the radical members of his party in opposing legislation that Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Anne McLellan, Irwin Colter and Bob Rae knew was necessary if Canada was going to be effective in protecting its citizens from the threats of dangerous terrorists.
This latest flip flop on Dion’s part demonstrates once again that the Liberal Party leader is being held hostage by the extremist elements in his party and that he has neither the leadership qualities nor the vision to challenge the true powers in the Liberal Party of today. Sadly, because of Dion’s blatent inability to make tough choices, or even to seek a compromise with Canada’s New Government, it is every Canadian citizen that will suffer as a result. This is not the issue nor the time that Dion should be playing politics with. It is only with the passage of the ATA that the government can ensure both security and prosperity for each and every Canadian. Stéphane Dion should ignore the extremist elements in his caucus, reverse his flip flop and allow his MPs to vote for the renewal of the ATA.
Is no one ever allowed to change their mind with out being called names (ie flop-flopper) or should we always maintain the same position regardless of changes in situations, evidence, ect?
What changed about this situation? Why were these provisions acceptable when the Liberals proposed them and horrendous assaults on civil liberties when the Conservatives proposed to renew them?
The question is - why did Dion change his mind just two weeks ago, then have Iggy stand up and ask why the Conservatives didn’t do anything in the last 6 months. It was understood that the provisions were to be extended - until 2 weeks ago! That is called a flip-flop.
It is now understood when asked Dion could only repeat his concern about the attacks on him by the Conservatives. I believe the truth will come out if real effort is made to find out what deals were made in Montreal for etho-support. according to my friend he had no choice but take his vote to Dion when told to by Bain. There was no choice he said. Boy does that sound familiar. Oh yes my friend was part of the Air India investigation!!! He says tonite now he doesn’t have to be envolved anymore!!
“Why were these provisions acceptable when the Liberals proposed them and horrendous assaults on civil liberties when the Conservatives proposed to renew them?”
They explained they just don’t think they are necessary. If you don’t have a reason to hold people without charges then in our justice system you should try to do that as little as possible. They haven’t been used and so it seems less likely that they are really necessary.
Aaron, read Steve Janke’s latest post to get more of the story. What has changed, apparently, is that Dion has made promises to factions within the party in order to get his leadership position. These factions would rather not be questioned too closely about possible terrorist activity. It is clear that Harper was hitting close to home when he attempted to read that article about Bains in the Commons.
Ben wrote: “These factions would rather not be questioned too closely about possible terrorist activity. It is clear that Harper was hitting close to home when he attempted to read that article about Bains in the Commons.”
…and I think I’ve seen this movie before; it’s called Sponsorship Scandal! I guess we will just have to wait and see though.
Tom: You might feel that the ATA is not sufficent for specific reasons, which is fair. But Dion didn’t; his were purely political maneuvers. If you want to see at least a principled stand against the ATA, look to the NDP!