Canadian PM proposes suppression of travel to terrorism hotbeds

[scottish]

From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-promises-travel-ban-to-places-that-are-ground-zero-for-terrorist-activity/article25897926/

Apparently our government is so afraid of terrorism that they propose to restrict our citizens from travelling to terrorism hotbeds.   Whatever a terrorism hotbed is.

I just can't think of any reason why this is a good idea.    Is there a reason why this would be a good idea?

[music lover]

From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-promises-travel-ban-to-places-that-are-ground-zero-for-terrorist-activity/article25897926/

Apparently our government is so afraid of terrorism that they propose to restrict our citizens from travelling to terrorism hotbeds.   Whatever a terrorism hotbed is.

I just can't think of any reason why this is a good idea.    Is there a reason why this would be a good idea?

I can't think of any reason why a sane person would want to travel to a terrorist country. The only 2 reasons are that they are fools, or they want to join the cause. If they are fools, they need to be protected from their own stupidity. If they want to join the cause...I say let 'em go, but don't let them come back.

[fb132]

From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-promises-travel-ban-to-places-that-are-ground-zero-for-terrorist-activity/article25897926/

Apparently our government is so afraid of terrorism that they propose to restrict our citizens from travelling to terrorism hotbeds.   Whatever a terrorism hotbed is.

I just can't think of any reason why this is a good idea.    Is there a reason why this would be a good idea?

I can't think of any reason why a sane person would want to travel to a terrorist country. The only 2 reasons are that they are fools, or they want to join the cause. If they are fools, they need to be protected from their own stupidity. If they want to join the cause...I say let 'em go, but don't let them come back.

Some of my coworkers are from Syria and they still have family living there. With the travel ban, they will never get to see their family ever again.

[lemanfan]

I can't think of any reason why a sane person would want to travel to a terrorist country.

Is the fact that you can't think of a reason really a reason to prohibit people from travel? 

[KMMK]

Horrible. What the hell is a "terrorist country" anyhow? That makes zero sense.

[music lover]

I can't think of any reason why a sane person would want to travel to a terrorist country.

Is the fact that you can't think of a reason really a reason to prohibit people from travel?

Okay...let them travel to countries with known problems. But, if they run into trouble, then they're on their own and shouldn't expect help to get them out. Is that fair enough?

[scottish]

Heh, the Canadian government hasn't provided help for a long time.   Unless you're friends with a conservative MP.

This is like the bill that allows police to arrest you because they think you might be thinking about terrorism.   How do they know what I'm thinking?  And why should they be allowed to arrest me when I haven't done anything?   Maybe I'm thinking that we need a new government.  Is that terrorism?   Will I be arrested?

 It's ripe for abuse.   Now it's going to be against the law if to go to Syria?  How do they know I went to Syria?   Who decides that Syria is proscribed? 

[nobodyspecial]

Horrible. What the hell is a "terrorist country" anyhow? That makes zero sense.

With Harper - I think Alberta now qualifies

[YK-Phil]

So we won't be allowed to travel to the USA?

[HappierAtHome]

Australia already has this!

We kinda suck.

[fb132]

Harper is making it a police state where the goverment dictates what you do, where you go and how to behave. I hate when a politician uses fear for his own political agenda.

[scottish]

It seems like a strange election promise.   The people who will like it are already going to vote conservative.   The people who don't will have have another reason not to vote conservative.

[RetiredAt63]

Their attitude on so many things is "we know better than you do what is good for you".
Well maybe it will affect the undecided.

This government is doing a lot of strange things.  If you think dismantling the Wheat Board s a good idea, then do it (but maybe listen to the wheat farmers first?) - but sell it to outside interests instead?  Meh.

On a side note, when Peter Mackay dies, what will he answer when Saint Peter asks him why he threw the Progressive Conservative Party to the Reform after being elected leader on a  promise to do no such thing?

It seems like a strange election promise.   The people who will like it are already going to vote conservative.   The people who don't will have have another reason not to vote conservative.

[GuitarStv]

This is clearly some sort of reaction to the westerners who are heading over to join ISIS.  The people who do this however usually head to a nearby country and then slip across poorly secured borders.  Unless this new law prevents travel to all countries near 'terrorist countries' (pretty much a blanket middle east travel ban) I don't see how it would serve any real benefit.

So we won't be allowed to travel to the USA?

This bill is a religious document in nature and specifically names "violent Islamic jihadi terrorists" as the people we should be afraid of to avoid the problem you brought up.

[I'm a red panda]

Some of my coworkers are from Syria and they still have family living there. With the travel ban, they will never get to see their family ever again.

Or Syria just agrees to not stamp their passport, and they can visit by flying by way of another country just like Americans have been doing to get to Cuba for ages.

[bsmith]

This is clearly some sort of reaction to the westerners who are heading over to join ISIS.  The people who do this however usually head to a nearby country and then slip across poorly secured borders.  Unless this new law prevents travel to all countries near 'terrorist countries' (pretty much a blanket middle east travel ban) I don't see how it would serve any real benefit.

1. That would be penalizing the neighboring countries, which could significantly impact their economies and our relations with them and the world.
2. Wouldn't the people interested in joining ISIS et al. then just go to the neighboring country's neighbor country? India/Pakistan/Iran might not be too difficult to manage.

[GuitarStv]

This is clearly some sort of reaction to the westerners who are heading over to join ISIS.  The people who do this however usually head to a nearby country and then slip across poorly secured borders.  Unless this new law prevents travel to all countries near 'terrorist countries' (pretty much a blanket middle east travel ban) I don't see how it would serve any real benefit.

1. That would be penalizing the neighboring countries, which could significantly impact their economies and our relations with them and the world.
2. Wouldn't the people interested in joining ISIS et al. then just go to the neighboring country's neighbor country? India/Pakistan/Iran might not be too difficult to manage.

1.  Yep.
2.  Yep.

[Meowkins]

Yeah, this policy sounds straight up absurd. "Terrorism hotbeds" are found frequently in Europe, for example, esp. "Islamic jihadis." So what's a "terrorism hotbed" really mean? "Violent places where brown people live"? (Okay, unfair - I realize perhaps the difference between developed and undeveloped country is the infrastructure to maintain a semblance of law and order, but really, this phrasing is just so dumb.)

It's also weirdly ass-backwards. By banning people from traveling to countries abroad (where they will kill their fellow Muslims pretty much all the time), you're keeping a maladapted crazy person on your own soil while limiting the lawful movements of your citizens and setting precedent that could permanently curtail their rights. And, to be honest, I think that's what ISIS *wants* - to incite violence abroad that acts as flashy PR for their perverted cause.

I don't know why they even use the term "violent Islamic jihadi terrorists" because it is incredibly vague and only underscores policymakers' ignorance of other cultures, countries, and religions. They should just say ISIS and name the actual ideology or group they have problems with. In fact that whole policy just underscores that governments have no flippin' idea how to handle the situation, which I guess surprises no one.

Of course, "terrorism hotbeds" are found frequently in the US, too, but often they're the white supremacist kind so I guess everyone's just fine with them. In that case, I guess I should be glad they aren't banning travel to "terrorist hotbeds" in US (w/e that means) since I plan to move to the South in the coming years.** *rolls eyes*

(**Southerners, I am being facetious. I honestly think there are crazy people everywhere. I guess that's part of my point.)

Edited for clarity.

[GuitarStv]

Of course, "terrorism hotbeds" are found frequently in the US, too, but often they're the white supremacist kind so I guess everyone's just fine with them. I guess I should be glad since I plan to move to the South in the coming years. *rolls eyes*

It's not just the KKK in the States who perform terrorism.

Looking up the wiki definition of 'terrorist' we get:  violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic, religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).

The US military has kidnapped non-combatant citizens from other countries, incarcerated them without due process, and tortured them for political/ideological goals.  I don't know how any rational person could consider those actions anything but terrorist.

[nobodyspecial]

He has just announced an election, he is a right wing christian conservative.
He can't campaign on the economy because he bet everything on oil and gas exports and has cut social/environment/education.
So the only way to compete is to be tough on terrorism, the other parties can hardly campaign as "softer on terrorism".

He has expanded the definition of terrorism to include non-violent threats to the economy. Such as that terrorist in the Whitehouse opposing that oil pipeline.

[Meowkins]

Of course, "terrorism hotbeds" are found frequently in the US, too, but often they're the white supremacist kind so I guess everyone's just fine with them. I guess I should be glad since I plan to move to the South in the coming years. *rolls eyes*

It's not just the KKK in the States who perform terrorism.

Looking up the wiki definition of 'terrorist' we get:  violent acts (or the threat of violent acts) intended to create fear (terror), perpetrated for an economic, religious, political, or ideological goal, and which deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).

The US military has kidnapped non-combatant citizens from other countries, incarcerated them without due process, and tortured them for political/ideological goals.  I don't know how any rational person could consider those actions anything but terrorist.

Can't disagree with that in the slightest. In fact, DH and I were chatting the other day about the fact that the US and "western" powers frequently allied with the most literal and extreme Islamic followers many times in recent history for their own political goals. The fact that the greater "Muslim majority" countries are now overrun by unintellectual hard-line literalists is as much our fault as it is anything to do with the inhabitants of those regions.

I mean, come ON. I once had a professor who lamented the Muslim houses of worship in the US having funding from "extreme" or "terrorist" groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. While I don't think he's wrong (though I can honestly not confirm the accuracy of his claims), groups like the Muslim Brotherhood rely on very conservative interpretations and translations of the Quran. However, these translated Qurans are ubiquitous in American masjids NOT because of the Muslim Brotherhood, but because of Saudi Arabian money and resulting influence on Islamic scholarship. And we all know that the Saudi Arabian interpretation Islam borders on lunacy.... and also that the Royal Al-Saud family has been one of the US's allies for generations! In fact, imperial influence is largely why that family was able to rise to power at all.

I just can't stand it when my colleagues or community members talk about "Islamic terrorism" and wonder about "those people" because "those people" came from a rich, complex culture of great intellectual achievement but WE decided to throw our lot in with the lunatics in order to gain the political upper-hand. Now that region is illiterate, war-torn, and a HUGE problem for ALL of us.

So, yeah. TL;DR: This whole thing is a cyclical bullshit mess and American foreign policy is very, very much to blame for a lot of it.

[bsmith]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20150624-homegrown-extremists-more-deadly-than-jihadis-since-911.ece

[RetiredAt63]

It plays well to their constituency, why bother to pass legislation that actually is useful? And here is another example of the "Harper government"^TM philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c
One of the singers is an Environment Canada federal civil servant ("Tony Turner, a physical scientist who most recently was working on a study of migratory birds, has been put on administrative leave with pay over allegations that his participation in his song Harperman puts him in a conflict of interest, the union representing him said."). Let's muzzle them on their science research, and on their political opinions that have nothing to do with their jobs.

I suppose they would have banned travel to the UK back when the IRA was active.  Northern Ireland is part of the UK, right?  Therefore . . . . It would have made perfect sense.

Here's to ABC.  And I now like the term "Harper government"^TM because I hate to think of them as my Canadian government.  Wreck manufacturing economies (i.e. Ontario) because they put all their economic eggs in one natural resource, oil.  All sorts of horrible legislation (the Fair Elections Act is pure Newspeak).  How ironic that the most environmental PM we had (Mulroney) was a Progressive Conservative, and the most destructive is a Conservative.

October 19 I will be watching TV.

[music lover]

It plays well to their constituency, why bother to pass legislation that actually is useful? And here is another example of the "Harper government"^TM philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c
One of the singers is an Environment Canada federal civil servant ("Tony Turner, a physical scientist who most recently was working on a study of migratory birds, has been put on administrative leave with pay over allegations that his participation in his song Harperman puts him in a conflict of interest, the union representing him said."). Let's muzzle them on their science research, and on their political opinions that have nothing to do with their jobs.

I suppose they would have banned travel to the UK back when the IRA was active.  Northern Ireland is part of the UK, right?  Therefore . . . . It would have made perfect sense.

Here's to ABC.  And I now like the term "Harper government"^TM because I hate to think of them as my Canadian government.  Wreck manufacturing economies (i.e. Ontario) because they put all their economic eggs in one natural resource, oil.  All sorts of horrible legislation (the Fair Elections Act is pure Newspeak).  How ironic that the most environmental PM we had (Mulroney) was a Progressive Conservative, and the most destructive is a Conservative.

October 19 I will be watching TV.

Harper didn't ruin the Ontario economy...the last two provincial Liberal governments did.

As to the person suspended from their job...why don't you make a YouTube criticising your employer and see how well it goes over??

The Fair Elections Act requires people to show ID before they vote....there are 43 accepted pieces of ID. Why should we allow people who can't prove who they are to vote?

[nobodyspecial]

Harper didn't ruin the Ontario economy...the last two provincial Liberal governments did.

I think assuming that you can keep being a local cheap currency supplier to Detroit's car industry - without noticing Detroit doesn't have a car industry is a typical local-politics problem whoever is in power.

As to the person suspended from their job...why don't you make a YouTube criticising your employer and see how well it goes over??

An important technicality in most democracies is that the government and the current elected leader are not one and the same thing.
This might be confusing for a politician from Alberta

The Fair Elections Act requires people to show ID before they vote....there are 43 accepted pieces of ID. Why should we allow people who can't prove who they are to vote?

Because people using the voter id notification sent out for the election fraudulently is the major problem in Canadian elections.

[music lover]

Harper didn't ruin the Ontario economy...the last two provincial Liberal governments did.

I think assuming that you can keep being a local cheap currency supplier to Detroit's car industry - without noticing Detroit doesn't have a car industry is a typical local-politics problem whoever is in power.

What does that have to do with the mismanagement and massive debt created by the Liberal Govt.?

As to the person suspended from their job...why don't you make a YouTube criticising your employer and see how well it goes over??

An important technicality in most democracies is that the government and the current elected leader are not one and the same thing.
This might be confusing for a politician from Alberta

As stated...go ahead and make a YouTube criticizing your employer, or the CEO of your employer who may be in a different city and see how well it goes.

The Fair Elections Act requires people to show ID before they vote....there are 43 accepted pieces of ID. Why should we allow people who can't prove who they are to vote?

Because people using the voter id notification sent out for the election fraudulently is the major problem in Canadian elections.

Actually, the voter identification card is no longer a valid piece of ID, therefore, the Fair Elections Act solved that very problem. 

"Your voter information card is not a piece of ID."

http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?document=index&lang=e&section=id

[nobodyspecial]

As stated...go ahead and make a YouTube criticizing your employer, or the CEO of your employer who may be in a different city and see how well it goes.

Yes that is a bad idea if you work for Stalin, anybody called Kim, or German leaders with an unfashionable mustache.
In a democracy criticizing the policies of the elected leader shouldn't involve state retribution.

Does anybody in Canada believe that the security services are NOT now investigating the rest of the choir?
Does anybody in Canada believe that these people are a terrorist threat to national security?

[RetiredAt63]

Well, I carried picket signs against my employer (CEGEP teacher/Quebec government), both as a striking worker and as a parent protesting Ministry of Education decisions that definitely affected my child.  That was pretty public, but before the days of YouTube.

The voter ID issue is a bit of a red herring, what about all the restrictions put on Elections Canada?  Not to mention the HarperGovernment^TM habit of naming legislation that really has very little to do with content?  Not to mention muzzling government scientists in a way that hasn't been seen since the end of the USSR?  To the point that researchers in other jurisdictions are not willing to do joint research with ours, since they are also experiencing publication restrictions as a result. And the long census form, and lying when they said the person in charge at StatsCan didn't object (he did object, had objected, and resigned on principal).

Re the Ontario government - won't argue with you on that one.  When I was growing up in Quebec (think typical Quebec politics in the 50s and 60s) Ontario looked so sober and staid and sane and sensible.  Then I moved here - the grass is greener definitely applies  ;-)  I am perfectly happy with tiered electricity pricing, despite the inconvenience, if it improves our electricity generation.  When we end up giving it away to other places, not so happy.

Anyway, we are getting definitely OT, let's stay on federal areas of responsibility, so how about our Syrian refugee policy, eh?  (Said in the tones of, how about those Habs, eh?).

It plays well to their constituency, why bother to pass legislation that actually is useful? And here is another example of the "Harper government"^TM philosophy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei50lM6ab1c
One of the singers is an Environment Canada federal civil servant ("Tony Turner, a physical scientist who most recently was working on a study of migratory birds, has been put on administrative leave with pay over allegations that his participation in his song Harperman puts him in a conflict of interest, the union representing him said."). Let's muzzle them on their science research, and on their political opinions that have nothing to do with their jobs.

I suppose they would have banned travel to the UK back when the IRA was active.  Northern Ireland is part of the UK, right?  Therefore . . . . It would have made perfect sense.

Here's to ABC.  And I now like the term "Harper government"^TM because I hate to think of them as my Canadian government.  Wreck manufacturing economies (i.e. Ontario) because they put all their economic eggs in one natural resource, oil.  All sorts of horrible legislation (the Fair Elections Act is pure Newspeak).  How ironic that the most environmental PM we had (Mulroney) was a Progressive Conservative, and the most destructive is a Conservative.

October 19 I will be watching TV.

Harper didn't ruin the Ontario economy...the last two provincial Liberal governments did.

As to the person suspended from their job...why don't you make a YouTube criticising your employer and see how well it goes over??

The Fair Elections Act requires people to show ID before they vote....there are 43 accepted pieces of ID. Why should we allow people who can't prove who they are to vote?

[RetiredAt63]

Does anybody in Canada believe that the security services are NOT now investigating the rest of the choir?

I am sure you have the wrong tense here - I assumed they had investigated everyone as soon as it went out.  The rest just have the good fortune to be slightly less vulnerable - i.e. not federal civil servants.

As stated...go ahead and make a YouTube criticizing your employer, or the CEO of your employer who may be in a different city and see how well it goes.

Yes that is a bad idea if you work for Stalin, anybody called Kim, or German leaders with an unfashionable mustache.
In a democracy criticizing the policies of the elected leader shouldn't involve state retribution.

Does anybody in Canada believe that the security services are NOT now investigating the rest of the choir?
Does anybody in Canada believe that these people are a terrorist threat to national security?

[RetiredAt63]

The crazy thing is, if the Red Tories were still around, I would be tempted to vote PC.  My politics, such as they are, are financially conservative and socially liberal. 

The CPC is a totally different entity, alas.   Crazy world, when the Liberals leave power with a nice surplus and the Conservatives spend it. Nice gazebos in Muskoka, at least.

[nobodyspecial]

Not to mention the HarperGovernmentTM habit of naming legislation that really has very little to do with content?

It does seem slightly creepy in a Stalin-esque way when bills are named the "This Is A Good Thing Or You Are A Traitor" Act

[RetiredAt63]

Yes, you are "with them or agin them".  They seem to forget that the opposition are officially "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition".  The opposition is the enemy, it seems, which means that the committees are no longer functioning well as places to evaluate/modify/improve/clarify legislation between readings.  I am not sure how badly our system is broken, and how easily it can be fixed, but there are real problems.  Not to mention the power of the PMO.  If I were at all political I would be so tempted to run for office, but not going there.  As it is, I plan to remind whoever wins my riding that they are first and foremost the reps of their constituents, not the puppet of their party. 

Not to mention the HarperGovernmentTM habit of naming legislation that really has very little to do with content?

It does seem slightly creepy in a Stalin-esque way when bills are named the "This Is A Good Thing Or You Are A Traitor" Act

[gooki]

I thought Canada was better than this.

[nobodyspecial]

I thought Canada was better than this.

The good news is that there is really only one Canadian dickhead - the bad news is that they are PM

[Shinplaster]

I thought Canada was better than this.

We know Canada is better than this.  Harper does NOT represent me, or the majority of people in this country.  Those of us who never voted for him look on in horror at what he has done, and want to smack those responsible for giving him a majority government.  He can call himself a Conservative all he wants, but his Reform roots show daily.

There is an old American movie - The President? - starring Michael Douglas, with Michael J. Fox as one of his advisors.  He gives a rant that I often think of when Harper is updating his "enemies" list (yes, he actually has one), and attacking anyone who dares to question him.  MJF reminds his president that (a) the president works for him, and (b), that in a democracy, it is a citizen's duty to question those in power, and hold them to account.  Not a right, but our duty.  Harper and his cronies have never understood this.  I find it sort of ironic that a Canadian in an American "fluff" movie sums up my feelings about a Canadian Prime Minister.   Hopefully his sorry ass will be history in a few weeks.

[RetiredAt63]

He doesn't represent me either.  The problem (well, part of the problem) is the "first past the post" system - the Conservatives had about 40% of the popular vote in the last election, but enough actual sitting members to form a majority government.

I read someplace (i.e. this is second-hand info) that he gets his news from Fox TV - a very right-wing American broadcaster.  He hates the CBC.  It is a wonder Rick Mercer is still out of jail, I am sure our PM would love to see him there on terrorist charges.  RM actually understands how our constitution is supposed to work, and talks about it every so often on his Rick's Rants.

Sometimes there is a political party that gets some things right, but gets so many things wrong that all we can do is shake our heads in amazement and try to contain the damage.  The PQ (way back when, they had some really good agricultural land protection legislation, and some other good ideas) were one, and the present Conservatives are another.

I always figure, if worst comes to worst, things will get so bad that Quebec really will separate, and I will have dual citizenship and can retreat to La Belle Province.  Depressed a bit?

I thought Canada was better than this.

We know Canada is better than this.  Harper does NOT represent me, or the majority of people in this country.  Those of us who never voted for him look on in horror at what he has done, and want to smack those responsible for giving him a majority government.  He can call himself a Conservative all he wants, but his Reform roots show daily.

[Shinplaster]

I love Rick's rants.   He should be required viewing for anyone who thinks what Harper has done is no big deal.

The thought that the PM's news source is Fox is scary, although not surprising.  Neither ever let the facts get in the way of their self aggrandizing statements or actions.

There is another thread about whether it matters who is President or not.  There are some great examples of the harm, or good, that the person in authority can do.  I think the same applies to our PM - correcting the damage will take years, if ever.

And yes, I get quite depressed about the state of affairs here, and the apathy that allows it to continue.

[nobodyspecial]

The thought that the PM's news source is Fox is scary, although not surprising.  Neither ever let the facts get in the way of their self aggrandizing statements or actions.

It's a relief - I thought he got his ideas directly from God.
I always wondered why God hates Canada - probably the Bacon

[RetiredAt63]

I've been reading a lot of Canadian political books lately (right now it is Elizabeth May's book, Who We Are).  Not sure, but I think I got the Fox News bit from Michael Harris's book, Party of One.  Which is the perfect title, the CPC seems to be a party of one right now, and the one is our PM.

Reading about Flora MacDonald really got me thinking about how much politics has changed in Canada since I was a teenager and young adult.  Most of the "good old days" weren't, but Canadian politics?  Bad then and worse now.

[abbot31]

That's horrible

[scottish]

The funny thing about the Conservative Party in Canada is that they don't get in trouble for their mediocre economic and social policies, but rather for their controlling, anti-democratic and un-Canadian behaviour.    The Harper regime wants to stay in power, and all they would have to do to achieve that is to stop being so bloody nasty about everything.

The biggest appeal the Liberal party has is that Trudeau appears to be honest and he wants to do the right thing.

It was the same in the last Ontario election.   The conservative party leader apparently didn't know the different between 200,000 jobs and 1,000,000 jobs.     All they had to do to win was not appear innumerate or nasty and we would have happily booted the liberals out of office after years and years of mismanagement.

[music lover]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

[YK-Phil]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

With your use of the word "lefties", you have lost any credibility you may have had on this forum.

[GuitarStv]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

Much of the stuff that bothers me that the conservative party has done since being in power isn't left/right at all.  They have muzzled our scientists, hiding government research and information that we pay for as Canadians.  They've done stuff like abolish the long form census (against the advice of pretty much everybody) . . . so that it's harder to get information about our citizens and make informed descisions.  They have introduced bills to limit individual rights and tried to give sweeping powers to law enforcement without oversight.  Scary descisions being made.

[YK-Phil]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

They have muzzled our scientists, hiding government research and information that we pay for as Canadians. 

...and as one of those scientists who have been muzzled and lost his job over a mining project I didn't approve on scientific and technical grounds -which was my job (and not my job to look at jobs and economic development), I can attest to the veracity of what you just wrote. Being called a leftie, whatever this means, when I base my opinion on facts and evidence and not on pseudo-science and religious voodoo so prevalent in the Harper doctrine, is a sure way to get my blood to boil over quickly.

[music lover]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

With your use of the word "lefties", you have lost any credibility you may have had on this forum.

There is certainly no shortage of left leaning people on this forum who have very little credibility...

[scottish]

And all this stuff Harper has done seems to have no rational basis in anything.   Why muzzle scientists?   Why give more power to LEO when crime is down?   Why continue to bomb the middle east, when we've seen that it doesn't work over and over again?   It doesn't make any sense given how it annoys all of us lefties and erodes his power base.

[Shinplaster]

Canada is doing just fine...the lefties always overstate the problems of the Conservatives and believe all the misleading half-truths or lies while minimizing or ignoring the misdeeds done by the NDP or Liberals.

With your use of the word "lefties", you have lost any credibility you may have had on this forum.

There is certainly no shortage of left leaning people on this forum who have very little credibility...

Stephen, is that you? 

Seriously, if you want to have any said credibility, please don't just parrot the party line (aka nonsense).  Wanting to see an enlightened vision for our country, and respect for individual rights doesn't make anyone a lefty.  It makes them a concerned citizen.

[RetiredAt63]

The things that get me the most as well are the non right/left issues - the fiasco with the Wheat Board, the muzzling of scientists (are we the new USSR?), the long-form census, the erosion of civil liberties, the control more and more in the PMO.  The "holier-than-thou" attitude in so many issues.  Willful blindness to issues - oh yes we are spending money on science (I got this from my Conservative MP in response to a voiced concern) with no acknowledgment of how limited and focused that spending is (i.e. all to "applied", not "pure",  as if anyone can do "applied" without the "pure" for basics).  So much of this seems to be a war on science (that is not a left/right issue) and personal liberties and rights (all the "tough on crime" policies that worked so badly in the U.S. now seem to be being imported here, where they will work equally poorly).  What I see is a party that rails against the "nanny state" but seems us to want to be a "Daddy state" where the government is Daddy and telling me what to do.  As in "Father Knows Best" and it is for my own good because obviously I can't decide or make good choices for myself because they know better.


Sorry, rant over.