Mulcair's Confusing Stance on Security and C-51

Columnist Ralph Surrette had a piece in the Chronicle Herald this weekend:  Harper defeat won’t suffice; this calls for fumigation

In it he questions why the NDP did not go on the attack when Stephen Harper announced that he’d institute a "ban on travel by Canadians to areas of terrorist activity "

This announcement sent a chill down the spine of many Canadians, and prompted experts to weigh in on the legality of such a move.  More importantly, however, it would mean the further deterioration of our rights.

Says Surrette:

After all, the arguments over the anti-terror law, Bill C-51, were still fresh — a law denounced by four former prime ministers (including a Tory one, Joe Clark), five retired chief justices of the Supreme Court, former ministers of justice and pretty well every legal expert in the country, that triggered alarm at the United Nations, that was described by both the RCMP and CSIS as “unnecessary” and that was denounced by the otherwise small-c conservative Globe and Mail as a “quasi-police state bill.” And here was Harper jerking our chains again on the same issue, proposing another broad dragnet largely outside the rule of law. What a political opportunity!

What a political opportunity indeed.  Both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair saw the ban proposal as political posturing.  I agree.  Not unlike the political posturing by the NDP over C-51, which is no longer a bill but a series of laws, affecting many areas.  

What is puzzling though, are Thomas Mulcair's comments, when asked about Harper's latest ploy.  Rather than denounce it, he claims that "obviously" he would support it.  He only questions whether it would actually do anything.

Huh?

He also states that C-51 was a failure because it did nothing to prevent the radicalization of youth.  What would he want to see in the bill to prevent "the radicalization of youth"?  

The only way to stop youth from being sympathetic to the goals of groups like ISIS, is to stop invading countries for oil.  Stop taking away one group's human rights by painting them all as terrorists, while inflicting the worst kind of terror on their homelands, with bombs.

If there was even a hint of diplomacy in our foreign policy, young blood would not boil.

The NDP is now too focused on silencing any sympathy for Palestine, dropping candidates like flies, to care whether our rights are being violated.  How many New Canadians will be prevented from visiting their families? Given this government's loose interpretation of terrorists, that could be just about anywhere.

 "Obviously we are going to support anything that will prevent the threat of terrorism".  Really?

Thomas Mulcair and the NDP, if they were in power, would not scrap C-51.  They can't.  It is now law, resulting from an omnibus bill that has changed many laws.  

At best, they will put through amendments to the anti-terrorism measures, that challenge our rights and freedoms.  Exactly what Justin Trudeau promised.

Hot air will only get you so far.

Besides, Mulcair's new priority is decriminalizing marijuana.  In the first minute.  This will certainly win him the vote of drug dealers, as it gives them a free pass.  Without legalization, and thus control, it will do nothing to keep marijuana out of the hands of children.

Which brings up a bit more confusion over what Mulcair actually stands for.