How Bill C-51 Has Taken Away My Freedom of Speech

In February of this year, Thomas Walkom wrote of the NDP and Bill C-51.

The party hadn't yet decided on what position they should take, as the best route to a political advantage.

By all indications, they will vote against Bill C-51. Mulcair signaled that again this week when he compared the sweeping security bill to Ottawa’s use of the War Measures Act 1970. 

That’s when most (but not all) New Democrat MPs voted against then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s decision to suspend civil rights across Canada in order to deal with two political kidnappings in Quebec.

As we know, it wasn't that simple, but let's move on.

Indications were that Mulcair would oppose the bill, so the next concern was how to frame that opposition.  

In the end, they chose that rather than highlight the content of the bill, in part because there are a few necessary elements; they would instead focus on the lack of oversight.

In March, Althea Raj reported for Huffington Post, that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals would be supporting Bill C-51, but only because, as Justin explained, they didn't want Stephen Harper to "make hay of it".

How could they have known that Thomas Mulcair loved hay.  When he was in the Quebec legislature, if he could find a microphone and a camera, he'd chew it up like a hungry goat.

So they had their campaign.  They would blame it all on Justin, as silly as that was.

Now, as a Liberal supporter, I cannot have a conversation with an NDP supporter about Bill C-51, without facing a barrage of Justin visceral.  Even when you remind them that Stephen Harper has a majority and that the bill would  have been passed anyway, they are relentless.

I now find myself defending a bill that is indefensible.

They have taken away my freedom of speech, by not allowing any other opinion than their own.  How did this get so screwed up? 

Moving to the Right Comes With a Right Left (?) Wing Noise Machine

Newly re-crowned Bloc leader, Gilles Duceppe, has found a different political climate than when he stepped down in 2011.  He's absolutely right.

I have not been blogging much since then, but have noticed a remarkable change on my return.  I used to be inundated with comments and emails from Conservative supporters, opposed to my criticisms of Stephen Harper.  Even when ethical issues were raised, they would defend him mercilessly. 

And if they ran out of silly comments, they would always fall back on Adscam.

I'm getting the same thing from this new breed of NDP supporters.  I can't open my mouth or type a word, unless I'm wearing a helmet.  

I received a few email notifications from an old Facebook group, I had belonged to: Canadians Rallying Against Stephen Harper or C.R.U.S.H., so I thought I'd check it out.  We were more than just a Facebook group in 2011, when it was formed.  We raised funds and published ads in newspapers, reminding Canadians why Stephen Harper had to go.

But apparently it has either been hi-jacked or the name plaguerized, with the addition of 'and expose Justin Trudeau'.

When I noticed that most comments were hyper-partisan NDP glorification, I asked it the site was no longer non-partisan, but simply an NDP support group.  I was given a short answer "yes".

Sucker for punishment, I responded to some of the anti-Justin stuff, surrounding their Bill C-51 distortions. You don't want to do that, trust me. 

Finally, fed up, I posted a link to the right-wing MacDonald-Laurier Institute on the subject. If they thought I was a Conservative troll, I knew I'd get blocked and avoid the continuation of a  futile venture that would only make me lose perspective.

UPDATE:  Good News.  Fortunately I was right. C.R.U.S.H was plagiarized by a spin off group kicked out for hyper partisanship and nonsense.  The real C.R.U.S.H. is alive and well and still fighting the good fight.  You can find them  here. 

In 2011, all opposition members worked together for a common goal.  My social media friends knew that I was supporting the Liberal Party, just as I knew they were supporting the NDP or Green.  It didn't matter.  We could agree to disagree.

Fortunately, most of those NDP supporters from that time, have not changed.  Many are also upset with the direction the party has taken, and not happy with the leadership of Thomas Mulcair.

Conservative NDP Talking Points Now Pass for Political Debate

What I had noticed when I used to have to deal with Conservative supporters, was their use of talking points in any argument.  There was a reason for this.  Those talking points could be found on the Conservative Party website, where their flock was encouraged to track internet postings and challenge conflicting views.

Now I find that the NDP are using the same strategy.  They are  calling on "truth warriors" to find "lies" and correct them.  Bizarre.

 Susan Delacourt also recently published a piece on political party communication.

Last December, speaking to a crowd of NDP partisans in B.C., Mulcair advised them to monitor the media for examples of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau being mentioned before the NDP. In that case, Mulcair urged his followers, “write them (the media) a letter. Give them s---.”

As if the media wouldn't catch on after just a few such letters.  Maybe we need to phrase our posts, something like:  "Thomas Mulcair is an idiot and Justin Trudeau is not."  Or maybe just put this out there and let the two right wing parties duke it out.

But then I'm sure we'd get a visit from the NDP "truth warriors", who have now trounced on our internet freedoms.  I'd report it to OpenMedia but their founder is too busy trying to get the NDP a bump in the polls.

In 2012, Ed Broadbent defended his public concerns over Thomas Mulcair's credentials.

Broadbent reiterated his concerns, saying: the NDP could disappear if Mulcair brings it too close to the political centre; that Mulcair had claimed false credit for the party’s breakthrough in Quebec in last May’s election; and that New Democrats ought to be worried about whether he has the personal temperament to lead a united caucus.

"... the NDP could disappear".  No truer words were spoken.  I have no idea where they are.

Thomas Mulcair is wrong to Invoke Tommy Douglas and the War Measures Act.

On October 12, 1970, Pierre LaPorte's wife received a letter from her husband: (1)

The day before Quebec premier Robert Bourassa had also received a letter from his labour minister: (1)

How could Mr. Bourassa not be moved by such a letter?  How could anyone not in that situation?  "You have the power of life and death over me..."

LaPorte's kidnapping, had followed the kidnapping of British Diplomat James Cross, the week before.

Cross would survive.  Mr. LaPorte was not so lucky.

To understand the severity of the crisis, you had to have lived during that time.  Anglophone communities in Montreal were targeted, especially in the affluent neighborhood of Westmount.

Between 1963 and 1970,  the FLQ had detonated over 95 bombs, including one at the Montreal Stock Exchange, Montreal City Hall and the RCMP recruitment office.  Dozens more were in mailboxes.  This was not like the false flag war that the Harper government has used as an excuse for Bill C-51.

This was no exaggerated far off threat.  The threats were real and the terrorist activities were taking place in our own country.

The kidnappings were an attempt to have 23 prisoners, charged with previous bombings, released; in exchange for the hostages.

The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to implement the War Measures Act, and Pierre Trudeau complied.  We were indeed at war.  There was some hyperbole, mostly written of in modern times, but there was definitely a clear and present danger in October of 1970.

We know that Tommy Douglas opposed the implementation of the WMA, and said so in his October 16, 1970, address to Parliament.  Four NDP MPs broke ranks, but the rest supported their leader.  He would later explain to CBC, why he raised the alarm:

I'm not saving that the government is going to do all these things. But I am saying that it is dangerous to take these tremendous powers in order to deal with a situation that could be dealt with very easily, namely by bringing into the House of Commons a bill to amend the Criminal Code, giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal. (2)

I see amending the Criminal Code, "giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal" being a slippery slope, since it is quite vague, without an exit.  How long would the allowance to search without warrant be on the books?

There has been a suggestion that Douglas's opposition to the WMA was political, but I don't believe so. Tommy Douglas was a man of conviction. Thomas Mulcair is not, nor would he have opposed the implementation of the Act.

In 1982, the Government of Canada funded a new group called Alliance Quebec, to protect Quebec Anglophone economic interests and combat the threat of separatism.  Mulcair would become their director of legal affairs.  He had also been part of the anti-separatist movement, protesting the 1980 referendum.

Recently, a former president of the AQ had this to say:

My name is William Johnston. I am a veteran journalist/writer and former president of Alliance Québec. I believe the use of the War Measures Act by the federal government of M. Trudeau was necessary at the time. To know more about my views, consult the Virtual Library.

If Mulcair had opposed the WMA at the time, he would never have been allowed membership into Alliance Quebec.  Yet I'm constantly being reminded of the NDP stand, in discussions over Bill C-51.

Like only they have ever stood up for our rights.

As we know Tommy Douglas's opposition was not popular at the time.  85% of Canadians supported the idea, including a large number of NDP members.

Author Elaine Kalman-Knaves wrote of her personal experiences living in Montreal during this time.  She recounts the site of tanks during a different period in her life, when she was a child in Budapest.  They were Soviet tanks, invoking fear.  However, in 1970, while riding a bus home, she remembers seeing the soldiers with guns.

I was awfully glad to see those soldiers at the front of the bus. They were there to protect me and the way of life my family had come to Canada for.

Like many who supported the government's response at the time, she does feel some reget.  However, says Kalman-Knaves:

At the time, I was a card-carrying member of the NDP, yet I believed that David Lewis and Tommy Douglas, who opposed the War Measures Act, were wrong. They weren't going through what Montrealers were in 1970. They didn't feel the pounding of my heart.

Sources:

1. Documents on the October Crisis, Quebec History, Marionapolis College

2. Comments by T. C. Douglas, Leader of the New Democratic Party, On the War Measures Act, CBC, October 16, 1970