Feb. 28, 2007: Bud Talkinghorn

Canadian security? What's that compared to getting re-elected?

So the Liberal Party has voted against their own security bill, which allowed indefinite detention of those thought to be high terrorist risks. The provisions of the bill are draconian in many respects, yet are necessary because the Charter doesn't allow Canada to expel them to their mostly Islamic homelands. This is because every one of these countries employs torture and/or the death penalty. If they are merely innocently charged people, why would their governments do such things to them? The truth is that, often, they are known terrorist members back home as well.

So we are now caught between a rock and a hard place. If they are released, they will always remain a distinct threat. The message it sends to our sleeper cells here doesn't bear thinking about. The Liberals have come up with a solution to this extralegal security measure; however, they have nothing to offer for Canadian security. All they will would gain is the Muslim-Canadian vote in the cities. However, if you are completely opportunistic, that might be enough. On the other hand, should one of these "unjustly incarcerated" lads be involved in a horrendously successful terrorist attack on our soil, the Liberals could suffer irreparable damage to their brand. * The NDP--their cheerleaders on this legal position change--would suffer also. Small wonder that Dion had to "whip" his caucus on the vote. The stakes are very high indeed.

© Bud Talkinghorn--One could ask; why not just charge them and go to court? The rationale for not doing that is that it would destroy the inter-intelligence trust built up. The linkage for detaining these suspects is based on all kinds of secret sources. A court trial would expose these deep cover operatives, leading to chaos and possible assassinations of the agents involved. All future co-operation would disappear. A thorny problem, which perhaps the opposition can help solve. Don't take any bets on that support though.


* Which part undamaged would that be Bud? FHTR


Four Ex-Prime Ministers reflect

Roy MacGregor has written an interesting column in The Globe and Mail (Feb. 22 A-3). He corralled Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Joe Clark and Paul Martin and asked them to reflect on their attitudes about the political scene. Some of their comments were right on target. Joe Clark opines; ["There was a time]...when the general assumption was that government was good. Now, almost the opposite applies. If the government proposes something, that generates suspicion about it. That's not a generational phenomenon factor; that's a broad phenomenon. It's societal."

Joe Clark is a good place to begin to examine why this has been happening. I can't think of a better example of why people so dislike and distrust politicians. Always the reddest of Red Tories, he never accepted that real conservatives could no longer stand his squishy, quasi-liberal platforms. When the various sections finally united under The Conservative Party banner, with Stephen Harper as leader, he did not leave the scene gracefully. Instead, he turned positively traitorous, urging his Red Tory rump to vote Liberal. As they did in a number of ridings. He does not reflect on that scurrilous business however. Rather, he blames the organization of government, saying it allows less and less latitude for change. How ironic that Harper proved him so wrong on that score.

Brian Mulroney is another one to look at for this widespread disaffection of the electorate. He wooed the likes of Lucien Bouchard to his party and watched them defect and form the Bloc Quebecois Party. Then, in a last ditch effort to appease Quebec, he thought up Meech Lake and The Charlottetown Accord. These would not have only given Quebec unequal benefits, but would have allowed their veto on any future Canadian Constitutional change. When the Accord was put to a national referendum, it was soundly defeated. This, despite the support of the media, Acadians and cultural elites. I'm sure that the rousing defeat of the government and its acolytes was so embarassing that another referendum will never be considered. Mulroney lamely stated afterward that "he had rolled the dice" on the issue. Unfortunately, for him and his party the dice came up snake eyes.

Brian brings us to Kim Campbell, the sacrifical lamb substitute for Mulroney in the next election. Campbell, who had held a couple of cabinet positions, was chosen but given no time to properly prepare for an election. This however cannot be an excuse for the infamous campaign comment, "An election campaign is no time to discuss ideas". Duh! She was doomed to failure anyway as the albatross--no, elephant--of Mulroney hung around her neck. The PCs were nearly wiped out, electing only Jean Charest and Elsie Wayne. Jean shortly crossed over to the Quebec Liberal Party and Wayne was anything but a Red Tory. Kim was given a golden parachute, the Consul-General position for LaLa-land, where she attends endless receptions. What business she has directed our way is a state secret.

Paul Martin ended up with two albatrosses to bear. Having the nickname of "Mr. Dithers" attached to you is heavy enough. Than he had the resentful Chretien clique to contend with. But for me it was his statement during the election debate that poleaxed him. After hysterically demanding that Harper not touch a single article in The Charter or The Constitution, he blurted out that if he won he would take the Notwithstanding Clause out of the Charter. That Harper shouldn't touch anything (without being labelled a fascist in waiting), but Martin then proposed to gut the only check on legislation which is a gold mine for our social activist industry.

MacGregor should have demanded some personal accountabilty from these four. Perhaps their egoes wouldn't allow for such intospection. The commonality among them is that they feel they have diminished respect from Canadians. How those sentiments might have come about from their own behaviour is never explored. Since they have left the area, we have witnessed shameless floor crossings, and renunciations of former policy positions. Each one is a slap in the face to the electorate. It proves that too many of them are mere opportunists. Along with the pols, the MSM also are losing ground to the used car salesmen in the trust polls.

To be fair, the Canada of the past has changed beyond recognition. As the ghettoization of our cities continues apace, the politicians have to keep recrafting their messages to fit the immigrant demands. The Charter challenges all seem to be curve balls. The split between lower case liberals and conservatives is becoming wider. Any discussion of political social policy is a party spoiler. Still, all the aforementioned party leaders have a sad role to play in this current divide.

© Bud Talkinghorn