Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Spot the logical absurdity! Win valuable prizes!


There's this (all emphasis tail-waggingly added):

Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he would accept what he called a "compromise" in a report by a Liberal-dominated Senate committee.

The committee recommended a three-year extension of the two measures. But it also urged that an annual report on the use of the measures include an explanation as to whether the provisions remain warranted.

"I prefer something to nothing," Harper said outside the Commons. "It's important to have anti-terrorism provisions that are effective."

And then there's this:

The swoop and snatch "preventative arrest," which requires the detainee to make a next-day appearance before a judge to validate the apprehension, will disappear along with "investigative hearings" that compel a reluctant witness to spill the beans in a private court.

Neither measure has yet been deployed against suspects.

In other news, this elephant repellent is absolutely amazing. You don't see any elephants around here, do you?

5 comments:

Grog said...

Fact: All of the significant "terrorism" cases in the news have been the result of standard investigative work and due process.

Fact: The only times that due process has been bypassed (security certificates), the Government has been found to be in contravention of not only our constitution, but basic principles of human rights law.

Fact: Harper's get tough on crime laws all involve turning the presumption of innocence on its ear.

Fact: Harper wants to renew laws that break due process and civil rights.

Conclusion: Harper has no respect for civil rights, due process or Canada's laws.

Makes him sound more like George "Dubya" Bush every day, doesn't it. (at least when he's not trying to sound like Dick Cheney...)

Mes Amis said...

The Libs should have tread carefully with this potato. It could prove to get mighty warm come an election.

Sure, these laws are extreme measures cooked up in the shadow of 9/11.
They have never seen the light of day or would I want them to.
Their real value to the CPoC will be realized on the run up to the next election and don't think they haven't mapped out their strategy already.
I think the Cons are even more pleased with the end of these laws but for a different reason.

In the next election you will see the Cons using the identical ploys we have witnessed in the US.
Smears, queers and fears will be the order of the day.
The end of these laws fit neatly into the fear category.
Every Con bobblehead will repeat the mantra daily -'The Libs are soft on terrorism' - and use the termination of these draconian measures as proof positive.
Any logical rebuttal will be useless as this bullet is aimed at the less than discriminating minds.
And the sad part is, it will work on the intended audience.

The average voter wants a six second blurb on each plank of a party's platform.
No words of more than three syllables or beyond a grade nine vocabulary.
The Cons are going to paint the Libs as the party of corruption, the party that is destroying Canada with the SSM laws and, wait for it, soft on terrorism.

There's a big ugly crap cannon being set up right now.
It's aimed at Dion and company and it just got another round.

Ti-Guy said...

You're framing that like a Conservative. If the Conservatives throw their feces around, is that really an issue for anyone else? No, it's purely a Conservative problem, for Conservatives to deal with. If they all like throwing their feces around (and I get the impression they do), well, then they have no business being in government.

One way for this to be stopped in its tracks is for someone, finally, to make an example of some lying, smear-mongering Conservative. One thing about smear-mongerers...they usually lie about a whole host of other things that a little detective work can usually ferret out.

Mes Amis said...

ti-
I'm just taking a devils advocate view of how one side will try to set the tone.

Remember who pulls the strings in most major media organs in the country.
All they need to do is throw the claims out there.
If they can draw in another 10-15% of the middle third of voters, a majority government is possible with our warped electoral system.

You and I might watch '24' and see it as an over the top exercise in pedaling terrorist porn.
Others (like my Mom) can forget they are watching fiction and accept it as real life.
She believed me when I told her I watched the Victoria Secret special just to get a glimpse of those fabulous shoes.
There is a sizable percent of the population sit in front of the TV and don't question what is being fed to them.
They are the target this constant smear talk is aimed at.

I've had people at work confiding in me of their fear of being a victim of a terrorist attack.
When I ask them to explain how they got this idea in their head it becomes clear it's from news items that they didn't know were later proved false and TV fiction that blurs into reality for them.
If you deconstruct their fantasy world for them with facts they resist the logic. They live in a black and white world that shuts out any critical thinking.

How about I put what they're after in a different context.
Sit down and I'll use one of my Real Life Adventures™ to explain...

Once I came home from a 'boys night out' and dropped a hundred bucks on the table in front of my better half.
She was immediately curious as to how I came home with more money than when I left.
I began to relate of how a few of the guys were bragging about who was smartest, then who was the strongest and then ultimately who was the longest.
Of course with the beer flowing and the claims growing, a dare led to a challenge led to a reward for the winner.
All the interested contestants ponied up the entry fee and you can guess who won.
Well this knocked the socks off the wife and she said 'Oh God, you didn't pull that great big thing out in front of everyone, did you?'
I just looked at her, smiled and said 'Of course I didn't pull the whole thing out. Just enough to win dear, just enough to win.'

And that's how the Cons are dealing with the next election.
Use all the imported Repug dirty tricks to get 'just enough to win'.

P.S.-I confess, I might have exaggerated once or twice in that story.
IIRC maybe it was only a seventy dollar pot ;)

Jose said...

I geuss if you're bending over backwards to create a "the other guy is a terrorist enabler" narrative you'll grab at any straw you can.