"Hidden Agenda" - Turning the Tables
I've always hated the false "Hidden Agenda" scare-mongering tactic used for years by the Liberals... so I have to admit that it made me smile to see the CPC turning the tables on the Liberals, accusing them of having a "Hidden Agenda" to further soften our new Crime legislation...
Liberal hidden agenda on Crime
November 23, 2007One of Stéphane Dion’s lieutenants has let it slip that the Liberals have secret plans to soften Canada’s crime laws.
Speaking to the House Legislative Committee on Bill C-2 this week, Liberal MP Larry Bagnell hinted that the Dion Liberals secretly want to roll back several of the Bill’s key protections, even as they currently let these same protections become law.
“I was ever to form a government I would be agreeing basically with what my colleagues said and want to get Supreme Court references to certain things, or make amendments to the bill to take out the things that don't make any sense.” Bagnell told the Committee.
Larry Bagnell should be clear with Canadians. Just what parts of the Tackling Violent Crime Act does he want to amend? What new protections is he prepared to strip away?
The tough new penalties for offenders who commit crimes with a gun?
Protecting our children from sexual exploitation by raising the age of consent?
Cracking down on those who drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
Tougher sentences for Canada’s most dangerous, repeat offenders?
Stéphane Dion should also be clear on his own priorities: Does he share his colleague’s hidden agenda?
If not, he should denounce Larry Bagnell’s hints and publicly declare his support for the Prime Minister’s Crime Bill.
If he does share Larry Bagnell’s beliefs, he should be prepared to vote against the Bill in the Legislature and spell out to Canadians what protections he wants to weaken.
A real leader stands, votes, and clearly speaks out on the issues they believe in. Prime Minister Harper will always be a clear and accountable champion for protecting law-abiding citizens from crime. Stéphane Dion must stop hiding his own beliefs and be prepared to be held accountable for them.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 10:12 a.m.
8 Comments:
At Fri Nov 23, 11:07:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Da you tink it is easy to set prioroities from under da bed? Yep, this is the guy I want representing Canada.
At Fri Nov 23, 12:12:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
tangoJuliette sez:
Conservative Party and a Hidden agenda?
Try this on for size:
The libs admit they've been telling big lies, since forever. Having admitted that, they've now cancelled their "Renewal Process" flim-flam scam, ma'am.
So what they've got to offer is more of the same old same old. Different pile, different colour. I specifically draw your attention to the section set out in ALL CAPS.
"...COMMENT: Dion may be down, but he's not yet out
Liberal leader loses to Super Mario in recognition survey
John Ivison, National Post
Published: Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A survey released this week suggests fewer than half of Canadians could identify a picture of Stéphane Dion, compared with 70% who could name the Prime Minister. If this wasn't depressing enough for Mr. Dion, more Canadians were able to identify Nintendo's Super Mario video game character than the Liberal leader, even in his own riding (Nintendo commissioned the survey).
Given the source, Mr. Dion might be forgiven for dismissing the poll as frivolous. But he will be hard pressed to ignore another survey that came out the same day - when asked who would make the best prime minister, Mr. Dion was the choice of just 13% of Canadians in an SES poll, compared with 37% for Stephen Harper and 17% for Jack Layton.
The poll was taken before the latest Mulroney-Schreiber affair broke, which may have given Mr. Dion a bump. But even when faced with this gift from the political gods, the Liberal leader failed to shine. He was so obviously scripted in Question Period on Tuesday that when Mr. Harper answered his call for a full public inquiry in the affirmative, he had no follow-up and was forced to ask the same question again. While the saga has the potential to damage the Tories, it is hard to see where Mr. Dion goes next, now that an inquiry is in the works.
But does it matter? While it's clearly not good for the Liberals that Mr. Dion's numbers have been tumbling toward single digits, does his unpopularity doom the electoral hopes of a party consistently polling around 30%?
According to Sean Simpson, research manager at Ipsos Reid Public Affairs, historical elections data suggests that leaders who run behind their parties in popular support do not necessarily hurt the overall fortunes of the party. For example, in 2000 Jean Chrétien was polling 30% at a time when the Liberals were at 43% in the polls (they eventually won 40% of the vote).
The converse is also true ¬- in an exit poll, John Tory ran 10 points ahead of Dalton McGuinty when voters were asked who would make the best premier in the recent Ontario election, yet his Progressive Conservative party lost by 10 percentage points to Mr. McGuinty's Liberals.
While the federal Conservatives would love to make the ballot question a straight choice between Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion, the residual brand loyalty involved suggests wider issues will be at play. Elections are a particular moment in time when people judge in which direction they want their society to move. In this light, the leaders are merely the pitchmen, selling their particular brand of nostrum.
Mr. Dion remains an implausible leader, but he has an advantage over the Prime Minister. Conservatives have long been defined as those who don't believe that government action necessarily works in reducing inequality. A look at the Speech from the Throne suggests the Conservatives see a role for the federal government in foreign policy, making the federation work, tackling crime, regulating the impact on the environment and ... er, that's about it. It is an agenda of limited ambition and that's how Conservatives like it - people are left to get on with their lives.
On the other hand, progressives believe that government should right wrongs and meet needs; they believe that government works and the right package of reforms can cure any ill.
Some Liberals have awoken to the fact that the desire to expand the life chances and choices of individuals does not automatically make it so.
TOM AXWORTHY, THE FORMER TRUDEAU ADVISOR, WROTE A PAPER FOR THE PARTY'S NOW-ABANDONED “RENEWAL PROCESS” POINTING OUT THE "IMPLEMENTATION GAP" BETWEEN WHAT LIBERAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE PROMISED AND WHAT THEY HAVE DELIVERED - WHAT HE CALLED LIBERALISM'S "DIRTY LITTLE SECRET."
But Mr. Dion's advantage is that there are many more Canadians who feel in their political DNA that they are progressive and they have a voracious appetite for his brand of interventionist, "big idea" politics.
Half of Canadian voters might not be able to pick the party leader out of a lineup of animated Italian plumbers, but they'll consider voting for him anyway. The forecast: Chilly spells for Mr. Dion turning milder in the coming months, after a deluge of expensive new social programs..."
tj
t.e.&o.e.
At Fri Nov 23, 02:40:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"Hello, My name ees Borat and I want to raise you taxes.
I make very much big prioritees to let criminals out of jails.
I make evill Stehpen Harpers call election sometime soon I think.
Red crayons taste many better than green crayons."
At Fri Nov 23, 03:43:00 p.m. EST,
Drew Costen said…
As long as raising the age of consent is included in it, this crime bill should be scrapped.
Here's an interesting Q & A from the Department of Justice Canada's website:
Fourteen-year olds are too young to appreciate the consequences of engaging in any sexual activity, even with another person who is close in age. Why won’t the government raise the age to 16 years for non-exploitative activity?
Although there are many views on what is an appropriate age to begin to engage in sexual activity, the fact is that young persons do engage in sexual activity. The Canadian Youth, Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Study 2003 report by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education reported that, for youth who reported being sexually active , the average age of first sexual intercourse was 14.1 years for boys and 14.5 years for girls. Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code to criminalize youth for engaging in such activity.
Has the age of consent always been 14 years?
Although some mistakenly believe that the age of consent was lowered in the 1980s, the age of consent to sexual activity has been 14 years since 1890 when it was raised from 12 years.
Isn’t Canada’s age of consent law lower than that of other countries?
Comparisons between Canada’s age of consent laws to those in other countries often do not differentiate between those that apply to “exploitative” sexual activity and those that apply to other activity. A complete comparison, including the significantly broadened protection against exploitative sexual activity provided by Bill C-2, shows that Canada’s criminal law framework of protection against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and youth is amongst the most comprehensive anywhere.
------------------
Back to TCH: Conservatives may not like the fact that many teenagers have sex, but they do (50% of North American teens are sexually active according to the latest stats, if I recall correctly, and 95% of North Americans have premarital sex, from what I recall, as well) and I'd think they should be free to choose who its going to be with by the time they're in high school. Hopefully the Liberals are brave enough to stand against this bill, though something tells me they won't.
At Fri Nov 23, 04:31:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
To the moron that said the age of consent (above this comment), was 12 in 1890. Yes it was but people only lived until they were 50 years old too I bet. Also, gays were not allowed to roam free for chicken. But back to the LIBERAL hidden agenda. Just read Crowley's Liber - al for yourselves. Do what what wilst is the whole of the law - the liberal screed.
(real conservative)
At Fri Nov 23, 04:47:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
To The Christian Heretic...
Raising the age of consent in the CPC crime bill doesn't have anything to do with preventing 15 year olds from having consentual sex. It's to prevent them from exploitation by adults. A 15 year old will still be able to partner with an 18 year old under the close-in-age exemption. They just won't be able to consent to sex with a 30-year old.
This will allow the prosecution of child molesters and like monsters without having to put the teenager through the process of proving the relationship was not consentual.
At Fri Nov 23, 04:53:00 p.m. EST,
Drew Costen said…
Raising the age of consent in the CPC crime bill doesn't have anything to do with preventing 15 year olds from having consentual sex. It's to prevent them from exploitation by adults. A 15 year old will still be able to partner with an 18 year old under the close-in-age exemption. They just won't be able to consent to sex with a 30-year old.
Exactly. This stops said 15 year old from being able to legally have sex with the person they choose if that person happens to be above a certain age.
This will allow the prosecution of child molesters and like monsters without having to put the teenager through the process of proving the relationship was not consentual.
Unless said molester happens to be within the legal age range for consent, then it won't make a difference.
Sorry, but I just can't agree with it. Pretty much the biggest reason I could never again be conservative (I used to be very conservative) or vote Conservative is because of their views on sexuality and on controlling other people's sex lives (okay, there are other reasons as well, but that's one of the biggies).
At Fri Nov 23, 04:57:00 p.m. EST,
Drew Costen said…
Just read Crowley's Liber - al for yourselves. Do what what wilst is the whole of the law - the liberal screed.
I don't think you understand liberalism or Crowley if you think that's what either of them are or were about. You only quoted half of the "creed." The whole thing is:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
Love is the law, love under will."
And us liberals (please note I didn't say "Liberals") aren't about simply doing what one wants. We're about freedom to do what one wants as long as one is not harming others against their will. There's a difference between liberalism and anarchy.
Post a Comment
<< Home