Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Iggy Calls 911 victims families a "Sideshow"

I am sure this is going to go over well. From the Hamilton Spectator. (note: original link dead. Updated with link to the Toronto Star)

"At a news conference before the vote, Maureen Basnicki, (pictured with daughter, Erica) whose husband Ken was among two dozen Canadian victims of the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks, urged MPs to "stop playing politics" and to "vote with their conscience and not with their party."

Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said he sympathized with terror victims but labelled their appearance during the debate as "just a sideshow," prompting an angry response from Basnicki.

"Sideshow? I was a victim of terrorism. My husband was murdered. I don't like to be a victim of politics. The issue here is the security of Canadians," Basnicki remarked.

33 comments:

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I can't imagine how hurt and angry those families must be feeling right now.

leftdog said...

Dragging the families into the debate was nothing short of exploitation for political purposes by the Conservative government, period!

The fact that Harper wanted to curtail the rights and freedoms of Canadians for a further three years was also done for purely political reasons.

The original implementation of these so called 'security measures' was a knee jerk reaction by the then Liberal administration in response to 9/11.

Be indignant at Iggy if you choose, but Harper is turning his administration into a three ring circus.

Evan Switzer said...

Exploitation? Sideshow? Or legitimate cries of truth.

They only take away our rights if they get used, and i believe we only have... 3 people? under custody because of these laws.

I think they shouldve been extended, and the fact that so many pro-liberals failed to show or abstained is a sign of this. At worst both sides are playing partisian politics here. At best the liberals are, and the tories are just trying to do what they believe.

Darrell said...

Powers don't have to be used to be dangerous.

A lot of people - especially in the muslim and arab communities - have complained that these provisions have been used to intimidate and threaten them. What's more, combined with sections of the law that link terrorism with religious and political causes peoples political beliefs and religious practices have become fair game in terrorist investigations.

Destroying what little trust exists between these communities and authorities by continuing unecessary laws does not serve our security goals.

Glenn said...

Another example of Iggy putting his foot in his mouth.

The Security Agencies and even the Liberal dominated Senate security committee recommended extending the provisions. Dion refused even a compromise of extending the provisions for 6-9 months - enough time for it to go back to committee for further review.

Disgraceful and shameful partisan politics displayed by Dion.

And Navdeep Bains even particpated in the vote - talk about conflict of interest!

Ed said...

Once again, Count Iggy has shown that Liberals think it is more important to pimp to ethnic minority voters than worry about the safety of Canadians.

The survivors of the 25 Canadian victims of 9/11 should launch a class action suit against the Dion and the Liberal party.

Andrew said...

What a terrible thing for egghead to say, but typical of liberal arrogance and small-mindedness.

mark said...

I won't say I know what the 9/11 victims are going through but objectively how can we as conservatives use the victims as justification when some on our side have attacked the 9/11 widows in the US for advocating policies against our wishes. The security certificates and these security laws should have been left in place on principle. Not because the victims/families of victims of the attacks wanted them to. Making laws because of individual cases makes for bad laws. The provisions should only be debated on their merits not on individual cases.

Anonymous said...

9/11 was an inside job.

Henry said...

Once again the liberal ideologues prove they lack the strength of their convictions. When they were the government they enacted these security measures and now in opposition they oppose them. What shameful hypocrisy. Is the world and Canada within it any safer today since 9/11? I would suggest absolutely not.

Anonymous said...

I cannot understand how or why the left wing loonies think as they do, but to defend Ignatieff is insanity. Leftdog, you got to get a life--ever been anywhere? The guy/gal that said it is an inside job..go back to your cave, please.

Canada is a pussy and many of us will see the foley of the liberal ways before we die.

Anonymous said...

I will NOT GO BACK TO MY CAVE AND NEITHER WILL THE MAJORITY WHO KNOW THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!! The evidence is overwhelming. The controlled mainstream media labels us kooks and holocaust deniers but REFUSE to debate the legitimate points that are raised.

John M Reynolds said...

Darrell, if your political beliefs include the killing of random infidels and that is supported by your religion, then you should be fair game in terrorist investigations. Those who plot to kill abortion doctors should also be fair game in investigations.

Alberta Bound said...

The fact that we never used the law shows that we respect citizens rights. Now in an effort to gain political points the left wing parties have left us with nothing. I hope nothing happens. But if something does it will be on the shoulders of the left wingers. When will the Liberals ever stand up for anything but themselves and power

Anonymous said...

As with any political maneuvering(flip flops) risks are calculated. In this case the alarmingly and increasingly left of center liberals have determined that its highly unlikely that there will be any backlash to letting the anti-terrorists legislation die.

But if on the other hand we have a situation where even one life is lost because we could not stop a terrorist plot due to the lack of this legislation, the liberals, ndp, and bloc will look like cockroaches with a light turned on to get away from answering to the public on their decision.

In fact I can already see the Libs claiming they had to because of the whip vote, only Stephen Dion will not be able to get away with this. But that won't matter much because he's already on his way out and most Libs know this and can't wait for it, just ask Bob Rae. lol

Anonymous said...

Iggy is correct in saying that the act of BRINGING the families to the House and putting them on display is a sideshow. The families themselves are not. Come on people, your reading comprehension should be better than that.

It is a totally calculated political move to put pressure on his opposition, and Harper knows it. Besides... the survivors are not victims no matter how much they want to wear that mantle. The victims are dead. It is just so ridiculous that people line up to declare their victimhood.

Darrell (no relation to original poster) said...

Destroying what little trust exists between these communities and authorities by continuing unecessary laws does not serve our security goals.

Pretending that serious security issues don't, or can't, exist in these "communities" also doesn't serve our security goals.

From a horrible, fawning CBC article:

"Asked about the arrests last summer of the 18 Muslim men and boys who were allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario, 73 per cent of the Muslim respondents said these attacks were not at all justified and 82 per cent said they had no sympathy for those who wanted to carry them out."

Almost a quarter of the Muslims in this country -- about 161,000 people, if the CBC's figure of 700,000 Muslims is correct -- felt the planned attacks were somehow justified. 126,000 Muslims had some sympathy for the terrorists.

That's rather a lot of people. Only an idiot would suggest there doesn't exist the potential for acts of terrorism from the Muslim community in Canada.

Security concerns exist. A government that fails to address them is behaving irresponsibly.

Highlander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Well lets face it. What does an American intelligence failure have to do with a Canadian Law. A law which is unnecessary and takes away freedom.

The police and agencies have all the tools they need- What they need is more resources/ more personell and intel.

Sorry about 9/11 folks but the reaction to date has been exatly what Osama wanted. Cooler heads should prevail.

Anonymous said...

Though no one can ever say that the families of 9/11 victims haven't been through hell and back, dragging them out as a calculated political move in order to defend powers that have never been used is a terribly insulting move on Harper’s part.

If Harper genuinely believed in the substantive value of these excessive powers, convince people with genuine debate, not baiting base emotions of fear.

All of this is just proof that Harper is just simply a pundit and not a leader.

John M Reynolds said...

It was not the families nor the government that baited based on the emotion of fear. It was the terrorists that caused the fear -- the reason for the ATA. It is proper in debate to remind people of that.

Prime Minister Harper was counting on the Grits to vote for their own legislation. It is sad that Dion played partisan politics by whipping the vote and refusing any compromise.

Anonymous said...

Forget about Liberals and Conservatives for a moment, if you will or can...This issue is bigger than partisanship.

Ignatief is right about the families when he says "sideshow". Their presence is not to add to the debate or to clarify key issues, their presence is to serve as an overt insinuation to all Canadians "that we cannot let these victims down". That, is overt propaganda.

Look at your collective reaction.

Just like the families, you are all reacting in an emotional manner. This plays perfectly into the sad official strategy of "guilting" other Canadians into following any and all anti-terrorist initiatives". A made in the USA approach, to be sure.

This is very dangerous.

I recommend that you and the families gather some perspective on the nature and cause of the 9/11 WTC attacks. Only then can these laws and their "urgent" need and effectiveness be accurately judged and contextualized.

It is irresponsible as citizens to simply trumpet the need (based on FEAR alone) for such mesures when they have never been proven to be needed or effective. Just ask M. Arar and Mr. Harkat.

No, I'm wrong. They are very effective in maintaining an irrational fear in all citizens.
Not to mention pitting one citizen against another, all in the name of
...freedom.

That sad irony has now become tragic.

Reflect don't accept.

John M Reynolds said...

"I recommend that you and the families gather some perspective on the nature and cause of the 9/11 WTC attacks." Okay, what in your opinion are the nature and cause of the 9/11 attacks?

I can tell you the opinion of Alqaeda. They publish their opinion often within their threats to countries including Canada. They wish to spread Sharia law throughout the globe and kill as many infidels as they can.

Ardvark said...

Wow, I go to work and come back and find 23 comments.

Leftdog, why the fear of laws that have not been used? Do you not trust our police? Do you not trust our judicial system? If not, than doesn't that make ANY and every law dangerous?

Darrell, these provisions are tools that may be needed and should not be taken away because some over sensitive groups do not like them. BTW, I would love a link to anything to substantiate those claims about these being used to "intimidate and threaten"

911 nutbars, Isn't it amazing that with GW Bush being the dumbest President ever, that he could come up with the greatest conspiracy of all time!! The man must be pure genius, too bad he couldn't manage to plant some WMDs in Iraq, which would have been infinitely easier to pull off, to help his approval ratings at home and abroad.

I guess Harper must have used these laws to drag in the 911 and AI families kicking and screaming to star in his little production; oh wait, the families actually believe in extending the laws.

As for them not being victims because they are still alive comment; are you really that dumb? If you believe that than I cannot imagine what you would say to Mr. Goodale who has been playing the Liberal victim card all week.

Al

Anonymous said...

"we only have... 3 people"

How would you feel if you were the fourth?

Grow a brain.

Harper's attempt to use the families of victims as a photo op in this instance was cheap and petty.

Anonymous said...

The 911 Report made it plain that on at least a dozen occasions the dots to the terrorists activities leading to the 911 disaster could have been connected and action taken. It is debatable however that procedures through our regular criminal courts would have allowed the plotters to have been tried or even incarcerated.
We now have some 18 individuals charged with plotting mass murder and even an attack on our PM and parliament. Could we have even rounded these guys up with our the Security measures the Libs, Block and NDP have todded aside to gain political points?
Beware too that if our regular procedures fail and mass murder of our citizens take place, even more draconian laws will follow. Another thing to think about is that when our security operatives find all their efforts to protect us fail because of the political games being played by Party firsters (at any cost) the security operatives will feel it necessary to eliminate the threat efficiently if not legally. These things happen in war and many an enemy sabatour during WW2 never reached Camp X in his last trip across Lake Ontario from the US. We are at war ladies and gentlemen and the worst may happen at any time. Humpty Dumpty.

Dan said...

I think putting the families up there was absolutely a stunt. All of you conservatives would say the exact same thing if a government used gun-crime victims to advocate gun-control. Let's be honest about that one.

As for the provisions, the chief reason that is being promoted for keeping them is that they are seldom or never used. What's the point then? If they aren't used and we don't need them, why keep unnecessary state powers. Come on small "c" conservatives, where are your limited-government instincts on this one?

These powers aren't being used and yet some pretty serious cells are being broken up - at least according to the news. In 2001-2 we were all panicked, with the passage of time, I think we can take a better, more mature view of these laws.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone show me where it shows that either the Government of Canada or the Conservatives paid for those families to show up?

Could it be that they were there because they thought it important?

Ardvark said...

Dan, I will go with the fire extinguisher argument. If it is never used why have one? House insurance etc. They are tools for law enforcement, that if never used would be a great thing, but if they were ever needed and couldn't be used would be a tragedy.

Personally I will be giving up zero of my freedoms if these provisions are extended (they still will be evaluated from time to time btw) as I do not plan to get locked up for 72 hrs.

This fear of the state having these powers is very strange. Can the police not be trusted? Can the Judiciary not be trusted? We have a great system of checks in place to see that abuse does not take place and if those checks do become corrupt, well than there are no laws or rights that would matter anyway.

72 hours, and then a judge gets to make the call. It really is not going to turn Canada into a dictatorship where PM Harper is going to send out the RCMP to round up Liberals. Over the top, but that is what is being suggested by some.

I say Err on the side of safety, the fact that they haven't been used is something to be proud of for all of Canadian society. Lets hope they never have to be used, but let them remain so that they can be used if indeed needed.

Anonymous said...

Ardvark...
Your comments make complete sense. Where your argument falls down is in trying to convince the left wing loonie liberals by using logic. If they used logic, they would not be left wing loonies--they would be more centrist or maybe even conservative.

Having said that, my main concern in life now is the continued safety of my family. The liberals and lefties are putting them in danger, under the guise of loss of other freedoms. As an average Joe, the measures brought in by the liberals and intended to be continued by the conservatives will have zero impact on my freedom. But taking that tool away from law enforcement makes their nearly impossible job even harder.

I suppose if a bomb went off in Toronto tomorrow the loonies would blame the conservatives anyway. Their mantra, after all, is to make up conspiracy theories that defy logic.

nutbar said...

Ask the victims' families if they think 9/11 was an inside job.

Ardvark said...

Nutbar, if that is indeed your real name, get out from behind that computer in your parents basement and get an education. Not just the kind sold by one of our lovely left wing higher education establishments, but in the real world as well.

treb said...

Leftdog,Your the 3 ring circus.PM Harper did not curtail any rights and freedoms for any length of time.You Liberal idiots are so FN screwed up you still vote Liberal in Quebec after Trudeau put the army in your streets and put a curfew on your province .And you haven,t blamed the Conservatives for that yet,but were waiting.Only the guilty have anything to hide from security.And we do choose to be indignant at iggy and you Liberal trolls.But we can see who the clowns are and it sure as hell includes you and the Igster .