Why? Not only were they not abused, they were not used. The potential exists for abuse and the police seem to be doing jsut fine without them, so why have them around.

Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who wanted these measures to be extended to make the case. They needed show, quite forcefully, that these measures must continue. They did not. The best they came up with was “it will scuttle Air India” - which didn’t hold water considering that the RCMP and government’s own reluctance to provide un-redacted evidence to Justice John Major is threatening to scuttle the inquiry. Considering that the RCMP, who have been investigating this crime for 22 years, have had access to these provisions for 5 years and never used them. Considering that the Conservatives themselves agreed in committee in October that the renewal wold only apply to future, new investigations not past one (thus excluding Air India) and as late as yesterday morning, Harper offered to agree to THAT agreement, essentially scuttling the Air India investigation as he implied the Liberals would do.

All of this for measures that are a clear danger to our civil rights, that have never been used - the police have foiled plots since 9-11 using good old fashioned police work (Toronto 17 anyone?). Clamoring to keep these measures to “protect” us from terrorism, despite the fact that we are more likely to die in a car accident, by drowning or by taking prescription drugs that by terrorist acts, seem rather silly. Cowardly almost.

I’m glad they are gone - good riddance to bad, unneeded laws with a huge potential for abuse.

No partisanship about it Ferret; I opposed these measures when they were first implemented, and I wasn’t a Liberal back then. I believe the potential always existed for them to be abused, and we have plenty of tools without needing such draconian measures. I’ve see what the US has done, and I dont even want a whiff of that here.

The Supreme Court said the same thing on Friday when it ruled those security certificates unconstitutional… and the same tonight when a majority of MP’s representing 64% of the popular vote took a stand and refused to allow the hint of a police state, Ferret.

Its been a great few days for civil liberty rights people like me.. and especially gratifying to see the New York Times lead editorial congratulate Canada for what its court did on Friday.

It was Dion and the Liberals who introduced these measures and the sunset clause was put in place to ensure an “out” in case of abuse. These measure were not abused so the clause should have been extended. But politics trumpts common sense and national security I guess.

Good post my friend.

Carry on.

The What Do I Know Grit

Please do not give credance where it is not due.

Dr. Dawg, actually Cotler chose, pricipled abstentia, so he was in the House and did not rise. I heard him before the vote and while he backed his Leader, so he was there, he had explained why he could not rise on this vote. I believe this was accepted by Dion. That’s fine for me and considering Cotler’s role in all of this looking back, I don’t know how he could have taken a different view.

Gayle, I suspect that the Lib’s have been drafting away. To be honest, I hope the con’s have too. I’d like to see something come to the House asap.

Joe Steel, pretty darned pathetic.

As for Pierre Trudeau… Didn’t he implement the War Measures Act once upon a time…? :em62: