that I had one of the biggest files in the Central NS RCMP security files

I remember that when I started linking to you, weird stuff has happened. Like weird phonecalls. Suspicious looking people dressed like postal men. Guys using cherry-pickers to do something with the power. Police cruisers are frequently patrolling the area. And worst yet, little kids have started to stick their tongue at my dog.

Please unsubscribe me from those files. Thanks in advance ;-)

...<i>it's too late Arthur...they know where you live...</i>

Our solicitor general is a farmer from PEI. That in itself should be considered a national security risk.

<strike>That comment caused me to check out his blog to see who had written such an offensive comment about farmers and Islanders. Fortunately, I found that nobody reads what he writes, anyway.</strike> [<i>Ed. - Knee jerk PEI reference editing is now on. Ruling: Easter's background is an issue. Further, crapping on another poster's blog when you do not have one or even identify yourself is punishable. Random off-thread references to golf will be treated accordingly. </i>]

Your honour, I object!

Easter's background in this issue is not relevent and therefore not admisable. He is to be judged on his actions...not his past, nor his profession, nor his home, nor his hobbies. <strike>Attempts to do so are nothing but small minded and upper Canadian.</strike> [<i>Foul: makes no sense as Ben is from PEI and I am a bluenoser.</i>

"Crap on a blog" sounds so...so...offensive, n'est pas? Like, tell someone to go "crap on a blog!", would feel so good.

Ben...go crap on a blog!

Related to Big Brother conspiracy theories and national security...aren't National I.D. cards a great idea? Finally, a way to ensure that a person is exactly who they say they are. And from where they say they are from. All in the interest of National Security. I hear <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/canadian_id.html" target="blank">Easter and Coderre</a> want a small background photo of <i>Anne</i>(emphesis mine)on all Prince Edward Islander cards, to add prestige to the level of security of the cardholder.

It is problematic when ideas of mother get confused with actual characterisitcs of the State. Wayne Easter is a fine guy but being the head of the National Farmers Union has nothing to do with being the top overseer of all the spies - unless I very much mistake the functions of the National Farmers Union. At least he is reasonably intellegent and gives personal confidence, unlike the last holder of the office. One would have hoped that he would have been better briefed on the three cases of Canadians held abroard in which all were falsely accused, one was killed and two were detained by totalitarians for long periods of time. This is the sort of thing we as citizens should expect security from and active government action in the defence of.

National ID cards are repugnant for a number of reasons. They effectively remove the right to silence. They also expropriate <i>my</i> liberty and <i>my</i> security of the person for state purposes. No doubt Anne will have a squat mustachio and a <i>siege heil</i> salute.

But, both have been under a great deal of influence lately...and I don't mean "Alpine"...I forgot, you guys can't get "Alpine" up there.(I spared you two the <i>emphesis</i> on "Alpine".

Can you be falsely accused when no accusations have been put forward? (Not to say they are necessarily innocent, by the way)

The Globe has it right - the treatment of our citizen by the US is a national scandal. And Easter has stonewalled on this from day one. And as true a spud islander as there is is concerned.

[PS nice to see you taking the side of the fascist in implying a lack of innocence.]

Put like a true legal expert.."taking the side".
What implication? Me? Fuddle-Duddle!

Pure hoo-haa from you. Just another right you would have removed in your pursuit of democracy - the right to be presumed innocent. Not only is that right at play here in each of the three cases but...they were factually innocent of what each totalitarian state - Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia - alleged. Which side are you on?

Unless we are privy to all relevent evidence, we can only presume innocence...but that does not mean we must continue to be naive in our beliefs ...that we must not take steps to prevent terrorist attacks whereever they might occur. The very people who cry for the protecting the rights of innocent citizens with evil intent are the invaribly the very ones who complain of a foul-up or negeligence after the fact.

I am on my side. For example, I appreciate every extra tough security check I see at airports before I board a plane...I chose to not focus on how my rights are being violated...I focus on how such checks are trying to protect me from those who which to indiscriminately kill me because I am an "infidel", or Canadian, or whatever. Those with evil intention do try to switch the focus to how rights are being violated, all to better hide their intentr. A tradeoff, I guess, but I chose to focus on the positive.

That is a long way from sending someone to a Syrian Gulag,I know, but I do wonder what he was doing in Tunisia, a country known for having a lot of sympathetic supporters of radical Islamic hatred. Maybe there was something to it we are unaware of, and revealing the circumstances could compromise sensitive sources. Solicister-General is a tough job these days, even for Island farmer.

Pure hooey of the expected type. If presence in Tunesia is a cause of suspicion, then are all Canadians who travel there under suspicion? Pretty much like presence in Michigan implies links to the Michigan militia. That knee is jerking pretty constantly, I guess.

Your trade off appears pretty close to destroying many fundamental rights to protect our fundamental rights. You have bought into the fear futher than anyone I have come across. Have the terrosists won with you?

Very true what you say about Tunisia and Michigan...but, I suspect there is more to it then just travel to Tunisia...I suspect there has been "some connecting the dots" going on...like I said, I am not that close to Wayne to know the details, but am sure that there is more to it then just him being of Syrian extraction that caused all this ka-fluffle.

I do not buy into the old "don't let the terrorist win" refrain to argue against action to prevent the terrorist continue to "have their way" so to speak. They have not won.But, with me, there has been a loss of confidence in the naive belief in decency among all who call themselves human...that was wrong on my part. This does not constitue any kind of victory for anyone...just a reality check every time I see a vulnerability...such as boarding an airplane.

And, you need to get out more, because I am not alone.

Just because you are not alone does not make you wrong.

Wayne. I'm from PEI, I've met Wayne Easter several times, and I went to high school with his son. I know enough about him to be concerned that he has absolutely no professional experience that would make him a good person to put in charge of CSIS, the RCMP and national security. With most jobs on the planet you actually have to be qualified. Apparently that doesn't hold true for cabinet ministers who are routinely assigned portfolios they know nothing about.

I wonder if you would be singing the same song about rights and freedoms after spending a year in a Syrian jail (or even a week in Sleepy Hollow).

So, you admit I could be right???

...I should know better then to argue the constitution with a very smart lawyer. However, and unfortunately, I feel that proponents of the constitutional obligation of elected officials to protect the health and safety of its electorate only become vocal after there are victims. Those who constantly (and unreasonably, I might add) feel their rights are threatened at every turn do a good job of drowning out calls for the protection of the public?until it is too late. (Nice quote...you can use it)

More importantly...are you an Islander? (Frantically ducking under my desk)

The problem, Ben, is that no one is specially qualified to be the lay overseer of the security system. I think Wayne is a much as any the right person for the job being a red liberal and an intellegent person. This makes much more my dismay at his performance in this matter as he is coming across as protecting the system more than the citizen.

Do you actually believe there are better qualified politicians? Or that in the business world, any would be considered qualified for any position presented? We do not elect on qualities that best suit them for a job, we elect them based on their morals, character and ability to make good judgements.

Christ, have you been in a cave?? Did you not see a great example of democracy in action in Cali-vor-nia?

Perhaps Wayne is doing his best, in this case, to prevent the population of Canada from becoming victims, which allows someone whom might have demonstrated an intent to do harm, to claim his rights are being violated.

"Really, Officer, I had no intention of using this terrorist training, and you are violating my rights if you stop me from owning this Uzi!"

Are there better qualified politicians? Ummm...yes. What percentage of politicians have law degrees? And why wouldn't one of them be better qualified?

You're right. We don't elect politicians based on their qualifications. And that's part of the problem. Morals and character are all fine and good, but they aren't really indicators of competence or job suitability, and the ability to make good judgements doesn't matter much if the person making the call has no experience on which to base their decisions.

Hypothetically speaking, lets say I have the ability to make good judgements. Does that mean I'm qualified to be a defence attorney? A judge? No, because I don't know a lick about law.

Wayne easter wasn't the best candidate for the job. He was the best candidate for the job from PEI of the 3 remaining MP's Chretien had to choose from.

Yes, I'm an actual Islander. I was born in Charlottetown and lived on the Islander for over half of my life.

So, Health Ministers should only be doctors, and administrative qualities don't matter a lick? Wrong!

Politicians need to have law degrees? I (and Alan,too) can name quite a few lawyers who would have a hard time making legislative sessions due to their commitments to the penal institutions to which they are confined.

Sounds like democracy just got a whole lot more elitist.

I like the FedEx commercial where the MBA guy is asked to help out, but when the fellow employee realizes he is an MBA grad, they offer to help by giving him detailed instructions.

Wayne, your tendency to move discussion to the extreme illustration makes it difficult to discuss these matters with you. If you actually thought on a day-to-day basis about Uzis, elitist democracy and that the calls for individual rights were drowning out the protection of society, you must be a very worried person. This goes back to what I said earlier - you have taken on "the fear" as much as anyone I have come across on an emotional basis. I haven't and I do not know what it would be like to live in that fear. I am not saying this to in any way belittle the experience, if that is your experience, but only to characterize what I see as the basis for all these lashing threads you have on various websites.

Did I say all politicians should be lawyers? No. What I'm saying is if you have a field of candidates to choose from when selecting a solicitor general, and some are potato farmers and some have law degrees, perhaps one of the ones with a law degree would be better suited for the job.

When possible as many cabinet ministers as possible should have portfolios that are related to their area of expertise. Is that unreasonable?

I like the system we have when we elect the best man to represent our area, and the Premier selects the best suited for each Ministry that is created. But, I don't agree that the best Minister of Health, for example should be a doctor, which I understand you do not agree with. There are many aspects of the job that require certain skills, and perhaps a dairy farmer might not properly represent a beef farmer.
Alan, we all have had our flame-outs. Sometimes we are mistaken when attempting playful banter and come across in text as arrogant or sensitive to a specific issue. Thanks for the couch, and lashing is not my style, (except some days of the golf course) but the only fear I have is growing old. But, I do get alot to hear the other side of the coin, from those who come close to sympathy for terrorist activity in the Middle East and my response is generally to hope it stays there. But, it does seem civil rights extremity does enable the doctrine to gain some support here lately.

I honestly do not see any expansion of civil rights which affects security. I see the Charter now causing social change but it is unrelated. We have the ability to hold and do hold many people for years without trial, for example - Ernst Zundle has been locked up for months on no charge and a number of post-september 11th risks are in third year. I remember Barbara MacDougall in the 80's used the immigration detention powers to hold a pregnant Iranian who was fleeing the revolution there. We also have a secretish police who are not accountable to Parliment as we learned this week when Easter was before the Commons Committee. We have about 300 secretish commandoes - a former one of whom I represented in court ten years ago and learned a bit about it - killing anti-democratic extremists in other countries right now. My navy is leading a partial blockade of a huge areas of global shipping. This is just Canada. From the States to New Zealand this is the same. That being the case, why the fear? Bad things, very bad things sometimes by wicked people, will happen... but if I am a free person I know that and free countries are doing much to stop it. I do not want to take the further step to make myself less free and, where possible, like the Commons committee want to push back secrets as much as possible to make me freer. Nazis flattened great grannies house. Didn't make us change our desire to be a free as possible.

This is my last comment here...

"free as possible" - but you have to admit, as free as to do what? By whom? Who decides where to draw the line? And where is that line? I am in agreement that freedom is what we all want and need, but what about those who (are there are those who seek to) take advantage of that ideal? It seems that any comment I could make about the need to careful consider the consequences of inaction can be spun as "fear" of what we need to be protected from. My civil rights fears are that someday, those who seek to do us harm will succeed in their attempt to paralyze us, hiding behind the curtain of perceved prejudice. Foe example, I have encountered comments about security checks etc. as being targeted in their nature. I argue, rightfully so, that those safety features have applied to all. But, I continue to hear the pleas for sympathy, and understand the difficult job those whose job it is to protect really have.

You have mistaken the expression of my concerns in this issue...by playing this "fear" card. One thing life experiences have taught me is to not let fear stop me from action. Hopefully, those in charge of protecting the public will have the courage to not let fear of criticism prevent them from taking action.

This comment about my motives and background has had me thinking about the time I spend in Blogs, whether I can continue to enjoy my exchanges, and whether it has been time wasted - based on how I have been "read". Being fearful of being misunderstood should not stop me, just because of my poor choice of words, or others misinterpretation of them.

Of course I understand there has been wrong done in the detention of suspected criminals, and there has been wrong done in the wrongfully accused...and I know I am not smart enough to present to you the solution, but I do feel the system we do have with the ability to challenge and critique is the best one presented yet. Don't label those who offer another perspective as fearful and defensive...just as those who fight for the rights of the oppressed should not be all considered extreme, rightwing bleeding heart liberals. If others fail to understand my point of view, it is either due to my inability to adequately express them, or the unwillingness of others to accept them. I don't see this as a totally right or wrong issue, so it could not be explained any other way.

I think the fear is not a personal thing but an acknowledged aspect of North American cultural life [which very arguable pre-dated 9/11] which I am saying you have apparently accepted more fully than anyone else I read. This is not playing a card. It is just an observation on the content of your writings. Even though you remain anonymous, you present yourself in what you write. It is all we can work with. By participating in discussions like this each of us should also allow yourself the self-reflection that discussion should raise. Otherwise these threads become just the repeated setting out over and over of pre-determined positions and not discussion. Rrrrabbie Burns:<blockquote>O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!</blockquote>Again, this is not about you but about the nature of each in any discussion.