The Conservative Party has Their....

...UPDATED AND BUMPED: Lorrie Goldstein parses the new initiative, especially the legalities, for us:

Snooping bill flawed, but left’s hysteria over Internet law is hypocrisy

"There are good reasons to oppose Stephen Harper’s proposed Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act — which is about a lot more than pursuing just child pornographers.

But before we consider them — and why so-called “liberals” and “progressives” are the least credible critics on this issue — let’s be clear on what the act will and won’t do..."

[---]

"It won’t allow police to monitor personal Internet, e-mail and cellphone communications.

That, as it always has, will require a warrant issued by a judge, except for rare circumstances involving things like kidnapping and bomb threats, the authority for which already exists in law.

It will compel Internet service providers to give to police information they now voluntarily provide 95% of the time — albeit more slowly than police like — making it easier for police to obtain search warrants.

That information is the individual’s name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, Internet Protocol (IP) address and the local service provider identifier — hardly state secrets for anyone who uses the Internet, or a phone book."

[---]

"But the utter hysteria over this bill coming from “liberals,” “progressives” (including “Progressive Conservatives”), and others on the left, who have always supported increasing the power of the state, is the height of hypocrisy.

These are the people who cheered for decades while human rights commissions were allowed to run amok.

They applauded as these bodies went far beyond their original, legitimate mandate of fighting discrimination in employment and housing, to become kangaroo courts, unfairly prosecuting people for hate speech based on the hurt feelings of others."...

And by the way, I think the leftie media misinterprets both George Bush and Vic Toews. In both cases, their words were not meant to imply that people who oppose the governments actions support terrorists or child pornographers. What I believe is meant by those statements is that those who do not stand against terror or child pornography and with those who fight both embolden the terrorist/pornographer. It's sorta like the battered wife, who always submits. If you are not willing to stand and be counted, you provide space for the terrorist/pornographer/batterer to continue and perhaps proliferate/grow.
==============
"If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" moment, except theirs is: "If you are not with the government, you are with the child pornographers."

Interesting times.