during the occupy moment, a number of activists got together to put together a "food not bombs" in downtown ottawa. during the winter months, it was cold out, so the idea of "serving" in city hall came up. i'll be blunt about my motives for looking into this: i was under the strong impression that there were undercover intelligence people involved in scoping out the remains of the occupy gathering, and i wanted to check the actual legality about gathering in such a space. i suspected we were being tricked into something with naive language about "reclaiming public space".

it turns out that ontario law actually explicitly specifies that the charter rights do not apply on city property or around provincial infrastructure, which includes things like electricity generating plants and some rail lines. for example, the right to not be searched is not recognized. one can be arrested without probable cause. this is actually under provincial anti-terror legislation that dates back to the bill davis era.

now, these laws are obviously unconstitutional. i suppose they've simply never been applied, because i couldn't imagine them withstanding a court challenge in the charter era - they're written as almost a direct refutation of the applicable charter rights. but, they're not as unheard of as mulcair is suggesting. they just harken back to an era before the charter. in some sense, i might actually like to see this bill passed and struck down to remove the looming spectre from the horizon.

personally, i tend to lean traditionally liberal on these issues. one would expect a liberal to react to legitimate short-term threats with a system of judicial review and a sunrise clause set forward. now, whether these specific threats are enough to justify legislative action is not something i can really comment on; despite my tendency to reject statist control, i have to recognize that there's not really a decentralized alternative at this point, and that even if we have our own foreign policy to blame for aggression against us then that doesn't in any way justify the death of civilians at a mall. it's less extreme than spanish anarchists supporting the republicans, but it's the same basic idea - if there's a legitimate threat of people blowing things up, there's no alternative but to work together. again: i'm not sure that's clear. but, if we allow it is true, then what's really important is that there's an endpoint - that these are temporary powers, subject to review and termination, rather than a carte blanche for a police state.

one would expect the conservatives to reject this argument, under the argument that threats are perpetual. in some sense, that's no doubt true, but this is where the subtlety of liberalism asserts itself - it necessitates the existence of a clear and present danger, not some abstraction that can't be pinned down.

on one hand, trudeau has said what he's supposed to say. on the other hand, he voted for it anyways. this has been the great problem with the liberals for many years. they say the right things, but their voting record is atrocious.

mulcair is doing something important here - he's presenting himself as the heir to the liberal tradition. and, in truth, the man is a liberal - in an actual, ideological sense, rather than having been born into something he's maybe a little unclear on. canadian liberalism is a purer breed of liberalism than exists anywhere else in the world. and, whether most of us are able to really formulate it when challenged or not, it's pretty culturally rooted - enough that we get it, intuitively. it's what we were raised into and what we want, whether we really realize it or not.

a lot of people are pointing this particular issue out as a vote changer. it might be. but if it is, it's people pining for a return to liberalism that the younger trudeau might not have the self-awareness to provide.