Liberal defence of liberties can go anywhere except across the floor.

You may find it disgraceful that some civil liberties must be forgone to protect innocent Canadians, but how would you consider their suspension in the interest of saving seats in the House?

The National Post is reporting this morning that the two anti-terrorism measures put forward by Stephen Harper's government have been defeated in the Commons (159-124), an event seen by many to be the first major success for Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

The two measures that were proposed involved preventative arrests (basically what it sounds like...arrests/detention of terrorism suspects based on substantial evidence) and investigative hearings (ability of the judge to order someone to court to testify against terrorism activities).

I'm all for the protection of civil liberties, within reason of course. Good people must relinquish one or two of the benefits of a functioning democratic society once in a while to ensure the longevity and protection of that society.

What irks me is the stance of Dion and the Liberal party as some sort of defender of the faith against the usurping Conservative government (and yes, they do believe the last year and a half has been a usurpation).

And I'm ESPECIALLY irked when they back up their statements with the threat to SUE Conservative leaders for having the audacity to suggest that Liberals may have bowed to pressure from outside sources. Apparently freedom of thought and expression is easily denied if one dare accuse a Liberal of being less than morally stable.

Yet accusing a politician of being a Bush lackey is not only acceptable, it's fodder for an election-time ad campaign? Get real.

The detention of terrorism suspects to protect the country comes second to the political ability to shut up one's detractors.

Click here to see the whole story, and decide for yourself.