The bravest person in Canada

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Bottom line is you can't say anything meaningful by combining the votes of the opposition. Each party has their own policies and the CPC was the party that got the most seats. There is nothing undemocratic about it.

One of the misunderstandings and wishful thinking of those whose party did not win the election.

60% of people for two parties does not mean 60% of people for one party.

It's likely that a combined progressive socialist party would get over 50% of the vote but, retaining all 60% support would be unlikely.

Edited June 6, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Dave_ON]

Not necessarily. It just means that there needs to be a constant awareness - a healthy skepticism of the government. She stated herself that the public needs to be creative in their protests. That doesn't mean they have to be violent.

But this type of stunt, utterly lacking in decorum or even a modicum of respect for our system, will do nothing more than turn off the vast majority of Canadians. In essence her protest will have the opposite effect, as most will ignore and disregard any message she could have communicated. There are proper channels to lodge one's grievances, heckling the throne speech and interfering with our system of government isn't one of them.

[Dave_ON]

It's all related. Harper's track-record and platform on the items she discussed in her press release are the antithesis of the other parties' positions. So, a party that received 40% of the vote will set an agenda that runs against what 60% of the voters wanted during the election.

This isn't an entirely accurate statement. As pointed out, one can support various policies of other parties even if one did not vote for them. I'm a prime example of this, I support many of the CPC's spending initiatives, Military as a prime example. However, I don't support their reckless tax cuts while beefing up spending. I don't object to the CPC wholesale, nor did I approve of the LPC's policies wholesale. All we can do is support the party we feel most closely aligns with our beliefs. Voting for another party doesn't mean you are utterly against all the others in their entirety. IOW a vote for another party is not a vote against the others and all their ideas.

It's this type of polar thinking that is one of the problems with our current political climate. One can be a mix of many ideologies from the various parties. This is why I hate it when people toss about terms like "right wing" or "leftist" you cannot categorize people so neatly, and it is erroneous to attempt to do so. These type of labels are intended to be wholesale dismissals of another persons view point and does little for intelligent discourse and debate.

[PIK]

All she did was show the country 21 year olds are idiots and have no clue to what is going on here or in the world ,she made a fool out of herself about the arab spring, she actually insulted the people that have died in the uprisings while she sits here in canada, the safest and richest country in the world.Maybe she should be taken for a trip to the ME to see what she is missing out on, I would think she would have a change of heart.

[Keepitsimple]

This isn't an entirely accurate statement. As pointed out, one can support various policies of other parties even if one did not vote for them. I'm a prime example of this, I support many of the CPC's spending initiatives, Military as a prime example. However, I don't support their reckless tax cuts while beefing up spending. I don't object to the CPC wholesale, nor did I approve of the LPC's policies wholesale. All we can do is support the party we feel most closely aligns with our beliefs. Voting for another party doesn't mean you are utterly against all the others in their entirety. IOW a vote for another party is not a vote against the others and all their ideas.

It's this type of polar thinking that is one of the problems with our current political climate. One can be a mix of many ideologies from the various parties. This is why I hate it when people toss about terms like "right wing" or "leftist" you cannot categorize people so neatly, and it is erroneous to attempt to do so. These type of labels are intended to be wholesale dismissals of another persons view point and does little for intelligent discourse and debate.

I don't think he'll get it. The other interesting thing about our democracy is Constituent Representation....and this story often overlooked as we look at only what goes on in Parliament and what we read in the papers. When an MP of any stripe wins a riding, they represent all of the constituents for that riding. The MP has no way of knowing how anyone voted and as such, they work hard for anyone and everyone who wants to express an opinion or help to navigate the Federal Services labyrinth or just needs help. That's all part of our democracy at work.

[Remiel]

The first point is uncontestable. The second is completely subjective. The latter, therefore, doesn't justify the former.

I disagree. It may be correct or incorrect, but it is not completely subjective.

[cybercoma]

And the relevance of that is what, exactly?

The point is, this former page and her supporters feel that they are as noble and justified in calling for thousands of Canadians to take to the streets to bring down an elected government as those who in the Middle East called for thousands to take to the streets to bring down unelected governments so that they might have the kind of election we just had. Even more twisted are the PR proponents who've piggybacked on Ms. DePape's protest and try to argue that she's right because the present government was elected illigitimately, as though our system of government is the same as Egypt's and our elections are as much a joke as those that put Mubarak repeatedly into office. The thinking is impossible to take seriously.

Look, you're not going to agree with it, so it doesn't matter what I say. The fact of the matter is that the system to elect Stephen Harper is broken. It has been broken for decades. You think it's fair that someone gets a majority government because they get "the most votes". Well, Chretien got a majority government and the opposition actually got more votes than him. Harper now has a majority government when only 25% of elected voters actually voted for him--the problem is twofold: voter turnout being so low and the Conservatives receiving less than 40% of the vote, but getting a majority. You say it's democratic because we have regular elections. I don't believe it's democratic because the results are not representative of the politics amongst Canadians. Stephen Harper has policies that are in direct contradiction to the policies of the every other opposing party. You don't believe it's fair to say 60% of people that voted wanted the opposite of Harper's policies, but their stances are nearly identical on the environment, military expansion and corporate taxes. So, 60% of people who voted want the exact opposite of Harper's policies, but he has an unimpeded position in the House. Harper has free reign to enact his policies, which most people that voted disagreed with. So, no. Our political system is not as broken as the middle east. That's not even the point, although you would like to dismiss Brigette DePape by making it her point. But, many people aren't willing to just accept that we're better than the Middle East and Africa. We should have the best political system. Giving a party that was in contempt of Parliament free reign to do whatever they choose is disastrous. Allowing Stephen Harper to pass policies with impunity, policies that most Canadians disagree with, having less than 40% of voters supporting those policies, while 60% support policies that are the exact opposite, is something that needs to be fought against by the people. The electoral system is broken and the only way those 60% are truly going to be heard is by taking to the streets like she said.

[cybercoma]

heckling the throne speech and interfering with our system of government isn't one of them.

She did neither.

She stood there silently with a sign. You're playing loose and fast with the definitions of heckling and interfering.

Edited June 6, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

they work hard for anyone and everyone who wants to express an opinion or help to navigate the Federal Services labyrinth or just needs help. That's all part of our democracy at work.

Bullshit.

[Remiel]

This was a cheap shot! I admire her gumption but deplore her poor sense of judgement. In any job in government that's supposed to be non-partisan she has shown herself to be forever untrustworthy.

Unfortunately, since untrustworthiness does not appear to mean a whole hell of a lot anymore in this country, I do not expect that would be a problem for her.

[g_bambino]

The fact of the matter is that the system to elect Stephen Harper is broken... The electoral system is broken and the only way those 60% are truly going to be heard is by taking to the streets like she said.

You're confusing your opinion with fact. And, even if there are problems with our electoral system, that does not, in itself, make our country undemocratic, thereby justifying the overturning of elections by loud crowds in public squares.

[Dave_ON]

L Giving a party that was in contempt of Parliament free reign to do whatever they choose is disastrous. Allowing Stephen Harper to pass policies with impunity, policies that most Canadians disagree with, having less than 40% of voters supporting those policies, while 60% support policies that are the exact opposite, is something that needs to be fought against by the people. The electoral system is broken and the only way those 60% are truly going to be heard is by taking to the streets like she said.

This is a disingenuous statement. It's not as black and white as 60/40. It may be true that only 40% voted for the CPC, but that doesn't mean that the 40% that did wholesale support Harper, nor is it to say that those who voted against the CPC, myself included, are in wholesale opposition to Harper. PR is not the answer and is a recipe for disaster imnho. It seems to be a good idea on the surface, but we would see a breakdown of effective government. PR means you are constantly compromising, and you have a number of little parties with one item agendas, holding the balance of power. Our current system forces parties to be bigger than themselves, CPC included. They've come a long way from the reform days, much to the chagrin of their initial base. This is the "big tent" philosophy that the LPC were so very good at.

Federal politics has a way of moderating parties, it's my hope that the NDP learn this lesson and follow suit sooner rather than later. Early indicators, seem to show being in opposition will be disastrous for the party as they'll become casualties of their own success. Like it or lump it, our system thrives on two strong federal parties and that's the equilibrium we've been lacking since the collapse of the old PC party. It's what allowed the LPC to become so arrogant and corrupt, and I fear if a strong opposition party does not soon rise up to really oppose and compete with the CPC they will share the same fate.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Dave_ON

[Dave_ON]

She did neither.

She stood there silently with a sign. You're playing loose and fast with the definitions of heckling and interfering.

Fine call it what you will, the fact remains it was not the time nor the place. It was disruptive at the very least, and showed flagrant disregard for parliamentary procedure. If you want to change the system you need to work within it not fly in the face of it. That turns people off, and will earn you the title of "whackado" which she so rightly deserves.

[DrGreenthumb]

Geez, A&W, you're absolutely right. When Tilter referred to this woman as a "dumb bitch", I immediately associated him with the bunch of half-witted, misogynistic, knuckle-dragging retrogrades who seem to be fond of this particular term.

But that's unfair, isn't it? Maybe Tilter is simply a half-wit misogynist whose knuckles don't actually drag. Or maybe an intelligent misogynistic knuckle-dragger. The possibilities are endless here.

Why don't you tell me what you think when you hear a young woman called a "dumb bitch"?

What a great post, keep em coming. I would love to see Canadians "Rise Up!" against the Conservative oppressors. I'm ashamed to have my country represented by these misogynistic, bible thumping half wits. Take to the streets Canada, take back our country. Disrupt the big business interests that control you. Blockade the Trans-Canada highway, shut down the cities. Stop Harper!

Refuse, Resist!-Sepultura

[jbg]

Bridgette DePape is only 21 and has a huge heart of gold.

Her protest was peacefull and silent and effective.

I wish this young woman all the best and I hope what she has started gains steam and momentum!

WWWTT

I can't speak for Canada but in the U.S. being a Senate or House page is quite an honor for a young man or woman. It is or should be an opportunity to gain practical experience and knowledge.

Pages are not elected. The public does not pay them to express their views or disrupt a public event. Her firing is justified.

But this type of stunt, utterly lacking in decorum or even a modicum of respect for our system, will do nothing more than turn off the vast majority of Canadians. In essence her protest will have the opposite effect, as most will ignore and disregard any message she could have communicated. There are proper channels to lodge one's grievances, heckling the throne speech and interfering with our system of government isn't one of them.

Exactly my point. Well said.

[Remiel]

But this type of stunt, utterly lacking in decorum or even a modicum of respect for our system, will do nothing more than turn off the vast majority of Canadians.

There are a significant portion of Canadians for whom being turned off for this will either mean they are hypocrites, ignorant, or both. The "vast majority" of those people voted Conservative in the last election.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're confusing your opinion with fact. And, even if there are problems with our electoral system, that does not, in itself, make our country undemocratic, thereby justifying the overturning of elections by loud crowds in public squares.

OMG...the wheels are coming off because a young woman held up a poorly made stop sign. Your country needs you now g_bambino, more than ever. Remind them of the Constitution, Queen, and precedence. Remind them that PM's are not elected by voters.

[Remiel]

All she did was show the country 21 year olds are idiots and have no clue to what is going on here or in the world ,she made a fool out of herself about the arab spring, she actually insulted the people that have died in the uprisings while she sits here in canada, the safest and richest country in the world.Maybe she should be taken for a trip to the ME to see what she is missing out on, I would think she would have a change of heart.

Your support for those who have died in the uprisings is touching, since, you know, you just said that young people are idiots who do not know what is going on in the world. Being, you know, that many of those killed in the uprisings are young people exactly DePape's age...

[Dave_ON]

There are a significant portion of Canadians for whom being turned off for this will either mean they are hypocrites, ignorant, or both. The "vast majority" of those people voted Conservative in the last election.

Or perhaps they are average Canadians, who believe in the rule of law, democracy and appropriate protest forums. Whether in your opinion Canadians are ignorant or hypocritical is immaterial, your message will be equally lost if you wax insulting. What's the point of a protest that most people ignore? What do you gain? You have to follow proper channels if you wish to protest or be labeled a "whackadoo" and eventually fall into obscurity, and be forgotten. All she has gained is a daily visit to the HRC office.

[g_bambino]

OMG...the wheels are coming off because a young woman held up a poorly made stop sign.

What?

[PIK]

Your support for those who have died in the uprisings is touching, since, you know, you just said that young people are idiots who do not know what is going on in the world. Being, you know, that many of those killed in the uprisings are young people exactly DePape's age...

Yes I do and they were frighting for just a little peice of what we canadians enjoy every minute of the day. She should be punished for what she did , in a way that will show her how lucky she is to be canadian, she needs to go over to the ME and learn what life is like outside of canada,and then speak to others on how easy we really have it, spoiled little bytch is all she is. Edited June 6, 2011 by PIK

[Remiel]

Yes I do and they were frighting for just a little peice of what we canadians enjoy every minute of the day. She should be punished for what she did , in a way that will show her how lucky she is to be canadian, she needs to go over to the ME and learn what life is like outside of canada,and then speak to others on how easy we really have it, spoiled little bytch is all she is.

This does not address at all how you have insulted those who have died.

And, by the way, if what we have in Canada is worth fighting to have, then by definition it is worth a struggle to keep.

[Remiel]

Or perhaps they are average Canadians, who believe in the rule of law, democracy and appropriate protest forums.

You have to know the law to believe in it. And if you believe in the law, you cannot support the Prime Minister having won office on the back of a lie about the law: that coalition governments and undemocratic and illegitimate, despite the fact that is exactly what the Constitution allows for. When the leader of the government lies about the law, what was an inappropriate way to protest can very easily become appropriate.

[mentalfloss]

But this type of stunt, utterly lacking in decorum or even a modicum of respect for our system, will do nothing more than turn off the vast majority of Canadians. In essence her protest will have the opposite effect, as most will ignore and disregard any message she could have communicated.

Well then you're wrong.

It's actually re-ignited a lot of political debate over the jets, foreign affairs, and the voting system.

The twitters and bookfaces are going nuts over this and CBC is just piling it on.

Edited June 6, 2011 by mentalfloss

[g_bambino]

When the leader of the government lies about the law, what was an inappropriate way to protest can very easily become appropriate.

Someone will have to notify my mother that, in the decades since she brought me up, two wrongs have suddenly come to make a right.

I would've felt happy about that as a child. As an adult, however, it now fails to resonate well.