ReeferMadness

Well, probably not all of them. But certainly, when people think they can judge someone on the basis of a single action or a couple of sound bites I'd say that's good evidence of those characteristics.

I'm impressed by anyone who is willing to make a non-violent statement and accept the consequences so I'd say go for it. However, it isn't quite the same. Harper has done more than any PM in living memory (probably than any PM ever) to cheapen and undermine our democratic institutions. So there is a certain logic and symmetry to using those same institutions to protest against Harper. It would be less apropos, in my view, if her sign said "No F35's" or "Money for poverty, not prisons". Also it's incredibly ironic and hypocritical for people to accuse her of contempt of Parliament while the guy who was actually found to be in contempt of Parliament has the title of Prime Minister.

Who do you think you are to judge this woman? Maybe she understands that an election every few years doesn't mean that much if the PM is then free to do as he pleases. Even if what he pleases is against the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Maybe she gets that Harper and his cronies received the votes of only about 25% of eligible voters. Maybe she understands that, in 2008 when the Conservatives called the proposed coalition, a coup d'etat' they were either lying through their teeth or they were deeply ignorant of our system of governance. Either should have been enough to discredit them but apparently the level of political education in this country sucks. Maybe she saw that when Harper politicized the office of the Governor General by asking her to prorogue parliament to help him hide from Parliament, he was weakening our political institutions and cheapening our already cheap democracy. Maybe she can understand that Harper's concentration of power in the hands of unelected PMO staff, usurping the legitimate power of elected MP's, is fundamentally undemocratic. The real question is why can't you get it? Perhaps if you had more intelligence, more wisdom and an open mind, you could learn from this woman.

No, it's all true. I'm sure it's tough to read the news when your face is firmly planted up Harper's ass. But it's all out there.

sez you and all of the others around here who don't really give a shit about what Harper and his cronies are doing to democracy. Sure he's a bastard - but he's your bastard, right?

Fuck that noise. Your right to free speech isn't subject to your employer's permission. That's what makes it a right. Her employer doesn't have to keep her employed but can't limit her freedom of expression. She exercised her right and she paid the price. I don't hear her whining about losing her job or the $1200 that (according to Pegasus) she would have received upon successful completion. She made a substantial material sacrifice to express a deep conviction. Anyone here who's done the same might be qualified to judge. The rest of you are armchair critics. As far as doing it on the lawn, as you all well know, she probably would have been ignored. What made this newsworthy was that she was willing to do it in a way that would make it controversial and cost her something. I don't get why people are so hung up over this "duties" thing. If she was a doctor and someone died because she didn't perform her duties, I could understand people being upset. But all she did was interrupt some pomp and ceremony. And I'll bet nobody here was even watching it. I guess that depends on what she meant by an "arab spring". Was she calling for violence? I doubt it. Maybe she wanted something more closely resembling real democracy. Maybe she just wants the 40 odd% of people who don't even bother exercising the most minimal element of democracy to get off their butts and go to the polls. Maybe she wants a voting system where the intent of the voters is accurately reflected in the actual outcome. Harper's knuckle-draggers received the votes of 40% of the 60% of the people who actually voted. That means he actually has the support of 25% of eligible voters but he has 100% of the power. Maybe she wants people to actually get involved and express their opinions of where our society is headed. We had an election but that doesn't mean we have a democracy that functions well. Wouldn't it be nice if people took just half the time they devote to watching hockey and spent it becoming knowledgeable on what's going on in the world. Maybe then we could have a functioning democracy.

I see the hypocrisy runs as thick as ever around here. The Prime Minister tars our international reputation, poisons the political environment, politicizes the office of the Governor General, hides from Parliament, withholds information from Parliament, spends years running US-style attack ads, breaks electoral laws, breaks a fixed election date law that he enacted, uses public money for partisan purposes, runs a corrupt, scandal-ridden government after promising to clean up government and is actually found in contempt of Parliament. Apparently nobody fucking cares because the guy is still there. But a young woman dares to use a brief "time in the sun" moment provided by a glorified gopher job to make a personal statement and this is contempt of Parliament?? Geez, what pettiness. What hypocrisy.

Brigette is a hero. And all of the dull cheap shots from all of the plebian minds around here don't change that. Anyone else catch the irony of Noel Kinsella accusing her of "contempt of Parliament"? Could it be he doesn't remember who was actually found in contempt of Parliament? And then he was re-elected. What fools we Canadians be.

What a tool. Open up the separation issue and make a statement that most Canadians outside of Quebec will find objectionable. Way to go, Jack.

This never comes up in Federal elections because most people just don't care very much about it. Compared to health care or jobs or a hundred other issues, it just isn't very important. And as much as there are a few on one end who are passionate about getting rid of the monarchy, there are also some who are passionate about keeping it.

Harper is such a hypocrite. He used to criticize the Liberals for their dishonest politicking. Now he's become just like them.

Pardon me. Is this thread exclusively for war-toy lovin military-sychophants? Is there a different thread for people who can think critically?

Is Harper gonna commit us to these white elephants just as the Americans are getting cold feet? My link

In my view, the debate around Brosseau has missed the mark. It's largely centered around her and whether she's been treated fairly. The real issue about the Brosseau affair is what it says about our electoral system. Amidst all of the stories of candidates from other ridings, candidates who ducked debates, and candidates who ducked the media, Brosseau stands out as the candidate who couldn't communicate with her prospective constituents and the candidate who admitted she had never been to her riding. Other candidates could claim that they honestly intended to campaign and couldn't for some reason or that they were prominent enough that the voters knew them anyway. Not Brosseau. The fact that a total unknown, a mystery figure, a phantom was elected reflects poorly on the system, the party, the candidate, the media and the voters. The NDP has to accept the lion's share of the blame. They had to have known that Brosseau wasn't known to the voters and had no reasonable chance of making herself known the voters. The NDP got close to 6000 votes in this riding in 2008. Nobody has satisfactorily explained why they couldn't come up with a local, French-speaking candidate who could at least try to engage the voters. I think there are aspects to this story that the NDP has yet to explain. And the media hasn't pressed the issue. I've read a lot of news stories and opinion pieces on this subject. And none of them have properly explored why the NDP chose this candidate or what this says about our electoral system. There has been a lot of sympathy expressed about the way the candidate has been treated. I would just say that the fact that she is now scrambling to learn French indicates that she clearly hasn't put a lot of thought into this. She never intended to be an MP and I have to wonder if she really wanted the job at all. I wouldn't be too impressed if she were my MP. I don't know what the voters were thinking. I'd feel pretty foolish if I woke up Tuesday morning to discover I'd voted for someone who couldn't even talk to me. Brosseau did nothing to campaign and wasn't known the the riding; the voters had no way of knowing who they voted for. So, I have to assume they voted for the party and hoped for the best when it came to their MP. Which leaves me with the system. Every time there is a discussion about PR, there is a great hue and cry about the fear of losing local representation. There is discussion about how important it is for voters to be able to see and know their representative. This case puts the lie to that discussion. It highlights how little voters know about who they're voting for. We have the worst of both worlds - a disproportional system where the local candidate doesn't matter. And of course the media completely missed that, too.

I think that's a real stretch. Brosseau is essentially an NDP appointee. In theory, the people voted for her. In practice nobody really voted for her because nobody in that riding knew who she was. She was appointed as a candidate because she knew someone at NDP central. Despite having weak in oral French she was appointed in a riding that is close to 100% Francophone. She never visited the riding and didn't campaign in any way. In fact, it didn't matter if she was in Vegas or not - she wasn't going to do anything anyway. We already have appointed senators. We don't need appointed MPs.

I think it's too early to say how she'll do. But whether she does well or not, I find it embarrassing that national political parties would choose candidates that seem to have no inclination to even try to mount a serious campaign. It doesn't speak well for our political system.

Hey, Pegasus Why don't you try posting on rabble (www.rabble.ca) and asking the same question? That site is chock full of NDPers and I'm sure someone could address your concern or at least tell you where to take it. Be warned, though. There are some true believers who won't countenance anything that sounds like criticism of the NDP. Good luck!

Well, it seems like in Quebec, they didn't have the same degree of rigor that you had.

That sounds like a decent process. So, how was Ruth Ellen Brosseau chosen? If she has any obvious qualifications for being an MP, they haven't been reported in the media. She lived hundreds of kilometers from her riding and through the election didn't even bother to visit it. Her French is reportedly very weak. I know it sounds cynical but it seems like the NDP just wanted a photogenic individual with a French surname.

The cops break the law and people yawn. Pathetic. Are we a third world country now?

You think you have an open mind? Fine - show us. I believe that you believe they are the problem. But were the separatists clean or just too smart to get caught?

Well, again, most of the available information is from the US. But I'm betting it's not much better up here. The Truth About Drug Companies So tell us, how does it work?

Oh, please. It's not the federal politicians who provoke the choices. It's the separatist politicians who keep feeding you guys the "Quebec has been humiliated" line. And you keep lapping it up. Oh, woe is you.

Yes. These companies get free or cheap facilities and labour to do their research. And the result is mostly "me-too" drugs. Great.