Activist group heads to court to stop federal election

Bryan · October 2, 2008

Speaking about plagiarism - I wonder how it is this collection of left wing cranks hasn't been sued for stealing the name of the much more respectable international organization of the same name.

I hate defending such organizations, but as I understand it, the Canadian one is the real Democracy Watch. As far as I know Democracy Watch International not only came around later, but isn't really a real organization, just a website.

I'm more interested in seeing where their funding comes from.

jbg · October 2, 2008

And who was that who visited Governor General to get around his own law?

Harper was inspecting the new furniture at the GG's residence to get some decoration ideas for 24 Sussex. A writ fell out of Michelle Jean's hands by accident and "dropped".

myata · October 2, 2008

How do you break the spirit of the law but the not the law itself. Basiclly all we did was move to a four year term.

You mean, people who genuinly and honestly respect the spirit of the law, will "move to a four year term"?

That wouldn't apply to this current government, would it? It hasn't moved anywhere, no matter what they said, or what law they got written.

Just more of that self-serving hypocritical "law is for everybody else but us" stuff that's become a hallmark of this bunch in the government.

As Elizabeth May put it in the French debate yesterday (tranlation is approximate and mine) "Mr Harper you want our youth to obey the law, but what example are you showing them with your own actions? On Kyoto, fixed election dates ... "

Good question. In the minds of these people, the law is always for somebody else.

Alta4ever · October 2, 2008

You mean, people who genuinly and honestly respect the spirit of the law, will "move to a four year term"?
That wouldn't apply to this current government, would it? It hasn't moved anywhere, no matter what they said, or what law they got written.

Just more of that self-serving hypocritical "law is for everybody else but us" stuff that's become a hallmark of this bunch in the government.

As Elizabeth May put it in the French debate yesterday (tranlation is approximate and mine) "Mr Harper you want our youth to obey the law, but what example are you showing them with your own actions? On Kyoto, fixed election dates ... "

Good question. In the minds of these people, the law is always for somebody else.

The law was not broken I posted it here for you benefit, we went froma maximum five year term to a maximum four year term.

Quit whining and deal with the fact that there is an election. No Law has been broken

myata · October 2, 2008

Quit whining and deal with the fact that there is an election. No Law has been broken

The spirit of the law has been broken and there should be no doubt about that in anybody with a speck of independent thinking. Now, you and Harper may profess all you like about how everybody else needs to have fixed election dates while you should be able to sneak out of it.

We all know what the result would be though. Probably applies to the rest of his programme. "The result is not important, laying their hands on the power is".

TCCK · October 2, 2008

HOLY CRAP people how many times does this have to be said,

THE LAW WAS NOT BROKEN!! The current minority government was not working!!! The only reason the NDP, BQ and Liberals all helped to pass the one "Fixed Term Law" was because it as in thier best interests. They did not read the fine print (short sighted thinking on thier part), they thought they could stall government, frustrate the ruling party,stop anything from happening for 4 years and thus make it easier for someone else to get into power.

WELL IT BACKFIRED, there as a clause that allowed early exit if the opposition all acted like little 4 year olds and did exactly what they did.

If you want to continue whining about the law take it to the NDP or Liberal forums. They are like a whine & cheese festival right now about that same issue.

I hope the courts punishes that group and makes them pay all the court costs for even trying to bring it forward. (Then makes them serve community time; ON THE ELECTION TABLES, LOL!!!)

Edited October 2, 2008 by TCCK

Bryan · October 2, 2008

psst...

don't yell.

Alta4ever · October 2, 2008

The spirit of the law has been broken and there should be no doubt about that in anybody with a speck of independent thinking. Now, you and Harper may profess all you like about how everybody else needs to have fixed election dates while you should be able to sneak out of it.
We all know what the result would be though. Probably applies to the rest of his programme. "The result is not important, laying their hands on the power is".

We don't need fixed election dates, anyone with a speck of indepedant thinking can figure out the that the left is whining, maybe people should make the effort to educate themselves about the laws being passed in Parliment instead of only looking at the leaders talking points in the MSM. The spirit you are talking about isn't declared anywhere in the bill you are making that up. Stop whining because all the other parties have been outmaneuvered by PM Harper and the conservatives.

This all reminds me of kindergarden child screaming it's not fair, it's not fair, you can't do that, it's not fair!

TCCK · October 2, 2008

psst...
don't yell.

They sure aren't hearing it so I thought maybe yelling might get it through their incredibly THICK skulls!

PS: If you have a hang over, this is not the forum to be in when you are in that shape. LOL

myata · October 2, 2008

don't yell.

Well, if that's the only way to carry his message across, I guess it's allright. Right, Harper? Every law can be broken, if we could find a plausible excuse.

Edited October 2, 2008 by myata

Bryan · October 2, 2008

Well, if that's the only way to carry his message across, I guess it's allright. Right, Harper? Every law can be broken, if we could find a plausible excuse.

No, he was right, he just didn't have to scream it. Message good, delivery bad.

myata · October 2, 2008

No, he was right, he just didn't have to scream it. Message good, delivery bad.

Indeed, if the message was that every law could be broken for a good (or at least, good enough, ... to me) excuse.

And now's the time to go and preach the importance of law obedience.

Bryan · October 2, 2008

Indeed, if the message was that every law could be broken for a good (or at least, good enough, ... to me) excuse.

The law was not broken. Read it.

guyser · October 2, 2008

HOLY CRAP people how many times does this have to be said,

None, but that wont stop you.

THE LAW WAS NOT BROKEN!!

True.

The current minority government was not working!!!

False

marksman · October 2, 2008

There was already a thread on all of this but to recap

The law was not broken.

Harper's promise of fixed election dates was broken.

The law is totally useless. It does nothing to prevent what Harper was complaining about in opposition because the PM can still call an election whenever the PM wants.

There was no need for this law because we already had a maximum 5 year term in the Constitution. It's still there.

Parliament was working just fine. Harper was getting his laws passed. Delays in committees were coming as much from the Conservatives as from anyone else and this wasn't a problem until the polls said the Conservatives might do well in a fall election.

The only way you can say Parliament wasn't working is by remembering that the election was called while Parliament was not in session. If that's the reason you want then we'd have elections every 3 or 4 months.

It was the same opportunistic election call that Harper used to complain about when he was on the other side of it. I don't have a problem with election calls like this. I do have a problem with such hypocrisy coming from someone who keeps trying to sell himself as the honest and accountable guy. He's no more honest or accountable than the rest of them.

myata · October 2, 2008

OK, for the obtuse (deliberately and otherwise):

You pass a law stating that country will have fixed date elections, unless you want otherwise.

Question 1: what would be the point of such "voluntary" law?

I mean, do you want fixed dates for elections? Or you only want them when you want them? And how would that be different from what was there before?

Question 2: who are you trying to fool with it?

That episode alone is sooooooooo telling of Harper's strategy of little Friday night deceptions, ploys and tricks. Betcha will be the same with carbon emissions, crime and whatever else our mild family guy Conservative turn his eye to. On the paper, we have it. In reality - here, look, a booga, booo.

And all to achieve what, exactly? Economic prosperity (look around)? Better quality of life for Canadians? Progress with the environment? Respected international position?

No, wrong. Getting to the power lever, big time!

independent · October 2, 2008

They sure aren't hearing it so I thought maybe yelling might get it through their incredibly THICK skulls!
PS: If you have a hang over, this is not the forum to be in when you are in that shape. LOL

You are too busy yelling to listen. The Liberals had no intention of voting against the Conservatives. There is not enough money in their war chest to withstand elections every couple of years. They were quite content too wait out the four years.

Bryan · October 2, 2008

OK, for the obtuse (deliberately and otherwise):
You pass a law stating that country will have fixed date elections, unless you want otherwise.

Question 1: what would be the point of such "voluntary" law?

Maximum term. Before, PMs could hold off an election for up to an extra year if polls were not in his favor at "normal" election time.

And all to achieve what, exactly? Economic prosperity (look around)? Better quality of life for Canadians? Progress with the environment? Respected international position?

A resounding yes to all of the above.

myata · October 2, 2008

Maximum term. Before, PMs could hold off an election for up to an extra year if polls were not in his favor at "normal" election time.

Right, right. And calling it "fixed election date". And boasting of it. Thats our clean, honest and completely transparent "family people".

One more time, who did they want to fool with it?

A resounding yes to all of the above.

While economy sheds quality manufacturing jobs, nothing zero nada done for the environment (our big priority agenda), big scary booga the only action on crime (another big priority - but notice how shy Harper suddenly looked when asked about prohibiting semi automatic assault guns), and as to the international position, nobody even needs to bother checking anymore - it'll be the same as that of Bush's with couple of day independence delay. Resounding yes to all because we'll see only what we want to see, no matter what.

cybercoma · October 2, 2008

A lot of people are saying the minority government wasn't working, and I can't say that I disagree on that, but does this mean that any minority government that faces difficulty in parliament can simply keep calling elections until it gets a majority instead of trying to work things out with the other parties?

What if the Liberals form a coalition with the NDP after the election and together they hold more seats than the Conservatives? Does that mean the Social-Grits will be the ones that get to form government? Dion has already said it will never happen, but I'm wondering if that's even a legal possibility.

independent · October 2, 2008

A lot of people are saying the minority government wasn't working, and I can't say that I disagree on that, but does this mean that any minority government that faces difficulty in parliament can simply keep calling elections until it gets a majority instead of trying to work things out with the other parties?
What if the Liberals form a coalition with the NDP after the election and together they hold more seats than the Conservatives? Does that mean the Social-Grits will be the ones that get to form government? Dion has already said it will never happen, but I'm wondering if that's even a legal possibility.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coali...ernments-canada

Coalition governments are rare in Canada but are a legal possible.

myata · October 2, 2008

Dion has already said it will never happen, but I'm wondering if that's even a legal possibility.

If he said that, it would be yet another dumb thing that he has said. He probably does not understand then that people who vote for Liberals, NDP, Greens want to see positive changes in this country. Whether it happens through "exclusive" management of one party, or coalition work, is less important than the result, i.e positive change itself.

jbg · October 2, 2008

You mean, people who genuinly and honestly respect the spirit of the law, will "move to a four year term"?
That wouldn't apply to this current government, would it? It hasn't moved anywhere, no matter what they said, or what law they got written.

Just more of that self-serving hypocritical "law is for everybody else but us" stuff that's become a hallmark of this bunch in the government.

What about the fact that in a minority government the Opposition, with the help of other parties, is free to pull the trigger whenever they want. The law was not meant to be a suicide pact; it was for the purpose of preventing majority governments from pulling the trigger, oh, say, every three years six months. Didn't Chretien do something like that?

independent · October 2, 2008

If he said that, it would be yet another dumb thing that he has said. He probably does not understand then that people who vote for Liberals, NDP, Greens want to see positive changes in this country. Whether it happens through "exclusive" management of one party, or coalition work, is less important than the result, i.e positive change itself.

http://article.wn.com/view/2008/09/23/Dion..._out_coalition/

Dion said he can not work with Layton because Layton wants to raise corporate taxes which he feels would ruin the economy. So I would suggest that a coalition could still happen if Layton agreed to certain preconditions.

myata · October 2, 2008

What about the fact that in a minority government the Opposition, with the help of other parties, is free to pull the trigger whenever they want. The law was not meant to be a suicide pact; it was for the purpose of preventing majority governments from pulling the trigger, oh, say, every three years six months. Didn't Chretien do something like that?

I don't know where these folks learned their English, but to me "fixed election date" means just that: the date that is fixed to a certain day, e.g. October 10, 2009. This is what "fixed election date" means in Ontario. And hopefully, everywhere where people use language to say what they mean, rather than deceive.

Indeed Chretien may have used the trick but these guys pretended that they made things better since. On paper. Not in reality of their act.

To independent: I hope so.