Activist group heads to court to stop federal election

[Alta4ever]

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.

Its called politics, funny its fine when your side does it, but not when its the tories. It is what it is deal with it.

[marksman]

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.

That wasn't the stated goal of the law. Harper said it was there so PMs couldn't call snap elections. Then he called a snap election. It's still legal because the law doesn't do what Harper said it does. He never complained about people not having an election for an extra year. There's no reason to think a 4 year term is better than a 5 year term especially when that 4 year term can be ignored at any time by a majority government.

[myata]

Its called politics, funny its fine when your side does it, but not when its the tories.

It's called Harper's slimy deceptive politicking the prinicipal aim of which is to stick on to the power at all cost and by all means. This is by just one instance, of many. Everybody who cares by now should know very well who we're dealing with here.

[g_bambino]

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

You, apparently. And they succeeded. That, I suppose, is what happens when one takes everything without question or further analysis.

[myata]

No, only demonstrated one more time their disregard and contempt for the spirit of law. As with Kyoto; gun registry; death penalty; and so on. Hardly a secret to anybody.

Yet every time they do it, it should be brought out into the open, over and again, persistently and paistakingly. If we allow laws routinely made to be broken, or circumverted, I won't envy us, or our children.

This is the law introduced by Harper's party. And they were the first to break it, in spirit, if not letter (but let the court decide that). What a shameful performance!

Edited October 3, 2008 by myata

[g_bambino]

No, only demonstrated one more time their disregard and contempt for the spirit of law. As with Kyoto; gun registry; death penalty; and so on. Hardly a secret to anybody.

You've reduced yourself to relying on vagueries; "spirit of the law" is an easy thing to say, but it has little concrete meaning. You've read the amendment to the Elections Act, I'm sure. So, I'm also sure you know that there was really nothing in there about fixed election dates. Whatever was said in the media, or was said by any politician, that doesn't mean the law was broken, even spiritually. It just means people were misleading, or mistaken. There is, however, no law against lying.

[myata]

It just means people were misleading, or mistaken. There is, however, no law against lying.

I'm glad that you said it and agree with you completely. Misleading (to say the the least) is what Harper's bunch routenily reduces themselves to.

[Oleg Bach]

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere. I did a quick search but didn't see it.

Activist group heads to court to stop federal election

Last Updated: Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The Canadian Press

A political advocacy group is asking the courts to call off the Oct. 14 vote three weeks into the campaign, with tens of millions of dollars already spent on everything from ads and political buttons to ballots and campaign travel.

Democracy Watch will be in Federal Court on Thursday to argue that Prime Minister Stephen Harper broke his own law on fixed election dates when he called the vote.

The group wants the court to cancel the election, even though its own lawyer acknowledged the action is a long shot.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...tion-court.html

Remember, our judges are not elected they are appointed. Those that are appointed do what they are instructed by the ones that appointed them..which is usually big buisness lawyers - and they are not about to go against their boy Harper.

[g_bambino]

I'm glad that you said it and agree with you completely. Misleading (to say the the least) is what Harper's bunch routenily reduces themselves to.

No more or less than other politicians. However, you claimed that Harper had acted illegally in advising the Governor General to call an election. That claim simply was not true.

[myata]

No more or less than other politicians.

Can't really paint everybody with the same brush without some kind of evidence. What a long way to "reduce" from claims of crystally transparent ethical superiority!

However, you claimed that Harper had acted illegally in advising the Governor General to call an election. That claim simply was not true.

Sorry if you misread/misunderstood/etc what was said. It was, once again "up to the courts to decide whether the letter of the law has been broken". There's little doubt that the spirit had been.

[Oleg Bach]

If the spirit of the law is tampled upon that is a sign that legalist are in charge. Legalist will say "It is immoral but it is legal" - Call me naive but I always assumed if it was wrong it was illegal - not so in Canada.

[g_bambino]

Can't really paint everybody with the same brush without some kind of evidence. What a long way to "reduce" from claims of crystally transparent ethical superiority!

Every government claims crystal transperancy and ethical superiority, and every government is accused by the Loyal Opposition of being opaque and unethical. That's politics.

Sorry if you misread/misunderstood/etc what was said. It was, once again "up to the courts to decide whether the letter of the law has been broken". There's little doubt that the spirit had been.

Yes, you did say that. But you also said "The law introduced by Harper's conservatives calls for the fixed election dates," casting the implication that the law had been broken when an election was called before said date. In the absence of an actual breach of the law, you then turned to the "spirit of the law" being broken. But, that doesn't really mean anything in particular, so there is doubt about it, and a court can't rule on it.

What you want is to have the Prime Minister et all charged for being slightly misleading. Not telling the entire truth would first have to be a crime, though. As it stands, it is not, and every Canadian was free and able to educate themselves on our parliamentary system and on the proposed amendment to the Elections Act; thereby understanding that the Governor General can never be limited in his or her ability to prorogue parliament and call an election. It's not Harper's fault that everyone wasn't handed the information on a silver platter.

[OddSox]

I haven't read this whole thread yet but chiming in anyway.

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?

Yes, it's always been that way.

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.

Yes - if the Governor-General agrees.