Federal Court to hear election challenge

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...23?hub=Politics

The Federal Court of Canada is to hear arguments against the election call last fall by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Democracy Watch, a citizens' group that monitors ethics in government, is scheduled to argue before the court on Sept. 8 that Harper violated his own legislation by calling the election before he'd served four years in office.

A Federal Court prothonotary ruled Oct. 3 -- in the midst of the campaign -- that there was not enough time for a judge to hear the case before the election 11 days later.

I'm surprised that the court will hear this. It has been my contention that Harper could call an election whenever he wanted. I still believe that (despite being told many here that it would never happen).

[Borg]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...23?hub=Politics

I'm surprised that the court will hear this. It has been my contention that Harper could call an election whenever he wanted. I still believe that (despite being told many here that it would never happen).

How much federal funding does democracy watch receive?

Seems a bit like closing the door after the horse gets out

Surely there are more important things to spend money on

And if they win - then what? Hold an election?

Gonna' happen anyways

Sounds like a bunch of crack pots with too much time and money on their hands - most likely they all come from well to do families and have never got a blister or a callous

Borg

[jdobbin]

How much federal funding does democracy watch receive?

None. Never has. Never will.

Seems a bit like closing the door after the horse gets out

It doesn't mean there won't be repercussions. What they are I can't say. But if if he is found to have violated the law, there will be something.

Surely there are more important things to spend money on

The law is the law. Do you believe fixed elections are fixed elections? Or do you think Harper should be able to call a snap election in the next six months?

And if they win - then what? Hold an election?

If it is found to be an illegal practice, Elections Canada can fine and not allow the candidate to run for five years. Happened to a reform candidate in 1995.

Gonna' happen anyways

The fine on a party can be pretty hefty.

Sounds like a bunch of crack pots with too much time and money on their hands - most likely they all come from well to do families and have never got a blister or a callous

So you think if someone is found guilty of violating any election law that it should be allowed to stand since the horse left the barn?

Edited June 23, 2009 by jdobbin

[Borg]

Hey, I am just one of your apathetic canuckleheads who really does not care one way or the other - I would bet there are a lot of others out here as well.

I have been successfully socially re-engineered to not care about what the feds do unless it affects me directly

Still seems like a complete waste of time and resources - but then again I am sure there will be some lib judge who is happy to make a case of guilty as charged

In the end there will be an election and someone will run - and someone will win - and it will have minimal effect on me as a whole

Borg

Edited June 23, 2009 by Borg

[jdobbin]

Still seems like a complete waste of time and resources - but then again I am sure there will be some lib judge who is happy to make a case of guilty as charged

In the end there will be an election and someone will run - and someone will win - and it will have minimal effect on me as a whole

As I said, I think Harper was perfectly within the law to call an election. He could call a snap one now and it would not violate the legislation because the legislation in vague.

Of course, I was told that it would be impossible for Harper to do that legally and morally last time. Many people on this forum said they would not vote for Harper if her called an election before the term limit. I guess they found a moral reason to do so.

I have no idea if Democracy Watch has a legal case. That is up to a judge. I would hope that the judge would follow the letter of the law. If not, there is the Supreme Court.

If the Tories don't like their decision, they can only blame themselves for writing the legislation. One assumes they meant it when they wrote it.

[Topaz]

Here's the info. on Democracy Watch and I'm all for any grou0p that keeps tabs on what he government does or doesn't do! http://www.dwatch.ca/aboutdw.html

[capricorn]

There's a fine group right here on MLW that's doing a good job in that department.

[CAMP]

Well this should be interesting. The fellow who runs this democracy watch group was on a talk radio show this morning at 570 am the Gary Doyle show. I think you may be able to re listen to the segment if you go to the radio show page. Anyways sounds like Harper broke his own law he made to have fixed election dates and then broke his own law, because he thought it would give him a majority gov't. Well I'm waiting for the outcome of this one. Finally a little bit of accountability is shining through for Canada. I like this democracy watch guy! We need more of them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well this should be interesting. The fellow who runs this democracy watch group was on a talk radio show this morning at 570 am the Gary Doyle show. I think you may be able to re listen to the segment if you go to the radio show page. Anyways sounds like Harper broke his own law he made to have fixed election dates and then broke his own law, because he thought it would give him a majority gov't. Well I'm waiting for the outcome of this one. Finally a little bit of accountability is shining through for Canada. I like this democracy watch guy! We need more of them.

What we need is to eliminate apathy and have citizens participate in the political process.