Harper to prorogue parliament AGAIN?

DrGreenthumb · December 31, 2009

Is it against the law to incite a revolution?

Smallc · December 31, 2009

I think so. I'd check Part II of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Smallc

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Is it against the law to incite a revolution?

I think it depends on what you mean by "revolution". If you mean demanding changes in the way Parliament functions, then no. If you mean insighting an armed uprising, well that's sedition, and is against the law (see the Criminal Code sections 59-61).

Smallc · December 31, 2009

Yes, it seems you would be charged under Section 46 - Treason.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · December 31, 2009

If you mean insighting an armed uprising, well that's sedition, and is against the law (see the Criminal Code sections 59-61).

I think it's inly sedition while you're planning and communicating it. When it comes down to the actual act, that's Treason.

ToadBrother · December 31, 2009

Yes, it seems you would be charged Under Part 2, Section 2 - Treason.

That's a tricky one. Technically sedition and treason are different things, but they do seem, in the criminal code, to be married on this point. I suspect the reasoning is to assure that someone taking part in any sort of armed rebellion against Parliament or the Provincial legislatures. Louis Riel, for instance, was tried and convicted of treason.

An armed revolt against the government, it does seem, would fall under an act of treason. Incitement to revolt is sedition.

Smallc · December 31, 2009

Yes. I responded further above, and changed my legislation reference, just in case you missed it.

bloodyminded · December 31, 2009

Quite right. Weesee isn't quite old enough or worldly enough to be a Conservative, yet.

Give him 10 years or so and a chance to have kids, mortgages, taxes...

I can't speak for that fellow, but this theory seems to have failed in my case. I've been drifting leftwards for years, ever since I woke up. I've got a mortgage, adult children, the whole shebang.

g_bambino · December 31, 2009

But apparently it is. Parliament wants to see unredacted documents. Apparently they're not allowed to, and to drive the point home, they're being sent home until March.

I'm sorry, but you must be confusing "parliament will reconvene in March" with "parliament will reconvene never, ever, ever, again." If the documents are so important, MPs shouldn't forget about them in two months' time.

Argus · December 31, 2009

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I would still expect that Senators will do their jobs (for example, the legislation on product recalls that had some nasty little parts in it).

You're referring to consumer safety legislation which was passed unanimously by the elected parliament?

Argus · December 31, 2009

If you can find a single post where I express support for the Taliban, I'll eat one of those medieval bastards alive.

Are you going to suggest the Taliban and their allies are not pleased every time someone raises doubts about whether we should be there, and states we should get out as soon as possible and forget what's happening there?

One of the reasons they blow up soldiers is because they know that this damages support for the mission, and aids their "allies" in Canada who are trying to get Canada to leave - ie, the Liberals, BQ and NDP. Oh those parties might not consider themselves to be the allies of the Taliban, and no doubt hold the Taliban in contempt. Nevertheless, on the issue of Canadians in Afghanistan, they and the Taliban share similar goals.

ironstone · December 31, 2009

This morning I am listening to the CFRA morning show with Mark Sutcliffe.Some lady calls in and complains about Harper proroguing gov't for a second time.From the replies in this forum there are clearly many who don't don't like this one bit,claiming Harper is running and hiding.

On this radio show,Sutcliffe pointed out to this lady that the darling of the Canadian left,one Pierre Elliot Trudeau,prorogued parliament FOUR TIMES IN FOUR YEARS!

Any comment?Please tell why it was just peachy when Trudeau did it,but it's an affront to democracy when Harper does it?Do as I say,not as I do right? <_<

Argus · December 31, 2009

How could the GG agree to this again? Is she a Blue Meanie too?!

I don't recall Chretien using the `Prorogue' request as a Get-Out-Of-International-Jail-Free card!

One of the times he used it was to avoid having to face parliament after a damning report by the Auditor General on Adscam.

Argus · December 31, 2009

I'd wholeheartedly support that.

Uh huh, and if we geta Liberal government do the rest of us get to suggest he ought to be assasinated too? Or is that only for self-righteous, brain-dead lefties?

Jerry J. Fortin · December 31, 2009

One of the times he used it was to avoid having to face parliament after a damning report by the Auditor General on Adscam.

The ploy is an affront to the will of the people. It is a legal and time honoured tactic, but that does not make it right.

Argus · December 31, 2009

There were some legitimate concerns that they brought up and corrected though, especially dealing with the product recall legislation.

Are you saying the opposition in the House isn't doing its job?

Argus · December 31, 2009

But apparently it is. Parliament wants to see unredacted documents. Apparently they're not allowed to, and to drive the point home, they're being sent home until March.

Let's be very clear. The opposition does not care a whit about security issues involved. It is salivating over the prospect it might be able to find something it can interpet as being politically advantageous for it. That's it, that's all. There are NO moral considerations involved whatsoever. It's purely self-agrrandizing politics - and the hell with security issues.

Argus · December 31, 2009

Perhaps a few Citizen's Assemblies now and then wouldn't be such a bad idea after all?

Riiiiight, and who exactly would show up? The whiners, bitchers, complainers and nutjobs calling for grassy knolls and such. The great mass of people who are too busy working, and are relatively content with how things are being run, would ignore such gatherings.

Argus · December 31, 2009

I think it depends on what you mean by "revolution". If you mean demanding changes in the way Parliament functions, then no. If you mean insighting an armed uprising, well that's sedition, and is against the law (see the Criminal Code sections 59-61).

How about suggesting the prime minister be killed. Is that against the law?

Jerry J. Fortin · December 31, 2009

Let's be very clear. The opposition does not care a whit about security issues involved. It is salivating over the prospect it might be able to find something it can interpet as being politically advantageous for it. That's it, that's all. There are NO moral considerations involved whatsoever. It's purely self-agrrandizing politics - and the hell with security issues.

What security issue?

Argus · December 31, 2009

The ploy is an affront to the will of the people. It is a legal and time honoured tactic, but that does not make it right.

I doubt the people really care, nor was it likely designed to avoid questioning or oversight. As Ivison says

First, fury at the unelected Liberal Senate was not faux outrage. Mr. Harper was particularly upset when the Senate amended the government's consumer protection legislation, which had received unanimous consent in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are set to become the largest party in the Senate with the appointment of five new senators early in the new year, yet the Liberals would still have dominated the committee structure. This would have allowed Grit senators to continue to bog down government legislation for months on end. Instead, prorogation will mean that those committees are reconstituted to more closely reflect the make-up of the Senate. For the first time since he came to power, Mr. Harper will have a plurality in both chambers of Parliament and in the committee rooms.

bloodyminded · December 31, 2009

Are you going to suggest the Taliban and their allies are not pleased every time someone raises doubts about whether we should be there, and states we should get out as soon as possible and forget what's happening there?

One of the reasons they blow up soldiers is because they know that this damages support for the mission, and aids their "allies" in Canada who are trying to get Canada to leave - ie, the Liberals, BQ and NDP. Oh those parties might not consider themselves to be the allies of the Taliban, and no doubt hold the Taliban in contempt. Nevertheless, on the issue of Canadians in Afghanistan, they and the Taliban share similar goals.

I don't base my opinions on whether or not "the Taliban...is pleased."

Any more than you base your opinions on the fact that bin Laden WANTED us to go to war against Muslim nations. That was part of the plan. That doesn't mean, in itself, that the wars were wrong (whether they are or not); and bin Laden wanting us to do it doesn't mean we should sit back and refuse.

Obviously.

So, you can't have it both ways.

This whole get-with-the-program, "with us or with the terrorists" meme is at bottom an authoritarian demand for acquiescence to the State.

It asserts--baldly--that those who oppose any aspect of foreign policy are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The citizens of the Soviet Union were starkly aware of this interesting opposition to dissent.

Further, it states that it makes no difference whether thr dissent is absolutely correct or not. Just that we keep quiet, ostensibly to "support the troops" or some other conventional piety dressed in meaningless phraseology.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 31, 2009

I doubt the people really care, nor was it likely designed to avoid questioning or oversight. As Ivison says

First, fury at the unelected Liberal Senate was not faux outrage. Mr. Harper was particularly upset when the Senate amended the government's consumer protection legislation, which had received unanimous consent in the House of Commons. The Conservatives are set to become the largest party in the Senate with the appointment of five new senators early in the new year, yet the Liberals would still have dominated the committee structure. This would have allowed Grit senators to continue to bog down government legislation for months on end. Instead, prorogation will mean that those committees are reconstituted to more closely reflect the make-up of the Senate. For the first time since he came to power, Mr. Harper will have a plurality in both chambers of Parliament and in the committee rooms.

So you are suggesting, or the author was, that this entire mess was a result of an ego trip of the Prime Minister caused by the Upper Chamber of the Senate. This ego of the PM's then decided to halt the business of the lower chamber, and in spite simply change the structure of the upper chamber just to achieve the whims of his own design regardless of the expressed will of the people through their elected representatives in the lower chamber of the House of Commons. Now considering the fact wehile in the position of leading a minority government, he is expected to understand that he governs through the consent of the majority of members in the House of Commons. If he understands this, then he is acting against the interests of the people by design. If he does not then he is merely ignorant of the rules of conduct and incompetent.

capricorn · December 31, 2009

The ploy is an affront to the will of the people.

When Harper prorogued Parliament last year, it was precisely to respond to the will of the people, that is to prevent a coalition government of Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP. Canadians were overwhelmingly opposed to such a coalition. To his credit, Ignatieff read the tea leaves and when he became Liberal leader, he distanced himself from the mechanism which would have probably put him in the Prime Minister's chair.

Sure, that prorogation kept the Conservatives in government but that was the will of the people.