Where Was The Media?

[Alta4ever]

Just because it's alive in the media doesn't make it any less right. If we have to lean on the media to uphold our democracy it's a sad state of affairs.

The point is nothing has been censored, like I said earlier the only thing the government has at its disposal to do what you accuse it of is the war measures act that is the only act that allows the government to suspend certain democratic rights.

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

Winston Churchill

[nicky10013]

The point is nothing has been censored, like I said earlier the only thing the government has at its disposal to do what you accuse it of is the war measures act that is the only act that allows the government to suspend certain democratic rights.

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.

Winston Churchill

How pathetic. Winston Churchill never ran away with anything. Using his words to defend what the Conservatives are doing to democracy, one which he fought tooth and nail to protect is borderline offensive.

[Alta4ever]

How pathetic. Winston Churchill never ran away with anything. Using his words to defend what the Conservatives are doing to democracy, one which he fought tooth and nail to protect is borderline offensive.

Funny our constitutional monarchy is derived from the British system, which also is able to prorogue parliament.

As I said the only tool the government has to suspend some democratic rights is the War Measures Act.

[nicky10013]

Funny our constitutional monarchy is derived from the British system, which also is able to prorogue parliament.

As I said the only tool the government has to suspend some democratic rights is the War Measures Act.

Why isn't my parliament sitting come then end of january, then?

Edited January 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Why isn't my parliament sitting come then end of january, then?

Because it is going to sit under an new session March 4.

Prorogation has not taken away one of your democratic rights.

You just don't like reasons put forth by the government for doing.

But please do point out what right is infringed apon.

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

MAXIMUM DURATION OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES / Continuation in special circumstances.

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

ANNUAL SITTING OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES.

5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html#3

[nicky10013]

Because it is going to sit under an new session March 4.

Prorogation has not taken away one of your democratic rights.

You just don't like reasons put forth by the government for doing.

But please do point out what right is infringed apon.

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html#3

The right for my elected representatives to sit and the house and question the government. Oh, right. That's the only one that doesn't matter.

Please, tell me why this is happening?

[William Ashley]

February 5, 1996 REASON? CABINET SHUFFLE?

September 18, 1999 - It passed Parliament had passed 123 bills - wasn't it a majority at this time.

September 16, 2002 - Liberals had a majority at this time, they could push legislation or an agenda regardless.

November 12, 2003 - They still had a majority.

The big difference here is that the liberal party had a majority where as the cons have a minority - they had the majority in opting for the process.

I think this is a major difference in doing this to stop democratic process and inquiry vs. actually facilitating administrative changes such as a new cabinet or a new PM to give them time to prepare for their positions. A prorogue for a changing of the guard is much different from waiting until they have a senate majority so they can push bills through that otherwise wouldn't, or to silence inquiries into criminal processess of the goverment - i.e. covering up, and quashing parliamentary inquiry.

There is a clear difference in USE and abuse.

Majorities have a leisure that minorities don't and harper has clearly abused this function TWICE. Once to stave off a non confidence motion to stop a majority of parliament from opting for an alternative government, and the second time to silence the opposition undemocratically.

His reasons are 'political' he should exercise his role in the government on a non partisan basis, which isn't what he is doing. He is suppose to serve the people as PM, not the party, that is what the time in the house is for, not the time in the office.

BTW due to the bond the queens best interests should be the publics and vice versa. That is the whole reason ministers including the prime minister take an oath to the queen, as do all citizens who actively pledge their citizenship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Canada)

I, ____, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, forever. So help me God.

and

duplex et reciprocum ligamen; quia sicut subditus regi tenetur ad obedientiam, ita rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem; merito igitur ligeantia dicitur a ligando, quia continet in se duplex ligamen

Edited January 8, 2010 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

Just because it's alive in the media doesn't make it any less right. If we have to lean on the media to uphold our democracy it's a sad state of affairs.

That's a strange statement. Democracy depends on open media to create a public sphere of discussion and debate.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a clear difference in USE and abuse.

WA - I think you're right, but there have always been mechanisms that parties have used in political strategy. I would have guessed that the public would yawn at the prorogation and gone back to sleep, however it seems that the government action is in disfavour with the public.

[Argus]

Ho many times in the past has Parliament been prorogued with so many government bills still in progress, some simply awaiting Royal Assent?

Well, it's been used well over 100 times. Maybe you should do some research and find out.

How many bills are awaiting royal assent? And if they are, then they've already been passed by parliament and the Senate and can presumably now be signed.

[nicky10013]

That's a strange statement. Democracy depends on open media to create a public sphere of discussion and debate.

It does. It's supposed to create a requisite amount of debate and it's also meant to keep people honest. However, it's not mean to force people back to work. The concept only works when the party in power has at least a little bit of respect for responsible and open governance.

[nicky10013]

Well, it's been used well over 100 times. Maybe you should do some research and find out.

How many bills are awaiting royal assent? And if they are, then they've already been passed by parliament and the Senate and can presumably now be signed.

36 bills that have only made it through their first or second reading. I don't believe any are awaiting royal assent.

[Alta4ever]

The right for my elected representatives to sit and the house and question the government. Oh, right. That's the only one that doesn't matter.

Please, tell me why this is happening?

That has not been taken away as the house will sit March 4 go back and read the charter not of your rights has been suspended. I posted the charter and asked to pick out the right that was taken away you have failed to do it.

again that churchill quote applies but you are to ignorant or arrogant to recognize the truth in front of you.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Alta4ever

[nicky10013]

That has not been taken away as the house will sit March 4 go back and read the charter not of your rights has been suspended. I posted the charter and asked to pick out the right that was taken away you have failed to do it.

again that churchill quote applies but you are to ignorant or arrogant to recognize the truth in front of you.

It's not about the charter of rights and freedoms. The Charter doesn't speak of my right to have a person represent me in parliament. So, why is that particular right being taken away from me?

I don't care if they're going back March 4th, tell me why I'm being deprived of that right come January 25th.

[Alta4ever]

It's not about the charter of rights and freedoms. The Charter doesn't speak of my right to have a person represent me in parliament. So, why is that particular right being taken away from me?

I don't care if they're going back March 4th, tell me why I'm being deprived of that right come January 25th.

The Charter sure does speak on your personal democratic righted i even posted the section for earlier in the thread. You have been unable to substantiate your claims though about you loosing a right because you haven't lost anything.

[ToadBrother]

Where was the media when

February 5, 1996 - Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

September 18, 1999 - Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

September 16, 2002 - Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

November 12, 2003 - Jean Chrétien and the Liberals prorogue Parliament.

Why wasn't it news then? Why is it such a big story now? Oh, I know, because PM Harper and the Conservatives prorogued and the media really dislikes the CPC. Biased journalism at its best. (CBC, CTV)

Too many Canadians are duped by the media, including a number of people on this forum.

I dunno. Can you cite me an example in modern Parliamentary history where a government prorogued Parliament to avoid a confidence vote. Other than 2008, that is. I openly challenge you right now.

[nicky10013]

The Charter sure does speak on your personal democratic righted i even posted the section for earlier in the thread. You have been unable to substantiate your claims though about you loosing a right because you haven't lost anything.

So Harper having parliament sit once each year would be democratic enough for you?

Also, you still haven't answered why. You've given me the answer to why I shouldn't care but clearly that's not going to happen. So why is my parliament not sitting. Why is my voice not being heard when it should?

Edited January 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

So Harper having parliament sit once each year would be democratic enough for you?

Also, you still haven't answered why. You've given me the answer to why I shouldn't care but clearly that's not going to happen. So why is my parliament not sitting. Why is my voice not being heard when it should?

Unless you are able to change the Charter and the constitution its going to have to be.

I don't have to answer why it is done, I am not part of the government, but they did issue a press release that answers the question, however I just suspect you don't like the answer they gave. Thats your prerogative.

[nicky10013]

Unless you are able to change the Charter and the constitution its going to have to be.

I don't have to answer why it is done, I am not part of the government, but they did issue a press release that answers the question, however I just suspect you don't like the answer they gave. Thats your prerogative.

Considering you told me I just take things only at face value, the fact that you swallowed their "press release" is pretty hilarious. By that I mean hypocritical.

[Alta4ever]

Considering you told me I just take things only at face value, the fact that you swallowed their "press release" is pretty hilarious. By that I mean hypocritical.

I don't really care that they prorogued, so I don't care what the reason was, it is you that care about why, and thats all that is left is for is the why. Since we have proven that it is a part of our system of government and that no rights were suspended.

This session last 100 days longer then the average parliamentary session.

[myata]

One more time, difference is:

1) Liberals at these times held majority allowing them to achieve the same purpose via vote in the House (as I think they should have). Harper's faction is in minority and used this archaic ploy to impose its will on the majority in the Parliament and the people it represents.

2) Prorogation has not been used to escape questioning of the government's policies.

3) Neither, to annihilate a large block of work in progress, including government own's.

Now you can go and start an all new thread.

[nicky10013]

I don't really care that they prorogued, so I don't care what the reason was, it is you that care about why, and thats all that is left is for is the why. Since we have proven that it is a part of our system of government and that no rights were suspended.

This session last 100 days longer then the average parliamentary session.

I think you're confused. The average parliamentary session is measured by the days they actually sit.

Furthermore, a lot of Canadians care and my rights have been trampled on. Why? Because they aren't sitting. In the end, the Charter saying that the parliament has to sit once every year is a technicality because the majority of parliament is determined by precedent and tradition. The fact that he can just make parliament go away when he doesn't want to, thereby killing legislation and robbing the ability of my representative to ask questions in parliament when its SUPPOSED to be sitting is robbing the Canadian people of their rights.

That's the whole problem with this situation. Conservative expectations of democracy are so low that even when its being taken away no one notices.

This is another one you haven't answered. When a Liberal prorogues parliament, how will you react?

[Alta4ever]

I think you're confused. The average parliamentary session is measured by the days they actually sit.

I think you are a bit confused

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/compilations/parliament/Sessions.aspx?Language=E

The average duration for a session in the Parliament of Canada is 207 days (6 months and 24 days).

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Common/index.asp?Language=E

Its right from the Parliament.

[nicky10013]

I think you are a bit confused

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/compilations/parliament/Sessions.aspx?Language=E

The average duration for a session in the Parliament of Canada is 207 days (6 months and 24 days).

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Common/index.asp?Language=E

Its right from the Parliament.

I'd like to see that average from 1950s onwards. The average is skewed because the first sessions of parliament were so much shorter. If you look back through those records to the 1950s, this session of parliament has been one of the shortest ones.

[Argus]

One more time, difference is:

1) Liberals at these times held majority allowing them to achieve the same purpose via vote in the House (as I think they should have). Harper's faction is in minority and used this archaic ploy to impose its will on the majority in the Parliament and the people it represents.

Archaic? This is a regular feature of every parliament which has ever sat in Ottawa as recently as the last, where Chretien did it four times. And it hardly matters if you're a minority or a majority. The point is it's a tool governments use.

2) Prorogation has not been used to escape questioning of the government's policies.

Only your own prejudices say it was used that way now. From all accounts the Tories weren't at all worried about anything going on in parliament, nor did they have cause to be worried.

And you really don't know why it was used before, or when, or for what motivations.