BubberMiley Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 You have NO evidence. Yes I do. Her name is Awish Aslam. If you look at her Facebook profile, you can see her pictuers with Iggy and Layton. She probably was trying to get one with Harper to add to her collection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Internal polling was obviously telling the Conservatives they were losing on this issue so Harper is now apologizing for throwing people out of their events. Nothing like a little incentive to make people do the right thing. Harper apologizes for campaign-rally ejections http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-apologizes-for-campaign-rally-ejections/article1974790/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Don't need you rewriting history we can watch the youtube clip. The "uploader has not made this video available in your country" - strange - I could have sworn this video was about our country. The wring of the neck of the irritating protester (if that is what is about) should have brought about the resignation of THAT french fellow....same as when that lunitic Shelia Copps used to lunge over the bench to phyiscally throttle an advesary...I thought that assualt was illegal in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The optics are bad, for sure. It's one of those things that I'm sure they wish they could do differently, yet will probably also begrudgingly do exactly the same way if it comes up again. The problem is, they do need to manage potential disruptions, and students are the ones most likely to do something disruptive for disruption's sake. Left-leaning ones, especially so. It's just a free rally, it's not like she had something terrible done to her. By the time they figure out why she's got a picture of herself with the opposition leader, it would have been over anyway. One suggestion I would make to the party is to do this kind of screening at the online registration stage. You do have to sign up in advance to go, so just hold back on the confirmation of their spot until you check their red flags. I'm guessing the party's answer would be that they running an election, not a babysitting service. I agree, it looks bad but unfortunately it's necessary. Does anyone really need to be reminded of examples of highly disruptive leftist students "protesting peacefully"? This might be viewed as an example of the few ruining things for the many, where disruptive antagonists ruin things for those who simply want to participate constructively and attend respectfully. Even if this little Muslim girl was indeed there with sincere intentions of simply being informed, the campaign staff obviously made the gamble that it was better to get rid of her than to allow her into event. They obviously thought that she would either be provocative or disruptive in one way or another. She's probably a Liberal or NDP supporters, anyways. Let's examine all the leftist red-flags which make removing her a safe bet - she's young, she's a poli-sci inversity student, and she's wearing a hijab. Maybe I'm wrong, but the odds are that she's a leftist and a risk to the vibe of the campaign event. Edited April 7, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I agree, it looks bad but unfortunately it's necessary. Does anyone really need to be reminded of examples of highly disruptive students "protesting peacefully"? Even if this little Muslim girl was indeed there with sincere intentions of simply being informed, the campaign staff obviously made the gamble that it was better to get rid of her than to allow her into event. They obviously thought that she would either be provocative or disruptive in one way or another. She's probably a Liberal or NDP supporters, anyways. Let's examine all the leftist red-flags which make removing her a safe bet - she's young, she's a poli-sci inversity student, and she's wearing a hijab. Maybe I'm wrong, but the odds are that she's a leftist and a risk to the vibe of the campaign event. Oh goody, now let's introduce racial profiling to campaign rallies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Oh goody, now let's introduce racial profiling to campaign rallies. The young guys were politcally profiled. No reason why poiticans can not be considered a race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 One of Stevie Harper's guards punched a pregnant London Free Press reporter in the stomach aswell. Its a shame that pregnant women don't get the respect with unborn children still in the womb. Harper left London, Ontario with his "Beat Down Crew", leaving a bad impression after his guards pulling of attempted murder of an unborn child in the womb, and not letting some students watch his rally. Let's see a source for that, please. He is the next comming of Hitler Wow. I mean, it's not like anybody in here respected you to begin with... but I think even this absurd comment is a new high-point for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) Oh goody, now let's introduce racial profiling to campaign rallies. It's about the context, though. It's in conjunction with the other red flags, as well as the Iggy photo. Although it's fair to assume that a hijab-wearing woman in Canada doesn't vote for the Conservative party, this little girl has even more red flags around her. She probably had nothing valuable to offer to this campaign event - she fits the profile of a disruptive attendee, and it in the view of the campaign staff it wasn't worth letting her in. She's also probably lying about the guards telling her that she was being removed due to affiliation with the Liberal Party. They probably removed her without telling her why. Edited April 7, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's about the context, though. It's in conjunction with the other red flags, as well as the Iggy photo. Although it's fair to assume that a hijab-wearing woman in Canada doesn't vote for the Conservative party, this little girl has even more red flags around her. She probably had nothing valuable to offer to this campaign event - she fits the profile of a disruptive attendee, and it in the view of the campaign staff it wasn't worth letting her in. She's also probably lying about the guards telling her that she was being removed due to affiliation with the Liberal Party. They probably removed her without telling her why. Maybe anyone wearing jeans should be the next group to be barred - this is what this kind of thinking can lead to. At least Harper realized that his campaign is being damaged by this dumb Conservative behaviour, and that is why today Harper apologized for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Maybe anyone wearing jeans should be the next group to be barred - this is what this kind of thinking can lead to. At least Harper realized that his campaign is being damaged by this dumb Conservative behaviour, and that is why today Harper apologized for it. It was better than Baird's defence that there isn't enough at the events. I still think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. You can be damned sure that all the leaders have campaign workers keeping an eye out for potential troublemakers and ejecting them before they can make too much noise. By the very nature of it, this is going to be a horribly inexact science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) Maybe anyone wearing jeans should be the next group to be barred[ - this is what this kind of thinking can lead to. At least Harper realized that his campaign is being damaged by this dumb Conservative behaviour, and that is why today Harper apologized for it. No, that would be stupid. Only an idiot would suggest that wearing jeans has a correlation to an individual's partisanship/political leanings. That seems to be what you're suggesting. Intelligent people, on the other hand, are able to recognize legitimate correlations between certain variables and an individual's (likely) partisanship/political leanings. Variables such as religion (and degree of observance, in this case the hijab), age, and field of study at university. Combined with the Facebook photo, the campaign staff made a reasonable judgement. Idiots are unable to differentiate between what happened here and the hypothetical example of barring someone from attending a private campaign event because they're wearing jeans. Edited April 7, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 `Sorry for looking at facebook ----and seeing that your buddy buddy with iggy...I was just doing a secruity check..to make sure you were my friend tooooo.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I still think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. You can be damned sure that all the leaders have campaign workers keeping an eye out for potential troublemakers and ejecting them before they can make too much noise. By the very nature of it, this is going to be a horribly inexact science. Absolutely. And based on the track record of disruptions at all manner of political (or perceived to be political) events, this type of screening is necessary. Leftist students particularly have made a name for themselves by disrupting events, and this girl fits the bill of that type of student in many ways. There is certainly a possibility that she was there genuinely to participate in good faith, but the campaign staff made a reasonable judgement in preventing her attendance. Edited April 7, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 It was better than Baird's defence that there isn't enough at the events. I still think the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. You can be damned sure that all the leaders have campaign workers keeping an eye out for potential troublemakers and ejecting them before they can make too much noise. By the very nature of it, this is going to be a horribly inexact science. It obviously was detracting from the Harper's campaign message and it smacked of intolerance which the Conservatives need like a hole in the head. Carson, Facebook controversies could 'chip away' at Conservative Party support, says York prof'It chips away at Harper’s credibility. It chips at the idea that he’s a strong believer in accountability and transparency, this was someone in his inner circle, so what gives?' says political science professor Daniel Drache. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/view/carson_facebook_controversies_could_chip_away_at_conservative_party_support_says_york_prof_04-06-2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Absolutely. And based on the track record of disruptions at all manner of political (or perceived to be political) events, this type of screening is necessary. Leftist students particularly have made a name for themselves by disrupting events, and this girl fits the bill of that type of student in many ways. There is certainly a possibility that she was there genuinely to participate in good faith, but the campaign staff made a reasonable judgement in preventing her attendance. I didn't say what the staff did was reasonable. There's very little about these pre-fab events that is reasonable. It's just that everyone does it. Picking on the Tories seems more than a little hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Quick over there - some people that might not agree with me - get them out -------it will ruin my photo op. As an actor - Harper knows never to play opposite a dog or child - they steal the show ----which they obviously did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I didn't say what the staff did was reasonable. There's very little about these pre-fab events that is reasonable. It's just that everyone does it. Picking on the Tories seems more than a little hypocritical. Well, it's my view that it was a reasonable exclusion. I can't see how there was any likelihood that this girl's attendance would contribute positively to the campaign, rather, I think it was reasonable to view her as a potential liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Well, it's my view that it was a reasonable exclusion. I can't see how there was any likelihood that this girl's attendance would contribute positively to the campaign, rather, I think it was reasonable to view her as a potential liability. Who cares whether it contributes positively? That's what makes campaign rallies utter and absolute scams, little more than theatre performances. I wouldn't attend one if you paid me. They're free to exclude whoever they like, but the more exclusionary they get, the more irrelevant and ludicrous they make the whole damned thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Who cares whether it contributes positively? That's what makes campaign rallies utter and absolute scams, little more than theatre performances. I wouldn't attend one if you paid me. They're free to exclude whoever they like, but the more exclusionary they get, the more irrelevant and ludicrous they make the whole damned thing. Well, that's your opinion. Judging by your posts, it's clear that you recognize politics for what it is, and although you might view the behaviour of excluding politically hostile elements from campaign events as counterproductive, on the other hand it helps maintain a composed and controlled message - which is clearly something you understand as being an effective part of campaigns. As an aside, assuming this girl was a troublemaker, she would've distracted from the event - which could potentially be damaging. There are degrees of exclusion, as well. Some people might view this as an example of the Harper campaign being too uptight and perhaps even fearful of dissent, and others might view it as a reasonable precaution to avoid rude and disruptive leftist students from hijacking an event in order to secure fifteen minutes of fame via Canadian media and YouTube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 The Harper Campaign overstepped its bounds in trying to micro-manage every event. They managed to be heavy-handed to the point of being disgraceful. And the RCMP has also, once again, acted in a manner not befitting their station. They are not private security thugs for the Conservative Party, but security for the PM. It is not their mandate to remove people who the Cons might find disagreeable to their party propoganda. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-apologizes-for-campaign-rally-ejections/article1974790/Stephen Harper is offering an apology for instances where people were tossed from his campaign rallies, trying to tamp down a controversy that’s dogged the Conservatives for several days. --------------------- The RCMP on Wednesday took responsibility for ejecting people from recent Conservative campaign events in southwestern Ontario, acknowledging it broke the rules in doing so and saying it has reminded Mounties to stick to their jobs. Our PM is certainly not acting like the honourable statesman that Canadian citizens expect him to be.... this will not help his re-election efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Yes I do. Her name is Awish Aslam. What her name has to do with anything???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Our PM is certainly not acting like the honourable statesman that Canadian citizens expect him to be.... this will not help his re-election efforts. Unlike Chretien, he didn't pepper spray them and then make jokes out of it instead apology.. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Apparently, the officer escorting the political science student (gee I wonder why she attended all three parties election rallies) out of the rally told her it was because of a picture on Facebook. The RCMP are checking the Facebook pages of all rally attendees? Unlike Chretien What happened 13 years ago (also a disgrace in my opinion, by the way) is irrelevant. Go away troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Apparently, the officer escorting the political science student (gee I wonder why she attended all three parties election rallies) out of the rally told her it was because of a picture on Facebook. The RCMP are checking the Facebook pages of all rally attendees? I thought the story was that it was campaign workers who did, but the RCMP did the actual removal. The RCMP have now been reminded that their only job at these events is to provide security to the leaders. At the very least, the churlish, cowardly campaign workers will have to do the removal themselves as opposed to relying on guys with guns and uniforms to do it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17909086.html The young lady has agreed to meet the PM, but not as a photo-op. She wants an explanation. Good on her!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.