Dave_ON Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) This is an interesting article. The BLOC still wants to be recognized as an official party even though they managed to only get 4 seats. Two of which were by the skin of their teeth. I loved this quote from the embittered BLOC MP. "The people are always right, but they could also be mistaken.... We have to accept it, we have to accept that this is what can happen in a democracy, " said Mourani. Which is it? They're right or they're mistaken? I hope that Parliament does not choose to recognize them in any official capacity, there is no politically expedient reason to do so and this would all but ensure their demise. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/10/bloc-party-status.html Edited May 10, 2011 by Dave_ON Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
nittanylionstorm07 Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 This is an interesting article. The BLOC still wants to be recognized as an official party even though they managed to only get 4 seats. Two of which were by the skin of their teeth. I loved this quote from the embittered BLOC MP. Which is it? They're right or they're mistaken? I hope that Parliament does not choose to recognize them in any official capacity, there is no politically expedient reason to do so and this would all but ensure their demise. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/10/bloc-party-status.html Not gonna happen. Quote
Topaz Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 I don't think they should be there but if the Green has only one and the bloc has four how can they be kept out? Is there a rule of the number of seats a party must have to be a party in Parliament? Quote
Evening Star Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 You need 12 seats for the privileges that come with official party status. Neither the Greens nor the BQ have this. They can still sit in Parliament, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status Quote
Tilter Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) I don't think they should be there but if the Green has only one and the bloc has four how can they be kept out? Is there a rule of the number of seats a party must have to be a party in Parliament? They should be in Jail rather than the HoC. Perhaps, if they are so interested in becoming an official party they should start running Candidates in the RoC. Not that would make a lot of difference in the number of seats they'd win especially on the prairies (Maybe 1 seat from Gravelbourg Sask) but, if times were as they were in the 1700s they could get an Official Lynching party-- is that close enuf? Edited May 10, 2011 by Tilter Quote
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 You need 12 seats for the privileges that come with official party status. Neither the Greens nor the BQ have this. They can still sit in Parliament, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status I happen to think they should swing from ropes rather than be granted party status. But how is this different from the "party status" enjoyed by the Progressive Conservatives from 1993 to 1997, when they had two (2) ridings? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
punked Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 I happen to think they should swing from ropes rather than be granted party status. But how is this different from the "party status" enjoyed by the Progressive Conservatives from 1993 to 1997, when they had two (2) ridings? I don't know but the NDP lost status in 1993 so I assume the PC also lost their status also in 1993 and 1997. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 I'm not sure if it's true, but someone was telling me that the Liberals extended the PC party official status when they were decimated post-Campbell. Quote
punked Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 I'm not sure if it's true, but someone was telling me that the Liberals extended the PC party official status when they were decimated post-Campbell. But they let us have no status? Wow the Liberals really hate the NDP than. Quote
punked Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Not sure if it's true. Well I know one thing is true in 1993 the NDP lost status. They couldn't speak in the House, the lost all funding and it took the Liberals killing EI to get us enough votes to start our slow rise out of those dark days. Quote
TimG Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 I'm not sure if it's true, but someone was telling me that the Liberals extended the PC party official status when they were decimated post-Campbell.The rule is 12 in the commons or 5 in the senate. The PCs would have qualified based on their senate representation. Quote
RNG Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 The rule is 12 in the commons or 5 in the senate. The PCs would have qualified based on their senate representation. Thanks. That is a little factoid that I didn't know. It is now added to the memory bank. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 The rule is 12 in the commons or 5 in the senate. The PCs would have qualified based on their senate representation. Thanks. That is a little factoid that I didn't know. It is now added to the memory bank. Same here, but then again I'm not Canadian. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
g_bambino Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 They should be in Jail rather than the HoC. Have they done something illegal? Quote
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Have they done something illegal? Treason? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Treason? Based on what interpretation of the definition? Quote
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Based on what interpretation of the definition? Isn't advocating secession treason? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Isn't advocating secession treason? No, in fact it isn't. Quote
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 No, in fact it isn't. In the U.S. we settled that issue at Appommatox. I thought in your country, likewise, at the Plains of Abraham and the hanging of Louis Riel. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 In the U.S. we settled that issue at Appommatox. I thought in your country, likewise, at the Plains of Abraham and the hanging of Louis Riel. An issue is never settled as long as a large enough number of people within the population still consider it unsettled. Things are also far less settled in the US than you'd like to make out. There are deep divisions that exist to this day. Quote
jbg Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 An issue is never settled as long as a large enough number of people within the population still consider it unsettled. Things are also far less settled in the US than you'd like to make out. There are deep divisions that exist to this day. If separatism weren't subsidized it would wither and die; just as support for U.S. secession did. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Evening Star Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Transfer payments etc aren't exactly a subsidy for separatism per se... Quote
RNG Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 Transfer payments etc aren't exactly a subsidy for separatism per se... But dang close. Quebec gets way more of all things than any other province. And with all their natural resources, I still can't figure out why, unless it is corruption. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
g_bambino Posted May 11, 2011 Report Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Isn't advocating secession treason? In fact, it isn't. Treason is quite clearly spelled out in the Criminal Code: 46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her; ( levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or © assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are. (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; ( without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada; © conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph ( and manifests that intention by an overt act. Criminal Code of Canada Separatism is fine so long as it is pursued within the bounds of the law; there's a formula by which a province may secede from Canada. There were separatists in the federal parliament the first day it convened in 1867. [sp] Edited May 11, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
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.