The bravest person in Canada

[g_bambino]

I have never understood how making up a hypothetical reverse scenerio plot can make a good foundation to base an argument upon.

It works well enough to demonstrate that appropriate behaviour isn't a partisan matter.

[ReeferMadness]

The first point is uncontestable. The second is completely subjective. The latter, therefore, doesn't justify the former.

They're both true. One takes a little thought and analysis bu they're both demonstrably true.

It's not a case of one justifying the other. It's a case of where you focus your outrage.

[ReeferMadness]

It's obvious that you support the young woman simply because you hate Harper.

I don't hate anyone. I just detest what this man and his minions have done and continue to do to this country. I'm much less proud to call myself a Canadian than even a few years ago.

Certain jobs are supposed to be non-partisan. How would it be if the Governor General decided to support a Tory-Liberal coalition government simply because he dated the NDP, AND SAID SO when he or she made their decision?

Are you thinking that the GG is going to date the entire NDP? Quite a feat.

Now, we all know that if the GG supported the NDP instead you would think that just fine but ANY sense of partisanship by the GG is wrong!

Clearly, you know nothing.

How would it be if the postman stopped delivering your mail because of the campaign sign on your lawn was for the wrong party?

I suppose that means I'd have less flyers to throw in recycling.

The lass was a Page and pages are not supposed to be partisan! She had the same rights as any other citizen outside of Parliament, in her civilian clothes. Instead, she deliberately chose to use her job and a specific ceremony as a venue to shout her personal partisan feelings to the whole country.

Aww, shucks. There's a whole lot of stuff that is supposed to be or not supposed to be. Proroguing parliament shouldn't be something the PM uses to hide from Parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet shouldn't be misleading to Parliament or withholding information from Parliament. The Prime Minister shouldn't be lying to the people. The Prime Minister shouldn't break his own fixed-date election law. The parties shouldn't be defrauding the people of Canada by claiming expenses were for local candidates when they were clearly to support the national campaign. The Prime Minister should have stood by his promises to bring in more open, accountable government with merit-based appointments and a review process for judges and an elected senate (how's all that coming by the way?). The governing party shouldn't set out to destroy the opposition with negative advertising.

So, instead of wasting our time on all the stuff that should or shouldn't be, why don't we ask this: Who's causing the real damage here? DePape for interrupting some pomp and ceremony or Harper for undermining democracy?

This was a cheap shot! I admire her gumption but deplore her poor sense of judgement. In any job in government that's supposed to be non-partisan she has shown herself to be forever untrustworthy.

Well, I guess she won't be asking you for a job.

You really should hold off on your kneejerk support for any action no matter how blindly partisan that serves your own favourite party and consider that these things can work both ways. It can be rather stupid to set a precedent that could some day come back and bite you.

Kneejerk? Not at all. My support is considered?

And why don't you tell us all? What's my favourite party?

[ReeferMadness]

What is amusing - but troubling at the same time - is how angry Left Wingers like yourself get. It's a trait that is common to many Lefty partisans. Where was your anger when Jean Chretien was running roughshod over Parliament in a manner that makes Stephen Harper look like a choirboy?

I've never been a huge supporter or defender of Chretien and I don't feel the need to defend him now. Still, it's pretty damned easy to compare him to Harper. He actually delivered surplus budgets - let's wait and see whether Harper can even recognize what one looks like. He also kept us out of the disastrous war against Iraq.

Maybe you can elaborate and defend your statement that "Jean Chretien was running roughshod over Parliament in a manner that makes Stephen Harper look like a choirboy". It would take a lot of roughshod running to make Harper look like anything better than a closet fascist.

Although Conservatives have also been known to embellish the truth - your repeating Ms. Bubblehead's contention that only 25% of eligible voters endorsed Harper is plain stupid

See, that's called a fact. I don't know why you think facts are stupid but that's for you to explain.

Chill out - Canadians have chosen a majority government. In 166 of 308 ridings, Conservatives were the most popular party - with 40% of the National vote. Deal with it.

So, according to your math, 40% is a majority? No?? Well, I guess Canadians didn't "choose" a majority government then. The system awarded them the majority of the seats (and all of the power) because it doesn't work very well.

[g_bambino]

[T]hey're both demonstrably true.

Then demonstrate the second to be irrefutably true.

I'm interested to see how you'll do so, given that you yourself said the "damage" caused is immeasurable.

[+]

Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

I agree that would have been better, yet still wrong. She has the option of engaging in a letter-writing campaign, start a petition, etc. No need to show such disrespect for another person.

Because those have been so successful in the past. It's a little tough to ignore a Page in the middle of the Speech from the Throne; a petition on the other hand...

[capricorn]

Ah, and here we have it. Democracy has, suddenly, ceased to exist in this country because an election - conducted in the same way all our previous elections have been - this time produced a result that some people of a certain political persuasion don't like. It's therefore now, according to our former Senate page and all those who've elevated her as a martyr of the uber-left, time to exercise "real" democracy, which means mobs in the streets, motivated not to overthrow an unelected tyrant, or a tyrant propped up by a sham election, but to upend the results of a free, open, and democratic election - the very thing those participating in the Arab Spring are fighting for - in order to impose what is "right" on those who clearly don't know any better. Totalitarianism in the guise of freedom from totalitarianism!

As this DePape business unfolded, I pretty well put it down to the wild-eyed exuberance of youth. That is, until I read that she hopes her actions and the media response will flourish into a movement of civil disobedience.

She wants to build on the momentum her protest has created and said that social media offers new possibilities for engaging in civil disobedience.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/celebrity-and-controversy-surround-parliaments-rogue-page/article2048127/

I may be old school, but as I understand there is nothing passive or peaceful about acts of civil disobedience. I regret to see that this whole thing has taken on another life.

[cybercoma]

rioting in emergency ward waiting rooms or interrupting ongoing activity in operating rooms;

trashing schools 08:00 to 17:00, Mon-Fri, Sept-Jun;

burn down a sorting plant;

torching a local filling station;

lynching a clergyman

trashing his, church, mosque, synagogue; or

Holding a sign during a speech.

Which one of these is not like the others.

[cybercoma]

an election ... this time produced a result that some people of a certain political persuasion don't like

You haven't been paying attention at all. It's not this time. It has been producing undemocratic results for decades. When Chretien had successive majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote--one time even getting less votes than the opposition party--it was still wrong. This isn't just about this election alone.

[g_bambino]

You haven't been paying attention at all. It's not this time. It has been producing undemocratic results for decades. When Chretien had successive majority governments with less than 40% of the popular vote--one time even getting less votes than the opposition party--it was still wrong. This isn't just about this election alone.

Leaving aside the untenable argument that we live in an undemocratic democracy, if this was indeed DePape's beef, then her sign and press release should have related to the electoral process and not her displeasure with the policies of the present government. But that is, of course, not what she did, so I doubt that what you say she was objecting to was actually what she was objecting to. You PR proponents are just piggy-backing on her stunt.

[cybercoma]

Leaving aside the untenable argument that we live in an undemocratic democracy, if this was indeed DePape's beef, then her sign and press release should have related to the electoral process and not her displeasure with the policies of the present government. But that is, of course, not what she did, so I doubt that what you say she was objecting to was actually what she was objecting to. You PR proponents are just piggy-backing on her stunt.

It's all related. Harper's track-record and platform on the items she discussed in her press release are the antithesis of the other parties' positions. So, a party that received 40% of the vote will set an agenda that runs against what 60% of the voters wanted during the election.

[TimG]

You haven't been paying attention at all. It's not this time. It has been producing undemocratic results for decades.

Only in your opinion. There is no grand rule for representative democracy that says that distribution of seats much exactly match voter preference. The only things that are required for there to be a legimate democratic election:

1) All parties compete under the same rules;

2) Changes in voter preference can change the outcome;

Claiming the results were not democratic is self serving and false.

[TimG]

So, a party that received 40% of the vote will set an agenda that runs against what 60% of the voters wanted during the election.

Wrong. On some issues this is true but on other issues this divide is not nearly as great. More importantly, you cannot assume that a vote for a party means support for all policies. There are likely many Liberals who would have preferred a Liberal government but can live with a Conservative one. Your talking points are just that: talking points that have no bearing on the reality.

[cybercoma]

Wrong. On some issues this is true but on other issues this divide is not nearly as great. More importantly, you cannot assume that a vote for a party means support for all policies. There are likely many Liberals who would have preferred a Liberal government but can live with a Conservative one. Your talking points are just that: talking points that have no bearing on the reality.

You have no point. Using your logic, you can't assume that a vote for the Conservatives means people support their policies either. So, the best measurement we have are the votes cast. Only 25% of the eligible voters saw fit to support the Conservative Party by voting for them. When a party gets a strong majority of seats in the House with less than 40% of the votes, that's a problem regardless of the party. Especially when the other parties, on the issues that DePape discussed, are more or less united.

[TimG]

When a party gets a strong majority of seats in the House with less than 40% of the votes, that's a problem regardless of the party. Especially when the other parties, on the issues that DePape discussed, are more or less united.

But they are not really united. If they were there would have only been one opposition party. And when you look at the details of the policies you see significant differences. For example, the Liberals may have promised cap & trade but also said that all revenues would go back to the provinces. The NDP said these revenues would fund new federal programs. That is a huge difference in policies even if the headline makes it like they sound the same. On top of that the CPC has said it would align with Americans which means cap™ if they adopt that so you cannot really claim the CPC policy is that different either.

Bottom line is you can't say anything meaningful by combining the votes of the opposition. Each party has their own policies and the CPC was the party that got the most seats. There is nothing undemocratic about it.

Edited June 6, 2011 by TimG

[g_bambino]

It's all related.

Well, she is obviously not pleased with the results of this past election and feels mobs in the street would be a better way of selecting a government. I doubt, though, she'd have done anything had the very same election put Layton at the Governor General's right hand side on Friday; her complaint was about Harper's policies, not an unfair electoral process that denied Layton his rightful place.

[c/e]

Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[ReeferMadness]

Only in your opinion. There is no grand rule for representative democracy that says that distribution of seats much exactly match voter preference. The only things that are required for there to be a legimate democratic election:

1) All parties compete under the same rules;

2) Changes in voter preference can change the outcome;

Claiming the results were not democratic is self serving and false.

That is such status quo apologist bullshit. Do you even understand democracy??

Democracy is rule by the people. Since it's not feasible to have everyone in parliament, we have representatives, the theory being that your representative can speak for you. That's the theory. But here's the rub.

In modern times, all parties, but particularly the Conservatives, have been successful at sucking the legitimate power away from the MP's and centralizing it in the hands of the leader and his unelected camp followers. So, instead of being the people's representatives in Ottawa, MP's have become the party's representatives back to the people. The whole thing is turned on its head. So, you can vote for a person if you want but what you really get is a party. And on top of all of that, the party you vote for isn't properly represented in terms of proportionality.

The bottom line is that when a government has unfettered power and uses that power in a way contrary to the views of the majority of the people, it can no longer be considered legitimate in any meaningful democratic way.

[ReeferMadness]

Well, she is obviously not pleased with the results of this past election and feels mobs in the street would be a better way of selecting a government. I doubt, though, she'd have done anything had the very same election put Layton at the Governor General's right hand side on Friday; her complaint was about Harper's policies, not an unfair electoral process that denied Layton his rightful place.

[c/e]

It always comes to this. When you don't think your opponent is bad enough, just make shit up. Invent stuff holus bolus. Well done!

Did DePape call for mobs in the streets? Heck no! But don't let that stop you.

[g_bambino]

In modern times, all parties, but particularly the Conservatives, have been successful at sucking the legitimate power away from the MP's and centralizing it in the hands of the leader and his unelected camp followers.

That can be fixed without touching the electoral system. Just have a party's caucus select the party leader, ergo making the leader more accountable to MPs and thus to the House of Commons as a whole, which is exactly the premise upon which our system of responsible government is founded.

[g_bambino]

It always comes to this. When you don't think your opponent is bad enough, just make shit up. Invent stuff holus bolus. Well done!

Did DePape call for mobs in the streets? Heck no! But don't let that stop you.

Your heroic defense of her is cute, but unfortunate, since she did indeed say that Canadians needed to emulate the actions of certain thousands who took to the streets and brought down governments in places like Egypt and Tunisia.

[cybercoma]

Your heroic defense of her is cute, but unfortunate, since she did indeed say that Canadians needed to emulate the actions of certain thousands who took to the streets and brought down governments in places like Egypt and Tunisia.

They were peaceful protests until certain leaders began attacking the protesters with police and military, if I recall correctly.

[g_bambino]

They were peaceful protests until certain leaders began attacking the protesters with police and military, if I recall correctly.

And the relevance of that is what, exactly?

The point is, this former page and her supporters feel that they are as noble and justified in calling for thousands of Canadians to take to the streets to bring down an elected government as those who in the Middle East called for thousands to take to the streets to bring down unelected governments so that they might have the kind of election we just had. Even more twisted are the PR proponents who've piggybacked on Ms. DePape's protest and try to argue that she's right because the present government was elected illigitimately, as though our system of government is the same as Egypt's and our elections are as much a joke as those that put Mubarak repeatedly into office. The thinking is impossible to take seriously.

[mentalfloss]

The point is, this former page and her supporters feel that they are as noble and justified in calling for thousands of Canadians to take to the streets to bring down an elected government as those who in the Middle East called for thousands to take to the streets to bring down unelected governments so that they might have the kind of election we just had. Even more twisted are the PR proponents who've piggybacked on Ms. DePape's protest and try to argue that she's right because the present government was elected illigitimately, as though our system of government is the same as Egypt's and our elections are as much a joke as those that put Mubarak repeatedly into office. The thinking is impossible to take seriously.

I think it's great even if it is a partially fallacious equivocation. I would rather have the government under too much scrutiny than too little. She raised awareness of political dialogue that needs to be a constant reminder for people in order to hold our government accountable for its actions.

[Keepitsimple]

It always comes to this. When you don't think your opponent is bad enough, just make shit up. Invent stuff holus bolus. Well done!

Did DePape call for mobs in the streets? Heck no! But don't let that stop you.

Calling for an Arab Spring and civil disobedience sounds like mobs in the street to me. No?

[mentalfloss]

Calling for an Arab Spring and civil disobedience sounds like mobs in the street to me. No?

Not necessarily. It just means that there needs to be a constant awareness - a healthy skepticism of the government. She stated herself that the public needs to be creative in their protests. That doesn't mean they have to be violent.