cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Simply unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Harper lied about the law No he told the truth. The law was neutered by amnesty, right from 1998. And Chretien was the one who lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Harper lied about the law No, he told the truth. The law was neutered by amnesty, right from 1998. And Chretien was the one who lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Simply unbelievable. That someone would call her the "bravest person in Canada"? You bet it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Did she not take an oath when taking on the position, not to engage in such activities? Where are her moral values, not to mention she waited until the end of her term so didn't lose much. The position is non-partisan, and the pages know this going into the job. That she thought her own personal views were more important says a lot, and I can understand the anger that a lot of people have over this - especially since it happened on the tax payer's dime. She had three weeks left on the job, so losing the job when she did was no hardship. She also took advantage of her interview to put it out there that she was looking for employment. How many people get the benefit of that kind of exposure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 No he told the truth. The law was neutered by amnesty, right from 1998. And Chretien was the one who lied. I think you've contributed to the wrong thread. You meant to post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That someone would call her the "bravest person in Canada"? You bet it is. That calling her "the bravest person in Canada" can be seen as the same thing as calling her a "stupid bitch". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I think you've contributed to the wrong thread. You meant to post here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That calling her "the bravest person in Canada" can be seen as the same thing as calling her a "stupid bitch". She doesn't deserve either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That calling her "the bravest person in Canada" can be seen as the same thing as calling her a "stupid bitch". That's because you can only see one side. Both reactions are on par for the reasons stated. Both sides see the others' reaction as insulting and out of line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Like I said... I agree this was a relatively frivalous statement, but society should ENCOURAGE this kind of behavior not discourage it. Otherwise we risk sending the wrong message to real whistle blowers. Ummm... minor point... this woman was not a "whistle blower". She was not exposing illegal or corrupt secret activity that the government was involved in. She may not have liked the government policies, but that doesn't make her a "whistleblower" by exposing them. Any real whistle blowers will likely be smart enough to understand the difference between "Waaa!! Don't like Harper Policies! I think I'll protest" and "Hmm... this MPs doing something that they would be in jail for... better do something". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 That someone would call her the "bravest person in Canada"? You bet it is. She's real Vimy Ridge or Juno Beach material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Huh !!! Did you know she did an interview with John Tory on CFRB where he asked her if she ever discussed her view with any of the Senators et al.. guess what - she said No, cos she thought she would be fired - she's a coward, she waited until the end of her term to publicly express her views, she's an idiot not deserving of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Huh !!! Did you know she did an interview with John Tory on CFRB where he asked her if she ever discussed her view with any of the Senators et al.. guess what - she said No, cos she thought she would be fired - she's a coward, she waited until the end of her term to publicly express her views, she's an idiot not deserving of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 To the contrary, it lies at the heart of the discussion. DePape is entitled to her opinion. She is entitled to express her opinion. She is not, however, entitled to use her non-partisan post that grants her unique access to the Senate as a vehicle to express her opinion. If the opposite were true, it would eventually become impossible to have Senate pages, lest there never be a Throne Speech or Royal Assent ceremony or even average working day wherein some self-inflated page didn't stand up and demand everyone pay attention to their personal opinions. It is not true at all that it would become impossible to have Senate pages. She lost her job. That is the only consequence there is for most positions and yet that does not make the impossible to be had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 She lost her job. True. Though, you give the impression she shouldn't have, since she was entirely justified in doing what she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 True. Though, you give the impression she shouldn't have, since she was entirely justified in doing what she did. Oh, I apologize for that. Being justified in doing what she did morally does not necessarily entail that she should not be fired. Doing what she did has practical consequences that are themselves justified, independent of the morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 She lost her job because she took an oath to be non-partisan, and clearly she broke that oath. I wonder how many people feel the queen or the GG should speak up regarding their political views - or if they should respect their position and remain non-partisan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) delete - double post Edited June 6, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 What's really pathetic are the Conservative party booster club members, calling down this young lady with names like "stupid bitch" for some percieved violation of parliamentary procedure. These are the same "stupid bitches" that have defended Harper for every breach of parliamentary ethics and procedure he has made over the last 5 years. Prorogue parliament to avoid a condfidence motion, no problem,...fixed election date? what fixed election date?....fundraising letters sent out of a minister's office? no problem, lying to parliament and altering signed documents? A problem...^NOT^. So is Harper also a "stupid bitch", or do Conservative boosters save such vitriol for females? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 She lost her job because she took an oath to be non-partisan, and clearly she broke that oath. I wonder how many people feel the queen or the GG should speak up regarding their political views - or if they should respect their position and remain non-partisan? Hey, by extension, the reigning monarch supports PM Harper as well, so would it have been OK for this Senate page to pie the Queen in the face with whipped cream? You know...as a way of protesting and expressing herself in a free and democratic Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 She lost her job because she took an oath to be non-partisan, and clearly she broke that oath. I wonder how many people feel the queen or the GG should speak up regarding their political views - or if they should respect their position and remain non-partisan? A Senate page is not the Governor General and is not the Queen. I suppose that next you will be trying to tell us that the head of the RCMP coming out in the favour or a political party has the same significance as that of a beat cop speaking his mind in Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Ummm... minor point... this woman was not a "whistle blower". She was not exposing illegal or corrupt secret activity that the government was involved in. She may not have liked the government policies, but that doesn't make her a "whistleblower" by exposing them. Any real whistle blowers will likely be smart enough to understand the difference between "Waaa!! Don't like Harper Policies! I think I'll protest" and "Hmm... this MPs doing something that they would be in jail for... better do something". Yup. And I posted numerous times that seems pretty frivalous to me. Her judgement in my estimate was wrong. But given the fact that it WAS her judgement, and she felt compelled to make a statement about this, she certainly should not have abstained from doing so because of the rules around her job. And like I said... all the crap people are spouting about "the rules!" and "she took an oath" could be applied to a REAL whistle blower that WAS uncoverying improprietary by the government. So I could care less that she broke the rules... if theres a problem its that shes naive and didnt really have anything of substance to protest. The rules are besides the point... every worker on earth is free to risk their job by violating "the rules" if they so choose, and are willing to live with the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 contrary, it lies at the heart of the discussion. DePape is entitled to her opinion. She is entitled to express her opinion. She is not, however, entitled to use her non-partisan post that grants her unique access to the Senate as a vehicle to express her opinion. But she IS entitled to do that... provided shes willing to accept the consequences. As is any one else in any job. We all have contracts with our employers... many of them with various diference gag clauses. And every single one of us has a line that if crosses would cause us to breach that contract. At issue here is her JUDGEMENT... not the fact that she violated the terms of her employment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 This thread definately wins the awards for the worst analogies ever posted. "What if you were trying to watch and movie!". "What about throwing a pie at the queens face!". :lol: 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.