The bravest person in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok - maybe a clear vase would have worked, with a voiceover from "Planet of the Apes" ?

Well clearly, the voiceover from Canada failed miserably!

[Guest American Woman]

DogOnPorch, on 05 June 2011 - 03:28 PM, said: So...let's grab some guns and take-over the government? No, thanks.

Hyperbole.

Yet referring to the need for an Arab spring is a "fair comparison" to what's going on in Canada?

[ReeferMadness]

I see. So you can judge their characteristics based on their responses to this one incident and that's fine and dandy - but they cannot judge her characteristics on the same basis.

Geez, A&W, you're absolutely right. When Tilter referred to this woman as a "dumb bitch", I immediately associated him with the bunch of half-witted, misogynistic, knuckle-dragging retrogrades who seem to be fond of this particular term.

But that's unfair, isn't it? Maybe Tilter is simply a half-wit misogynist whose knuckles don't actually drag. Or maybe an intelligent misogynistic knuckle-dragger. The possibilities are endless here.

Why don't you tell me what you think when you hear a young woman called a "dumb bitch"?

[cybercoma]

I don't think it's the "challenging" part that people are having a problem with - it's her taking advantage of a privilege she was entrusted with to challenge the government and being hailed as "brave," a "hero," for it.

So what? She could have stood outside Parliament and held up her sign. A lot of good that would have done. It is precisely because she used the opportunity of her privilege that we're discussing this at all. She used that opportunity to deliver a message that she strongly believes in. Good for her. She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't damage any property. The utter disdain some have shown for her and what she had done seems pretty outrageous to me.

You know, the Toronto Police steal an innocent man's prosthetic leg, beat him with batons and lock him up for days without care, food or water and some people defend that. A girl silently holds up a sign and she's attacked by some of the same people. I'm not sure what fantasy world these people are living in, but the government doesn't deserve unconditional free-reign. They can do and have done wrong and they will do wrong again. Those that sit by idly without criticizing them or worse yet, justifying their actions, don't deserve the democratic freedoms they have.

[Guest American Woman]

Geez, A&W, you're absolutely right. When Tilter referred to this woman as a "dumb bitch", I immediately associated him with the bunch of half-witted, misogynistic, knuckle-dragging retrogrades who seem to be fond of this particular term.

But that's unfair, isn't it? Maybe Tilter is simply a half-wit misogynist whose knuckles don't actually drag. Or maybe an intelligent misogynistic knuckle-dragger. The possibilities are endless here.

Why don't you tell me what you think when you hear a young woman called a "dumb bitch"?

So "people," but "probably not all of them," is - in reality - Tilter??

That being the case ..... How about you tell me why you didn't just say "Tilter" instead of "people" and why you didn't specify calling her "a dumb bitch" instead of vaguely saying "judge someone on the basis of a single action or a couple of sound bites" .....

So yeah, referring to "people" but "probably not all of them" [emphasis mine] for what Tilter - one poster- said is most definitely "unfair."

[cybercoma]

Yet referring to the need for an Arab spring is a "fair comparison" to what's going on in Canada?

The Arab Spring didn't involve guns until despots started dropping bombs and sicking their militaries on protestors. They were peaceful protests of people taking to the streets for days on end, trying to force democratic change. Something we so desperately need, since our electoral system is broken and none of the parties are going to do anything about it.

[cybercoma]

So "people," but "probably not all of them," is - in reality - Tilter??

That being the case ..... How about you tell me why you didn't just say "Tilter" instead of "people" and why you didn't specify calling her "a dumb bitch" instead of vaguely saying "judge someone on the basis of a single action or a couple of sound bites" .....

So yeah, referring to "people" but "probably not all of them" [emphasis mine] for what Tilter - one poster- said is most definitely "unfair."

I'm sure Tilter is not alone in his ridiculous sentiment.

[DogOnPorch]

Hyperbole.

Not at all. Sounds to me like she wants an uprising. Perhaps while she watches from safety...but, an uprising none-the-less.

This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring, a flowering of popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces.

---DePape

[DogOnPorch]

The Arab Spring didn't involve guns until despots started dropping bombs and sicking their militaries on protestors. They were peaceful protests of people taking to the streets for days on end, trying to force democratic change. Something we so desperately need, since our electoral system is broken and none of the parties are going to do anything about it.

Yes, yes...they were all saints. Or the Muslim equivalent. Ask Lara Logan.

[Guest American Woman]

So what? She could have stood outside Parliament and held up her sign. A lot of good that would have done. It is precisely because she used the opportunity of her privilege that we're discussing this at all.

Exactly. It's not because she challenged Harper. It's not because she doesn't have a right to voice her opinion.

It's because she abused her privilege, a privilege that many others would have loved to have been granted, to stage her protest. And she did it, as DoP pointed out, on the public's dime. She did it while she was on the clock. As she's being hailed as a brave hero.

She used that opportunity to deliver a message that she strongly believes in. Good for her.

Yeah, good for her. Now if we can just encourage every page, every employee being paid by the taxpayers who has the same access to parliamentary activities, to use that time and privilege to voice their opinions - to voice what they strongly, personally believe in. That would be such a great thing and not disruptive of the system at all. Right?

She didn't hurt anyone. She didn't damage any property. The utter disdain some have shown for her and what she had done seems pretty outrageous to me.

And the hailing her a "hero" and fawning over her "bravery" seems pretty outrageous to me. Comparing what's going on in Canada as a "fair comparison" to "Arab spring" seems pretty outrageous to me. Speaking for all Canadians who didn't vote for Harper, and declaring their beliefs, seems pretty outrageous to me. Staging her protest on the public's dime, when millions of voters do support Harper, seems pretty outrageous to me.

You know, the Toronto Police steal an innocent man's prosthetic leg, beat him with batons and lock him up for days without care, food or water and some people defend that.

That has nothing to do with me, and I won't even ask you who is defending that because it's a different issue from this one, which is the one I am discussing.

A girl silently holds up a sign and she's attacked by some of the same people.

Again, that has nothing to do with me, but it's not her silently holding up a sign that is "under attack." Furthermore, many of us who don't agree with her actions have simply stated so - and why - without attacking her at all. Yet some of us doing that have been attacked by some of those defending this girl. People, eh? Go figure.

I'm not sure what fantasy world these people are living in, but the government doesn't deserve unconditional free-reign.

Whether the government deserves free reign or not is a separate issue from the one under discussion in this thread.

They can do and have done wrong and they will do wrong again. Those that sit by idly without criticizing them or worse yet, justifying their actions, don't deserve the democratic freedoms they have.

Again, no one is questioning her right to state her opinion. It's how she went about it - and that's all been clearly explained.

Edited June 5, 2011 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

Yup; had the story been: "Page holds up anti-Harper sign at some public protest." I wouldn't give a rat's rear. Now that might be her entire point...but, so what?

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure Tilter is not alone in his ridiculous sentiment.

So now you're judging "people" for what Tilter said because "[you're] sure [he] is not alone in his ridiculous sentiment." And that, of course, is totally fair. Got'cha.

Good Lord.

[ReeferMadness]

So "people," but "probably not all of them," is - in reality - Tilter??

Oh, for Chrissakes!! Now, you're just playing games. Anyone capable of reading can see all of the name-calling and other slagging that has been directed at this woman. Like to see some examples??

"brainless little girl child" - Scotty

"ditsy broad" - Sandy McNab

"Little moron" - Saipan

"immature naive girl" - keepitsimple

"21 year old moron" - Shady

"conviction but not brains" - guyser

"deranged loon" - TimG

"Fucking moron" - CPCFTW

"dumb bitch" - Tilter

Reading through those comments, I don't get a sense of intelligence, open-mindedness or wisdom. Instead, I have impressions of misogynists, ageists, and intolerant individuals.

[Machjo]

Bridgette DePape is only 21 and has a huge heart of gold.

Her protest was peacefull and silent and effective.

I wish this young woman all the best and I hope what she has started gains steam and momentum!

WWWTT

She ws just as wrong as if, had a majority NDP-Liberal coaltion been formed, she had pulled out a 'STOP Layton' sign.

How many here who support or oppose her actions can say their position would have been equally unwavering had it been the other way around?

I respect that she has strong beliefs, and yes she is brave, but still wrong on this action.

They wre right in firing her, but I still wish her the best.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Machjo

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, for Chrissakes!! Now, you're just playing games. Anyone capable of reading can see all of the name-calling and other slagging that has been directed at this woman. Like to see some examples??

"brainless little girl child" - Scotty

"ditsy broad" - Sandy McNab

"Little moron" - Saipan

"immature naive girl" - keepitsimple

"21 year old moron" - Shady

"conviction but not brains" - guyser

"deranged loon" - TimG

"Fucking moron" - CPCFTW

"dumb bitch" - Tilter

Reading through those comments, I don't get a sense of intelligence, open-mindedness or wisdom. Instead, I have impressions of misogynists, ageists, and intolerant individuals.

Ummm. No, I wasn't playing games. I was responding to what you posted - and what you had posted was just in reference to what Tilter said. Had you just provided me with this in the first place, instead of going on about Tilter, I wouldn't have questioned your comment. Capice?

Edited to add: I don't see anything particularly wrong with saying she's lacking in brains since she took it upon herself to speak for millions of Canadians based on nothing other than who they voted for. As far as I'm concerned, if people think what she did was stupid, they have the right to express that opinion.

Edited June 5, 2011 by American Woman

[Machjo]

What exactly is the standing up for? A sign saying "stop harper" suggests she is deranged loon expressing a visceral hatred of the prime minister. That does not mean much. If she was actually standing up for something she would have had a sign like "canada out of afghanistan" or "climate action now". But she didn't. All she had was a sign saying she hates the prime minister. Not very inspiring.

I really fail to see why you think this person is worthy of any praise.

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.

[Machjo]

It should be pretty revealing that even many on the left have criticized her actions, recognizing that the ends do not justify the means.

[ReeferMadness]

It should be pretty revealing that even many on the left have criticized her actions, recognizing that the ends do not justify the means.

All that reveals is that your world view is validated when "many on the left" agree with you. That doesn't make any of you right.

What's needed is a sense of proportion. Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country. Who is the real villain here?

[bjre]

Ummm. No, I wasn't playing games. I was responding to what you posted - and what you had posted was just in reference to what Tilter said. Had you just provided me with this in the first place, instead of going on about Tilter, I wouldn't have questioned your comment. Capice?

Edited to add: I don't see anything particularly wrong with saying she's lacking in brains since she took it upon herself to speak for millions of Canadians based on nothing other than who they voted for. As far as I'm concerned, if people think what she did was stupid, they have the right to express that opinion.

Stupid (if so) is not harm to others in most cases.

But intentionally misleading and try to fool others, like many politicians, is different.

[Sandy MacNab]

Let me discuss the second part of your question.

It seems obvious to me that when you arrest protesters,confine them or even just pen them in like cattle,this would be enough to discourage the citizens from being active in our society.

Some level of disruption must be achieved from any protest for it to have any potency!

Increasing the severity of punishment in relation to the level of disruption is encouraged by the government and police.

Excellent example would be the last Canadian G20 and the McGuinty government passing of special legislation to enhance this.

Another way Canadians can be involved in amending legislation is through the legal system.And thats freekin expensive!I do not have to explain how that is discouraging!

WWWTT

You're quite the project. So, "some level of disruption" means what? Should we:

protest the health care system by rioting in emergency ward waiting rooms or interrupting ongoing activity in operating rooms;

protest education cuts by allowing the trashing of schools 08:00 to 17:00, Mon-Fri, Sept-Jun;

allow postal workers to burn down a sorting plant;

protest the high price of gasoline by torching a local filling station;

vent our disapproval of a particular religion by lynching a clergyman & trashing his, church, mosque, synagogue; or

be as civily disruptive as possible whenever we think we've a "cause" to promote?

Frankly, I think you are an anarchist who would stop at no level of thuggery to get your own "important", "earth shaking", "vital for the survival of the planet", blah, blah, blah, cause in front of the media.

[g_bambino]

Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country.

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

[Wild Bill]

All that reveals is that your world view is validated when "many on the left" agree with you. That doesn't make any of you right.

What's needed is a sense of proportion. Brigette hurt nothing except a pompous ceremony. Harper, on the other hand, has done immeasurable damage to our institutions and our country. Who is the real villain here?

It's obvious that you support the young woman simply because you hate Harper. However, the situation goes far beyond that.

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 hated the NDP, AND SAID SO when he or she made their decision?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Wild Bill

[g_bambino]

The Arab Spring didn't involve guns until despots started dropping bombs and sicking their militaries on protestors. They were peaceful protests of people taking to the streets for days on end, trying to force democratic change. Something we so desperately need, since our electoral system is broken and none of the parties are going to do anything about it.

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!

Hypocricy and illogic cooked up only to produce feelings of self-righteousness.

[c/e]

Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino

[Keepitsimple]

Who do you think you are to judge this woman?

Maybe she gets that Harper and his cronies received the votes of only about 25% of eligible voters. Maybe she understands that, in 2008 when the Conservatives called the proposed coalition, a coup d'etat' they were either lying through their teeth or they were deeply ignorant of our system of governance. Either should have been enough to discredit them but apparently the level of political education in this country sucks. Maybe she saw that when Harper politicized the office of the Governor General by asking her to prorogue parliament to help him hide from Parliament, he was weakening our political institutions and cheapening our already cheap democracy. Maybe she can understand that Harper's concentration of power in the hands of unelected PMO staff, usurping the legitimate power of elected MP's, is fundamentally undemocratic.

The real question is why can't you get it? Perhaps if you had more intelligence, more wisdom and an open mind, you could learn from this woman.

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? 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......or would you like to add that 18% of eligible voters voted for the NDP and 12% for the Liberals. Stupid and mis-leading.....and very angry. 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.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[WWWTT]

She ws just as wrong as if, had a majority NDP-Liberal coaltion been formed, she had pulled out a 'STOP Layton' sign.

How many here who support or oppose her actions can say their position would have been equally unwavering had it been the other way around?

I respect that she has strong beliefs, and yes she is brave, but still wrong on this action.

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

If I was to do the same we would never get anywhere so I will not add further

WWWTT