Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 If I were to put you in a 6' x 12' cell, would it be right or wrong? Neither. It would be funny. Make My Day Harper who is the liar. Prove it. Did he promise to kill GST and NAFTA to get elected? How is it unjust for his undeserved ceremony to be disrupted? Only thing undeserved was her job. It's gone and all is fine again. Quote
PIK Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 If she did this to chretien the CBC would be all over this and would be asking for her head. People just can't get over the fact the libs are done, gone and their way of doing business is over. Harper is a breath of fresh air compared to what we have had. He is more right then wrong and comes thru on most of his promises. Just imagine if the libs did somehow win, how totally screwed we would have been ,they can't even go in a room by themselves without knifing someone. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Imprisonment for murder is right.Protesting someone in the Senate who lies about the law is right. The comparison is ludicrous. Imprisonment for murder follows a due process according to democratically created laws. A Senate page using the Throne Speech to voice her misguided personal opinions selfishly abuses the position she was given and bypasses the processes available to her and everyone else through which displeasure with the government can be expressed. If a court finds a person innocent of murder and a clerk of the court personally disagrees, it is not acceptable for that clerk to stand in court with a sign calling for the judge to be stopped and Canadians to amass and either pressure the court to overturn the decision or detain that person on their own. Regardless, your argument is truly demolished by the fact that DePape made no indication that she was displeased with Harper's lies about coalitions; even the tenuous link you invented between her misbehaviour and Harper's doesn't exist. In this case, the one wrong truly isn't made right by the other. [c/e] Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Are these respondents aware that she was doing so during her working hours, when the tax payers were footing the bill for her protest? I some how doubt they are. Besides the law is not subject to the whims of the masses. I could care less about black civil rights in the US, we're not talking about the US. Further, how about the BNA act? Or the consitution act? What about equal marriage or a myriad of other changes? What protests sparked these meaningful changes? Or were they done through proper, orderly legal channels? Should a duly elected government be overthrown simply because some don't like the outcome? Of course not, to suggest such a thing is ludicrous. I dont see any indication that the people who answered the poll didnt know that. Its central to the story after all. Besides the law is not subject to the whims of the masses. No but the law does not prevent her or anyone else from using their position as pulpit from which to express an opinion. It just provides consequences. She decided that the consequences were acceptable. She violated the terms of her employment, and she lost her job. And this is exactly what reasonable people expect of people in the government, and its the reason why most people dont have too much of a problem with it. I think most people want government officials to do what they think is right even if that means violating some rules and procedures. In this particular case the girl was naive and didnt really have too much to say, or any thing specific to complain about. So this expression was somewhat fivalous and pointless. But next time that might not be the case. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Now she's selfish for losing her job, risking charges, and exposing herself to public criticism. Riiight. Quote
TimG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 A good contrast to illustrate the childish and vacuous nature of the protest and the people who wish to praise her: Brigette DePape: The 21-year-old graduate from the University of Ottawa made headlines for holding up a protest sign that read 'Stop Harper' at the start of the Throne Speech: "This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab Spring." DePape has since received several job offers and is considering taking a position with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.Hamza Ali al-Khateeb: A 13-year-old Syrian boy who tagged along at an antigovernment protest in the town of Saida a few weeks ago, was arrested, was burned, beaten, lacerated and given electroshocks. His jaw and kneecaps were shattered. He was shot in both arms. When his father saw the state of Hamza’s body, he passed out. Among the elementary-school students tortured by Bashar Assad’s brutal regime are children as young as 10, picked up by security agents for scrawling antigovernment graffiti on a school wall. Those returned to their parents had cigarette burns on their bodies, and the fingernails had been pulled from their hands. Word of the torture spread, fueling further protests, prompting crackdowns with appalling new levels of cruelty. http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/06/sound-of-tumbrels.html Quote
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Now she's selfish for losing her job, risking charges, and exposing herself to public criticism. Riiight. Like I said... it comes down to peoples view of government. Some people are afraid of government and what it can/might do. These people are generally tolerant of a case like this where a government employee ignores the rules in order to make what she thought was an important statement (even though in my estimation it really wasnt). And some people virtually worship the sanctity of government and are outraged that a government employee would violate the governments "rules" in an act of opposition (even token opposition like we have in this case). You got a really good taste of these two different groups during the whole WikiLeaks thing. Lots of people were happy that there was an organization to help whistle-blowers get information out of the public... Lots of others were publically calling for Assange to be executed. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 A good contrast to illustrate the childish and vacuous nature of the protest and the people who wish to praise her: http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/06/sound-of-tumbrels.html Actually it does the exact opposite. This just shows where the attitudes of the people ranting about this girl and calling her all kinds of names, goes when taken to its extreme. If a person who thinks they have something important to say abstains from doing so because they might violate some procedural rules, then they are a coward. And theres way to many of these cowards in government already that happily "follow the rules" and keep their mouths shut. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Like I said... it comes down to peoples view of government. Some people are afraid of government and what it can/might do. These people are generally tolerant of a case like this where a government employee ignores the rules in order to make what she thought was an important statement (even though in my estimation it really wasnt).The objections in this thread were objections to the op which claimed she was some sort of hero. Without that attempt to build her up there would have been no attempt to tear her down. It is that simple.Trying to characterize this as a question of a 'civil servant breaking the rules' is wrong. The argument is over the reaction to her protest - not the protest itself. Quote
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 The objections in this thread were objections to the op which claimed she was some sort of hero. Without that attempt to build her up there would have been no attempt to tear her down. It is that simple. Trying to characterize this as a question of a 'civil servant breaking the rules' is wrong. The argument is over the reaction to her protest - not the protest itself. The hyperbole in the OP was DEFINATELY a problem and derailed this train before it even left the station. But I read quite a few posts expressing outrage that she dared abuse the privilege of her position, and that she dared break the rules. This kind of thing typically comes out of that second group I mentioned... the government power loving sycophants. Im in the other group. I want everyone in government that things they have something important expression to speak up... and more importantly I want government to make decisions knowing that eventually their dirty laundry will get aired by their own people. Even if it means some people like this women will waste our times with this kind of substanceless stuff. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Except for all the posts trashing her. That doesn't really seem to be about the reaction to her protest. Quote
Scotty Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 If a person who thinks they have something important to say abstains from doing so because they might violate some procedural rules, then they are a coward. And theres way to many of these cowards in government already that happily "follow the rules" and keep their mouths shut. If you are trusted with a duty, betraying that duty had better have an awfully tall imperative behind it. She never would have had the chance to be in there, remember, had she not promised to follow the rules and dictates of the Senate, and almost certainly sworn an oath. And she betrayed that for what exactly? Because she wanted to make a meaningless gesture and get on TV. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) If you are trusted with a duty, betraying that duty had better have an awfully tall imperative behind it. She never would have had the chance to be in there, remember, had she not promised to follow the rules and dictates of the Senate, and almost certainly sworn an oath. And she betrayed that for what exactly? Because she wanted to make a meaningless gesture and get on TV. 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. Edited June 6, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Saipan Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Actually it does the exact opposite. This just shows where the attitudes of the people ranting about this girl and calling her all kinds of names, goes when taken to its extreme. If a person who thinks they have something important to say abstains from doing so because they might violate some procedural rules, then they are a coward. Say you pay for seeing a movie, and as you watch some jerk jumps up go to the front to state his very important message to everyone. After all he's not a coward so you'll admire him. Quote
dre Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Say you pay for seeing a movie, and as you watch some jerk jumps up go to the front to state his very important message to everyone. After all he's not a coward so you'll admire him. Or better yet... Imagine for a moment if someone tried to come up with the dumbest and most pointless analogy every concieved. Now re-read your post. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 But I read quite a few posts expressing outrage that she dared abuse the privilege of her position, and that she dared break the rules.But that is all part of tearing down the narrative that the op tried to build up. Given a choice I think most people complaining about her would have ignored her. The problem are the people who are trying to turn he into a hero and her rule breaking is simply one of many reasons why she ain't no hero. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Except for all the posts trashing her. That doesn't really seem to be about the reaction to her protest. The posts trashing her are just the opposite reaction to those calling her brave, a hero, the bravest person in Canada. Both reactions are extreme - and those who don't see her as the brave hero she's being made out to be are just as annoyed with that reaction as you are with the reaction of those who are trashing her. Quote
Remiel Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 The comparison is ludicrous. Imprisonment for murder follows a due process according to democratically created laws. A Senate page using the Throne Speech to voice her misguided personal opinions selfishly abuses the position she was given and bypasses the processes available to her and everyone else through which displeasure with the government can be expressed. If a court finds a person innocent of murder and a clerk of the court personally disagrees, it is not acceptable for that clerk to stand in court with a sign calling for the judge to be stopped and Canadians to amass and either pressure the court to overturn the decision or detain that person on their own. Due process is irrelevant to this particular argument. The truth value of "it is right to lock up murderers" can be established independently of whether any particular murderer is locked up. In fact, it must be established before one sets out to create a process by which to determine who is a murderer. Also, what if the situation is reveresed? If a judge finds someone guilty of murder, but the clerk knows that the judge has disregarded the law in making such a judgement, how would you find the behaviour then? Is it more proper for an innocent person to be sent to prison than for a clerk to question a judge? Regardless, your argument is truly demolished by the fact that DePape made no indication that she was displeased with Harper's lies about coalitions; even the tenuous link you invented between her misbehaviour and Harper's doesn't exist. In this case, the one wrong truly isn't made right by the other. It is not truly demolished at all. It is merely diverted, perhaps. The apparent fact that DePape may not have reasoned a certain way has no impact on how a page who reasoned the another way should be judged for the same action. " DePape was wrong to protest in the Senate, " is not a sufficent condition for " It is wrong to protest in the Senate, " which would be what would be necessary for my argument to be " truly demolished " . Quote
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 society should ENCOURAGE this kind of behavior not discourage it. You must be joking. Do you encourage people to yak loudly on their phones during a performance in a theatre? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 The posts trashing her are just the opposite reaction to those calling her brave, a hero, the bravest person in Canada. Both reactions are extreme - and those who don't see her as the brave hero she's being made out to be are just as annoyed with that reaction as you are with the reaction of those who are trashing her. Hardly. I think it's unjustifiable to be calling her a "stupid bitch". How can you even compare that to calling her a hero? Maybe she's not a hero, but to say calling her a "stupid bitch" is on par? Give me a break. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 But that is all part of tearing down the narrative that the op tried to build up. Given a choice I think most people complaining about her would have ignored her. The problem are the people who are trying to turn he into a hero and her rule breaking is simply one of many reasons why she ain't no hero. Exactly. What if everyone who thinks they have something important to say feels they can break whatever rules they want in order to get their message across? Would we all be heroes - or would be be disruptive to the system? What if a taxpayer is upset with the school curriculum? Would he be a hero if he entered a classroom and silently held a sign in protest as the teacher was trying to teach? What if all the pages have something just as important to say as Brigette did - and I'm sure they do - should they all be interrupting Parliament to get their personal message out there? - And getting applause, being hailed as heroes? Commended for their bravery? Or would these instances and others like them be just a tad bit intrusive and disruptive and perhaps out of line? Could it be that there is a time and a place for protests based on one's personal beliefs? Quite frankly I think what we all have to say is just as important as what Brigette had to say. Her views aren't more important than anyone else's. What a world this would be if we all chose to ignore the rules and simply act on our whims - on other people's dime, no less. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 Hardly. I think it's unjustifiable to be calling her a "stupid bitch". How can you even compare that to calling her a hero? Maybe she's not a hero, but to say calling her a "stupid bitch" is on par? Give me a break. I think it's unjustifiable to be calling her a hero. The bravest person in Canada. That's just as out of line to some as the insults are to you. They see it as an insult to true heroes, to people exhibiting true bravery, and they don't like it being applied to someone who doesn't represent their views - who acted on their dime. Both reactions are out of line, both are extreme, and both are just as upsetting to two different groups of people. In that regard, both are on par. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 You must have missed this: I was talking about the anger of the Left with regards to anti-Harper, anti-Right or anti-Conservative. That little bubblehead doesn't qualify. Quote Back to Basics
g_bambino Posted June 6, 2011 Report Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Due process is irrelevant to this particular argument. 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 truly demolished at all. You had one formula that you employed to justify DePape's actions: Harper lied about the law, so it's okay for DePape to experss her personal discontent with Harper in the parliament where laws are made. As DePape said zilch about Harper's lie, the former has absolutely nothing to do with the latter; the two wrongs are entirely disassociated. [c/e] Edited June 6, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
scribblet Posted June 6, 2011 Report 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. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
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.