The bravest person in Canada

[g_bambino]

She called for a "Canadian version of an Arab Spring". That could easily mean peaceful protests. As others have pointed out here (not that you'd bother to actually read them), many of the Arab protests were peaceful.

Violence is a red herring. The question is: what was the ultimate aim of those who participated and are participating in the Arab Spring?

[g_bambino]

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.

The wrong I was saying she committed was the abuse of her position to voice her personal opinion in an inappropriate place at an inappropriate time. It's obviously not only me who considers that wrong since her employer dismissed her for it. As you seem to believe the Speaker of the Senate was correct to terminate her employment for that reason, you also must believe she committed a wrong, which means that, in an odd, circuitous way, we agree.

Upon further reflection, though, I wonder what's to stop other pages who're nearing the end of their contracts from doing the same thing? Ms. DePape doesn't seem to be suffering terribly from the consequences of her actions.

[ReeferMadness]

Violence is a red herring. The question is: what was the ultimate aim of those who participated and are participating in the Arab Spring?

Well, golly gee. I'd say the ultimate aim is to get Harper to listen and follow the will of the people. It would be like.... like.... like democracy!!!

I guess if you genuflect before the one true Harper, the all-knowing, all-powerful one that might sound like heresy.

[ReeferMadness]

Upon further reflection, though, I wonder what's to stop other pages who're nearing the end of their contracts from doing the same thing? Ms. DePape doesn't seem to be suffering terribly from the consequences of her actions.

Wow. I see what you mean. All those pages running amok could cause some serious damage. They could keep all those senators awake during senate nap time! Imagine all those grumpy senators and the damage they might do.

[g_bambino]

Wow. I see what you mean. All those pages running amok could cause some serious damage. They could keep all those senators awake during senate nap time! Imagine all those grumpy senators and the damage they might do.

That's childish.

[g_bambino]

I'd say the ultimate aim is to get Harper to listen and follow the will of the people. It would be like.... like.... like democracy!!!

Did you really mean to say the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Libya want Harper to listen to them? I doubt it. So, I'll ask again: what was and is the ultimate aim of those who participated and are participating in the Arab Spring?

[sp]

Edited June 7, 2011 by g_bambino

[ReeferMadness]

That's childish.

Really? How much damage could pages running amok do?

[ReeferMadness]

Did you really mean to say the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Libya want Harper to listen to them? I doubt it. So, I'll ask again: what was and is the ultimate aim of those who participated and are participating in the Arab Spring?

[sp]

I would say that the people participating in Arab Spring would like a democracy. A real democracy where the government would do what the people wanted.

And I'd like the same for Canada.

Again I know it's heresy to think the people might know better than Harper. We should all bow before him and just accept that he knows better than us even as he pursues policies that have been grotesque failures in the U.S.

[Remiel]

Upon further reflection, though, I wonder what's to stop other pages who're nearing the end of their contracts from doing the same thing? Ms. DePape doesn't seem to be suffering terribly from the consequences of her actions.

Copycats do not usually fare that well, though. If you are concerned, and I am not so sure you should be, then you should probably be more concerned about people who are not Senate pages acting up.

[cybercoma]

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. ... So is Harper also a "stupid bitch", or do Conservative boosters save such vitriol for females?

Conveniently ignored.

[g_bambino]

I would say that the people participating in Arab Spring would like a democracy. A real democracy where the government would do what the people wanted.

Indeed, they do. They want what we have: regular and free elections, leaders bound by laws, rights and freedoms based on 1000 years of legal evolution and currently embedded in our constitution. It's therefore presently impossible for there to be a Canadian version of the Arab Spring; the call for such a thing is specious.

[ReeferMadness]

Indeed, they do. They want what we have: regular and free elections, leaders bound by laws, rights and freedoms based on 1000 years of legal evolution and currently embedded in our constitution. It's therefore presently impossible for there to be a Canadian version of the Arab Spring; the call for such a thing is specious.

Well, isn't that just the height of arrogance!! You think we are at some pinnacle of democracy?? We have regular elections when the people in charge decide we do. They produce a result that isn't reflective of what the voters want. The leaders are bound by laws until they decide they're not. The freedoms are there until they are arbitrarily revoked when some law and order freak decides it's time to scare us with tales of terrorists.

[TimG]

They produce a result that isn't reflective of what the voters want.

Says who? The election was held. The party that got the plurality of votes won therefore it reflects want the voters wanted. That is the way democracy works. There is no rule of democracy that says that every point of view must be represented in the government. That is self serving crap you are making up. Edited June 7, 2011 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

We should encourage anarchy? That's what you're suggesting. Imagine if pages did this all the time, jumping in to interrupt question period, perhaps, or to interrupt members talking on bills. Imagine if the messengers and security people joined in.

Why stop there?? Imagine if all of the people rose up and demanded government that was accountable to the people? Imagine if they wanted an electoral system that produced a result that actually reflected the voters intentions? Or even worse, if people wanted to directly control the things that affected them??

My God, that would be...... like..... democracy.

We can't have that. Put those pages in chains.

[RNG]

Why stop there?? Imagine if all of the people rose up and demanded government that was accountable to the people? Imagine if they wanted an electoral system that produced a result that actually reflected the voters intentions? Or even worse, if people wanted to directly control the things that affected them??

My God, that would be...... like..... democracy.

We can't have that. Put those pages in chains.

Are you advocating that democracy morph to anarchy? Dolt!

[ReeferMadness]

Says who? The election was held. The party that got the plurality of votes won therefore it reflects want the voters wanted. That is the way democracy works. There is no rule of democracy that says that every point of view must be represented in the government. That is self serving crap you are making up.

That's they way the half-assed system that we have works. 40% of the vote (the part that bothers to show up anymore) gets you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. That doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds more like plutocracy.

But I guess when something works in your selfish interest, you can come up with a justification for just about anything. Shit, even slave owners found a way to justify themselves.

[ReeferMadness]

Are you advocating that democracy morph to anarchy? Dolt!

Well, it might sound that way to a fascist. But most people could read what I wrote and see that I was referring to direct democracy.

[TimG]

That's they way the half-assed system that we have works. 40% of the vote (the part that bothers to show up anymore) gets you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. That doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds more like plutocracy.

The fact is even if liberals and ndp formed a coalition they would not represent the majority because the coalition would only implment a subset of the policies that each party platform. i.e. the ndp voters would have liberal policies forced on them and vise versa. Why is that scenario any more democratic that the scenario where libs and ndp voters are expected to live with some cpc policies which they don't like?

I would even go further and suggest that coalitions are inherently undemocratic because they never implement the party platforms and voters have no say in what policies are discarded and what are kept. With our current system the voters picked the CPC and they get exactly what policies they voted for.

You can't turn around and claim that party policies don't matter because that is then entire basis for the 60% claim. If voters are simply voting for the parties they trust to do the right thing then it is absolutely absurd to combine the opposition party votes as if it meant something.

Edited June 7, 2011 by TimG

[RNG]

That's they way the half-assed system that we have works. 40% of the vote (the part that bothers to show up anymore) gets you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. That doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds more like plutocracy.

But I guess when something works in your selfish interest, you can come up with a justification for just about anything. Shit, even slave owners found a way to justify themselves.

And because Happy Jack was rejected by 70% of the electorate, what do you think we should do? Whiner.

[ReeferMadness]

The fact is even if liberals and ndp formed a coalition they would not represent the majority because the coalition would only implment a subset of the policies that each party platform. i.e. the ndp voters would have liberal policies forced on them and vise versa. Why is that scenario any more democratic that the scenario where libs and ndp voters are expected to live with some cpc policies which they don't like?

Well, apparently if the NDP and Liberals tried to form a coalition, Harper would lie to the people of Canada and call it a coup d'etat. And the people would believe him because most of them are so poorly educated, they believe that we directly elect a PM the way the Americans directly elect a president. And then he would politicize the office of the Governor General by proroguing Parliament to hide from it. Which is also apparently OK with the people who seem to believe that Parliament is accountable to him rather than the other way around. And then he could withhold information from Parliament until he was declared in contempt of Parliament. Which apparently is also OK with the people who apparently don't have the foggiest fucking clue how our system of governance is supposed to function.

But hey, according to bambi, we are at the very pinnacle of democracy.

I would even go further and suggest that coalitions are inherently undemocratic because they never implement the party platforms and voters have no say in what policies are discarded and what are kept. With our current system the voters picked the CPC and they get exactly what policies they voted for.

And yet, many of the western democracies do just fine with coalitions. Go figure.

You can't turn around and claim that party policies don't matter because that is then entire basis for the 60% claim. If voters are simply voting for the parties they trust to do the right thing then it is absolutely absurd to combine the opposition party votes as if it meant something.

Well, there isn't much point in voting for an individual MP, now is there? They're useless, you know. Devoid of any real power or even influence. Fenceposts with hair, as Rafe Mair likes to say.

Edited June 7, 2011 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

And because Happy Jack was rejected by 70% of the electorate, what do you think we should do? Whiner.

Well, obviously, we peons should all just shut up and be happy with the system we have because it works for you. And Harper of course.

[dre]

Evidently you had enough time to post repeatedly in this thread about it - and to claim that no one other than WWWTT is calling her a hero. So I'd say it's more like people looking for news sites about it want to actually know what they're talking about before spouting off about it. Fyi, it takes about 2 seconds to type in "Brigette DePape hero" and see how many results come up, so perhaps people doing that don't need as much time as you do to find information about an issue.

I find it interesting that you are comparing someone who says they don't like Harper to a whistle blower.

Evidently you had enough time to post repeatedly in this thread about it

I explained what angle interests me and why Im posting.

I find it interesting that you are comparing someone who says they don't like Harper to a whistle blower.

The comparison makes really good sense in the context Im making it... Im addressing people who say she should not have not done this because of her "oath" or her "duty" to the government.

[dre]

We should encourage anarchy? That's what you're suggesting. Imagine if pages did this all the time, jumping in to interrupt question period, perhaps, or to interrupt members talking on bills. Imagine if the messengers and security people joined in.

No we shouldnt encourage anarchy. We should encourage acts of conscience by people in the civil service even if they violate rules and procedures... even if this one was pointless and frivalous.

[dre]

Now you are making excuses. There are lots of stories that get the punditry excited that most people dont give a damn about. This is one them. If you find people getting upset at this it is ONLY because they are responding to yahoo claiming she is as hero in the media. If there was no one trying to make a symbol out of her there would be nobody who cared enough to criticized her.

What is interesting is your complete blindness. You read through the thread and conclude that people are unfairly attacking the girl. The trouble is you completely ignored all the people calling her a hero which explains the attack. Instead of acknowledging this you up the ante on the hero worship train by associating her with whistle blowers.

Where did I claim that people were unfairly attacking the girl? I responded to a specific line of reason given by some people in this thread... talk of "oaths" and "duty" to the government, and commented on that directly, and I commented on the fact this rational is often used against REAL whistle blowers.

The trouble is you completely ignored all the people calling her a hero which explains the attack.

I didnt ignore that. I commented on it about 5 times.

Instead of acknowledging this you up the ante on the hero worship train by associating her with whistle blowers.

I did acknowledge that on numerous occations, and your assertion is just flat out bullshit like the rest of your post. If I was trying to up the ante on the "hero worship" of this girl, I probably wouldnt have used words like "stupid, naive, pointless, frivalous, and waste of time" to describe what she did.

Like I said... the only thing I find interesting is the logic given by some as to why she should have kept quiet. It reminded me of the confused outrage over wikileaks, and I wouldnt be suprised for a second if we start hearing about death threats or called for this kids assasination.

[TimG]

And yet, many of the western democracies do just fine with coalitions. Go figure.

Your are evading the question. Every argument you use to critize the Harper governments as "undemocratic" also applies to coalitions. They are as "undemocratic" (according to your definition based on policies implemented) as what we have now.

The fact is we have a system with clear rules that are followed by all parties. No matter how much Harper complained he would have stepped down if the lib-ndp coalition with more seats than himm took over. That is what makes our system a democracy. Your convoluted definition based on dreaming up coalitions that the voters never voted for does not make the system undemocractic.

Edited June 7, 2011 by TimG