The bravest person in Canada

[cybercoma]

Proportional representation would be like blah blah blah blah blah....

That's very nice. I'm not advocating anything here. Again, I'm pointing out the flaw in the current system that needs addressing. How it's addressed will be a decision that Canadians will need to make collectively.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your bleeding heart insinuations.

Thanks for saving me the time of having to read any more of your nonsense.

[scribblet]

Harper is often portrayed as a monster. But, let's face it...he owns a cat.

Gosh, and here I thought he ate kittens

good piece here on little miss brigette trampling on democracy

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/brigette-stepped-forward-to-trample-on-democracy-123678794.html

But there was no nobility in what Ms. DePape did to make her such a darling. Rather, she abused her privileged position as a page in the Canadian Senate to disrupt the Throne Speech last week by holding up a sign that, somewhat ambiguously, declared "Stop Harper." That was, in any objective sense, an abuse of privilege and an act of treachery against the Canadian democracy.

It is also pretty hard to figure out what our new Canadian revolutionary means or what she wants. She says she wants a "just and equitable" society, whatever that means. Look around the world and it is hard to find a more just and equitable society than Canada. It's not perfect, but Canadians, including Stephen Harper, are still working on it, so unless by "just" one means a society where all aspects of life are dictated, such as North Korea, and by "equitable" one means the equal sharing of poverty and misery that one tends to find in such just societies, then Ms. DePape needs to explain in a little more detail how "Stop Harper" helps anyone.

[cybercoma]

Harper is often portrayed as a monster. But, let's face it...he owns a cat.

He honestly just wants what he feels is best for the country. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of politicians do, regardless of what people say.

[CPCFTW]

That's very nice. I'm not advocating anything here. Again, I'm pointing out the flaw in the current system that needs addressing. How it's addressed will be a decision that Canadians will need to make collectively.

Thanks for saving me the time of having to read any more of your nonsense.

Once again you turn to personal attacks. And I'm the intolerant one.

[cybercoma]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/brigette-stepped-forward-to-trample-on-democracy-123678794.html

What a silly article (well, the part that you posted anyway). Perhaps the author would have preferred it if Ms. DePape rolled out a scroll with fine print, detailing every aspect of her ideas. She released a press statement that gave her specific concerns. Maybe she could have been like Martin Luther and nailed 95 theses the the Senate Chamber's door.

[Guest American Woman]

What a silly article (well, the part that you posted anyway). Perhaps the author would have preferred it if Ms. DePape rolled out a scroll with fine print, detailing every aspect of her ideas.

I think the author would have preferred it if she hadn't abused the privilege she was entrusted with to promote her agenda, whatever it may be.

But that aside, perhaps she should have been objecting to the system - the system that put Harper/his party in the majority. Harper is just doing what any of the other candidates would do - acting on behalf of his platform, the one that got his party the most votes. Isn't that the right thing to do? -ie: Isn't that what those who vote for a party/candidate expect? Would any candidate from any other party do differently?

[bloodyminded]

You mean the point that's only important now that the conservative party is in power? Don't worry I have seen every possible varaiation of this "point".

Yes, now that the Cons have achieved a majority position, their unjust victimization has become complete.

[bush_cheney2004]

...But that aside, perhaps she should have been objecting to the system - the system that put Harper/his party in the majority. Harper is just doing what any of the other candidates would do - acting on behalf of his platform, the one that got his party the most votes.....

Agreed....she looks rather foolish as a compensated page in the very political process/system that gave PM Harper a majority. In effect she is protesting the fundamentals of democratically determining Canadian governance. Her action amounts to nothing more than political vandalism of a Throne Speech. Not so brave....

[cybercoma]

Thank you for your explanation - I appreciate your taking the time to respond, and yes, it does help.

I do realize that you have a different system than we do here in the States and so I try to understand how you are represented in Canada. Obviously we vote directly for some positions that you do not, and as I understand it, your Senators serve for life. Or do I have that wrong? But if they do, they would not represent the results of every election, right? Or are they in a different category than your MPs? - do they represent the voters in a different capacity?

In overly simplistic terms, legislation has to be approved 3 times before it becomes a law in Canada. The House of Commons (where the MPs sit) is the first time. The Senate is the second time. Finally, the Governor General, who represents the Monarch gives the final approval. The GG, I should note is ceremonial and ought not to deny legislation because we have a Constitution. Nevertheless, it technically remains within the GG's power to shoot down any piece of legislation, but has never actually happened in our history. If it did, we would have a Constitutional crisis.

The reason, I mention how this works is that the Prime Minister appoints Senators and the Governor General (technically, the Queen appoints the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Governor General appoints the Senate on the advice of the PM. In reality, they're appointed by the PM without interference). Here's a list of all of our Senators, when they were appointed and when they will retire: http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers/Senate/SenatorsBiography/isenator.asp

As you can tell from the list, an appointment is more or less for the rest of a Senators life. The actual rule is that they must retire at 75. Given that the life expectancy is 72, it's a de facto rest of life position.

In theory, the Senate provides stability because it's composition is slow to change. It is also supposed to offer equal representation to the regions of Canada, so that a more populous area doesn't completely ignore the needs of places with lower populations to their detriment. The West (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) have 24 senators, Ontario has 24 senators, Quebec has 24 senators, and the Maritimes have 24 senators and the territories plus Newfoundland has 9.

However, in many ways is an expensive and moot institution. They have the option of taking a bill that has passed the House of Commons and either passing it, delaying it, amending it or defeating it. I can't ever think of a time that the Senate has actually defeated a bill. Sometimes they amend things and send them back down to the House of Commons to voted on again. Nevertheless, more often than not they simply pass bills. The only time I can think of them defeating a bill was sometime in the 90s when the House passed a bill that would not allow criminals to publish materials about their crimes. The Senate believed that this censorship by the government interfered with the Constitutional rights of the persons it would affect, so they defeated it. I really can't think of any other examples.

So, this is why many people criticize the Senate as being pointless. They don't actually represent the voters because they're appointed by the government of the day. Since 2006, Stephen Harper has only appointed Conservatives. Liberal Prime Ministers, such as Chretien, as a rule appointed mostly Liberals, but there was the occasional Conservative they would occasionally appoint someone from a different party. These positions, though, are very much a thing of patronage. Some notably criticized Senators were a male model, a famous Canadian news-reporter and a couple athletes. Thank you for supporting the party. While the Senate is really there to provide regional representation in Parliament, it rarely functions in this manner.

I do take an interest in how a multi-party nation works in comparison to our two party system. As you pointed out, there are others apart from the main four in Canada just as there are others apart from the main two in the U.S., but basically it is the main parties that we are referring to.

The biggest difference in American politics is that your executive branch is entirely separate and the President him or herself is elected directly. In our Parliamentary system, you vote for a representative in your riding. The party that gets the most representatives into the House of Commons gets the opportunity to form the government. The leader of the party becomes the Prime Minister, then appoints his cabinet, usually from MPs in his or her party, although not limited to that. It's this way of forming government that's entirely different than the United States.

While the United States has a clear distinction between the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government, these lines are blurred in the Canadian system. The executive branch is comprised of members from the legislative branch, who still sit in the legislative Houses (sometimes they can be Senators, although again it's rare). Meanwhile, the judiciary is appointed by the Prime Minister. Instead of having elections for SC justices, our PM appoints them. However, it should be noted that as a rule, they act completely independent of partisan politics. We have never had a problem with partisanship in the Supreme Court as far as I know.

Anyway, there are pros and cons to both systems, as you can imagine.

I understand your point - when the vote is split by parties having more similar views and the one with the most different views therefore ends up with the major representation by virtue of the concentration of the votes, it could be seen as misrepresentation. But, as you said, the parties that you say are more similar in beliefs are not the same party, so if either of those parties had received the most votes the same principle would apply. Would Brigette have been objecting 'to the system'/the PM then?

I don't know. It's tough to say. The Conservative legislation that she's discussing--military expansion, the environment and corporate taxes--is antithetical to the other parties' positions though. Her point is that the majority of voters selected parties that disagree with the Conservatives on these points. The Conservatives, however, were given a majority mandate, which means that those points will not be challenged by the opposition in any meaningful way. While the majority of people voted against them, the majority of MPs cannot vote against them because the Conservatives have a majority of the MPs. This is why she has called on Canadians to take to the streets and stand up for what they believe in. She hopes that Canadians are passionate enough about these issues that they will try to hold the government accountable to how the majority of voters voted. However, we all know that most people are too apathetic to get that involved.

Furthermore, she cannot rightfully say that when Harper does this specific thing or that specific thing he isn't representing everyone who didn't vote for him; she cannot speak for all of the people who did not vote for Harper. At times I agree with a specific action of a candidate I didn't vote for just as I I sometimes disagree with a specific action of a candidate I did vote for.

She can speak for the people that voted NDP and Liberal though, since those parties are directly opposed to the types of policies the Conservatives have in those areas she discussed. And in the case of the most recent elections, those voters outnumbered Conservative voters by 2 million. Like I said in the previous post, that doesn't mean the NDP or Liberals ought to form government, but their votes in the House ought to outnumber the governing Conservatives, just as the votes did.

So again, she was out of line in her claim to be speaking for the people of Canada - and if she doesn't like how they system works, how it put him/his party in the majority, seems to me it should have been the system that she was protesting against, not Harper.

She's not speaking for the people of Canada. She's speaking for a proportion of the voters, who are not being fairly represented in the House. Personally, I believe she should be protesting against a system which doesn't fairly represent the vote. However, she believes that Harper's policies are dangerous and contradictory to the policies that the majority of voters chose on election day. So, she chose to stand up against those policies specifically because they are the actual danger. Nevertheless, people are entitled to have political opinions that are different from Ms. DePape's, even if she doesn't agree with them. I, personally, believe that the system just needs to be a bit more fairly representative. Whether that's PR, some other system or some hybrid, I don't know. I don't have an answer about what would be more fair, but I think it's obvious this system could use some improvement.

[Pliny]

You either wilfully misinterpreted it, or you have literacy issues. It's true that my assumption was of the former. It still is.

Gosh! Misunderstood AGAIN! Poor fellow.

[bloodyminded]

Ah yes, the insults continue.

You give at least as well as you take. You just take longer than others to do it.

If I didn't understand- in a post where you said 'it isn't that the job is more dangerous, it isn't' to mean 'I was wrong when I said the job isn't more dangerous' - evidently it is I who has the problem.

Bullshit. As you know. Here, let me help you with your English education:

When one writes a clause-semicolon-clause, the second clause directly refers in some tangible way to the first clause.

Not to a separate point made in an entirely different post.

Further, my I-was-wrong concession does appear...in the same paragraph from which you quoted me!

Too good.

It's either/or, just as you stated. It couldn't possibly be that I honestly, with reason, "misinterpreted" it. It couldn't be that there was room for misinterpretation in your post as it was presented. Oh no.

If there's a "reason" that basic rules of grammar don't apply whenever AW gets in a pissy mood, you have failed to explain it.

When I told you to drop the drama queen bit I was referring to specific comments you had made

So what? I never claimed there was no reason for you to become insulting; everyone has some reason for what they do.

I only countered your broken-record complaint about your being insulted--which is a common refrain you have with virtually everybody, interestingly enough--to let you know that you are not some elevated, civil personage who doesn't stoop to insults. Of course you do.

And now you're saying that "drama queen" wasn't meant as an insult! Alrighty then!

I'm "insinuating" nothing. I clearly stated a fact.

Oh, right, yes. "Hmmmm...your post has been edited, I notice; I find that....interesting."

Still unable to talk with real honesty, eh AW? But why change course now, I guess.

You called me on not quoting your whole post,

No I didn't. you're making this up out of whole cloth.

of taking it out of context

Yep. I clearly explained why. And you're still pretending otherwise.

,

throwing accusations at me, so I went back to re-read the whole post to see if I did miss something --- only to find that it had been edited.

Sigh. Once again, slowpoke: the part that we have been discussing remains exactly the same in the unedited version as in the later one; you know this because it's quoted in your post, from the original.

What do you not get about this? I'm curious.

Now seriously. Have a good day. I've seen how you "debate" your point of view and I'm not interested in wasting more time on this topic with you.

Um, listen there, last-word Sally, if you wish to do people the favour of not discussing things with them, you simply can stop posting replies.

This is your second "I'm done" announcement. Wanna try for the big three?

Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[cybercoma]

I think the author would have preferred it if she hadn't abused the privilege she was entrusted with to promote her agenda, whatever it may be.

But that aside, perhaps she should have been objecting to the system - the system that put Harper/his party in the majority. Harper is just doing what any of the other candidates would do - acting on behalf of his platform, the one that got his party the most votes. Isn't that the right thing to do? -ie: Isn't that what those who vote for a party/candidate expect? Would any candidate from any other party do differently?

I don't fault Harper for enacting his platform. I do, however, criticize him for not listening to the research findings of policy analysts and, in fact, his own researchers. When people tell you that your particular legislation is ineffective at best and in fact dangerous for society, perhaps he should be listening to that, rather than pushing through dogmatic legislation. Whether it's your platform or not, if researchers are more or less unanimously telling you that it's bad legislation, even if it's your ideology, perhaps it's best to reconsider your approach. Nevertheless, if it was truly a majority of Canadians that supported that legislation, then they shouldn't have a problem passing. It's not and like you said, she would be more justified criticizing the system that delivered Harper a majority, in spite of the majority of votes going to other parties.

[bloodyminded]

He honestly just wants what he feels is best for the country. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of politicians do, regardless of what people say.

Certainly they do. special interests and campaign politicking affect this, but it's a complex milieu in many ways.

I"m not even saying that anger, resentment, even total outrage aren't legitimate; they too are important aspects of democratic principles. (And a positive aspect of differingh philosophies and worldviews battling it out, and sometimes coming to a compromise, as you said earlier. I do not want a single, left-wing philosophy underlining all the party platforms; I"m happy there are conservatives, "moderates" (a self-applied, self-indulgent label pretending to be free of "ideology," so problematic, but leave that for another thread) and so on.

And the oft-repeated idea that this-or-that leader is "trying to destroy" our country, or wants it to be worse off, and so on, is ridiculous.

Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Gosh! Misunderstood AGAIN! Poor fellow.

You're one scotch away from becoming the parody of the embittered forum troll at this point.

[cybercoma]

And the oft-repeated idea that this-or-that leader is "trying to destroy" our country, or wants it to be worse off, and so on, is ridiculous.

The leader doesn't try or want it to be worse off, but their actions can cause it to be that way if they repeatedly ignore the advice and warnings of researchers and their advisers.

[bloodyminded]

The leader doesn't try or want it to be worse off, but their actions can cause it to be that way if they repeatedly ignore the advice and warnings of researchers and their advisers.

Oh yes, absolutely. I"m not for a minute suggesting that a leader, or a party policy direction, can't be wrongheaded, even disastrous. It can even be pursued for reasons antithetical to democracy itself. But it's not really considered in such terms by the leader(s) in question, I don't imagine.

Hell, everyone thinks so, but only differs on where the worst faults and excesses lay.

I"m only objecting to the (stated!) idea, the wanton hyperbole, that Harper is literally aiming for fascism, or that Trudeau was really hoping for a Communist State.

I call bullshit.

I don't like Harper at all. I wish him out. But I don't think he's an evil man, of course.

Edited June 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

The leader doesn't try or want it to be worse off, but their actions can cause it to be that way if they repeatedly ignore the advice and warnings of researchers and their advisers.

And is it possible that research can be flawed or biased? And is it possible that the leader has to compromise within his own party against the advice of researchers and advisors to maintain his power and support? Is it possible that compromise is not necessarily the optimal solution to all problems? Or is compromise only important when conservatives are in power? Our system should be redesigned to promote compromise between parties, but Harper should not compromise within his own party by pushing through the legislation that is championed by many of his supporters?

Why not just elect academics (who are ALWAYS unbiased ) to research the optimal solution to all of our problems?

[cybercoma]

Can someone tell me, is this CPCFTW character a parody account? I think I'm being "punked" here or something.

[CPCFTW]

Are you sure you're not thinking of how Depape "punked" Parliament and effectively disenfranchised 10 million voters by claiming to represent them?

[ironstone]

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

Would you still feel the same way if she held up a sign that said "Stop Layton" or "Stop Socialism"?

I heard on the radio yesterday that she apparently has a website up where she is asking for donations via Paypal,credit cards etc

I'm not sure how much money she will actually get since left wingers are notoriously cheap when it comes to parting with their own money.

How much will you send her?

[g_bambino]

What they - ie: you - aren't free to do is jump in and make baseless accusations, Capice? - so I'll assume you will take my advice here on in.

Take your own advice, dear; report those who've broken forum rules or STFU. Your words, not mine.

[g_bambino]

{I]n many ways is an expensive and moot institution. They have the option of taking a bill that has passed the House of Commons and either passing it, delaying it, amending it or defeating it. I can't ever think of a time that the Senate has actually defeated a bill. Sometimes they amend things and send them back down to the House of Commons to voted on again. Nevertheless, more often than not they simply pass bills.

So, this is why many people criticize the Senate as being pointless. They don't actually represent the voters because they're appointed by the government of the day.

Does the Senate simply pass most bills without study? How many bills would the Senate have to amend or block before it could be cosidered worthwhile? I don't think the value of the Sentate necessarily lies in its track record - though, as I understand it, its committee work is almost invaluable - or in its ability to represent voters - for which we already have the House of Commons. Rather, like many checks in our system, it's found in the chamber's power and the possibility of what it can do, should the need arise. One could live their entire life having never used a fire extinguisher; yet, it would be stupid to argue that fire extinguishers should be eliminated because they're costly and just sit there collecting dust.

While the United States has a clear distinction between the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of government, these lines are blurred in the Canadian system. The executive branch is comprised of members from the legislative branch, who still sit in the legislative Houses (sometimes they can be Senators, although again it's rare).

You're alluding to responsible government; every action of the executive is subject to the scrutiny of parliament, almost entirely to the House of Commons. That's why we can have prime ministers in office only for a matter of weeks before they're replaced in office, unlike their political counterpart in the US, who's pretty much set in office for four years.

[/i][/size]

Edited June 11, 2011 by g_bambino

[mentalfloss]

They came, they won, they gloated: Tories gather in Ottawa for party convention

OTTAWA—Conservative Party members have descended on Ottawa for a three-day conference that began Thursday night with rounds of speeches poking fun at the opposition, the media and even the Senate page who interrupted the throne speech by striding onto the floor holding a sign demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper be stopped.

Minutes into former minister Stockwell Day’s address to the roughly 2,000 people gathered at the Ottawa Convention Centre, his wife Valerie strode onto the stage holding a red stop sign with the words “We Love Harper.”

The bit of political theatre showcased the party’s arrogantly victorious mood as it headed into a policy weekend just weeks after winning its coveted majority government, taking 166 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons.

The campaign catchphrase “strong stable Conservative majority government” made its way into every single speech, as did jibes at the new Opposition New Democrats. Master of ceremonies Stephen Blaney, who is the veterans’ affairs minister, joked that he was one of the only Quebec MPs who didn’t need a map to find his riding — a poke at all the fresh-faced New Democrat MPs, one of whom had never been to the riding in which they were elected.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1006235--they-came-they-won-they-gloated-tories-gather-in-ottawa-for-party-convention

Edited June 11, 2011 by mentalfloss

[PIK]

And who was standing out front with a big smile on her face ,the (ex) page. She knew what she was doing and I will bet there are others inside that helped her.

[RNG]

The Star sure does seem fair and balanced.