The bravest person in Canada

[Guest American Woman]

I do think it has a negative impact on her future, in that it limits her opportunities. The second part of your sentence presumes that you know her character, which I don't think is true. There are plenty of people who forgo personal gain to act out of conscience and I never understood why people think they can be so sure of others' motives in specific cases like this.

Reading the articles I have, looking at the facts that have been presented, I believe one can justifiably draw conclusions about her motives. I didn't judge her "character," I judged her motives.

She did this when she only had three weeks left to serve as page. She didn't jeopardize her position before she reached the end of it. She had prepared a news release, which she had a friend distribute - she didn't do this without a lot of thought. As I now believe she's not stupid, I doubt whether she would have purposely jeopardized her future at this point in her life. Nothing I've read leads me to believe otherwise.

She got her 15 minutes of fame, which she obviously knew she would, or she wouldn't have prepared a news release - any of us know that such a stunt would get media attention - and I don't see how that can hurt her in her chosen career. Of course she's going to be the darling of many of those whose views she represented, those who don't care about her breech of trust, and I don't for a minute believe she thought otherwise. She's in a field where she only needs the approval of those in the direction she'd like to go. She doesn't seem like an idiot - everything points to her being shrewd.

So under the circumstances, since she is following her chosen major/career (unlike the other examples that came to your mind and therefore are not similar to this situation so I won't get into them), I would think it would be obvious that she is ultimately serving her purposes by her actions.

Edited June 4, 2011 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Reading the articles I have, looking at the facts that have been presented, I believe one can justifiably draw conclusions about her motives. I didn't judge her "character," I judged her motives.

The judging part is your business. The ascribing motives part is what I don't understand. "Justifiably draw conclusions" - does that mean you're justified to do it, or that the conclusions are accurate ?

She did this when she only had three weeks left to serve as page. She didn't jeopardize her position before she reached the end of it. She had prepared a news release, which she had a friend distribute. So she's not stupid, so I doubt whether she would have purposely jeopardized her future at this point in her life. Nothing I've read leads me to believe otherwise.

It was also the throne speech, which had the maximum visibility. You're looking at the circumstances, and working backwards to say "see - this shows that she was planning to minimize the impact on her" but you're adding a bunch of your own assumptions there. You're free to do it, but I think you're on shaky ground and I for one don't buy it based on what you've posted so far.

She got her 15 minutes of fame, which she obviously knew she would, or she wouldn't have prepared a news release - any of us know that such a stunt would get media attention - and I don't see how that can hurt her in her chosen career. Of course she's going to be the darling of many of those whose views she represented, those who don't care about her breech of trust, and I don't for a minute believe she thought otherwise. She's in a field where she only needs the approval of those in the direction she'd like to go. She doesn't seem like an idiot - everything points to her being shrewd.

I don't think it's in doubt that she wanted media attention for her cause.

"Those who don't care about her breech of trust" - that says a lot right there. How many are interested in employing someone who willfully breeches their trust ?

And I agree that she seems very shrewd (your word) but I'm still not getting to the point where she calculates that this act will work for her own gain, or at least something that wouldn't hurt her future.

So under the circumstances, since she is following her chosen major/career (unlike the other examples that came to your mind and therefore are not similar to this situation so I won't get into them), I would think it would be obvious that she is ultimately serving her purposes by her actions.

Not obvious to me. She has cut herself off from being employed by anything but a handful of organizations that work against the establishment. It still sounds like an act of conscience to me.

[eCitizen]

It's the revolt of the pawns !

When people start throwing themselves on the tracks, governments would do well to ask themselves why.

[Moonlight Graham]

She got her 15 minutes of fame, which she obviously knew she would, or she wouldn't have prepared a news release - any of us know that such a stunt would get media attention - and I don't see how that can hurt her in her chosen career.

She graduated with a political science degree specializing in international development at the University of Ottawa. I doubt she'll be working at CIDA any time soon!

[Shwa]

She's brave, she's stupid, chutzpah, Charter rights... blah, blah, blah.

What is missing from this conversation - and it is telling that the conservative members completely missed this so shame on them! - is that this whole incident is like exposing gold - sometimes it takes a blast to get to it. What am I talking about?

Corporate sponsorship on page uniforms, like they do with hockey unis in Europe. I mean, this was nothing until the media got a hold of some CPAC feed. Can you imagine the possibilities? Mind you, having someone protesting while in in a uniform sponsored by Shoppers and Molsons might seem backward, but heck, players get into all kinds of "protests" in hockey and the sponsorship bucks keep flowing.

And why stop at just the page uniforms? ALL Parliamentary staff should have some form of sponsorship going. Heck, the Speaker could wear a Walmart greeters bib, you know, imagine the coin that could be brought in doing this! Heck even the MP's could be wearing sponsored corporate wear. SO the coproration buys the rights to when an MP appears on TV, like, "MP from Ottawa Centre, brought to you by Frankenfurters" or "The Right Honourable Potash Corp, MP from Saskatoon."

If this idea is played out right, we could erase the debt in no time!

So congrats Bridgette! You might have just solved our deficit problems.

[August1991]

I went zip-lining once and I'm deathly afraid of heights.

Zip-lining? I had to look that one up. IMHO, that's not brave. It's just crazy.

I think the word you are looking for is Chutzpah.

Chutzpah is killing your parents and then asking the court for clemency because you are an orphan.

IMHO, this woman just abused her position to make a political statement. There is the hat, and the person wearing the hat. In this case, we are paying attention because of the hat.

Edited June 4, 2011 by August1991

[Scotty]

1989 Tiananman Square things are promoted and financially supported by CIA. after China crack it, China can improve the life standard there for 20 years till now and stupidly saved US by buy so many US bond and let the money disappear.

I think you should go and find your English teacher and slap him in the face, then demand the party find you a better one.

[Scotty]

I'd hire her. Maybe because being a page and listening to Harper for a year taught her something.

She was a SENATE page. It's unlikely she ever heard Harper, or encountered anything more shocking then snoozing senators as she waited on them. Being a Senate Page is basically again to being a gopher for a senior who doesn't like to move much.

[Scotty]

It takes balls, guts, whatever to pull that kind of stunt.

Not really. It takes being someone who likes the limelight. She previously put on a 'one woman show' and had artistic ambitions prior to becoming a lefty activist. So clearly, having everyone stare at her was something she liked not feared.

[Scotty]

The cops are so brave that they use 4 tasers to a stapler.

This coming from a man who champions a nation which regularly executes anyone who disagrees with the party, and which operates slave labour camps and commits forced abortions on unwilling women.

[Scotty]

I wouldn't cal her a hero, or the bravest person in Canada, not by far. But she does have the guts to speak out, by causing a minor, non-violent but inappropriate incident.

The young are always passionate about their beliefs. Unfortunately, most of them don't have the judgement or knowledge to actually understand those beliefs. Churchill pronounced on this many years ago, as I'm sure you all are aware, and I've seen little to show him wrong.

[Scotty]

I'm not commenting on her actions, but within context of what she said, she has a point. If you read her full statement, she said that the majority of Canadians are against the Harper agenda which is not good for her generation. She gave examples of military expansion, corporate tax-cuts and lack of environmental values.

And we're to take seriously the opinion of a child who clearly doesn't understand the first thing about any of those?

[Sir Bandelot]

The young are always passionate about their beliefs. Unfortunately, most of them don't have the judgement or knowledge to actually understand those beliefs. Churchill pronounced on this many years ago, as I'm sure you all are aware, and I've seen little to show him wrong.

We need people who are willing to take some measured risk, and youth while foolish at times are impetuous enough to say the uncomfortable but obvious thing, that the rest of the sheeple are afraid to say, under any circumstance, for the purpose of protecting themselves and giving themselves a chance at the same reeking pie of corruption these leaders dole out.

Because they are idealistic!

Or something like that

[Scotty]

Whether or not you can agree with Harper here and there (even I agree with him on some things) doesn't take away from her point that the majority of people voted for parties who share the similarity that they are starkly different than Harper's military, corporate and environmental beliefs.

Perhaps, but many people, in fact most people, are almost entirely ignorant about such subjects. Corporate tax cuts? Corporations don't pay taxes and never have. They simply pass those taxes on to whomever pays them as a cost of doing business. Taxing corporations is thus quite inefficient, and it hinders their using the money for expansion. If you're worried about the rich not paying then tax the rich - ie, tax the people who own the corporations when they take profits.

[Scotty]

I am not a leftist, and I do not vote.

Then you really have no right to complain.

[Evening Star]

Are you saying that her actions were in ... contempt of parliament?

Actually, this was exactly the case:

Senate Speaker Noël A. Kinsella said the incident was a contempt of Parliament and said security concerns would be looked into.

“All employees of the Senate are expected to serve the institution in a non-partisan manner, with competence, excellence, efficiency and objectivity,” Kinsella said in a statement.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1002515--page-of-protest-livens-up-throne-speech

Edited June 4, 2011 by Evening Star

[Scotty]

Are you saying that her actions were in ... contempt of parliament?

What she did was to betray the trust put in her when she was hired, and explicitly understood by all.

[Scotty]

Her future? She appears to be a budding self promoter and likely has a career in politics. This stunt gives her "street cred" among the loony left (look at this op). I suspect she expects her job opportunities to increase as a result of this stunt so you could even say it was self-serving. Bottom line: there is nothing brave (implying something to admire) about farting in a movie theatre and there is nothing brave about this stunt.

I'm guessing she'll be running for the NDP next election.

[Scotty]

Yes, huge security concerns. What are they going to do, search under the skirt of every Page that walks into Parliament Hill looking for signs?

She did absolutely nothing illegal. She exercised her Charter rights. She was fired for what she did, and likely rightly so, but if she wanted to she could take it to court and make an interesting case out of it.

Actually, if you want to get technical, she did break the law. Her actions constitute contempt of parliament, and she could be arrested for it. But it's unlikely the government wants to be seen prosecuting some hapless, flighty, brainless little girl child.

[Scotty]

I do think it has a negative impact on her future, in that it limits her opportunities.

It's fairly obvious from her recent history that her ambition is to be a political and environmental activist from the left. I don't think this will hurt her much there...

[Sir Bandelot]

Then you really have no right to complain.

But I still can.

When people like you are the one who tells me what rights I have, then it's time to leave the country.

I choose what I want to do, I do not accept the government as my authority. Yes, I have problems with authority figures in general.

I believe the role of government is to be kept to an absolute minimum, it should only be to protect the country and provide broad general leadership for the economy. Although I do support the notion of some form of welfare, for the people who are at the absolute bottom because we are a wealthy nation, and we can afford to share. But I cannot tolerate people who blindly follow the dictates of bureaucrats, without raising so much as a peep of protest even when they know it's wrong.

I know that sometimes, this attitude of mine is not always in my best interests, but I stand by what I believe and am willing take whatever punishment is given me because of it. It's in my nature. Like the girl.

[GostHacked]

I am guessing many of you who do not support her actions, will be the same ones that keep their mouths shut if their boss did something wrong to them. I know it's not a very good comparison, but it's the only one I can come up with.

Protester getting the beat down illegaly? Approved

Banks stealing from everyone? Approved

Government coverups of scandals? Approved

Corporations violating ethic laws(if any) other laws and environmental laws? Approved

A Senate Page protests against harper? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Edited June 4, 2011 by GostHacked

[bjre]

This coming from a man who champions a nation which regularly executes anyone who disagrees with the party, and which operates slave labour camps and commits forced abortions on unwilling women.

It is unfair for the Canadian politicians create so many laws and define so many people to be criminals and jail them and ask tax payers to pay for court, cops, and jail expense.

Even in Canada, many people are ordered to do community work after convinced.

Besides, there are people in Canada believe prisoners should work.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/997331--hudak-proposes-modern-day-chain-gangs

Tim Hudak says convicted provincial prisoners should be working on modern-day chain gangs cleaning up Ontario highways, not watching TV and taking yoga classes.

For women in Canada, you can find some of their idea here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16148&view=&hl=woman&fromsearch=1

Bonus video for another case to show how brave Canadian cops are: http://www.clipaday.com/videos/toronto-police-vs-knife-man

Edited June 4, 2011 by bjre

[Scotty]

"Those who don't care about her breech of trust" - that says a lot right there. How many are interested in employing someone who willfully breeches their trust ?

The politicized Left doesn't believe in stuff like that. Whatever furthers the cause against 'the man' is fine by them.

[Evening Star]

Fwiw, I'm one NDP voter who thinks this was a juvenile gesture and an abuse of a page's position.

I might be in the minority though, judging by this thread.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Evening Star