g_bambino Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 f an MP is found to have broken election laws, regardless of what the actual penalty is, do you believe they ought to be required to forfeit their seat and a byelection be held? No. All offences/infractions should not be treated the same. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 No. All offences/infractions should not be treated the same. Well then what sort of offenses do you believe ought to result in an MP forfeiting his/her seat? Quote
g_bambino Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 Well then what sort of offenses do you believe ought to result in an MP forfeiting his/her seat? Ballot stuffing. Destruction of ballots. Cooping. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) And you would've been a leper with a shoe fetish. Isn't fantasy fun! Now THAT is funny!! Edited March 8, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
MACKER Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) There is no need to resign, they didn't legally win the seat. A victory through electoral fraud is no victory at all, it is a loss due to elections fraud. Electoral Fraud disqualifies the person from holding public office for life. This: followed by this: Is deliciously ironic. Where you got the idea that I've been "spout[ing] as if I know what I'm talking about in regard to election law", I can't quite fathom, since I've been asking for clarifiaction about election laws and rules. Thanks for pointing out that the other poster quoted the Canada Elections Act. Now, since you seem to fancy yourself quite the expert on election law, could you highlight for me where it's stated that an MP must resign his seat, should he be found guilty of contravention of the rules? Thanks. For instance Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to [...] ( hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council. This is not piddly shit Election fraud is fucking serious and tied into the basic principles of a free and democratic society These assholes are illegitimate scumbags that shouldn't be anywhere near government. Edited March 8, 2012 by MACKER Quote
cybercoma Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 MACKER, swearing and insults (to posters, public figures, and parties) are against the rules here. You're probably going to end up getting banned if you don't adapt your posting "style" to the decorum of the forum. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 There is no need to resign, they didn't legally win the seat. A victory through electoral fraud is no victory at all, it is a loss due to elections fraud. Electoral Fraud disqualifies the person from holding public office for life. For instance Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to [...] ( hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council. This is not piddly shit Election fraud is fucking serious and tied into the basic principles of a free and democratic society These assholes are illegitimate scumbags that shouldn't be anywhere near government. 1.You may have a point,or two,but swearing your head off does'nt help your position.... 2.Nothing,as of yet,has been actually proven...If,and when,that happens...The righteous indignation you have shown will be well deserved and that's when you should show it...I think most Canadians would! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
g_bambino Posted March 8, 2012 Report Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) [A]ny office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council. Of which a seat in the House of Commons is neither. However, the clause you should have quoted was the one preceeding, which states: "...be elected to or sit in the House of Commons..." And the key words to consider here are: "their being so convicted." It's thus up to a judge to decide whether or not the law has been broken. Elections Canada has accepted the payment of a fine by the Conservative Party and seems, as far as I've been able to tell from the information available to me, content to leave it at that. The Conservatives were fighting to get some money back or something, but dropped the case for reasons I'm unsure of, likely political. So, unless you believe there's some kind of conspiracy between EC and the CPC, then it's ludicrous to call for the Governor General to - against multiple centuries old precedents - unilaterally unseat an MP and call a by-election, let alone dissolve parliament in its entirety and have us all go to the polls again. [ed.: +, c/e] Edited March 8, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
MACKER Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) 1.You may have a point,or two,but swearing your head off does'nt help your position.... 2.Nothing,as of yet,has been actually proven...If,and when,that happens...The righteous indignation you have shown will be well deserved and that's when you should show it...I think most Canadians would! THE FREAKEN ELECTION CASE FROM 2006 which took 6 years came back as YES THEY DID INDEED SCAM TAXPAYERS OUT OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS LIED ABOUT IT THEN TOOK IT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND BACKED OUT SHOWING THAT INDEED YES THEY DID SCAM TAXPAYERS LIE ABOUT IT AND GET CAUGHT. DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THE RAID ON PARTY HQ'S IN 2006.. WELL THE CONSERVATIVES FINALLY CONCEEDED THEY BROKE THE LAW TO WIN THAT ELECTION. That is just the tip of the iceberg of illegal actions by the party. Or how about the fucking public safety minister (pun) Toews, who appointed a woman a judge after sleeping with her.. how the hell can that judge still be in seating if she got the job through sex? how the heck is the guy still a minister when he committed an indictable criminal offence in doing so. slashing breaklines, intimidating voters, lying to voters about polling sites - breaking elections canada rules not to tell voters information on polling stations when they should have directed them to elections canada to get the real information. The list goes on. You are going to let an felon have access to all your personal information, the guy is a statutory rapist for crying out loud. Edited March 9, 2012 by MACKER Quote
cybercoma Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 So Vic Toews was charged and convicted in 1999 when he tried running for the Manitoba provincial government. He gets a federal seat and is made the Minister of Justice. After being convicted, he is made Minister of Justice. The federal party then uses those same tactics and acts surprised, as though they didn't know it was illegal. They're then subsequently found guilty. Meanwhile, the perpetrators are made Senators so they can't be brought before the committee for questioning. Sorry, but weren't the Conservatives supposed to bring in accountable and transparent government? Here's an article on the Toews conviction in 1999: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=722da8b0-7ba2-4e36-aca6-761a932264b0 Quote
eyeball Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 Isn't fantasy fun! What's really fantastic is your open admiration for revolution on one hand and a suffocating adherence to tradition on the other. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
g_bambino Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) What's really fantastic is your open admiration for revolution on one hand and a suffocating adherence to tradition on the other. As a typical Maury Povich guest would put it: "You donnknow me!" Perhaps you're confusing "suffocating adherence to tradition" with a general aversion toward hair-brained, poorly thought out "fixes" for what I don't see as being broken. [ed: +] Edited March 9, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
cybercoma Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 As a typical Maury Povich guest would put it: "You donnknow me!" Throw a little Walt Whitman at 'em. "I am large. I contain multitudes." Quote
eyeball Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 As a typical Maury Povich guest would put it: "You donnknow me!" Perhaps you're confusing "suffocating adherence to tradition" with a general aversion toward hair-brained, poorly thought out "fixes" for what I don't see as being broken. [ed: +] No, I'm pretty sure I know the difference between that and considering reasonable reforms to something that is wearing out. You just want to drive it till it breaks, then what? You don't think there were people in 1687 who thought along the same lines as you do now for much the same reason? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
MACKER Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Of which a seat in the House of Commons is neither. However, the clause you should have quoted was the one preceeding, which states: "...be elected to or sit in the House of Commons..." And the key words to consider here are: "their being so convicted." It's thus up to a judge to decide whether or not the law has been broken. Elections Canada has accepted the payment of a fine by the Conservative Party and seems, as far as I've been able to tell from the information available to me, content to leave it at that. The Conservatives were fighting to get some money back or something, but dropped the case for reasons I'm unsure of, likely political. So, unless you believe there's some kind of conspiracy between EC and the CPC, then it's ludicrous to call for the Governor General to - against multiple centuries old precedents - unilaterally unseat an MP and call a by-election, let alone dissolve parliament in its entirety and have us all go to the polls again. [ed.: +, c/e] The Party was convicted, in that case anyone in the party is ineligible to sit in the house of commons! Likewise anyone in the party cannot hold public office! Why should we let a party convicted of Election Fraud have its members in government if it was the fraud that put them there! They are sitting as representatives of that party, they have no right to have seats if they support their criminal organization. KICK THEM OUT! THE PRECEDENT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED THAT THE PARTY CAN CONDUCT ELECTION FRAUD FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THOSE MEMBERS GAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE CRIME, ALSO MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION ABETTED THE ACTS. THE MEMBERS EXERCISED GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WERE AN ACCESSORY. IN CURRENT FRAUD CASES LIKEWISE THEY HAVE BEEN ACCESSORY TO THE ACTS PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. THE PARTY MUST NOT BE SUPPORTED, IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE. IT IS ILLEGITIMATE, AND THEY HAVE NO RULE BY LAW. THEY ARE A PARTY THAT ONLY HAS POWER BY ELECTION FRAUD. END THE PARTY. Edited March 10, 2012 by MACKER Quote
cybercoma Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 Welcome to the forum, MACKER. Hopefully you can keep the swearing and insults reigned in and stick around for awhile. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 You don't think there were people in 1687 who thought along the same lines as you do now for much the same reason? I think their issues were more real than the ones you imagine we need saving from. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 The Party was convicted, in that case anyone in the party is ineligible to sit in the house of commons! The party is not an individual. The party cannot hold public office. Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 10, 2012 Report Posted March 10, 2012 The Party was convicted, in that case anyone in the party is ineligible to sit in the house of commons! Likewise anyone in the party cannot hold public office! Why should we let a party convicted of Election Fraud have its members in government if it was the fraud that put them there! They are sitting as representatives of that party, they have no right to have seats if they support their criminal organization. KICK THEM OUT! THE PRECEDENT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED THAT THE PARTY CAN CONDUCT ELECTION FRAUD FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THOSE MEMBERS GAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE CRIME, ALSO MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION ABETTED THE ACTS. THE MEMBERS EXERCISED GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND WERE AN ACCESSORY. IN CURRENT FRAUD CASES LIKEWISE THEY HAVE BEEN ACCESSORY TO THE ACTS PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. THE PARTY MUST NOT BE SUPPORTED, IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE. IT IS ILLEGITIMATE, AND THEY HAVE NO RULE BY LAW. THEY ARE A PARTY THAT ONLY HAS POWER BY ELECTION FRAUD. END THE PARTY. Should we bother to hold an investigation? Or should we just hang them all now, based on YOUR opinions? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
MiddleClassCentrist Posted March 10, 2012 Author Report Posted March 10, 2012 So Vic Toews was charged and convicted in 1999 when he tried running for the Manitoba provincial government. He gets a federal seat and is made the Minister of Justice. After being convicted, he is made Minister of Justice. The federal party then uses those same tactics and acts surprised, as though they didn't know it was illegal. They're then subsequently found guilty. Meanwhile, the perpetrators are made Senators so they can't be brought before the committee for questioning. Sorry, but weren't the Conservatives supposed to bring in accountable and transparent government? Here's an article on the Toews conviction in 1999: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=722da8b0-7ba2-4e36-aca6-761a932264b0 You just have to remember that convictions of fraudulent acts are seen as career building experience to the Conservatives. Then it all makes sense. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
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.