Bryan Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 "people can either stand with us, or stand with the child pornographers" is exactly what he said. Still wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Still wrong. You're still trying to project this jerk? I heard what he said. I was listening to QP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I think that comment is essentially what cost him his job. Even Harper recoiled and couldn't handle the impending backlash from that comment. So now he's a judge in Manitoba. If you happen to be driving through tat province, I wouldn't even speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Still wrong. His quote was that people “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.” http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/14/online-surveillance-bill-critics-are-siding-with-child-pornographers-vic-toews/ Sounds like OGfT is correct. Edited April 23, 2014 by Mighty AC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Yes and at the risk of being accused of going off topic, I would remind anyone interested that not long prior to Toews tabling this bill and his comments as mentioned above, there was a bust in Southern Manitoba were a fairly large number of child pornographers were busted. 60 or so seems to stick in my mind although I don't have the article in fromt of me. It was done by the RCMP by showing evidence to a court and getting a warrant and then wrapping up case. I think possibly the Conservatives and Vic Toews thought that this would be a good background to try to usurp our rites with this bill because of the bust of these nasty buggers. What they didn't seem to get was that the buggers got caught and we kept at least some rites to privacy, without their undemocratic bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Security and integrity of the process, that's the benefit. Being better than a banana republic with respect to actual democracy, that's the benefit. Opposition to it is partisan extremism and hypocrisy.Canada is no better than a Banana Republic if we don't change the laws? What a completely idiotic statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Sheila Fraser is saying what she's being paid to say.So when the experts disagree with you, they must be bribed? This is just getting more and more ridiculous every response. You need to take a step back and figure out why a significant portion of Conservatives themselves don't agree with the legislation. One estimate I saw had it around 30%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 I think that comment is essentially what cost him his job. Even Harper recoiled and couldn't handle the impending backlash from that comment. So now he's a judge in Manitoba. If you happen to be driving through tat province, I wouldn't even speed."You either follow the speed limit or you stand with the child pornographers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 We can also add 465 more academics to the list of public objections to the bill. That's on top of more than 160 who earlier expressed serious concerns. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/academics-call-on-tories-to-drop-fair-elections-act/article18120644/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Paywall...I'll take your word for it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 We can also add 465 more academics to the list of public objections to the bill. That's on top of more than 160 who earlier expressed serious concerns. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/academics-call-on-tories-to-drop-fair-elections-act/article18120644/ Academics are one of the most ardent groups of partisans out there......and the vast majority lean left in their partisanship. As the article says: Conservative Senator Bob Runciman, the chair of the Senate committee that issued nine recommendations last week, said he is “not surprised” by the latest academic outcry.“The [committee] made some solid [recommendations] that were generally well received,” he said in an e-mail. “That set some of the critics back on their heels for a while and now they’re making every effort to diminish the [committee’s] work and its impact on public opinion.” Mr. Runciman pointed to April 9 committee testimony from Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto associate professor of political science, who noted he didn’t put his name on the letter signed by the 160 academics in March. “My feeling was, I wonder how many of these people voted for the government party to begin with, and if the government changed its position would they actually change their attitude, too?” Prof. Wiseman told the committee. “Often what you get is a reflex that if it comes from so and so it has to be bad, or if it comes from such and such it has it be good. This has been caught up in a partisan fight.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 So what you're saying is the most educated membes of society see no value in Conservative policies? Sounds about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 That depends what they're educated in, and you know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 That depends what they're educated in, and you know that. And what if you happen to be educated in Canadian Constitutional law and election procedures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 The only issue I see with voting ID requirements is that every person is guaranteed a right to vote under the Constitution. That said the Charter does allow for wiggle room in the form of Section 1, which allows reasonable limits on the freedoms within, and so I'm not sure how a decision on this would go. Otherwise, it seems to be a lot of hot air in regard to that provision, as nearly every other western country had the same thing. I have many problems with other parts of the bill, related to spending and fundraising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 I have many problems with other parts of the bill, related to spending and fundraising. Those actually are legitimate points of debate. I like the amendment the Senate recommended regarding counting fundraising of previous contributors as a campaign expense. If you incur the expense during the election period, it should count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Those actually are legitimate points of debate. I like the amendment the Senate recommended regarding counting fundraising of previous contributors as a campaign expense. If you incur the expense during the election period, it should count. Harpers bumboy won't be allowed to accept the amendment that basiclly replaces vouching. They need that thing in place since they wouldn't dare to try robocalls encore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 24, 2014 Report Share Posted April 24, 2014 Looks like Poilievre is backing off, a bit, and right about on schedule IMO. They knew this "dog wouldn't hunt" so they planned for a few minor changes to try and keep the lod from blowing off totally, in the hopes it would indicate "flexibility" from the government and they would getaway with Robocalls version 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Why when you can't vouch in ONT and QUE and in the liberal and NDP parties ,should we allow it in federal elections. Why is the left so freak out about this, because they know they are losing a good thing, that favours them. No more buses of people being bused around toronto to different polling station with no ID, voting for left wing parties. And why should people with out ID be allowed to vote, the left is killing democracy in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yes, the idea that "the left is killing democracy in this country" isn't a promiscuous overstatement at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 It seems Harper keeps trying to kill democracy in this country, and the SCC keeps shutting him down. I think they are up about 3-nil now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 No more buses of people being bused around toronto to different polling station with no ID, voting for left wing parties. Rhetorically of course.....................when did this happen? Which country? Which movie?....maybe a sitcom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I sure hope the opposition keeps this narrative up. It's helping a lot: Fair Elections Act a Snoozer, yet Provisions are Broadly Supported… The media and academic communities have largely panned the Tories’ Fair Elections Act, but a new Ipsos Reid poll reveals that most Canadians are supportive of its provisions. ... Most (87%) Canadians believe it is ‘reasonable’ (65% very/21% somewhat) to ‘require someone to prove their identity and address before they are allowed to vote’, while just 13% of Canadians believe it is ‘unreasonable’. ... Seven in ten (70%) believe it is ‘acceptable’ to ‘eliminate vouching and require voters to personally prove their identity and address before they are allowed to vote’, while three in ten (30%) maintain that it is ‘unacceptable’ to remove this practice. In fact, a majority of supporters of the Conservatives (84%), Bloc (79%), Liberals (67%) and NDP (66%) support the elimination of vouching. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6480 When's the last time anything that the government was proposing had that broad of mainstream support? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I sure hope the opposition keeps this narrative up. It's helping a lot: Fair Elections Act a Snoozer, yet Provisions are Broadly Supported… http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6480 When's the last time anything that the government was proposing had that broad of mainstream support? I've always had faith that Canadians - when confronted with a clear issue - act with a great deal of common sense......and when you away all the indignation of the Ottawa bubble, requiring ID to vote is pretty basic common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I've always had faith that Canadians - when confronted with a clear issue - act with a great deal of common sense......and when you away all the indignation of the Ottawa bubble, requiring ID to vote is pretty basic common sense. Is that really the narrative thats to be parroted after Poilievre's bill amendment release today......just making perfect, "more perfect"? Brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.