Laureen Harper - Shameful reporting by The Star

GostHacked · April 21, 2014

If you feel so strongly about the issue, than do a high profile protest.

People in power have weird optics. Show a pic of a starving cat, and heartstrings are pulled. Show the human homeless and the care factor seems to go way down. Protesting only gets you kicked out of everywhere.

Find an event that will have a significant attendant, then use your cause to steal the limelight away from them and hope the cameras are rolling!

It's a good tactic in my view as it was effective.

After all that's what this thread is/was about. The media coverage of an event successfully hijacked by a protestor. Not the topic of the protest, but the protest itself.

The protester shows that the focus these leaders have when it comes to social issues is out of whack with what really needs to be done. I like cats, I rescued one myself and had 13 great years with her, but my time and effort might have been better off helping a human down on their luck.

But that is how a protest gets noticed. You have to pull a stunt like that to bring attention to it. And it is a bit about the protester, but it is also about the social issues Mrs. Harper is supporting. If this was for the homeless people, then that would be awesome. Cats are not a high priority and are taking valuable resources away from helping people who then could help a cat.

Wonder if Mrs Harper gets monetary compensation for her time promoting this pet project.

Smallc · April 21, 2014

As has already been stated many times she headlines many charities, as does the Governor General as do many others. This was a night for homeless cats. Oh well

WWWTT · April 21, 2014

The protester shows that the focus these leaders have when it comes to social issues is out of whack with what really needs to be done. I like cats, I rescued one myself and had 13 great years with her, but my time and effort might have been better off helping a human down on their luck.

But that is how a protest gets noticed. You have to pull a stunt like that to bring attention to it. And it is a bit about the protester, but it is also about the social issues Mrs. Harper is supporting. If this was for the homeless people, then that would be awesome. Cats are not a high priority and are taking valuable resources away from helping people who then could help a cat.

Wonder if Mrs Harper gets monetary compensation for her time promoting this pet project.

Did she say so in the interview afterwards?

WWWTT

Big Guy · April 21, 2014

There are many honest, and civilized opinions expressed here - great! I believe that to be the most relevant function of these opinion boards.

I do wonder if any attitudes would change if during a drive for more funding for Aboriginal women and homeless, someone disrupted the proceedings trying to get publicity for the issue of homeless cats.

Would there be any outrage?

Would the media cover it to the same degree?

Would those who in principle agreed with the disruption of Laureen Harper's Charity event also agree with the disruption of a fund raiser for Aboriginals?

PIK · April 21, 2014

She should have done it wgere trudeau was speaking, but then she would not even be mentioned if she did that to poor justin.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

She should have done it wgere trudeau was speaking, but then she would not even be mentioned if she did that to poor justin.

Justin would have addressed her concerns.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

I do wonder if any attitudes would change if during a drive for more funding for Aboriginal women and homeless, someone disrupted the proceedings trying to get publicity for the issue of homeless cats.

Would there be any outrage?

Would the media cover it to the same degree?

There probably would not be the same degree of coverage if a heckler trying to get coverage for homeless cats interrupted a fundraiser. Why would the press cover it? I would think that missing and murdered women are far more important for the press to cover than homeless cats.

Smallc · April 22, 2014

Justin would have addressed her concerns.

She's not a politician.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

She's not a politician.

Good point.

Big Guy · April 22, 2014

There probably would not be the same degree of coverage if a heckler trying to get coverage for homeless cats interrupted a fundraiser. Why would the press cover it? I would think that missing and murdered women are far more important for the press to cover than homeless cats.

It gets tricky with passionate issues. I have no doubt that you feel and believe in your issue. What about people who believe that homeless cats is the most important issue? How is the importance of an issue evaluated? What if an individual chooses to immolate themselves in a public square rather than disrupt a charity fundraiser to "bring attention to their cause". Does that make the cause or issue more important?

Does the fact that you consider a particular issue more important than all others make those who place their issues above yours to be wrong and irrelevant?

The logic behind using disruptions of other events to promote or "bring attention to a cause" is that the individual(s) choose to bypass the usual processes available to try to gain the public's attention. They then decide that the promotion of their cause is more important than whatever cause they disrupt to get their message across. I believe that this is just another attempt to rationalize the concept that the end justifies the means.

If the "end" is justified by the means then what are the parameters on the "means"

If getting attention to the cause of Aboriginal women is assisted by disrupting a charity event for homeless cats then why not get better coverage by disrupting a televised political event?

Or how about kidnapping and killing a cabinet minister like the FLQ did a few years ago.

If you really want attention then commandeer an airplane and fly it into a major building.

Once you decide that you have the right to go outside the usual and legal routes to promote a cause then you have allowed yourself the freedom to use whatever method you deem "necessary" to attain your ends.

For example - the pro-choice and the pro-life issues. There are many proponents and dissidents on both sides. Some will protest by supporting only charities which support their views, others will send money, some will walk with picket signs, some will bomb and burn down clinics and a few will even target and kill those doctors who perform abortions or other activists opposing their cause.

I believe that once you decide that the existing legal methods that are available to you to protest a cause are not sufficient and do not apply to you because your cause in more important then you begin on the dangerous and slippery slope that can rationalize any illegal activity.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

What if an individual chooses to immolate themselves in a public square rather than disrupt a charity fundraiser to "bring attention to their cause". Does that make the cause or issue more important?tionalize the concept that the end justifies the means.

If this were to happen, then I would suspect the press would cover it.

Does the fact that you consider a particular issue more important than all others make those who place their issues above yours to be wrong and irrelevant?

I never said this heckler's issue was more important. I was defending her right to interrupt the event to voice her opinion about missing and murdered women in Canada. You may be confusing my posts with others.

If getting attention to the cause of Aboriginal women is assisted by disrupting a charity event for homeless cats then why not get better coverage by disrupting a televised political event?

Why not? That is an option available to hecklers. I agree.

Or how about kidnapping and killing a cabinet minister like the FLQ did a few years ago.

If you really want attention then commandeer an airplane and fly it into a major building.

I don't believe she was looking for a violent tactic to disrupt this event.

Big Guy · April 22, 2014

I don't believe she was looking for a violent tactic to disrupt this event.

So what are the limits on the tactics that are the acceptable level of disruption to events? What are acceptable events? Who decides the acceptable level of disruption and who decides on the tactic? My point is that once you decide that the end justifies the means then there are no limits.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

So what are the limits on the tactics that are the acceptable level of disruption to events? What are acceptable events? Who decides the acceptable level of disruption and who decides on the tactic? My point is that once you decide that the end justifies the means then there are no limits.

I don't know.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

So what are the limits on the tactics that are the acceptable level of disruption to events? What are acceptable events? Who decides the acceptable level of disruption and who decides on the tactic? My point is that once you decide that the end justifies the means then there are no limits.

I was mostly giving kudos to the press for picking up this protest and running the story of missing and murdered women in Canada. They had an obligation to do so and they got it right.

Smallc · April 22, 2014

It's not justifiable. That's been my point all along.

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

It's not justifiable. That's been my point all along.

Again, I repeat:

I was mostly giving kudos to the press for picking up this protest and running the story of missing and murdered women in Canada. They had an obligation to do so and they got it right.

Smallc · April 22, 2014

But they've been running those stories a lot. Otherwise we wouldn't even know it's an issue. Not that the stories aren't important, just that the actions were inappropriate.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Smallc

WestCoastRunner · April 22, 2014

But they've been running those stories a lot. Otherwise we wouldn't even know it's an issue. Not that the stories aren't important, just that the actions were inappropriate.

Inappropriate to you. I get that.

Smallc · April 22, 2014

Not just to me, to common decency. There was nothing to be gained there. Laureen couldn't answer her questions.

Bob Macadoo · April 22, 2014

Not just to me, to common decency. There was nothing to be gained there. Laureen couldn't answer her questions.

Your projection, your decency. There was plenty to be gained, which was achieved. Mrs. Harper (you may be common with her for first names) now may have a greater understanding she can relay to her husband the public discourse on this matter. Again I say shock & awe sometimes has a changing affect more than facts & figures.

As to what means are justified and what aren't; its called the legal system.

Remiel · April 22, 2014

Personally I think protesting a Laureen Harper event is actually injurious to the public: it promotes the idea that the spouse of the PM has some sort of role vis-a-vis public policy and debate. And formally they absolutely should not. This incident is a kind of a bizarre counter-point to the insistence on a meeting with the Governor General last year.

cybercoma · April 22, 2014

Remiel makes a good point. Frankly, I think protesting Laureen Harper was stupid, but at least it got indigenous women the attention they need. Why was it stupid? Well, it reinforces the idea that the Prime Minister makes policy when he's supposed to be a "first among equals." It reinforces the consolidation of power in the PMO that has been happening for a generation now.

overthere · April 22, 2014

Justin would have addressed her concerns.

Unlike Chretien, who would have given her the Shawingan Handshake and proudly knocked a couple of her teeth out.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawinigan_Handshake

Smallc · April 22, 2014

Remiel makes a good point. Frankly, I think protesting Laureen Harper was stupid, but at least it got indigenous women the attention they need. Why was it stupid? Well, it reinforces the idea that the Prime Minister makes policy when he's supposed to be a "first among equals." It reinforces the consolidation of power in the PMO that has been happening for a generation now.

It got attention from the media, but it's already had a lot of attention for the media.

cybercoma · April 22, 2014

It got attention from the media, but it's already had a lot of attention for the media.

So it should stop getting attention now, so we can all get back to our lives without having to think about all those unsolved cases? What point are you trying to make anyway?