Conservative MP with balls stands up to the lockdown

[newbie]

[cdnazzurri]

The Parlimentary system revolves around the concept of party discipline and control. It cannot exist any other way.

I'm not talking about abolishing party discipline; Canadian legislatures and its representatives are are already chaotic and act like a bunch of spoiled children. However, one only has to look at how the British Parliamentary system to see that Party Discipline is somwhat relaxed. I saw the British House of Commons on CPAC the other day. A member of Tony Blair's own party laid into him in such a way that would probably shock half the politicians in power in Canada.

As for looking towards the United States. Yeah, no thanks, its already a lost cause there. I'm more concerned about the destruction of my country.

[scribblet]

The Parlimentary system revolves around the concept of party discipline and control. It cannot exist any other way.

I'm more concerned about the destruction of my country.

Good, in that case you should be Harper is now PM, and gaining in popularity

[cdnazzurri]

That was my point!

[Mimas]

OTTAWA -- A Conservative MP, already taken to the woodshed by the prime minister for speaking out on Liberal floor-crosser David Emerson, says Stephen Harper has nothing that he wants and vows to continue speaking out for his constituents.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...508906-sun.html

Well, that's one with the balls to openly claim his right to free speach so far.

I think every Conservative MP who defends thier right to free expression deserves a vote in the next election.

This guy needs to shut his mouth for the good of the people in his constituency. Why rock the boat a second time around? He is hurting his electorate more than himself.

This is one guy who should have never got behind a mic. I guess the Conservatives need a more comprehensive background search on their candidates, because one idiot made his was through!

You are right! There is no room in a democracy for free speach. Also, our "democratically elected" representatives and cabinet ministers should not be allowed to talk unless they read their statements from documents written by the PMO and its brainwashing PR firm. In fact, we should just get rid of the MPs all together and set up voting machines that have only a "Vote as the PM does" option. Than maybe we should call those who disagree unpatriotic and facists or something. Welcome to communism my friend. You may claim your ideology is different but your tactics are just the same!

Btw, how is he hurting his constituents? By reminding them that this country is still not a perfect dictatorship?

[Mimas]

Bravo for Mr. Turner. He's one conservative that actually speaks HIS mind and works for his constituents; the true meaning of democracy.

Unsurprising how all the lefties love a conservative who speaks out against the party. It's similar to the white supremecists and Nazis who love to find Jews saying bad things about Israel and Jews.

Turner will not run again. If he tries his papers won't be signed. So by spouting over relatively innocuous things like this, but doing so in such a way as to embarrass his party and leader, all he's done is made himself irrelevent. He won't be listened to in caucus, his phone calls and letters to cabinet and the PMO will be ignored, and come next election someone else will be running for the party in his riding.

Pity, really. He might have accomplished something. Unfortunately, it looks like sour grapes over not getting a cabinet portfolio have revealed a sulkiness and selfishness the party is better off without.

That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

[Hicksey]

This guy needs to shut his mouth for the good of the people in his constituency. Why rock the boat a second time around? He is hurting his electorate more than himself.

This is one guy who should have never got behind a mic. I guess the Conservatives need a more comprehensive background search on their candidates, because one idiot made his was through!

While this guy won an important seat in the 905 for the CPC, he's really only window dressing at this point. He has no clue at all. He's always been in search of video camera and a microphone to listen to whatever incoherent babbling he's got to offer. He's the joke of the CPC for sure.

I am sure that SH and his people are privately laughing at this idiot, planning to give him just enough rope to make an ass of himself and then they'll shut him up.

[gerryhatrick]

That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

Well said.

Think back to the episode shortly before the election (2 days before) when Harpers campaign announced there wouldn't be anymore questions answered to reporters. Hiding to protect his lead.

Some Conservative goon grabbed a female reporter who was going towards one of Harpers candidates to get an interview. She tore his head off and shortly after Harper's campaign allowed more questions!!

Stand up to the bullies and they fold.

[Hicksey]

That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

Well said.

Think back to the episode shortly before the election (2 days before) when Harpers campaign announced there wouldn't be anymore questions answered to reporters. Hiding to protect his lead.

Some Conservative goon grabbed a female reporter who was going towards one of Harpers candidates to get an interview. She tore his head off and shortly after Harper's campaign allowed more questions!!

Stand up to the bullies and they fold.

We're the enemies of free speech?

The last I checked it wasn't conservatives, but liberals who rushed to the legislature to ban people from speaking out against the special interests they pander to, calling it hate speech.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

In reality, both sides are usually quick to stifle free speech when it suits them. You libs can't run from it any more than we conservatives can.

[gerryhatrick]

That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

Well said.

Think back to the episode shortly before the election (2 days before) when Harpers campaign announced there wouldn't be anymore questions answered to reporters. Hiding to protect his lead.

Some Conservative goon grabbed a female reporter who was going towards one of Harpers candidates to get an interview. She tore his head off and shortly after Harper's campaign allowed more questions!!

Stand up to the bullies and they fold.

We're the enemies of free speech?

The last I checked it wasn't conservatives, but liberals who rushed to the legislature to ban people from speaking out against the special interests they pander to, calling it hate speech.

Hate speech is speaking out against a special interest? Don't be obtuse.

Harper is displaying a common rightwing trait, muzzle your people and straight-arm the press.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Harper is displaying a common rightwing trait, muzzle your people and straight-arm the press.

Not just the right wing. Remember Jolly Jack disciplining an MP for voting against SSM? Sometimes I wonder if politics is compatible with free speech.

[Hicksey]

That's right. Lefties just love free speach. Righties on the other hand don't. They love dictatorship methods like muzzling people, lying, and stealing elections. And, oh ya, funnelling our tax dollars to their conservative friends and "selling" (read donating) public assets to their friends as well.

Well said.

Think back to the episode shortly before the election (2 days before) when Harpers campaign announced there wouldn't be anymore questions answered to reporters. Hiding to protect his lead.

Some Conservative goon grabbed a female reporter who was going towards one of Harpers candidates to get an interview. She tore his head off and shortly after Harper's campaign allowed more questions!!

Stand up to the bullies and they fold.

We're the enemies of free speech?

The last I checked it wasn't conservatives, but liberals who rushed to the legislature to ban people from speaking out against the special interests they pander to, calling it hate speech.

Hate speech is speaking out against a special interest? Don't be obtuse.

Harper is displaying a common rightwing trait, muzzle your people and straight-arm the press.

I'm not being obtuse.

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS. Ironically, people can defame and call catholics anything they want no matter how disgusting or hateful and not have any worry about being arrested. You cannot cherry-pick your pet causes and outlaw speech against them. If you're going to enact such laws they must protect all or protect none.

[gerryhatrick]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS.

No, you cannot. Learn the law before you talk about it.

"Liberals" are not labelling "speaking out against special interest" as hate speech. That's utter nonsense.

The topic is about Garth Turner standing up to Harpers restriction on his MP's free speech. Twist in the wind if you like, but do it with a little accuracy please.

[Hicksey]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS.

No, you cannot. Learn the law before you talk about it.

"Liberals" are not labelling "speaking out against special interest" as hate speech. That's utter nonsense.

The topic is about Garth Turner standing up to Harpers restriction on his MP's free speech. Twist in the wind if you like, but do it with a little accuracy please.

I got that info from a police officer, he said technically anything anti-gay (or whatever other ethnic qualifier the law specifies) can land you an arrest with as little as a complaint from someone of that minority.

[gerryhatrick]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS.

No, you cannot. Learn the law before you talk about it.

"Liberals" are not labelling "speaking out against special interest" as hate speech. That's utter nonsense.

The topic is about Garth Turner standing up to Harpers restriction on his MP's free speech. Twist in the wind if you like, but do it with a little accuracy please.

I got that info from a police officer, he said technically anything anti-gay (or whatever other ethnic qualifier the law specifies) can land you an arrest with as little as a complaint from someone of that minority.

Either he was confused, or you were. You would have to be a little more extreme than just "anti-gay" to violate our hate law. You'd have to actually incite violence, or incite hatred with non-factual methods.

And religion is completely protected. A guy carrying a sign with a leviticus quote about putting gays to death was not convicted.

Stop spreading misinformation please.

[Black Dog]

While this guy won an important seat in the 905 for the CPC, he's really only window dressing at this point. He has no clue at all. He's always been in search of video camera and a microphone to listen to whatever incoherent babbling he's got to offer. He's the joke of the CPC for sure.

I am sure that SH and his people are privately laughing at this idiot, planning to give him just enough rope to make an ass of himself and then they'll shut him up.

In the party of Myron Thompson, Stockwell Day, Colin Mayes and Cheryl Gallant, what do you have to do to be considered "the joke of the CPC"?!?!

[Hicksey]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS.

No, you cannot. Learn the law before you talk about it.

"Liberals" are not labelling "speaking out against special interest" as hate speech. That's utter nonsense.

The topic is about Garth Turner standing up to Harpers restriction on his MP's free speech. Twist in the wind if you like, but do it with a little accuracy please.

I got that info from a police officer, he said technically anything anti-gay (or whatever other ethnic qualifier the law specifies) can land you an arrest with as little as a complaint from someone of that minority.

Either he was confused, or you were. You would have to be a little more extreme than just "anti-gay" to violate our hate law. You'd have to actually incite violence, or incite hatred with non-factual methods.

And religion is completely protected. A guy carrying a sign with a leviticus quote about putting gays to death was not convicted.

Stop spreading misinformation please.

I wouldn't have said it in the first place if it hadn't come from someone whos supposed to know the laws he enforcing.

[gerryhatrick]

If you believe homosexuality is wrong and you protest wiht your sign saying so during the parade, for example, you can technically be arrested under that law. That's total BS.

No, you cannot. Learn the law before you talk about it.

"Liberals" are not labelling "speaking out against special interest" as hate speech. That's utter nonsense.

The topic is about Garth Turner standing up to Harpers restriction on his MP's free speech. Twist in the wind if you like, but do it with a little accuracy please.

I got that info from a police officer, he said technically anything anti-gay (or whatever other ethnic qualifier the law specifies) can land you an arrest with as little as a complaint from someone of that minority.

Either he was confused, or you were. You would have to be a little more extreme than just "anti-gay" to violate our hate law. You'd have to actually incite violence, or incite hatred with non-factual methods.

And religion is completely protected. A guy carrying a sign with a leviticus quote about putting gays to death was not convicted.

Stop spreading misinformation please.

I wouldn't have said it in the first place if it hadn't come from someone whos supposed to know the laws he enforcing.

Well, now you know not to assume a policeman understands all of the laws on the books. That was a naive belief.

[idealisttotheend]

Criminal Code of Canada S. 318-319

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(B. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(B. an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(B. if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

I don't know whose side this supports but I thought adding it may further the debate. Looks like religious condemnation of homosexuality is definately not indictable so I guess it can't be used.

IMO the law is a good one. As nice a platitude that unristricted free speech is... events around the world prove it necessary. Rwanda, for one, went one step further and banned identifying people as Hutu and Tutsi after 'free speech' over a couple of radio stations went along way to incite that genocide with a loss of life of nearly a million. Germany still bans Nazi groups and so on and so forth.

Think of it like a no insult rule on a certain internet discussion board we know and love. Without this, our particular 'society' would degenerate into useless flaming and trolling so everyone accepts it. The only difference is in the real world when that degeneration occurs people sometimes start dieing.

[geoffrey]

Any limit on free speech is open for political abuse.

Either you have free speech or you are oppressed, I don't see a middle ground.

[idealisttotheend]

Any limit on free speech is open for political abuse.

Anything is open for political abuse. Advertising for example. That doesn't make advertising inherently bad.

Either you have free speech or you are oppressed, I don't see a middle ground.

There are no absolutes in this life, (besides possibly God if you Believe). There are slander laws, you can't yell fire when there is none, you can't advertise if you are a tobacco company, there are truth in advertising laws, there are laws against telling lies in court or holding the judge in contempt.

Plus there are positive and negative freedoms. Your freedom of speech is enhanced by me not using mine to incite people to stop you from expressing yourself.

[geoffrey]

If you wanted to incite people, then go for it.

It's still the responsibility of those people to make a good decision. I have more trust in the common man than you.

[idealisttotheend]

If you wanted to incite people, then go for it.

It's still the responsibility of those people to make a good decision. I have more trust in the common man than you.

It's not that I don't trust the common man, after all the common man is not who the law is aimed at since the common man doesn't have means (generally) to broadcast his views and the law protects private conversation. It's the uncommon man that I worry about. Many a "leader" in this world has risen to power by 'speaking freely' about an identifiable group. Think Milosovich (spelling approximate). To be free people have to be free from people inciting hatred about them.

I like to think I stand for maximum freedom, but that includes both freedom to and freedom from. Think of math, a parabola, set the x variable (say the charge for a service in business) in the equation to high OR too low and you get a smaller number (y or the profit achieved) than when you set it at the perfect point.