jdobbin Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...5e-790bde21bb1b The Edmonton Journal thinks it is dangerous to go down this route. Police officers across Canada should politely decline Prime Minister Stephen Harper's invitation to become active political allies in his quest to toughen an array of criminal laws.In a speech Thursday, Harper urged police officers to use their considerable numbers and position in society to lobby opposition parties. But such a call to arms, metaphoricaly speaking, is both inappropriate and dangerous. It could fuel speculation that the prime minister has far too cosy a relationship with the top brass of the RCMP and other police forces. Using the police as a backdrop for policy announcements and telling them to declare their political support is indeed inappropriate. Quote
segnosaur Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...5e-790bde21bb1bThe Edmonton Journal thinks it is dangerous to go down this route. Police officers across Canada should politely decline Prime Minister Stephen Harper's invitation to become active political allies in his quest to toughen an array of criminal laws.In a speech Thursday, Harper urged police officers to use their considerable numbers and position in society to lobby opposition parties. But such a call to arms, metaphoricaly speaking, is both inappropriate and dangerous. It could fuel speculation that the prime minister has far too cosy a relationship with the top brass of the RCMP and other police forces. Using the police as a backdrop for policy announcements and telling them to declare their political support is indeed inappropriate. It may or may not be appropriate... but remember, the Liberal party regularly used statements by various police representatives in order to support the gun registry. And, at times various public service unions have given their support to the Liberals and NDP. If the conservative government wanting the police to become 'allies' is wrong, then perhaps we should consider restrictions on ALL inputs from government workers into the political system. Quote
jdobbin Posted April 30, 2007 Author Report Posted April 30, 2007 It may or may not be appropriate... but remember, the Liberal party regularly used statements by various police representatives in order to support the gun registry. And, at times various public service unions have given their support to the Liberals and NDP. If the conservative government wanting the police to become 'allies' is wrong, then perhaps we should consider restrictions on ALL inputs from government workers into the political system. Using statements by the police on legislation affecting them is different from endorsing a political party. We have to be careful that we don't have police or military taking party positions. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...5e-790bde21bb1b The Edmonton Journal thinks it is dangerous to go down this route. Police officers across Canada should politely decline Prime Minister Stephen Harper's invitation to become active political allies in his quest to toughen an array of criminal laws.In a speech Thursday, Harper urged police officers to use their considerable numbers and position in society to lobby opposition parties. But such a call to arms, metaphoricaly speaking, is both inappropriate and dangerous. It could fuel speculation that the prime minister has far too cosy a relationship with the top brass of the RCMP and other police forces. Using the police as a backdrop for policy announcements and telling them to declare their political support is indeed inappropriate. It may or may not be appropriate... but remember, the Liberal party regularly used statements by various police representatives in order to support the gun registry. And, at times various public service unions have given their support to the Liberals and NDP. If the conservative government wanting the police to become 'allies' is wrong, then perhaps we should consider restrictions on ALL inputs from government workers into the political system. Yes, the police are/where in favour of the registry. There is a difference in using something that someone said to put con6text around something rather than coming right out and asking for support. or am I off here? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Argus Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 It may or may not be appropriate... but remember, the Liberal party regularly used statements by various police representatives in order to support the gun registry. And, at times various public service unions have given their support to the Liberals and NDP. If the conservative government wanting the police to become 'allies' is wrong, then perhaps we should consider restrictions on ALL inputs from government workers into the political system. Using statements by the police on legislation affecting them is different from endorsing a political party. We have to be careful that we don't have police or military taking party positions. Translation: It's perfectly acceptable for the policy to support your party and its legislation, but an outrageous breech of public trust if they support anyone else. Yeah, we got it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
kuzadd Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...5e-790bde21bb1bUsing the police as a backdrop for policy announcements and telling them to declare their political support is indeed inappropriate. No , police should not be used a "political participants" That's not there job or there place in society. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Charles Anthony Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 I will tell you guys what is inappropriate: re-quoting entire posts! NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts, Please take the time to remove the bulk of the post your quoting Using the [ Quote ] Feature:, Avoid using more too many quotes! Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply" The forum Administrator wants us to reduce the amount of extra quoting and this thread is rapidly turning into a scroller-coaster ride. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
buffycat Posted April 30, 2007 Report Posted April 30, 2007 This should be a poll question. I would vote for 'not appropriate'. For what I believe are obvious conflict of interest reasons (among others). May as well let the foxes guard and run the henhouse. Police and military should be kept at an arms length from any kind of politics. Anyways, it's not like they already don't have a huge lobby. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
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.