Jump to content
canflyer
Sign in to follow this  
parnel

The Beginning of real democratic action in Canada

Recommended Posts

Or just another self-absorbed and self-important university student that can't differentiate between appropriate democratic action and abusing their job position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She seems to have a lot of energy, having taken part in anti-G20 protests. So much for her education - watch her end up working at a food bank. However I'm thinking she'd be an ideal inmate for Tim Hudak's prisoner labour program :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the democratic action isn't coming from the Liberals which have ceased to be a legitimate force in Canadian politics. :lol: Their wingnut faction has to grasp at anything including politically active students to find anyone with a backbone. :lol: What a sorry state for a sorry party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note the democratic action isn't coming from the Liberals which have ceased to be a legitimate force in Canadian politics. :lol: Their wingnut faction has to grasp at anything including politically active students to find anyone with a backbone. :lol: What a sorry state for a sorry party.

Stupid is full of shit as usual. The party is experiencing a sign up of new members at an unprecedented rate all without any encouragement or advertising from the party itself. PEOPLE WANT THE PARTY TO SURVIVE AND GROW

My riding already has the money required to fight the next election and collects about $40K a year normally w/o the federal subsidy that is being voted out.

The libs were down before in 1984 and came back within nine years;this time it will be much shorter as the reformatories have already started their self destruction fights at the convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note the democratic action isn't coming from the Liberals which have ceased to be a legitimate force in Canadian politics. :lol: Their wingnut faction has to grasp at anything including politically active students to find anyone with a backbone. :lol: What a sorry state for a sorry party.

This thread is about democratic action. You still think Tory leaders are elected by one person, one vote? :roll: They had a chance today to introduce democracy to their leadership elections and they wimped out. Are you leaving because they are not democratic? :roll::roll::roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The libs were down before in 1984 and came back within nine years;this time it will be much shorter as the reformatories have already started their self destruction fights at the convention.

Yeah, right. :roll: Some pundits and political experts are already writing the HypoGrits off in the next election that's how far down they've fallen: :lol:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le2056171/

Conservatives, gathered in Ottawa at their convention, have every right to feel good about themselves, their party and their leader, Stephen Harper.

They’ve been in office for more than five years and now, courtesy of a majority victory, will remain there for another four years. Unless something quite unexpected happens, they should win re-election, giving their party an unbroken run of about 14 years in power, its longest stretch since the late 19th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my. It seems some Liberals are already conceding the next TWO elections while they rebuild. :lol: Guess it'll be much more than four more years of whinning from some ancient senile farts on this board. :lol::lol:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki ... ice=mobile

The Liberal convention, by contrast, will be about taking the first tentative step in determining whether the party even has a future. Even the most optimistic Liberals assume it will take at least two elections — that is, eight years of painstaking rebuilding — before the party is back in contention for power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2011-06-1 ... fairs.html

Here’s an easy question: If, instead of a “Stop Harper” sign, former Senate page Brigette DePape had held up a “Stop Abortion” sign, do you think she’d still be enjoying widespread media coverage? Of course not.

Her continuing appeal to much of the mainstream media flows from the fact that she hates the Tories in general and Harper in particular.

She would have been just as wrong to stand on the Senate floor and hold up a “Stop Layton” or “Stop Abortion” sign, as she was with her anti-Harper sign.

The point isn’t what her message says, or what her personal belief system may be, even if it is, apparently, based on an appalling ignorance of reality. The point is that she betrayed her position as a neutral page and, while I’m not sure what the exact charge should be, I think she should be charged in order to discourage others from following her self-promoting agenda.

It’s not going to happen of course, but it should, even at the risk of turning her into a martyr for those who still can’t accept the fact that Harper won a majority after the recent election.

Yes, she’s entitled to protest. Yes, she’s entitled to her views. But she is not – was not – entitled to abuse her privileged position of access onto the Senate floor to push her own particular propaganda.

The few young people who get to act as pages in the Senate and the Commons must go through a rigorous vetting process, and must boost extraordinarily high academic marks. But being book-smart doesn’t always mean you’re not stupid when it comes to reality.

Take, for example, her continued comparisons to the Arab Spring, the various Middle Eastern uprisings aimed at deposing a host of bloody-minded despots in several countries in the region.

Can she – or anybody else – really think there is an apt comparison between Harper’s Tories, whatever you think of them, and the murderous, military dictatorships existing throughout the Middle East? Really?

Yet there she was, a week after punching her own 15 minutes of fame card in the Senate, carrying a sign promoting the postal workers (what a surprise) in a march protesting the Tory national convention and still blathering on about her view that Canada needs an Arab Spring.

She should know – or maybe she really doesn’t – that in most of those countries a)- she wouldn’t have been able to cast her vote against Harper in the recent election, since they don’t have elections and B)-if she had done what she did in Egypt or Saudi Arabia she’d likely be dead. Or at best, languishing in a cell recovering from serious torture at the hands of the state’s security squad.

Cheered by the pro-union rally last week, DePape offered her best elementary-school-level logic, bellowing, “We’re here today because we know the real security threat to people in this country is Stephen Harper and the Conservative agenda.”

Do we really know that? Harper “the real security threat?” How so?

She went on. “What in the end is a stop sign? It’s a nod to the power of the street. It’s a nod to the people who come together there to put the brakes on the Harper government.”

Oh please. Perhaps she missed it, but we just had a democratic election?

And the “people,” who she claims to speak for – at least the “people” interested enough to vote – did “come together” and, rather than “put the brakes on the Harper government,” give him a majority.

Sure, there’s the stupid argument that she and others like to use that because Harper won with 40 per cent of the vote, that means 60 per cent voted against him.

Nobody made that argument when Liberal Jean Chrétien won with 37 per cent or when then NDP leader Bob Rae became premier of Ontario with 37 per cent of the vote.

Nor should they. Our democracy doesn’t work that way. If the only question on the ballot is, “do you support Harper or not,” and 60 per cent said they didn’t, then you’d have an argument. But ballots have multiple choices. Voting for one option isn’t by definition a vote “against” another. It may be for some voters. But for many it’s simply choosing what they see is the best of the choices. Not the same at all as voting “against” somebody.

If DePape really had respect for the rights of people, as she claims, she’d respect the “right” of the electorate to disagree with her.

Doesn’t mean she’d have to stop trying to change the situation. But it does mean she should not have abused her privileged position in pushing her own failed agenda.

Standing up against a tank in Beijing takes courage. Waving a sign in the Senate doesn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×