STOP HARPER

155 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

It depends on the circumstances. In this case she was fired, and I don't think there was any question that was going to happen, I'd venture to say it was probably the right thing because by her protest she compromised herself. How could she go back to being a dispassionate part of the system?

Although on the news last night they mentioned that her job was up in three weeks anyway.

But the question of one's actions being "right" is not an absolute question, therefore I don't think it is right for someone to expect to act with impunity in all cases. 

Should the members of the Squamish Five have expected to not go to jail for their bombings? 

Should Robert Latimer have expected amnesty? 

Should James Kopp?

Or how about David Chen?

THey are all people who felt what they did was the right thing, despite the law.

LProudfoot LProudfoot's picture

I found the fact that they framed it as contempt to be absolutely priceless. Way to bring attention back to your own contemptuous behaviour there, boys.

Loved this...SO proud of her; I wish she were my kid.

Tommy_Paine

Well, in that case abnormal you can bet your behind the sign would be held up by every member of the Senate.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@abnormal and everyone else:

I have no issue with protest. We live in a free and democratic society, so that simply makes it "part of the funriture". I would't have liked the sentiments, but I can separate the two. I don't mean that as a snark. I am just saying that I admire protest, and courage. I can take issue with the sentiment, but I still appreciate the courage and public conviction. I just see them as separate things. I hate anti choicers fore example, but I still admire their public conviction, though in their case, I wish they weren't so full blown crazy!

As for Truedeau and Bennett, what a couple of pompous boobs. Parliment gets its authority from the people. They need to figure that out. No wonder they lost.

 

George Victor

ANd the senators would not have had to hide the signs under their clothing to take them into the sanctum sanctorum of moral sentiment.

6079_Smith_W

Consequences - June 4 1913:

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

 

Freedom 55

abnormal wrote:

I have to ask, what would people's reactions have been if the sign had said "STOP LAYTON!"

 

I think I mostly would have wondered whether she understood how majority parliaments typically work.

Life, the unive...

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Not sure what I think about this.  While I applaud the sentiment and the courage - a part of me says that it shows disrespect for our parlimentary traditions.  But oh well- she did good.

I've read this here and there, either an attack on the protester based on the violation "parliamentary traditions" or qualified support based on the same.

As protests go, what she did was calm and professional.   Much more so than the utter unprofessionalism and childishness of "Question Period".   

Contempt of Parliament?  Parliament didn't mind being laughed at by outgoing RCMP Chief Zaccardeli, when he testified one way during a hearing, and mailed in what he should have said the next day-- as he was leaving the country.  Parliament clearly doesn't respect it's hidden expense acount self to the extent this rather polite woman does.

 

I think that's fair.  But I am a parliamentary traditionalist, so I get a little funny feeling when anyone shows disregard for those traditions.  But the arseholes who run the place are far more guilty, by several million degrees, of that than this brave and articulate young woman.  If the Senate (and the Commons) was filled with more people like her than we would all be way better served.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Should the members of the Squamish Five have expected to not go to jail for their bombings? 

Should Robert Latimer have expected amnesty? 

Should James Kopp?

Or how about David Chen?

THey are all people who felt what they did was the right thing, despite the law.

Gee I thought we were talking about a non violent protest.  How does her action have anything to do with bombing industrial complexes or murdering your children.

There is no equivalency between using violence to further ones ends and peaceful protest. That is why she can be respected while bombers and murders don't get the same sympathy.

Unionist

In 1955, the history of the human race wrote:
When [Rosa] Parks refused to give up her seat, a police officer arrested her. As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked, "Why do you push us around?" The officer's response as she remembered it was, "I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest." [...]

[Parks said later:] "When that white driver stepped back toward us, when he waved his hand and ordered us up and out of our seats, I felt a determination cover my body like a quilt on a winter night."

Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violating a local ordinance. The trial lasted 30 minutes. Parks was found guilty and fined $10, plus $4 in court costs.

You'd think she could have found a way to make her point without being so disrespectful of the law. Worse yet, instead of taking her punishment like a hero, she appealed.

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

What a huge sense of entitlement she must have had to think she could openly flout the law and then complain about the consequences!

6079_Smith_W

Last time I checked the right of appeal is just as much a part of the law as anything else, and nowhere did I say that if one feels the law is wrong, you should not try to change it. 

But I don't think anyone should assume that the law or professional boundaries (as in this case) simply does not apply to them because they are "right".

The point is not martyrfdom, but taking responsibility. And a just cause does not automatically make every tactic just or ethical.

And NS... you want non-violent examples? There are enough of them, though I don't think there is essentially any difference. There are enough people who argue that vandalism means nothing, or that it is in fact not violence at all.

Was Orville Nichols right in refusing to marry that couple, and should he have not been charged?

Should Terry Milewski (as much as I appreciate his work) not have been investigted when he allowed bias into his reporting?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/1998/11/12/milewski98111b.html

Should the Catholic Church have been allowed to keep their hospital here in Saskatchewan after their board opened patient records because they were doing the right thing?

Is it okay for the police to bend the rules of search and seizure to arrest someone they may know is guilty of an offense?

Should a member who cries "liar" in a legislature expect the speaker to just let it pass?

 

 

George Victor

Is the (winter) sky blue? ...and other relevancies...

al-Qa'bong

Take heart, for if the increasing yankification of Canada and its culture continues under the current junta, some day a disturbed loner with a high-powered rifle may take it upon himself to stop Harper.

Lord Palmerston

abnormal wrote:

I have to ask, what would people's reactions have been if the sign had said "STOP LAYTON!"

Harper gave that "signal" to right-leaning Liberals in the last few days of the campaign.  Worked like a charm.

6079_Smith_W

George Victor wrote:

Is the (winter) sky blue? ...and other relevancies...

Sure, George.

Or if we just want to forget the comparisons and cut to the chase, from listening to her speak it was pretty clear she knew she was not going to be working in that position any more after taking this stand. 

And while I don't think any charges should be laid, I don't think it would be appropriate for her to continue to do that job.

thorin_bane

This was the right thing to do. Election be damned. Just because ignorant people elected this bunch of CRIMINALS doesn't mean we should not be pissed off about it. There is more uproar about her damn stop sign than the 1000 people falsely arrested last year at this time.

YOU tell me what is more disrespsctful to our democracy, a damn stop sign, or arresting and enacting martial law on civil protestors.

Pretty clear choice and if you even have to think about this question then you need to rethink what democracy is suppose to be about.

We applaud others that protest their government through more extreme measures, but some of you are worried about our parliamentary traditions. It is to laugh. WTF happend to those traditions. Or more importantly should we even have them given the nature of how and why they were set up.

adma

abnormal wrote:

I have to ask, what would people's reactions have been if the sign had said "STOP LAYTON!"

Well, Iggy's Liberals might as well have been holding up this sign on E-day

George Victor

6079_Smith_W wrote:

George Victor wrote:

Is the (winter) sky blue? ...and other relevancies...

Sure, George.

Or if we just want to forget the comparisons and cut to the chase, from listening to her speak it was pretty clear she knew she was not going to be working in that position any more after taking this stand. 

And while I don't think any charges should be laid, I don't think it would be appropriate for her to continue to do that job.

You summarize very well.

But just what was your point again in the great scheme of things?  Or in the bloody existential moment?  Not "appropriate" is such a bloodless conclusion.

milo204

the point to me is this system doesn't deserve any respect and we should encourage those who openly disrespect it.

why should we respect people/traditions who humiliate us?  we shouldn't.  That's why it's hilarious that people are seizing on the reference to the "arab spring"...the papers say "ha! see!  she wants a violent revolution and regime change" which really shows they just don't get it.

What the reference means to me is "hey you pampered idiots, this system is fucking you and you're just accepting it.  In other parts of the world people are dying for their freedom and rights and we're more concerned with what's on TV..." 

And especially as a younger canadian, we see this country going down the crapper and all our parents voting conservative and we're starting to see the writing on the wall...if we don't do something now, we're screwed.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But the question of one's actions being "right" is not an absolute question, therefore I don't think it is right for someone to expect to act with impunity in all cases. 

And neither do I and I never said anyone should.  In your world violent protest is the same as non-violent protest okay I got that point too.  The moral compass I base my life on has a very bright line between violence and non-violence.  In my world view it is an extremely important line that should never be crossed.  Strangely I hate Xian institutions but believe Christ's turn the other cheek is the right message. It is the only hopeful message of peaceful protest in the face of beatings like in Toronto last year.  

Her actions had consequences but many of them will probably be good ones if she had been visualizing helping make a difference in politics.  She will not be unemployed long.  By being a page she has already passed an academic and volunteer vetting process so add courage onto the resume and getting fired was not really a consequence but a stepping stone. 

Now if she had gone into the chamber and yelled fire or pulled out a gun and started firing I would have a very different view of the woman.  I would have expected arrest and imprisonment for the first and possible death for the second scenario.  I think consequences for violent action are appropriate and should be very different than consequences for holding up a sign. Just ask Cameron Ward about holding up signs in Canada.  At least they didn't try to strip search this young woman.  But then there was no pie threat issued this time.

Quote:

The Supreme Court of Canada has awarded $5,000 in damages toCameron Ward, a lawyer who was strip-searched after being arrested by police in Vancouver.

In 2002, Ward was taken into custody at a public event in Chinatown attended by then-prime minister Jean Chretien.

Police had been investigating a threat that someone was going to throw a pie at Chretien.

After being held for several hours in a provincially managed lockup, Ward was released without charges.

He later launched legal action against the province and the City of Vancouver over the incident.

The Supreme Court said in a decision released today (July 23) that the strip search while in custody violated Ward’s charter rights.

“Strip searches are inherently humiliating and degrading and the Charter breach significantly impacted on [Ward’s] person and rights. The correction officers’ conduct which caused the breach was also serious,” the decision reads.

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

M. Spector wrote:

What a huge sense of entitlement she must have had to think she could openly flout the law and then complain about the consequences!

Is that the best you have? Sorry, that's pathetic. It's called democracy. Get used to it.

6079_Smith_W

@ George Victor

Well you could go back and read what I said - quite plainly.

I think her act was very brave, and I have no problem with her doing it. 

But by doing so, she did compromise her position in such a way that it would not be appropriate for her to continue. From what I can tell that was her intent, so I don't really see what the problem is.

@ NS

No, I don't see such a line at all, because a great deal of damage and misconduct can take place without violence. For medical professionals, journalists, teachers- anyone who works in a position of trust with strict professional boundaries - there are cases in which breaches of trust or compromising one's position can do more damage than a violent act. 

And, as in this case - compromise one's ability to act in a position of trust and impartiality.

Of course i don't think any appreciable damage was done in this case, and the little that was done really points to the far more serious problems that she was protesting. But the fact remains that she compromised her position, And again - she knew that and what it meant.

and @ Arthur Cramer

I think the commment was facetious.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh, ok.

Man I AM STUPID!

Sorry everyone, I thought it was a serious remark. I apologize.

Lefauve
Unionist

[url=http://youtu.be/pRU5lIus-Zg]YouTube: Brigette dePape as performance artist and activist[/url]

Quote:
Performing from her self-penned, critically acclaimed play, She Rules with Iron Stix, Brigette DePape asks whether art is an escape from real world problems or part of their solution.

A playwright since the age of 15, and a third year international development student who has contributed to sustainable development projects in Senegal and Bosnia, DePape explores the possibility of new worlds: changing our actual world through activism vs. creating new worlds through fiction. She attempts to reconcile responsibility and creativity, suggesting that plays can be a powerful tool for cultural change.

Presented at TEDxYouthOttawa on March 4, 2010 at Ashbury College in Ottawa, Canada

 

Fidel

Harper's gonna be a pussy cat with the NDP on his ass for four years.

eastnoireast

from now on the senate will probably be screening out performance artists when hiring.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Fidel wrote:
Harper's gonna be a pussy cat with the NDP on his ass for four years.

I think Harper is more inclined to just ignore the Opposition, although he seems to have an affection for Layton himself.

Doug

Fidel wrote:

Harper's gonna be a pussy cat with the NDP on his ass for four years.

 

No, he has a new kitten for that.

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Harper's gonna be a pussy cat with the NDP on his ass for four years.

I think Harper is more inclined to just ignore the Opposition, although he seems to have an affection for Layton himself.

 

He can ignore the NDP if he wants to, yes he can. I don't think he will do it all of the time though. He'll be paying close attention to Layton and the NDP if he's smart. I don't think he can afford to ignore this official opposition party. Not this time.

 

A_J

eastnoireast wrote:

from now on the senate will probably be screening out performance artists when hiring.

That's the outcome I'm expecting this.  The requirements for a job as a page were always just an ability to speak English and French and knowledgability of how parliament works.  Thanks to this stunt, want to bet there will be a new unwritten requirement that applicants be partisan supporters of whoever is in power?

Tommy_Paine

"That's the outcome I'm expecting this.  The requirements for a job as a page were always just an ability to speak English and French and knowledgability of how parliament works.  Thanks to this stunt, want to bet there will be a new unwritten requirement that applicants be partisan supporters of whoever is in power?"

Could we ask for anything better?   A further illustration of alienation of Parliament from the people?

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

A_J wrote:

 The requirements for a job as a page were always just an ability to speak English and French and knowledgability of how parliament works.  

Wow what do you do that is so important that you feel it is okay to diss the young people who have been pages.  Bullshit to this view.  There is a competition to get those jobs amongst some of our best and brightest and you reduce it to nothing.  

Most of the people I have met who were pages were deeply committed to politics even at a young age.  The position itself is merely a goofer job but the people who get them are hardly ordinary.

Quote:

Each year, fifteen university students from across Canada are selected to participate in the Senate Page Program. The Senate Pages are responsible for a wide variety of activities associated with the legislative process. Moreover, they are given a direct opportunity to further their knowledge of parliamentary affairs by exposure to the rich tradition of Canada's Parliamentary system and the Senate of Canada. 

Senate Pages are enrolled as full-time undergraduate students in one of the four universities in the National Capital Region. They are hired on a one-year contract with the possibility of renewal for a second year. Pages also have the opportunity of remaining for a third year if chosen as Chief or Deputy Chief Page. 

The Senate Page Program provides a diverse and talented group of students the grand opportunity to enhance their understanding of the Senate of Canada. Under the direction of the Usher of the Black Rod, these leaders of tomorrow are given a remarkable opportunity to be leaders of today.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Employment/Senate/PageProgram/senpages-e.htm

Quote:

The MP Eve Adams may be a rookie MP, but heading to Parliament Hill is for her a homecoming.

The Mississauga councillor was a page in the House of Commons in 1992 when she was 18, winning one of 42 coveted spots that involve a more rigorous screening than many politicians are subjected to.

“I have no idea how they picked me,” she remembers, with typically political modesty. Pages are chosen from hundreds of applicants: Academic excellence, bilingualism, a solid grounding in Canadian history and the ability to shine through a series of interviews get you the job.

All that and then: “I’d run gofer errands for MPs” for a year, she recalls. Now it is Ms. Adams who will summon a page for a glass of water or to send a note across the floor.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rookie-mps-onetime-parliame...

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I thought Layton would be different. Jack Layton on CTV's Question Period this morning said the protest was wrong - there's a time and place for protest, but not during the decorum of the Throne Speech. Frown

al-Qa'bong

I thought Layton would be different.

Why?  He's appealing to the lowest common denominator, just like any other politician.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Now that just ruins my day. Cry

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

I thought Layton would be different. Jack Layton on CTV's Question Period this morning said the protest was wrong - there's a time and place for protest, but not during the decorum of the Throne Speech. Frown

I understand completey why he would say that, and I think it should be remembered that he doesn't just speak for himself, but for his party, and as a senior member of the House, so he doesn't have quite the same freedom as you or I. 

Regardless of what he personally might feel about it, the leader of the opposition can hardly ask for a more orderly tone one day, and then throw the rules out the window the next. 

(edit)

Again, I have no problem with DePape doing what whe did, although I agree it was a breach. But if she ever did get elected to public office, as some people are talking about, she would probably choose a different method of getting her point across. 

And I expect she is intelligent enough that she knows her tactic only gets one so far. 

George Victor

And I expect she is intelligent enough that she knows her tactic only gets one so far. 

 

Far, far more intelligent. She was not trying to get herself anywhere. It was wakeup theatre, and it sure as shucks did that.

6079_Smith_W

Gets one so far in terms of the issue, George.

I was not accusing her of self-promotion or any other ulterior motive.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

A friend commented on FB that Layton could hire her as an aide - if she's not already hired (PSAC asked her to join them).

Slumberjack

Heaven forbid decorum be interrupted.  We're being volunteered by the conservatives, and supported by Layton and Co, into taking part in massacres and DU poisoning of innocent people in other countries, but despite everything done on our behalf, keeping up appearances without interruption is essential.

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ

Yeah, and I have a hangnail. 

I suspect we would be having a different conversation if it was an anti-choice Christian, someone from the aryan nation, or a right-wing libertarian who disrupted the proceedings. 

Unfortunately you can't have it both ways, and I think that is part of the reason  why Layton said what he did.

(edit)

And Boom boom - exactly.

Slumberjack

George Victor wrote:
There's a project for you, Sj. 

If you're volunteering me for your version of mission impossible George, I have someplace in mind where you can go, along with an activity to occupy your time upon arrival.

George Victor

There's a project for you, Sj.  Go out there and (somehow) educate the TV audiences that Joe Bageant described, so that they demand  honest reportage...or even understand what's going on. "Dumb as a bag of hair" is not  limited to the political culture of the Appalachias.  Just watch your language.

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
@ SJ

Yeah, and I have a hangnail. 

I suspect we would be having a different conversation if it was an anti-choice Christian, someone from the aryan nation, or a right-wing libertarian who disrupted the proceedings. 

Unfortunately you can't have it both ways, and I think that is part of the reason  why Layton said what he did.

Musings from the apologentia for inadequacy.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I wish Layton had said, instead, "...she had an important message, one that we support, even though the forum - the Senate during the Throne Speech -  was not the most appropriate".

ETA:  I think the NDP needs to embrace this young woman, rather than condemn her action.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jack! BIG, HUGE, GIGANTIC, FAIL!!!!!

PATHETIC!

6079_Smith_W

@ SJ

So you'd be okay with a right-wing demonstration barging into parliament? Or was there a rebuttal to go along with that slur?

Or does it not matter because none of it means anything anyway (speaking of inadequacy).

Unionist

Anyway, you have Harper, Rae, Layton, and May on one side - the champions of what is "appropriate" - and you have one young woman, Brigette DePape, who is more courageous and principled than they can fathom - who represents the finest the Canadian people have to offer.

Speaking of which, about 56% of almost 8,000 CBC.ca poll respondents have replied "YES" to the question: "Page protest: Was it appropriate?" That's a better percentage than any of these honourable cowards managed in the election.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/06/page-protest-was-it-appropr... cast your ballot.[/url]

Pages

Topic locked