So is it really the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics or simply more of the same?

mark_alfred wrote:

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

swallow wrote:

Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude Barlow, José Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

if people believe the bs about it being border services who tried to stop him then they're being too naive. at best.

just like it "border services" who stopped the British MP, forget his name, back in Harper's day....not!

I think it was George Galloway.  And yeah, that was bullshit too.  Liberal Tory same old story.

Mark actually that was quite different. There was evidence that the party in power did interfere with the front line decisions of the border services.

I have asked if anyone has any evidence or even something other than a made up fantasy that this is the case here. There was no answer.

I am happy to make the case against the Liberals on this -- all I ask for is something other than some figment of your imagination that they are guilty of actually doing something -- interfering.

So instead I ask: is the NDP so absolutely pathetic now that facts are no longer relevant and evidence is not require for accusations?

If so, this says something worse about the NDP than a baseless argument against the Liberals could. That you don't seem to want to back up the argument against the Liberals makes you ineffective. A well-founded attack on the Liebrals with evidence would be massive in this case. Not caring about the existence of evidence is stupid in my view.

If there is evidence that the Liberals interfered in this case it would be great if someone actually sought to find and share that evidence. Cool if anyone here thought such evidence was relevant.

I am completely disgusted with the "my-party-right-or-wrong" tendency of many partisans on this board. I include all of you from all parties. You seem to have no idea how much damage this actually does to your cause(s).

I have been a partisan supporter of the NDP for decades and never found holding the NDP to a high standard to be a problem.

You all disgust me.

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

swallow wrote:

Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude Barlow, José Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

if people believe the bs about it being border services who tried to stop him then they're being too naive. at best.

just like it "border services" who stopped the British MP, forget his name, back in Harper's day....not!

I think it was George Galloway.  And yeah, that was bullshit too.  Liberal Tory same old story.

yup. name sounds right.

let's face it Canadian Border Sevices aren't going to stop and refuse a elected official of the EU.

And you base this on what knowledge?

How about this from the year 2000:

Even if George W. Bush is elected president, he may need special permission to get into Canada because of his arrest for drunken driving.

The Republican candidate for president acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that he was arrested for driving under the influence on Labor Day weekend in 1976, near his family home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

According to Canada’s Criminal Code, Bush is deemed an “inadmissible” person, in violation of Section 19 (2) (a.1) of the Immigration Act of Canada.

In other words, he has committed a crime considered an indictable offense in Canada, and, because of that he is banned.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82199

It is a pity you like your accusations to be fact-free

What is also missing here is a realization that many police, military, para-military border guards have political views of their own that tend to the right. Give them authority and they may use it -- countries give that authority to front line guards becuase they believe it is safer. In the case of border guards this authority exists. There is just as much of an argument that the border agent used his authority as anything else. And it would be his job. The reality is we do not know. The guard may have no political beliefs but just applied the law as he saw fit; he may have had a prejudice; he may have had direction. And that is the most likely order of it -- unless you have evidence to stack it a different way.

To allege political interference in a case like this requires more than wishful thinking. You need a bit of evidence. I am not holding the standard high here either. There is not a scintella of evidence disclosed in any of the accusations and a running argument here that evidence is not required.

Do we even have an example of another case where this government has interfered in this process? Not specific evidence but it would at least start to suggest a pattern. But no -- no evidence required becuase this is all we are now.

What a pathetic joke.

I know what was in the MSM, and I liked what I read about Boulerice.  I was glad to see Boulerice being involved with activists like Barlow and Bové.  Seems questionable to me why a European politican who's a known anti-CETA activist, AND who had a visa, coming over at the same time as a pro-CETA politician, Manuel Valls, was suddenly barred.  And not only is it questionable to me, but also to others such as Maude Barlow and Elizabeth May:

Elizabeth May wrote:

Questions remain as to how Mr. Bové, a sitting parliamentarian, was denied entry into Canada in the first place after obtaining a travel visa.

Presumably you're disgusted with May, Boulerice, and Barlow, along with me, for daring to suggest that something seems fishy about this.  Hey, you're free to think whatever. 

Note that the government itself intervened to grant him a temporary resident permit, to clean up this mess.  And again, good for Boulerice for speaking up about it.

See updated story:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jose-bove-canada-denied-entry-1.3...

mark_alfred wrote:

I know what was in the MSM, and I liked what I read about Boulerice.  I was glad to see Boulerice being involved with activists like Barlow and Bové.  Seems questionable to me why a European politican who's a known anti-CETA activist, AND who had a visa, coming over at the same time as a pro-CETA politician, Manuel Valls, was suddenly barred.  And not only is it questionable to me, but also to others such as Maude Barlow and Elizabeth May:

Elizabeth May wrote:

Questions remain as to how Mr. Bové, a sitting parliamentarian, was denied entry into Canada in the first place after obtaining a travel visa.

Presumably you're disgusted with May, Boulerice, and Barlow, along with me, for daring to suggest that something seems fishy about this.  Hey, you're free to think whatever. 

Note that the government itself intervened to grant him a temporary resident permit, to clean up this mess.  And again, good for Boulerice for speaking up about it.

See updated story:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jose-bove-canada-denied-entry-1.3...

1) there is a difference between what is questionable and what is a statement of fact. Good to ask quesitons. Also good to expect and wait for the answers.

2) May, Boulerice, and Barlow are not in this conversation responding as you have been to my asking for evidence. I do not know what they have to say what they did -- I am asking the people here leveling the charges to show something stronger than their biases.

3) If May, Boulerice, and Barlow have no more than you have to base this on I would be unimpressed. My disgust is how nobody here is willing to recognize the need for evidence and I get an accusation that I am Liberal for saying there should be some standard stronger than what is in this thread.

4) I did note the government intervened. I also note that there has been no evidence of why -- related to the people slining accusations, related to the media report, related to the actions of the person's lawyer. We don't know. We should if we are to pretend that this is the government chaning its mind as opposed to reacting to news after the fact.

Now if any of these poeple -- assuming they are not just trying to milk a political story -- knew anything about border services they woudl not be completely stunned that a person with multiple convictions would "suddenly" have a problem at the border.

And of course I presented a few links and quotes explaining this that nobody is interested in becuase the facts are irrelvant here.

Yep. Still disgusted. As you double down on this completely ignoring everything I said I am all the more disgusted. I am being polite.

I have raised issues here about the stadards for statements here and nobody is interested and presume this desire is becuase I am playing for the other team.

If you like add bloody pissed off to disgusted.

And here we have a completely groundless attack on a union

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/black-listing-canada-maybe

Again facts irrelvant.

That is what this place is now just bullshit.

You get smeared for asking for any kind of standard.

This is more like the Trump campaign than a political site for people who want to discuss what is really happening.

I saw the joke, Magoo, and found it humourous. And in fact it was the 'no access to facts' that gave it away to me. In defense of Sean in Ottawa I would say after the ridiculous attack on him by quizzical he was perhaps not in the frame of mind that would not allow him to see the post as facetious. 

By the way, as someone who spent a number of years going back and forth across the border between Canada and USA, I do know that border guards have the authority to stop anyone they want from crossing, and they don't need to specify why. The person prevented from crossing can go home and hire a lawyer to try and gain the freedom to cross the border, but border guards are given a lot of discretionary power.

I can also say that the USA border guards were most often more polite than the Canadian, although that may have been simply because I'm a Canadian. The CBSA knew they couldn't prevent me from entering Canada, and perhaps were somewhat more sharp because of that.

Another thing is the border never forgets. I was refused admittance to the USA once, (long story but it was not 'nefarious', as they say), and for at least 18 monthsw after that, every time I crossed into the USA the guard in the booth would ask, "Anyone in the car ever been refused admittance to the USA?". They knew by looking at my passport that I had been refused, but they always give you the opportunity to lie. Of course, if you do, you'll be sent home, and then you won't be welcome back, because lying to a border guard is a felony offense in the USA.

A little piece of advice I often gave to other drivers (we were going across the border to bring cars back to Canada) was how to answer the USA guards question, "What are you folks up to today?"

My answer was always prefaced by the simple statement "We'd like to..." That let them know that I knew we had no rights, and was a very effective way of easing the crossing. That simple thing was taught to me by a USA border guard, although he didn't know he was teaching me at the time. I was going across with my boss one day, and we were sent inside for further appraisal. When the guard inside asked my boss what we were up to, my boss said "We're going to Seattle to..." and at that point was interrupted by the guard, who said, "You mean you'd like to go to Seattle." Lesson learned.

Fortunately I don't have to cross the border any more. I'm retired, and glad of it.

Quote:

Now if any of these poeple -- assuming they are not just trying to milk a political story -- knew anything about border services they woudl not be completely stunned that a person with multiple convictions would "suddenly" have a problem at the border.

But he was pre-screened.  That's what eTA is.  The examples you give of people with criminal records getting the third degree at the border are dated American examples, where people aren't prescreened.  So that's different.  And other links you provided deal with immigration rather than travel, which has sfa to do with this.  In this case, it's a member of European parliament with a French passport who's a known activist, AND who was already screened and deemed okay to come here, being given a hard time.  Surely you see that that raises some questions.

Quote:

Quote:

But he was pre-screened.  That's what eTA is.

Evidently, it's no guarantee.

Quote:

Note: A valid eTA and travel document (passport) will facilitate your entry to Canada. When you arrive at the border, a border services officer will ask to see your passport or travel documents and ask you a few questions. The officer will then decide if you can enter Canada.

My bold.

I addressed this in a previous post.  It states further down the page:

Quote:

A valid visitor visa and travel document does not guarantee that you can enter Canada. A border services officer may find that you are no longer admissible because:

• your case has changed, or
• there is new information about you. For instance, you gave false or incomplete information on your visa application.

So what had changed?  The only thing cited was some civil disobedience in 1999 in a McDonalds.  That's hardly new.  Otherwise, there's been nothing else ever mentioned.  Thus, giving him a hard time seems questionable to me.

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

But he was pre-screened.  That's what eTA is.

Evidently, it's no guarantee.

Quote:

Note: A valid eTA and travel document (passport) will facilitate your entry to Canada. When you arrive at the border, a border services officer will ask to see your passport or travel documents and ask you a few questions. The officer will then decide if you can enter Canada.

My bold.

I addressed this in a previous post.  It states further down the page:

Quote:

A valid visitor visa and travel document does not guarantee that you can enter Canada. A border services officer may find that you are no longer admissible because:

• your case has changed, or
• there is new information about you. For instance, you gave false or incomplete information on your visa application.

So what had changed?  The only thing cited was some civil disobedience in 1999 in a McDonalds.  That's hardly new.  Otherwise, there's been nothing else ever mentioned.  Thus, giving him a hard time seems questionable to me.

and i agree again mark_alfred. plus it's beyond questionable with others also stepping in and indicating they don't believe it too. like Barlow and May.

all this blustering trying to defend the Liberals and blame the border guards is nonsensical. it wouldn't wash for 1 second if Conservatives here were trying to tell us Harper had nothing to do with it when Galloway got refused.

no wonder Justin made no comments today on anything to do with sexual misconduct just kept repeating he is a "feminist"

ya right......l

quizzical wrote:

 

all this blustering trying to defend the Liberals and blame the border guards is nonsensical. it wouldn't wash for 1 second if Conservatives here were trying to tell us Harper had nothing to do with it when Galloway got refused.

 

Stop this Quizzical. You don't have to like my position but pretending it is to defend the Liberals is a smear. We went down this road when you smeared me for months over a year ago. Not everyone will agree with your approach or your every opinion. That does not make them Liberals. This personal attack should stop. I make no threats becuase I know you can get away with it as you did before but it actually makes you look worse than me.

I have a posting record of over a decade here -- never defended or supported the Liberals. I am not so partisan that I parrot talking points or defend any party when it is wrong. I believe in fundamental justice and process. I make my criticisms founded on substance and expect the same of others and I can always back them up. You may think you are helping the NDP in your way -- so do I. I think encouraging being a better party with higher standards is a better way of showing support than accepting everything it does without consideration. I also think keeping to making only well-founded criticisms is better than including misguided attacks such that people will assume the well-founded ones are false as well. I always thought that you have to defend your integrity by applying standards to your side in order to be effective.

But you are right -- my first loyalty is not to the NDP. It is to all the causes both social justice and environmental that the NDP champions. It is to those causes that I believe the party has an obligation to act with honour, competence, and effectiveness. At the end of the day if the NDP will not comepetently serve the interests of social justice we should find other ways. Becuase the NDP is a means not an end.

I have never felt that the Liberals were a means to social justice even if at times I thought they were the lesser evil -- the conservatives at times have outdone them in nasty policies. But I have never support the Liberals, trusted them or voted for them. And you have seen how I felt about them in many exchanges with Liberals here.

You are being nasty just becuase you can. Look in the mirror -- you are using bullying tactics leveling accusations you know are groundless. You know there is no point accusing a Liberal of being a Liberal becuase they would not mind. You say it to me becuase you know it is a lie and you want to bully. Quizzical is that you? Is that what you are about?

I have always spoken my mind here and never supported the Liberal party. I will in my first loyalty to social justice acknowledge when the Liberals do something right and when the NDP is off base. I will demand fairness from all sides when making accusations. But I have seen Liberal political betrayals more than anything else and never trusted them or encouraged anyone to support them.

I don't want to be a hypocrite and that is why I demand standards as high in the party I would support as I demand and criticize in those I oppose. This is extremely important to me. It is what makes my arguments against the Liberals, frankly, stronger than yours. Becuase I am not hypocritical.

I won't be the first person who is an ally who thinks this way. You will be less effective if you demand universal agreement as a precondition of accepting that someone is on the same side as you.

Sean, I'm sure you're correct that it's in the purview of a border official to deny a traveller the right to stay even if they have a visa and/or an electronic travel authorization (eTA -- which are good for five years).  But, in practice, I doubt it's ever done arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis.  Applying for the Authorization to come here requires disclosure of any criminal record a prospective traveller may have (see guide).  So once a prospective traveller gets the Authorization, it means he or she, even with whatever blemishes he or she properly disclosed, were deemed okay to come here.  So for him or her to fly over, after being told it's okay to do so, and then be arbitrarily denied entry by a border guard, in the absence of any new information (IE, in the ABSENCE of something that arose AFTER the authorization was issued), would be preposterous and certainly worthy of question.  For Joe or Jane Nobody this simply would not happen.  But a well known activist going against a pet project (CETA) of the current Liberal government?  Apparently it does happen.

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean, I'm sure you're correct that it's in the purview of a border official to deny a traveller the right to stay even if they have a visa and/or an electronic travel authorization (eTA -- which are good for five years).  But, in practice, I doubt it's ever done arbitrarily or on an ad hoc basis.  Applying for the Authorization to come here requires disclosure of any criminal record a prospective traveller may have (see guide).  So once a prospective traveller gets the Authorization, it means he or she, even with whatever blemishes he or she properly disclosed, were deemed okay to come here.  So for him or her to fly over, after being told it's okay to do so, and then be arbitrarily denied entry by a border guard, in the absence of any new information (IE, in the ABSENCE of something that arose AFTER the authorization was issued), would be preposterous and certainly worthy of question.  For Joe or Jane Nobody this simply would not happen.  But a well known activist going against a pet project (CETA) of the current Liberal government?  Apparently it does happen.

Actually when I was working as a paralegal there were many cases of exactly this -- I did not handle those cases but I knew they existed. AS well I know from a friend who still does htis work that it is quite arbitrary. The law is even set that way -- the suspicion of a border official is enough to deny entry.

There are no consitutional rights or requirement for due process becuase these are not citizens.

Do some reading on some legal site about this and you will see. As a general rule your chance of having difficulty coming into Canada with three convictions like this is extremely high.

Quote:

I criticized what he said in light of the facts since he chose to raise this issue, saying it was a big deal for a democracy without acknowledging that there was a good reason the man could be found by a border agent to be inadmissable.

But there's no evidence of a good reason.  Surely you don't expect Boulerice to make a statement where there's no evidence, do you?  So why should Boulerice give the benefit of the doubt to some rogue border guard?  Bové had the travel visa and "has been to Canada many times before without issue."  Suddenly now this arbitrary barring.  That's fucked.  I suppose if Bernie Sanders comes he could be arbitrarily barred too for some record years ago (and presumably you'd expect Boulerice to likewise give the benefit of the doubt to the rogue border guard).  Nope, when a situation is fucked, New Democrats should call it out.  And that certainly does not make Boulerice a "fool" as you claimed.

yet i was told i'm disgusting, a bully and a liar plus a bunch more in this thread for standing and stating the Liberals did this not the border service and for indicating those, there's more than 1, here who were trying to shift the blame from the Liberals where it obviously belongs.

eta and all NDP supporters here were also trashed in the attempt to deflect this away from the Liberals imv.

quizzical wrote:

here's another example of not so sunny ways...and more of the same shit the Conservatives were dealing out.

Quote:

Liberals given plan to roll First Nations education money out faster, but decided not to

Of the $2.6 billion committed in the 2016 budget for kindergarten to Grade 12 education, $801 million (or 31 per cent of all money committed) has been back loaded to 2020-2021, a spending practice the Liberals fiercely criticized during the last Conservative government. The next federal election must be held on or before Oct. 21, 2019.

Under the department's proposed plan, the money would have been more evenly allocated each fiscal year.

The fact that so much of the money has been put off until after the next election also means it might never be delivered, because a new government could have different spending priorities.

 

Now this is the point. You spent all this time complaining without any evidence on the table  -- there is no evidence linking the Liberals to a political barring of a person tryng to enter the country and you tried to shout me down when I asked for some. This time should have either included seeking enough evidence to link them to it or better yet spent on the storey you quote here where the Liberals are red-handed and breaking what in my view was the single most important promise they made.

I find it irritating when people focus on the stuff they have no proof of ignoring the more pressing issues that have piles of evidence. For this you call me a Liberal.

You are the one that started calling me names yet now you are offended. How quaint.

Also your victimhood is false. You don't like being called on your shit do you? I said I was disgusted -- with what you, and others did. You now pretend I said you were disgusting something I did not and would not ever do. Please, please, please stop lying.

Just ask yourself before you mischaracterize a conversation how much that helps you when the record of the conversation is there for anyone to read. Also ask yourself in the light of many people who are truly victims if exaggerating and creating false victimhood is kind to them as well.

Now I do think you are a bully -- yes -- wear that one. I also said you lied. And you did here in this thread -- continuing to call me a Liberal when you know that's bullshit. Even the tactic of claiming falsely that I said *you* were disgusting is part of this pattern. The solution is not to deny bullying but to stop doing it.

mark_alfred wrote:

Nope, when a situation is fucked, New Democrats should call it out.  And that certainly does not make Boulerice a "fool" as you claimed.

exactly!!!!!!

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Nope, when a situation is fucked, New Democrats should call it out.  And that certainly does not make Boulerice a "fool" as you claimed.

exactly!!!!!!

Accusations do not in the minds of a reasonable person replace evidence.

You are doing exactly what you hate when the other side does it.

Actually rather than consider this a drift -- perhaps we should consider it an important conversation -- what is the standard for accusations to be reasonable generally for our side and for others? What kind of conversations are reasonable here? -- when is it okay to pretend someone is a fifth columnist as a tactic to silence them? Is it reaosnable to demand evidence even when it is not the most politically convenient?

Do we need a new thread or could this one suffice? -- after all this is what the thread now is and the thread title already duplicates several other threads asking its question. And to get an answer to the OP we might want to ask ourselves what that answer might look like.

What raises questions and what makes answers conclusive? Seems like this site needs these answered.

Alternatively we can just mirror the worst from the right just from a left persepctive. No facts needed and accusations that sound good are deemed proven without anything more than supposition.

As one person said -- are we really in an age where facts have no currency and you are deemed to be on the wrong side if you ask for any?

mark_alfred wrote:

Criminy, Sean.  You should get your head out of your paralegal past and open up to the wider political and activist realm. 

Insults don't work in a thread all ready full of them.

But sure -- I will take your comment at face value -- you think that facts and evidence are not relevant to the wider political and activist realm. You clearly think that becuase I demand some evidence, and standards for attacks, I must know nothing about real activism and I must do nothing of value.

I guess from the fact that I am clearly alone in this that perhaps you are correct when it comes to the kind of activism and activists here and I don't belong. This argument has gone on enough to see that I am out of step on this -- at least here.

I am involved in my offline life in various activities that I think are activist and useful. Is okay if you disagree. Is okay if you need no evidence becuase none is required here. I am sure that whatever I do is not considered valuable by you since you clearly know without facts everything you need to.

So let me go work on something worthwhile to me since this place clearly is not.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What raises questions and what makes answers conclusive? Seems like this site needs these answered.

Alternatively we can just mirror the worst from the right just from a left persepctive. No facts needed and accusations that sound good are deemed proven without anything more than supposition.

As one person said -- are we really in an age where facts have no currency and you are deemed to be on the wrong side if you ask for any?

No no Sean, you have it all wrong. We don't need to worry about facts. We are the Left, and as such our motives are pure and we only want what's best for everyone. Whatever we say goes, and whatever anyone else says is wrong by definition.

In all seriousness, whenever I mention anything related to politics to people who don't follow it closely, the response I get is "well they're all corrupt anyways," and there is no opportunity for me to engage in further conversation. It seems to me that when it comes to politics, that people are polarizing into either the "they're-all-corrupt" camp, or on the other side are people who will march off a cliff if the party they support tells them to, and there is no middle ground. Plus, membership and general participation in political parties is very low and keeps on dropping. Something to keep in mind.

mark_alfred wrote:

Oh come on Sean.  The comment was specific to what we're currently debating and not a general characterization.  Specifically, I'm referring to your idea that Boulerice "made a fool" of himself and "Boulerice is frankly slandering Canada here" because he stood with the activists rather than standing with the rogue border guard and the CBSA (which is a gov't organization, I may add).  Politically he made a good move standing with the activists.  He no doubt earned their respect and played a role in getting the government to reverse the CBSA decision.  Boulerice said it was important for Canada's democracy to allow this guy to be here, and the government ultamitely agreed.  Great stuff.  Not foolish at all, IMO.

The Lib-Tory Same Old Story Government, after pressure from Boulerice and other activists wrote:

It is in Canada's interest to ensure that a French member of the European Parliament is granted open and fair entry to Canada so he might have the opportunity to offer his perspective on an important issue for Canadians such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Do you really think that if Boulerice had instead chosen to ramble on about something like what you've been saying, (IE, well, the CBSA does have arbitrary powers, and as a proud Canadian I stand with them, so if they feel this fellow is a threat, then, well that's their right...) that it would be a winning move?  IMO, that would not be a winning move.  So I fail to see your logic.  Boulerice and Barlow and others WON by speaking out and taking a stand, Sean.  Nothing foolish.  On the contrary, it showed very good political acumen.  Boulerice understood the big picture, rather than limiting his focus upon whether the CBSA has arbitrary power or not.    

What makes Boulerice and the NDP above questioning and making mistakes? So suddenly anything he or the NDP says is true?

Let's put this another way. Suppose an American convicted of bombing abortion clinics was denied entry into Canada to speak on this issue, and a Conservative MP publicly went to bat for this person the way Boulerice did alleging political interference? Would we be cheering this person on or would we agree with this person's denail of entry?

I happen to believe that some things are right and some things are wrong regardless of whether it's done by me or someone on my team or anyone else. Apparently I'm in a minority.

While we're at it, is someone with a criminal past like Bove's even the best spokesperson for the anti-CETA campaign? All the activists working on this file and we couldn't find someone else?

It's a fact that CBSA agents have the discretion to bar travellers entry, even if they have a visa.  I concede that.  Generally this is done if it is felt by the agent that the visitor represents a danger, or if it is felt that the person is a risk of overstaying and becoming an illegal alien (IE, someone who works under the table).  However, it is also a fact that no one feels Bové is a risk of either of these things.  It's also a fact that the agent's assessment isn't necessarily the last word, as we've seen in the case of Bové where the Minister intervened based on feedback of people.  Bové was invited to be here by Barlow and the Council of Canadians.  The agent's decision affected Barlow.   Bové is a member of the European Parliament.  He's been here numerous times previously without issue.  He has no record as reported by his travelling companion (so, presumably any decades old charges have either been pardonned or he was given a conditional discharge or whatever) -- mind you, even if he did have a record it still wouldn't change the fact that no one feels this European Parliamentarian who's invited by Barlow is a threat. 

Anyway, I'm not sure why you're so intent on going to bat for the CBSA agent who made this decision.  True, it's in his purview to make the decision.  That doesn't make it an unassailable position.  Many things are in the purview of authority figures like police, judges, CBSA agents, etc., such as the use of force, imprisoning people, denying people entry, etc.  That doesn't make their decisions unassailable, however.  The fact that authority figures' decisions are assailable is what makes Canada a democracy.

The NDP favour having a trade deal with Europe, but they oppose the ISDS provisions of CETA.

http://traceyramsey.ndp.ca/tracey-asks-about-isds-in-ceta-and-tpp

http://canadians.org/blog/mulcair-says-eu-shouldnt-support-ceta-if-inves...

I don't know.  On Babble there's likely splits, which leads to "may as well vote Liberal since the NDP isn't wholly against a Europe trade deal -- they're basically the same as the Liberals."  Butts-101.