Hmm, I don’t see anywhere in those articles where it mentions that Canada’s economy is driven by fossil fuels. In other words, the issue is a hell of a lot more complex than just “Stephen Harper sucks! He wants us all to die from Global Warming!”
Then it is even more puzzling why the climate bill was killed. No, Stephen Harper and the conservatives decided to kill it, and to me it is clear that they are learning the ways of the American Conservatives regarding the environment.
I think the campaign workers were doing their job. It’s not a public event, the last thing they want is lone one nutter chanting “hey-ho Harper has got to go” which would lead to them being turfed followed by the 7 day CBC coverage on how mean they were to them when they did turf them.
Don’t worry everyone gets a chance to speak, it’s on May 2nd.
It was, in fact, a public event. All the public had to do was register that they would attend. The eviction is being covered by the CBC. Certainly doesn’t seem to me that it saved the Conservatives from public comment about how mean they were.
I’m uncertain when, exactly, this new thing began that requires politicians campaigning for office to be protected at public campaign events from the verbal jabs of their political opponents, but it’s bullshit.
Wow. Well certainly the US has some previous experience with political candidates running into security issues during campaigns. One Robert Kennedy comes to mind.
Security issues are something else entirely. Were the women ejected for hanging out in the kitchen while carrying handguns?
What led you to believe that when I said, “protected at public campaign events from the verbal jabs of their political opponents”, I really meant, “protected at public campaign events from assassins”?
Must agree with Frank here. At public rallies, candidates should expect some heckling. In fact, how well they handle the heckling can tell a lot about a candidate. But, like Bobby Kennedy, they should not expect assassins. I would hope that security does protect them from physical harm, but allows the physically-harmless vocal exchange of ideas (i.e. heckling) to occur.
Well, Frank has pointed out that a campaign event for an election is hardly a “private event”.
However, I’m perfectly willing to be agreeable. I think that every single Conservative event for the upcoming election should only be attended by Conservative supporters. I mean, this party does not seem to think that they should represent anyone else, so let them speak only to party members. Let EVERY SINGLE event be “private”. Closed. Open only to Members in good standing of the Conservative Party, or those who have previously voted for them.
Since in the 2008 election, the Conservative Party received a whopping total of 37.65% of the popular vote, an a total of 58.5% of eligible voters actually cast votes…
That means that only 22% of eligible voters should be allowed to attend these “private” events. Everyone else should be told to piss off. The Conservative Party has no interest in you.
The corollary is, of course, that if we base attendance at “private” events on past performance in the popular vote; then following that logic, the Liberals, the NDP, the BQ, and the Greens also have no interest in a number of non-voting Canadians, and are only allowed to have proportionately fewer at their “private” events.
The solution to having an accurate cross-section of Canadians represented in Parliament is to get more of the vote out. Short of instituting an Australian-style “not voting is illegal” stance, I don’t know what we can do to get more of the vote out.
Untrue. The Liberals, NDP, BQ and the Greens have not shown (that I know of) that they need to insulate themselves in a bubble, and vet everyone who shows up at a public rally to make sure that they are “pure” and do not harbour scary pictures of themselves with other leaders in their facebook profiles.
It is only the Conservatives who seem to have this need to make their election events “private” and only open to those who have shown themselves to already be conservative supporters.
So what would they do if somebody started shouting Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe, and May (respectively) down at a rally?
An anecdote is never data on the SDMB, but based on the remarks of an acquaintance of mine, anybody who shouted Jack Layton down at a rally he was attending would be taken out back for a little “re-education.” What would Ignatieff’s, Duceppe’s, and May’s supporters do?
Is it sad to say that I would seriously think about taking a beating if it meant that the NDP was never a player in Canadian politics again?
Nice moving of the goalposts.
In the OP, we are talking about removing people from a rally who have done nothing wrong.
They did not cause a disruption. They did not shout. They did not bring literature or signs supporting another party. They did nothing except fail to have the proper pictures on their facebook page.
Your anecdote is bluster and bullshit. Hecklers show up at rallys all the time, and they are not frequently taken out back for a beating or whatever “re-education” is supposed to imply. If they cause a disturbance, they are removed, as anyone is who is causing a public disturbance. I guess you’re saying that the NDP are all communists or something else equally as intelligent.
Most NDPers are pretty decent people. So are most Liberals, most Conservatives, most Greens, and most BQers. Heck, for that matter, I’m pretty sure most Marxists-Leninists are pretty decent as well, though I don’t think I’ve ever met one. But there are always a few in every party that aren’t.
The guy I was talking about is one such. I’m pretty sure that you’ve never met him, so you cannot judge whether my anecdote was “bluster and bullshit” or not. I have met him, however; and having done so, I have no doubt that he’s done a little “re-education” in his day. He is one guy–just one, not “many” or “most”–which should imply that what he boasts of is hardly frequent. He happens to be an NDP supporter; he could be a Conservative or a Liberal, and he’d probably do the same thing. That’s just the way he is.
It was an anecdote; nothing more. It was not data; I made that clear. But if people like this exist in one party, they undoubtedly exist in others. I’d like to see the leaders of all parties tolerate, if not downright encourage, dissent at public rallies–that way, perhaps we can get a realistic discussion of the issues on the spot and at the time without having to deal with scripted, sanitized, pre-approved messages that say little. And while all the leaders appear to be honorable in their candidacies, I’d like to see them rein in some of their lower-down party hacks, flunkies, and assorted hangers-on. Those are the ones whose actions speak louder than the words that the leaders are saying.
Sorry for not being more explicit.
Thanks, and apologies if I got too wound up. After all, it’s only a Canadian election, eh?
Yeah, those things are a dime a dozen. Hell, we’ll probably be having two this year alone. 