According To The Prime Minister, Public Protest Is ‘Sad’ If Not In Overwhelming Numbers
I want to start this entry by stating something very directly. There is no excuse for the use of violence at a public protest. The hurling of rocks, or other items, at police only undermines the credibility of the protest itself.
Now, I will not disagree whatsoever with the fact that it is highly unethical to make citizens of any nation protest in ‘pre-arranged’ areas that are far removed from the functions that they are protesting. It is the right, in this case, of every Canadian to actively protest government action and not be treated like a would-be terrorist. I fully understand that the times we live in call for heightened security measures, but where is the line drawn between using that as a valid justification for infringing on the rights of citizens and an excuse to keep the voice of the people at bay?
According to the CBC, the protest was limited to some 500 or so people, the usual handful of whom got out of hand causing the authorities to use tear gas – the same old routine. Of course, after hearing how few in number the protesters were, the Prime Minister commented…
“I’ve heard it’s nothing. A couple hundred? It’s sad.”
Indeed. Sad that the leader of this country would refer to the enaction of a Charter right as ‘sad’.
The pre-designated areas set aside for protestors were well removed from the Le Château Montebello hotel where the summit between Mr. Harper, US President George Bush, and Mexico’s ‘hired hand’, Felipe Calderon (sorry, I’ll not refer to him as the President of that country), is taking place.
From the same article…
“Some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them “protest pens.”
“They’re like cages and they want to keep people in an area where they can manage them,” said Trevor Haché, who was part of a caravan of cyclists who rode from Ottawa to join the protest. “We’re going to protest where we want to protest. It’s our democratic right.”
The two-day summit is set to focus on the broad-ranging Security and Prosperity Partnership pact signed in 2005 by the Canada, Mexico and the United States.
The SPP, meant to compliment treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, was created to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues among the three countries.
But protesters say the SPP is anti-democratic because it didn’t require a vote in Parliament or a change in the law.
“If this is such a wonderful deal and it is about protecting North Americans from shoddy products or whatever they’re now saying … then be proud of it, stand up, tell us what’s in it … and send it to our Parliament for oversight,” Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, told CBC News in an interview from Ottawa Monday morning.
Barlow said the SPP forces Mexico and Canada to adopt Bush’s notions of security, “kind of putting a zip-lock of a security perimeter around North America.”
[…]
“The demonstrators are also decrying the secrecy surrounding the meeting and that the only people with access to the three leaders at the summit are 30 chief executives of some of the biggest corporations in the world.”
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 6:32 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Wake up Canada… before your leaders sell you out for a fistfull of paper and the loss of your sovereignty…
August 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
The leader of our country well and truly sucks. I am constantly disappointed by his actions and his words.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I have multiple friends in Ottawa or Montebello and from what they have told me through e-mails, security is very tight, everywhere and the police are being a little more then aggressive
Trying to designate protest areas not only goes against the charter, it is just asking for trouble. Do they really expect protesters, many of them young, to stay in a fenced in area?
August 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Unfortunately, Canada will not wake up. The majority is content with their imported culture and their television-induced ignorance. They have no idea what is going on, nor do they care to be educated. I used to think that we, as a nation, were a little bit better than Americans, but I now think I was wrong about that.
Especially since this fascist traitor of a Prime Minister somehow got elected, and somehow remains in office.
I guess those thirty CEOs are happy - they’re the only North American citizens represented at the summit. The only sovereignty that remains is not that of nations, but that of corporations.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Never trusted Harper…
I always thought he looked like an American…
in fact, right before the election I had this really twisted dream where him and Bush were hulled up in a room
sitting at a desk laughing together…it was actually kinda creepy…yeah, don’t like Harper…he rubs me the WRONG way.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
You can bet Harper’s handlers knew it would be more than “a couple of hundred” — this has all the markings of a pre-meditated talking point. That and they think it’s funny.
Roy’s right. We need a wake up.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I keep getting the feeling we’re moving closer towards being the northern most state in America.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Sad indeed to have the chartered rights of Canadian citizens looked down upon so patronizingly by the so-called leader of our country.
Some days my heart hurts so much with the things I read and see.
I had a supermarket chain today tell me they wouldn’t put up posters for a fundraising walk for an abused women’s shelter in Hamilton I volunteer for. One store went so far as to tell me if I left one, it would “likely be thrown out”. Nice social conscience, I must say. pffft.
There are so few people who stand up and say “This isn’t right. We have to do something about it.”
And with our “leader” smirking at those who do have the balls to make a stand, what a message that sends to others. *sigh*
August 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
It surprises me that 500 showed up ( according to CBC) since I was at the protest in Ottawa yesterday where there was an estimated 3,000 according to the CBC. We were meeting up at University of Ottawa because we were literally blocked from renting a bigger hall in Quebec to hold a conference with the Council of Canadians, CLC, Elizabeth May, Peter Julian, et al. The SPP protest in Ottawa was not controlled to the same extent that the summit was and was very peaceful. A few arrests were made of the usual PGA Bloc ( an anarchist organization which has twice been the focus of police arrests, the first time without charge). Despite the news reports that nothing is planned for tomorrow there are buses leaving Montreal and Ottawa tomorrow morning and afternoon.
For more details on the SPP you can check out one of my articles:
http://supercanuk.gnn.tv/articles/3160/NAFTA_on_Steroids_Deepening_the_trade_bloc
August 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Harper seems to have absorbed some of Dubya’s public speaking skills, after having his tongue stuck up President Sock-Puppet’s backside for so long.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I wonder if people even know what they’re protesting when they show up and then throw stuff at the police… I’d bet they don’t.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:13 am
Ok, I’m no fan of the Tories or Harper, but honestly, let’s think about some of these things…
[quote comment="23531"]The leader of our country well and truly sucks. I am constantly disappointed by his actions and his words.[/quote]
No kidding. What PM has ever pleased everyone with his actions and words? What do you think people said about Mulrooney when his Conservatives rammed through the GST legislation when there was ample public and political opposition to it? How about the Meech Lake Accord? Or the NEP, which I’d have to say a good deal of Westerners living during the implementation of that policy may have associated with Federalism at their expense. Ringing any bells? No Prime Minister is ever going to please everyone.
[quote comment="23532"]Trying to designate protest areas not only goes against the charter, it is just asking for trouble. Do they really expect protesters, many of them young, to stay in a fenced in area?[/quote]
I’ll agree that it’s a strain on a Charter right (S.2a) but were you to challenge the fenced off areas as unconstitutional I’m willing to bet a good argument to that would be to bring up Section 7, the right to life, liberty and security of the person (stressing security). These protests are happening where people live so it wouldn’t be difficult for any of them to argue they feel their right to personal security is being undermined if the protesters don’t listen to the police and things get out of hand (case in point the use of violence and throwing rocks or other items brought up by Matt which is a violation of S.2c freedom of ‘peaceful’ assembly). No one expects them to stay in the designated areas, but this is a bit of a double edged sword isn’t it? Either they comply and have a Charter right imposed upon, or they disobey and are made to look like fools and anarchists in the media.
[quote comment="23534"]Especially since this fascist traitor of a Prime Minister somehow got elected, and somehow remains in office.[/quote]
Hi, he’s not a fascist, so can we please all stop using this as the stereotypical criticism of a Party member from a conservative ideology? You are aware that on the political spectrum Harper actually falls to the left of the Democrats, right? If Harper’s a fascist, what does that make Bill Clinton? Also, the simplicity of how he got elected is easy to understand if you actually stop to think about it instead of decrying the fact that he’s an enemy to the state of Canadian democracy as we know it. (Tangent - fyi, Harper was actually involved with the Reform Party in is early days when it was nothing more than a grassroots movements started to voice the opinions of Canadians trying to impart their displeasure with the reigning Conservative and Liberal Parties. He actually coined the Reform Party slogan of ‘The West Wants In” One might argue that this actually marks an important contribution to Canadian Democracy) Also, how is he a traitor? You realize that, while you could say that the current government is of a more Prime Ministerial nature, Harper doesn’t come up with all the policies. That’s what policy makers are for. If you’re going to condemn him as being a traitor, don’t forget to include the people who tell him what his Party will do next.
[quote comment="23535"]Never trusted Harper…
I always thought he looked like an American…[/quote]
Come on. This is probably one of the lamest excuses to not trust him. If you have an ideological problem, fine, but to pawn him off as untrustworthy because he looks like an American is just dumb. Tell you what, I’ll drive two hours south of Vancouver, bring you back an American and then ask you if you can pick him out if I put him on a sidewalk downtown.
I have to agree though, I find it disheartening that the leader of our country would refer to assemblies of the people he supposedly represent as sad. When I read that today I actually felt insulted. And then I decided to check major American news feeds for news on the summit, and as usual, there wasn’t any. I also agree that the SPP should be brought before the Commons for debate and a vote, as should any proposed major treatise meant to influence economic activity in Canada. The really sad thing here is that our PM is arrogant enough in his position to think that he can refer to Canadians in any way he pleases and believe his words will have little consequence. It’s unfortunate that the House isn’t in session right now because you can bet if it was, Harper would be getting hounded by questions about his verbal treatment of the protesters. I wouldn’t actually be surprised if this issue were somehow brought up in the course of the next federal election. Along with the Income Trust tax, the Afghan mission, reduced social spending, the Arar case, the decimation of the Heritage Ministry’s summer spending program by Oda, Baird’s environmental bureaucratic bullshit, the Emerson deal, nominating unelected civil servants to the Senate to serve in Cabinet (which will be a questionable argument since it’s actually a Constitutional right for the PM to do that), and probably a whole list of other things that will happen between then and now. And hopefully, if Canadians remember all of this, we won’t have to worry about Harper representing our country much longer.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:57 am
[quote comment="23562"]Either they comply and have a Charter right imposed upon, or they disobey and are made to look like fools and anarchists in the media.[/quote]
If you believe that standing up for your charter rights makes you look like a fool then I’m pretty sure I know which end of the political spectrum you fall under, and your opening of not being a fan of Harper or the tories may be a bit disingenuous.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:09 am
Remember folks, if you think Harper is an American lapdog- revisit some of Mulroney’s actions…
August 21st, 2007 at 4:30 am
Some in Canada are waking up: http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/home.html
August 21st, 2007 at 5:37 am
Congressman Ron Paul doesn’t like the SPP very much either… and he talks about the NAFTA superhighway and North American Union as though they are in the works, even though members of the SPP are actively denying their existence (maybe because they do not YET exist but will eventually if SPP is followed to its natural conclusion?)
Odd. All the secrecy around the SPP is very odd.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
Something else to Google: Amero
Sometimes I get the feeling the rug is about to be pulled out from under us. Sadly, probably most people aren’t going to clue in, and aren’t going to appreciate the meaning of the change once it comes.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:47 am
oh man, I’d like to thank everyone for making me laugh and brighting up this overcast day…. I agree with the Prime Minister… … especially since most of the people protesting there probably don’t even know why they are there….
August 21st, 2007 at 5:59 am
[quote comment="23571"]oh man, I’d like to thank everyone for making me laugh and brighting up this overcast day…. I agree with the Prime Minister… … especially since most of the people protesting there probably don’t even know why they are there….[/quote]
Yes, because having rights as citizens laughed upon by our country’s leader is hysterically funny.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:18 am
I don’t think he was laughing at the “rights” of citizens…. perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred…. and perhaps he thinks it’s foolish for people to be out protesting this summit…. I don’t think anyone (including the PM) would argue that expressing yourself by protesting shouldn’t be allowed…. I just think him, along with a lot of other Canadians, think the protesting of this summit is silly.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:44 am
[quote comment="23574"]I don’t think he was laughing at the “rights” of citizens…. perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred…. and perhaps he thinks it’s foolish for people to be out protesting this summit…. I don’t think anyone (including the PM) would argue that expressing yourself by protesting shouldn’t be allowed…. I just think him, along with a lot of other Canadians, think the protesting of this summit is silly.[/quote]
That’s all good and fair but just the day before there was many more protesters in Ottawa, so it’s not a feeble little movement. I would have you know that most of the protesters I met and saw knew quite well what they were protesting, and I think the assumption that protesters just come out to cause trouble is total rubbish. Often they are very articulate and express why they’re so pissed off very well, people don’t take time out of their day to protest for no reason.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:03 am
[quote comment="23574"]I don’t think he was laughing at the “rights” of citizens…. perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred…. and perhaps he thinks it’s foolish for people to be out protesting this summit…. I don’t think anyone (including the PM) would argue that expressing yourself by protesting shouldn’t be allowed…. I just think him, along with a lot of other Canadians, think the protesting of this summit is silly.[/quote]
Even ONE person has a right to his/her opinion and to protest if they so desire.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:07 am
Is there a reason for changing your MG logo to liberal red Matt?
August 21st, 2007 at 7:29 am
[quote comment="23577"][quote comment="23574"]I don’t think he was laughing at the “rights” of citizens…. perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred…. and perhaps he thinks it’s foolish for people to be out protesting this summit…. I don’t think anyone (including the PM) would argue that expressing yourself by protesting shouldn’t be allowed…. I just think him, along with a lot of other Canadians, think the protesting of this summit is silly.[/quote]
Even ONE person has a right to his/her opinion and to protest if they so desire.[/quote]
ya……. what’s your point? Thats what I said. You have the right to your opinion and to protest… I too, am allowed to have opinions, and I think that protesting certain things are silly…. my opinion has just as much merit as yours.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:44 am
Pintosack:
I totally agree that EVERYONE, including you, has a right to an opinion. I was referring to you saying “perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred”. The PM shouldn’t poke fun at the number of people protesting, even one counts. And that was my point.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:48 am
We will be safe as long as we are able to maintain our Party System, Quebec and the Liberals will never let that die. As long as that stays, Harper will have little realy power. How long he remains Prime Minister will depend entirely on how far his party is willing to follow him. And though he may try to keep a close watch, there is already unrest amoung his cabinet and the opposition.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:59 am
[quote comment="23581"][quote comment="23580"][quote comment="23577"][quote comment="23574"]I don’t think he was laughing at the “rights” of citizens…. perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred…. and perhaps he thinks it’s foolish for people to be out protesting this summit…. I don’t think anyone (including the PM) would argue that expressing yourself by protesting shouldn’t be allowed…. I just think him, along with a lot of other Canadians, think the protesting of this summit is silly.[/quote]
Even ONE person has a right to his/her opinion and to protest if they so desire.[/quote]
ya……. what’s your point? Thats what I said. You have the right to your opinion and to protest… I too, am allowed to have opinions, and I think that protesting certain things are silly…. my opinion has just as much merit as yours.[/quote]
I totally agree that EVERYONE, including you, has a right to an opinion. I was referring to you saying “perhaps he’s making fun that it was only a couple hundred”. Nobody should poke fun at the number of people protesting, even one counts. And that was my point.[/quote]
ok, then your comment makes sense now…..
—
I am glad that people have the right to protest, but if you think reasons for protesting a certain topic is silly, then I think you should be able to say so…. and that isn’t necessarily mocking the charter of rights, etc.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:28 am
I feel that the PM sloughing off a protest because of the numbers shows a total lack of respect by him for the citizens of this country. As a leader, even a “handful” of people who have legitimate concerns should be worthy of his attention and treated as “important”. It’s a bit cocky and I’m not impressed by a statement like that at all.
That being said, I’ve also been extremely disappointed during recent protests in Vancouver to see them completely undermined by numbnut idiots who have no other purpose than stirring up some shit. Knocking over paper boxes, vandalizing property…this shifts the focus from the actual protest to the morons behaving like this, wanting their five minutes of fame and nothing more. Some are repeat offenders and I doubt they really have any deep feelings about what is being protested…they show up for every single one and begin their little sideshow. It’s unfortunate that they give an “outlet” for shifting the focus from the matters at hand.
I’m pretty sure that it’s the same mentality of the drunken sports fan who don’t really go to cheer on their team at all…their mission is to get shitfaced and disturb everyone else. Attention whores basically.
That being said, those with legitimate concerns and who protest for the right reasons should never be treated this way. The whole idea of protesting is exercising your right to show disapproval and call for action and if you’re shuffled off this way and totally disregarded by your leader, then it shows he truly isn’t listening at all.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:29 am
[quote]The PM shouldn’t poke fun at the number of people protesting, even one counts.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t he? Does everyone (as in everyone has a right to an opinion) not include the PM? So he thought it was a sad silly protest (in truth it was a sad turn out, compare it to G8 protests), its not like he is losing any votes saying so for anyone who is up in arms about this will not be voting for him anyway.
I’d rather have a politician speak his mind truthfully than cover up his feelings and lie.
I think Harper is doing a good job; so long as he has a minority government. Unlike Bush, Harper is the puppet master for his party, and is in control. Proof is that he has managed to shut up the psychos in his party like Myron Thompson.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:54 am
I heard on CBC radio this morning, some ‘expert’ talk about this partnership. She was saying Canadians were over-reacting, and treating it like conspiracy theory fodder.
But like JFK said.. The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
[quote comment="23562"]Come on. This is probably one of the lamest excuses to not trust him. If you have an ideological problem, fine, but to pawn him off as untrustworthy because he looks like an American is just dumb. Tell you what, I’ll drive two hours south of Vancouver, bring you back an American and then ask you if you can pick him out if I put him on a sidewalk downtown. [/quote]
Ok…OK….
ok…
This is not my entire logic on Harper…maybe I should have been clearer…or included more with my comment…I am by no means a conservative voter…My own idealogical and personal beliefs on the core issues such as Gay Marriage, Social Assistance, Censorship, defense, etc etc etc are very far from the conservative platform….Of course my vote was not based on the fact that he looks like an american…and it was not so much appearance as similarity in policy that I was aiming at…I am 22 yrs old, I am a college student, I am a mother, and my vote was cast based on more than pure aesthetics…I can assure you…I am not stupid, and if you have read any of my other posts in the past you would see that I am pretty well informed…and I wasn’t voting for Harper no matter what his appearance…especially after the lovely pamphlet we received in our riding from his fellow conservative Chuck Strahl which was basically a bunch of anti gay propaganda which bordered on completely offensive, and misinformed…I wish I would have kept it to scan…but aside from that…I could appreciate what you’re saying should my motive have been purely anti american…but lets not get too insane about it, and start calling people dumb…like i said, i should have been clearer, but I still wouldn’t like to be called stupid.;)
August 21st, 2007 at 9:31 am
[quote comment="23578"]Is there a reason for changing your MG logo to liberal red Matt?[/quote]
It’s not about “liberal red” at all. It’s been stated a few times that Matt has a certain level of fondness for the Guardian news blog (and after checking it out…so do I. nice clean delivery of a fair bit of content), and it’s been stated in at least one post I can remember that the current MG.org design is based to some degree on the design of the Guardian blog.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Kinda funny that people label Harper a fascist, an American, and a whole bunch of words that I won’t post on here, but the guy turns around and says this latest protest is sad, and you’re all over him? Talking about calling the kettle black.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
[quote comment="23582"]We will be safe as long as we are able to maintain our Party System, Quebec and the Liberals will never let that die. As long as that stays, Harper will have little realy power. How long he remains Prime Minister will depend entirely on how far his party is willing to follow him. And though he may try to keep a close watch, there is already unrest amoung his cabinet and the opposition.[/quote]
I appreciate what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point.
This stuff around the SPP is being done, in large part, outside of government (legal) channels. Harper, while he may not “really” have the power to do these things, is attempting to anyway.
Does the PM really have the power to practically implement policy unilaterally?
I think a lot of people are angered by the fact that these talks that are going on seem subversive to our ACTUAL system of government and the laws that it enacts. It seems like Harper is overstepping his authority here much in the same way that the executive branch has done in the US.
It seems, and maybe many of us are incorrect in this perception, that the SPP participants are taking a top down approach to making changes in our society.
If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly be corrected by someone who understands what’s going on better than I do.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am
I can embark on a lengthy diatribe illustrating my contempt for Stephen Harper, but, out of prudence, I’ll make it as simple as I can:
Stephen Harper is a pompous asshole.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
[quote comment="23585"][quote]The PM shouldn’t poke fun at the number of people protesting, even one counts.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t he? Does everyone (as in everyone has a right to an opinion) not include the PM? So he thought it was a sad silly protest (in truth it was a sad turn out, compare it to G8 protests), its not like he is losing any votes saying so for anyone who is up in arms about this will not be voting for him anyway.
I’d rather have a politician speak his mind truthfully than cover up his feelings and lie.
I think Harper is doing a good job; so long as he has a minority government. Unlike Bush, Harper is the puppet master for his party, and is in control. Proof is that he has managed to shut up the psychos in his party like Myron Thompson.[/quote]
While its true that the PM does have the right to his own opinion, I think the problem is that he voiced it so carelessly. As a political leader who is supposed to be representing the people, it’s degrading to those protestors to be looked down on in such a way. The protestors may not be voting for him anyway, but if he continues to make comments like that about the people, he will alienate more of them. My point is simply that it isn’t about what he actually thinks, or about speaking his mind truthfully. Its about tact, and the apparent lack our PM has. He can think what he wants but it was a poor mistake on his part to voice those opinions in such a degrading way to both those protestors and to others who may protest in the future. It shows complete disregard for the people he was elected to represent and that really is sad.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:34 am
He may be the puppet master within his own party, Mekana, but, in the grand scheme of things, the heavy hand of America is lodged squarely up his ass.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Damn. Was hoping someone would chime in and tell me I’m wrong. I really do want to believe I’m wrong on this one …
August 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
[quote comment="23606"][quote comment="23585"][quote]The PM shouldn’t poke fun at the number of people protesting, even one counts.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t he? Does everyone (as in everyone has a right to an opinion) not include the PM?
Keep this in mind.
In the role he’s in, it’s not just about his “personal” opinion….he was voted on by the people, to represent (the voices/opinions of) those people. So it’s important that he at least take the time to listen to them.
He expressed his opinion and, in doing so, managed to blatantly disregard the people he’s supposed to represent, based on their numbers and the fact that he wasn’t overwhelmed by them. It concerns me that “the little voice” obviously isn’t one that he’s interested in.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I actually just finished watching the movie Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) before reading this post. I can’t help but feel overwhelmed… and powerless.
Are we already past the point of no return where polices and laws, like that of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, are being entered into unilaterally without any input from the public, or even our elected officials? Especially one that threatens our sovereignty, pushing towards a union such as that of the European Union… complete with a common currency… the “amero”.
And how the hell is anyone going to motivate the apathetic public to make a change?
Okay, so there was only 500 people who attended… I say that’s pretty good considering the secrecy that this policy is clouded in. I think in order for people to really feel like they need to take action, they need something concrete to fight against… and nothing concrete about the Partnership has been released.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Deb:
Harper and his party were voted in by a national majority that supports him. He’s not disregarding the people he’s supposed to represent, as they were tucked in safely at home, only vaguely aware that a summit was going on.
The protesters don’t support Harper, nor his party. They’re lost votes, so in a politicians mind, you can say pretty much anything you want about them and not lose anything, because they’re not voting for you anyway.
There’s also the dangerous game of special interests. By calling the small protest group “sad,” he’s upset the protesters and their supporters. But if he routinely listened to small-group protests, other groups would begin accusing him of pandering to lobby groups. In the scheme of lobbying, there is little to no difference between a protest group, and say an oil and gas company. They both want to influence the government, and will stage a show to do so.
I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I’m rather disgusted by the game of politics, from top to bottom. In my honest opinion, a lot of politicians would gain boatloads of insight by having honest discussions with their constituents in a manner that’s not completely dismissive or derisive. But I know such ideas are pipe-dreams, and shouldn’t be hoped for in the current political climate of cold ideology and stale rhetoric.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
[quote]he was voted on by the people, to represent (the voices/opinions of) those people[/quote]
No, you are wrong.
First, he was voted on by the members of the Conservative Party to serve the needs of the party, and to guide them and shape conservative policy in order to win as many individual ridings as possible.
Second, he was voted on by the _consitutants of his riding_ to represent the majority of the people in said riding.
If you disagree with the first thing, you can
a) vote against the Conservative party member in your riding, thus saying “I disagree with the Conservative policy which Stevey champions”
b) join the conservatives and vote him down as leader thus saying “I agree with Conservative policy, but Stevey is not helping our cause.”
If you happen to be in his riding you can also vote against him in the next election, thus saying “I do not believe that Stevey represents me.”
It is NOT the job of the prime minister to listen to every individual voice. That specific duty is the job of your local representative.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
[quote comment="23619"][quote comment="23578"]Is there a reason for changing your MG logo to liberal red Matt?[/quote]
I didn’t know that by using the colour red it meant that I was a supporter of the Liberal Party. Maybe I should use pink or purple. That way you could get your head out of your ass.[/quote]
Actually, purple signifies that you support the Mongol invasions and that you are pro-gulag.
Pink signifies that you support the Martian colonization of earth and that you are pro-gulag.
red, green, yellow and blue also mean you are pro-gulag, as does using a black font.
Why are you so pro-gulag Mr Good?
August 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Its just a color, guys.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I’m sure this arrangement was somewhat influnced by the Bush Whitehouse’s “Free Speech Zone” policy:
From http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
[quote]When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.[/quote]
Glad to see your PM had the balls to stand up to our Prez and say, “This is Canada, we’ll do exactly as you wish.”
August 21st, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Stephen Harper was elected by, what, about 35-37% of the, what, about 65-70% of registered Canadian voters who actually voted. I haven’t looked up the numbers, I could be a bit off, but you get the point. Not even close to the majority of Canadians voted for Stephen Harper, and an even lower percentage of voters probably would have voted for him if more Canadians had voted.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 am
[quote comment="23614"]Deb:
Harper and his party were voted in by a national majority that supports him. He’s not disregarding the people he’s supposed to represent, as they were tucked in safely at home, only vaguely aware that a summit was going on.
The protesters don’t support Harper, nor his party. They’re lost votes, so in a politicians mind, you can say pretty much anything you want about them and not lose anything, because they’re not voting for you anyway.
There’s also the dangerous game of special interests. By calling the small protest group “sad,” he’s upset the protesters and their supporters. But if he routinely listened to small-group protests, other groups would begin accusing him of pandering to lobby groups. In the scheme of lobbying, there is little to no difference between a protest group, and say an oil and gas company. They both want to influence the government, and will stage a show to do so.
I’m not saying I agree with it. In fact, I’m rather disgusted by the game of politics, from top to bottom. In my honest opinion, a lot of politicians would gain boatloads of insight by having honest discussions with their constituents in a manner that’s not completely dismissive or derisive. But I know such ideas are pipe-dreams, and shouldn’t be hoped for in the current political climate of cold ideology and stale rhetoric.[/quote]
Yes, you and Coren are absolutely correct and perhaps I worded what I was trying to say wrong.
It’s just that, in my fantasy world, the elected Government of a country should be concerned with the issues of ALL people, not just the ones who put them there. At least enough to listen. Dreaming, I know.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
[quote]the elected Government of a country should be concerned with the issues of ALL people[/quote]
Local officials will be happy to listen to concerns of their constituents. They might not do anything, but they’ll listen. If they dont, tell the media.