The supremacy of the electoral process
Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Short and sweet.
Now how do go from that to this?
A constituent in the Vancouver Kingsway federal riding is organizing a class action lawsuit against incumbent federal MP David Emerson.
[Peter Dimitrov, a human rights and trial lawyer], who ran for the leadership of the BC NDP in 2003, says while the mass rallies and recall petitions are laudable, he worries that they will not be effective in removing Emerson, since there is no federal recall legislation. BC is currently the only electoral jurisdiction that has such legislation, which was introduced by the previous NDP government in 1995.
He says this is why legal action is necessary, since a charter interpretation will likely settle the matter.
"Based on my understanding of Section 3 of the charter, and the publicly available evidence respecting the context and timing of the 'crossing,'" he says, "it is my opinion that the post-election actions of David Emerson, and perhaps the prime minister, as well, nullified the rights of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway to play a meaningful role in the election of their elected representative and it further denied them the right to "effective representation" by the party of their choice (Liberal) and their party-affiliated representative."
Nope, sorry, don't see it. The Charter does not recognize political parties or recalls -- just elections. We have the right to vote. Period.
I'm not sure why "effective representation" is in quotes. The phrase does not appear in the Charter in any context, either as a right or otherwise.
But besides being a bit of a stretch, this lawsuit is dangerous, and should not even be allowed to proceed. Once the count has been certified, and the people have spoken, there should be no intervention by the courts to overturn the result where there is no evidence or even allegation of a flaw in the voting process.
To even acknowledge that the courts have such a power to overturn a valid and well-executed election is to complete our transition from a democracy to a judicial oligarchy. Any judge presented with this lawsuit should toss it out with a stern warning that this is entirely outside of the powers of the judiciary to adjudicate.
You don't like Emerson? Fine. Help to pass legislation that forces him to stand for re-election. Good luck making it retroactive, by the way. And good luck also at crafting it in such a way that it could survive a constitutional challenge.
But don't think a simple lawsuit is the way to go. The election was fair. People voted as is their right under the Charter. No laws were broken. The ballots were counted and David Emerson received the most votes.
The result of a well-executed election is sacrosanct. It must be for our democracy to have any legitimacy. If you are successful at getting legislation forcing a recall or a by-election, all you've done is increase the number of elections. I think you are being silly, but at least you aren't dismissing the legitimacy of the previous election as such. You aren't arguing the David Emerson is not the legitimate MP. You are requiring him to submit to a separate election outside of the normal requirement of an election within five years based on a specific decision (an idea which I think suffers from a serious constitutional problem) but at least you are using an election as the mechanism for your solution. Moreover, you are implementing that solution via the legislature, the body that represents the combined voting wisdom of all Canadians.
What you are not doing is subordinating the choice of thousands of citizens expressed at the ballot box to the whim of a single judge. However, this is exactly what Dimitrov wants to do.
The judiciary should fulfill its role in determining if such a law meets the standards of constitutionality. In others words, the judiciary can be asked to make a decision on whether it is a good law. The judiciary should never be asked whether an MP is a good MP. That is for the electorate to decide and no one else. Ever.
Even if you don't like what Emerson did, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Whatever short term heartburn you are suffering because of Emerson crossing the floor pales in comparison to making free and fair elections subject to successful lawsuits by those who don't like the result.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Steve: The electors in Vancouver-Kingsway had the right to vote for a Liberal, and they thought they had. Their rights were frustrated. Surely havint "the right to vote" subsumes the notion that, when that right of choice is exercised, that choice is what actually transpires. Anything else is fraudulent conversion.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 23, 2006 04:37 PM
Steve: The electors in Vancouver-Kingsway had the right to vote for a Liberal, and they thought they had. Their rights were frustrated. Surely having "the right to vote" subsumes the notion that, when that right of choice is exercised, that choice is what actually transpires. Anything else is fraudulent conversion.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 23, 2006 04:37 PM
The Charter states that every CITIZEN has the right to vote--then why is it not incumbent upon EC to demand proof of citizenship of each voter? Has anyone gone over the list of voters to determine how many of the "Liberal voters' were actually citizens? Or are we again being selective here? This situation smells--no0, I did not like Emerson's floor crossing, but this is much ado about nothing. It is mostly the NDP causing this ruckus--and yet I don't hear the same claim re democracy being raised when Gordon Wilson crossed the floor to the provincial NDP in BC. Selective virtue?
Posted by: George at February 23, 2006 04:42 PM
You have to remember that when you cross to the liberals or an NDP's you are doing it for ethical reasons but if you cross to the conservatives you are joining that evil right wing conspiracy.
As for judicial oligarchy, that's what we have in this country at the moment to a certain degree. Especially when we had PM that couldn't make a decision.
Where was this Dimitrov clown when all these other floor crossings were going on? I guess if Conservative voters "human rights" are violated then that's OK. With activist judges at every level this case could go all the way to the Extreme Court where their decision will take place long after the next election.
Posted by: primvs pilvs at February 23, 2006 05:08 PM
Just another champagne socialist wannbe trying to leverage 15 minutes of fame & press time outta thi non story for thier own political gain.
The whole "uprising" in the riding is being organized by the local NDP wingnut moonbat organization . . its a as phoney as an honest Liberal.
A failed NDP leader trying for a 2nd chance
Posted by: Fred at February 23, 2006 05:19 PM
The electoral system and the electoral laws need to change. Picking thru the entrails of this past flawed system and taking sides justifying the next injustice by a past injustice or quoting unjust laws that mock representative democracy does nothing to solve anything when the very electoral system is only quasi-democratic.
In rough numbers: 60% of those on list bother to vote.10% are off list. Of possible electorate, 40% pick most 'majority' governments, representing 20% of the possible electorate. After a century of this, you can't blame people for not bothering to vote, where politicians regularly totally reverse their election promises with impunity...GST etc, and floor crossing is just one other example of this.
The PM elected to 'majority' status by 20% of the electorate, has the arbitrary power to appoint a whole upper chamber, the judicial powerful branch, the heads of lucrative crown corporations, commissioners of enquiry into government wrongdoing, all kinds of Boards running all kinds of things... etc etc
In democratic terms, Canada, a virtual one party state for most of its history because of these quasi-democratic reasons, is the 'sick man' of the democratic West, and the colossal levels of mostly legal corruption and the vast levels of waste in governance are a steady stream of proof of this sickness.
So let's give Emerson a break, and move on to reforming this sick electoral and governance system. If tweedle dee acts like dweedle dum there is no change until the actual democratic system is brought up to modern standards in Canada. Any party that fails to address the shame of the 'democratic deficit' in Canada is just another scam.
Posted by: brock at February 23, 2006 05:42 PM
They voted for David Emerson and they got David Emerson and as a bonus even though the Liberals did not get in He did!
When you vote do you vote for the party or the person?Chicken or the egg methinks
Posted by: ian at February 23, 2006 06:26 PM
Just another smart aleck lawyer looking to get famous, and maybe rich, by twisting the charter to fit thier ambitions.
It shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Posted by: Curtis at February 23, 2006 06:45 PM
Emerson is the symptom of the sicknes, not the cause. let's focus on the cause, which is that he did what others did before him because it is legal under a corrupt flawed partial democracy that is the shame of the otherwise democratic Western world. Why this malaise only in Canada? Why is only Canada incapable of reforming its colonial-era democracy to join the modern West?
Emerson is the canary in the mine telling canadians who long for democracy that the conservatives, unless they bring in electoral reform, will be just another Mulroney government.
Posted by: brock at February 23, 2006 08:24 PM
The flaw here is not in the voting process but in the end result (or should I say the after fact). This is not a “floor crossing” as we have seen in the past. Although I’m no fan of floor crossings I can understand that sometimes this may be necessary when no other alternatives are available (i.e. MP’s being kicked out of parties or faced with strong disagreements over issues within their party). This time, this is different, the ink wasn’t even dried on the ballots; ballots were still being counted. This is the kind of flaws we see in third world countries; do we want the same for ours? In some countries this would be called fraud however here we call it “floor crossing”.
Here is an hypothetical scenario: Let’s say that a party knows that they can’t get elected in a riding and by some coincidence they manage to have someone from their party to run and get elected under the other party’s banner and right after the election this candidate switches over back to his party, this is not only done in one riding but in several across Canada and this party ends up forming the Government. What would this be called?
Precedence here has been set and something better be done quickly to fix it. We must restore confidence in people’s votes and our election process otherwise we’ll end up similar to third world countries. Democracy is too important to let political GAMERS tamper with it and if it needs the Courts to fix it so be it, too much is a state here and I urge all electorates regardless of party affiliation to speak up and get something done.
You’re Angry in the Great White North so please speak out in support of democracy because I’ve seen what voters’ apathy and vote fixing can do to a country and you don't want it here.
Posted by: marcel at February 23, 2006 09:57 PM
Marcel is right. It's not just what was done, but how it was done. There may very well have been a breach of the Charter. There may also have been a breach of the Ethics for MP's.
The actions of Emerson and Harper must be scrutinized in detail against both the Charter, and the Ethics policy.
The people of Vancouver-Kingsway were robbed of their votes. They voted for the Liberal candidate, Emerson.
Morally and ethically, at a gut-level, the electorate know the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Now, we just have to keep up the pressure on our government to stand up for our rights.
This firestorm is not going to go away. Basic democratic principles are at stake.
Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 23, 2006 11:18 PM
Maybe if Emerson had waited `til the ink on the ballots was dry there wouldn`t be somuch disdain for his move. Harper was going to run an ethical government, we found out what a lying sack of shit he really is right away. Just another no good politician. Maybe we could send him to Houston, BC and get him to drink a beer outside a hockey game.
Posted by: Rick at February 23, 2006 11:47 PM
Where were these people when Scott and Belinda jumped ship? Particularly Belinda as her jumping ship was responsible for keeping an arguably illegitimate government afloat. The MSM passed over her defection in a day but won't give up on this one. Hyprocrites!
Posted by: confused at February 23, 2006 11:57 PM
Confused: I'm no liberal; I'm just raising a point. What was done here is border line corruption and we can't afford for this to happen again. I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it if Emerson had waited and "crossed the floor" after the House was in Session. It is too easy to destroy democracy and we just can’t afford to let the political gamers have their way. I ask you to please look beyond partisanship and look at the big picture and “what if”.
P.S. I was just as appalled with it when Stronach and Brison did it; I can’t stand opportunists.
Posted by: marcel at February 24, 2006 12:23 AM
I find it fascinating how so many people are able to extrapolate the entire character of Harper and any government he leads from this single act...
Yet these same insightful folks voted Chretien into majority government three times and never managed to figure out what a truly evil man he is... These same rocket scientists then gave Martin a minority government and damn near gave him a second minority... and we all saw what a magnificent leader Martin wasn't.
NOW all these geniuses want to point fingers and call Harper a hypocrite. I guess they're looking in the mirror when they say that?
Posted by: Mac at February 24, 2006 01:36 AM
I believe there is a word for legal actions like these. Its called vexatious (sp?) and its the words heard by many litigants just before the judge tells them to take a hike.
Ge real. This guy is a card carrying NDP, they want that seat. This legal action has diddly to do with "read in" charter rights, and everything to do with partisan opportunism. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Dare I say this legal action if its allowed, will only "politicize the court".
Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 05:28 AM
Angry:
We differ on whether Emerson belongs in Cabinet but not on the fundamental question of whether MPs should be able to cross the floor. Good post on that, to which I can add nothing.
One observation on this court challenge, though -- why is a Dipper piloting it? If the Endipistas in V-Kingsway wanted a Liberal to represent them in this Parliament, why did they run their own candidate in the election? Canadian history is littered with candidates running under the banner of more than one party before the Conservative-Liberal-CCF/NDP-Socred structure crystallized in the 1950s.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at February 24, 2006 09:24 AM
Question for you Jim Whyte.
Wasn't Emerson already in cabinet when Harper asked him if he wanted to be in his?
Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 09:45 AM
SOrry for multiple posting but just thought of another question for all those constitutional experts out there.
Does political affilliation establish any reasonable limits on the written* charter freedom of conscience?
*(thats to clarify that this freedom isn't "read in" to the charter).
Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 09:51 AM
Ian waddel the NDP candidate was a BC MLA. He got the leader of a small party to cross over and become an NDP cabinet minister. How anything he says regarding this can be taken with a shred of credibility is incredible.
Typical is the statement that the people of his riding voted Liberal. Some did, some did not, some voted for Emerson, some voted strategically. These sweeping statements are as usual full of crap.
enough
Posted by: enough at February 24, 2006 09:53 AM
Pleased as I am that the Liberals got a little sauce for their gander, and recognizing as I do that the right to vote does not entail the right to utterly dictate your candidate's behaviour once in office, I nonetheless can't help but feel that the lawsuit perhaps has more merit than you allow, Steve -- ethically, if not legally.
The problem comes from the fact that many people do not vote on the local merits of the candidate, but on the political principles that candidate nominally represents through his party affiliation. Ian, above, asked, "Do you vote for the party or the person?" -- well, the plain fact is, most people vote for the party, because it's the balance of power among the *parties* that makes the most difference to many voters both practically and in principle.
To say "You voted for Emerson, you got Emerson, what's the problem?" is to disingenuously avoid this real point. What those angry with this floor crossing are saying -- just as the Tories in Belinda Stronach's riding were saying -- is, "We wanted an additional vote for the planks we like on the federal level -- and our MP's defection has wasted our votes, because they will no longer support the principles in Parliament that we wanted them to support."
After all, Steve, if we shouldn't give one judicial official the right to nullify an election at his own discretion, why does one elected MP have the right to do effectively the same thing at *his* own discretion? The value of a free vote relies on the assumption that the votes' effects are clear, consistent, and reliable: for an MP to devalue that vote for his own ends by deceiving the electorate is just as bad as for a judge to nullify that vote for *his* reasons.
If Emerson had secured his position by financial fraud of some kind and it came out, he would be turfed and justly so. Why is it that if you lie about money it invalidates your campaign, but if you lie about your platform -- the very thing that gains you most of your votes in the first place -- you aren't?
To try to use a lawsuit to invalidate an election simply because you don't like the result is one thing. To try to invalidate it because you were promised one result, voted on the basis of that promise, and then given another after the fact by unilateral decision on the part of the man you elected, may have more merit.
If we want greater accountability in our politicians and representatives, it might be worth starting to think about holding them accountable at the most fundamental level of all: Their own honesty.
Posted by: Stephen J. at February 24, 2006 10:41 AM
It's not about suing because you don't like the results. It's about politicians lying their asses off, screwing their constituents, and not having to be held to account for it.
For some strange reason, I was under the impression that this kind of thing mattered to conservatives.
What's that you say? OOOHHHHHH...that was when they were in opposition....gotcha.
meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 10:53 AM
Winston Churchill is widely regarded as one of the best political leaders of the 20th century. Yet he crossed the floor twice in his elected life. (Not to say, Belinda, Bryson, or Emerson are in the same league as Churchill) Crossing the floor is a long held, but rarely used right of an elected MP. If we restrict the rights of MPs we damage democracy by strengthening the party whips, and parties.
Look at how the House of Reps works in the United States. (where the party whip is fairly weak) Collecting votes for a bill has often been described as herding cats.
The seats that MPs are elected to, belong to the MP, not the party.
Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 11:54 AM
"Basic democratic principles are at stake"
Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 23, 2006 11:18 PM
You're absolutely right when we allow moronic lawyers to bring in reckless lawsuits regarding our Charter of Rights.
You know as a Conservative, I am damn mad that Canada elected any Liberals to parliament. I think we should have a lawsuit against every Liberal that won an election and have them tossed out. The Liberal party is a useless party that has shown itself to be corrupt. Perhaps there should be a legal challenge to remove the Liberal party and not allow it to run again in future elections.
You're absolutely right our "basic democratic principles are at stake" if we allow stupid lawsuits to take place.
Posted by: mikeh at February 24, 2006 12:04 PM
Me thinks that some lair, err lawyers have too much time on their hands.
Quick 15 minutes of fame, grab a headline - Sue the government, sue the floor crosser - this is sacrilege!
Right.
Dial me back to reality please...
Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:15 PM
I'm not sure who I am more sick of these days.
Lawyers or NDP'ers
My apologies to all lawyers who don't use illogical thinking to advance their own partisan policies
Posted by: ScottInCgy at February 24, 2006 12:18 PM
Mikeh, yeah agreed, who knows what goes through a Libeal voters head these days, can't be a vaccum because at least we know where the sucking sound is coming from.
...Did I just say that? Dang keyboard.
I still wonder how Belimbo and Baddale got back in - either must have a lot of really forgiving people there or birds of a feather?
Emmerson cross dres...err floor crossing. Ok, so the reason is "representation". So why didsn't any Toroanna airheads get in?
Has anyone noticed all the big perky jobs went to Quebec MP's?
Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:23 PM
Scott: "My apologies to all lawyers..."
Shouldn't that be phrased in a singluar pronoun?
"My apology to the lawyer..." but gotta be nice, you too someday will need one of these.
Posted by: tomax at February 24, 2006 12:25 PM
Does anyone remember Emerson's "victory" speech? He said, "... This is the first step in the long road back to a Conserv ahhh errr Liberal majority!" The Ethics Commissioner will look at that newscast and wonder what many Vancouver-Kingsway voters wondered at the time, and since: Was the fix in before the election?
Another thing to look at is, Emerson had not been sworn in when he made an MP decision to cross the floor. He may have jumped prematurely.
Another thing along these same lines is, Harper was not Prime Minister when he offered Emerson a Cabinet position among other inducements. The Ethics Commissioner will have to weigh the actions of these two men against what he ruled in the Martin-Grewal affair.
Things will just get more interesting.
Why worry about a lawsuit if your hands are clean?
Rest assured, the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway would not classify such a lawsuit as vexatious or spurious.
Democracy is at stake here.
Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 12:31 PM
Imagine the following scenario (purely hypothetical, never gonna happen)
The Liberals start to secretly appeal to Conservative MPs who were expecting cabinet posts but didn't get them.
The Liberals convince a bunch of these MPs to cross over, enough, in fact, to give the Liberals the majority of MPs.
Under this scenario, the Liberals would then rise to power and form a government again, without even needing an election (I'm oversimplifying. I'm not sure about the constitutionality of such a scenario).
Now from what I'm reading here, all of you who are poo-pooing all over this lawsuit idea would have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with this scenario, right? This would all be OK with you? After all we vote for the candidate, not the party, right?
Or would you all scream from the rooftops about corruption, lack of integrity, democracy being destroyed, the will of the voters being ignored, etc, much like you did when Stronach crossed the floor?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Hypocrites. This whole election has taught me one very important thing: Conservatives are all about integrity and principle, unless integrity and principle get in the way of their power grab.
I had great hopes for this government. Not for any legislative reason, but because I thought that for once we'd get a government that governs based on principles. Instead we got a new coat of paint on the same old shitheap jalopy.
Oh well...
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 12:45 PM
The problem I had with Belinda, was the timing of her crossing. I pretty much thought "good riddance" when she left. I however felt that the liberal government had already been defeated and was illegitimate, thus her propping up the government again aggravated me further.
The floor crossing issue is by now a dead horse, any further beating is unlikely to produce any progress.
What great hopes did you have for the Conservative government?
Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 01:03 PM
Curtis:
I hoped that the government would act like it promised it would.
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 01:10 PM
Gimbol:
Yes, he certainly was in Cabinet. I didn't think any of the Liberal ministers belonged in Cabinet, which is why I voted to get them out ;o)
My objection to having Emerson in the Conservative cabinet is twofold: first, his support for Martin and the Libranos over the last year or two, which means he can countenance a whole lot more wickedness in government than a minister should; second, that -- on the showing of a party insider quoted in the press -- he was offered a Cabinet post in exchange for crossing the floor (John Reynolds spoke of how "the deal was done" a short time after Emerson was sworn in) and that's something the Conservatives were supposed to be running against.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at February 24, 2006 01:25 PM
They havent acted on very much yet.
I think, a lot of people really over-reacted to this episode. Its a tempest in a teacup.
Posted by: Curtis at February 24, 2006 01:25 PM
Belinda.....OK
Emmerson....OK
suit....not OK
PMSH....not OK
2 wrongs + 2 rights = 0 right/wrongs
Conclusion...This is a meaningless big zero of a dead issue.
Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 24, 2006 01:45 PM
Re: tempest in a tea cup
Tea Party for the De-Elect Emerson campaign Saturday Feb 25 at Main and King Edward, 10:30 am and 1:30 pm
He can hole up in Shaughnessy with his aides sent out from Ottawa at taxpayers' expense so he can avoid the heat, but this tempest is showing no signs of letting up.
He's like the groundhog who goes back in his hole for 6 more weeks till Spring. Spring will soon be sprung, and the Government shall reconvene, and he will have to stand in Parliament and answer questions like any bona fide MP.
We can wait.
Posted by: the X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 01:50 PM
Word up ursankid.
Emerson's got his coming to him. harper would be wise to admit a mistake, kick him out of cabinet and try and move forward. Despite what tories wanna believe, this isn't going away anytime soon, and Emerson's and Harper's being afraid to face the media isn't helping matters....
the Emerson situation's gonna get a lot worse in the weeks to come.
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 01:57 PM
as an(sic) curious observer from the south; i find it sad, regrettable, and laffable; that betrayal is rewarded by such unthinking and unknowing rhetoric spewed by some that think "sweeping dog doo-doo under the carpet" is OK, becuz they can get away with it. sounds like a lot of the "rules" in Canada are as antiquated and onerous as the crap we put up with in the States. i.e., how does the runner-up become the "most powerful man in the world"?
seems lying, spin, and covert agendas are not limited to borders.....
ty
Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 02:18 PM
Dave, stew for as long as you like. But haven't you noticed that its been over two weeks and neither Harper nor Emerson are giving an inch on this subject?
What the malcontents really need to come up with is where in the charter it specifies a limit to freedom of conscience that includes political affilliation (damn that freedom of belief thing again).
They might want to see if this has any effect on that parliamentary privilage thing too.
If this is a civil litigation action, they better be able to spell out damages in financial terms that can connect to folks other than bona fide ones that donated to his campaign, supporters of other parties cannot be included in that class action can they....like the NDP supporters that want a byelection. The defence would only have to have an affidavid from non-liberal voters in the riding to contest the case successfully.
But it would please me to no end if a precident was established on the basis of an elected rep embarrassing its citizens. I got a doozy lined up for Parrish ("I hate those bastards"), Chretien ("proof of da proof"), and Hedy Fry ("crosses burning").
As I'm sure a guy like "ly'n Brian" would over that bit of hi-jinx with the Airbus thing.
Meet the new boss.
Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 02:55 PM
gimbol:
There's a difference between not giving an inch and hiding under the blankets hoping to god the media will go away. Not giving an inch means explaining your decision and standing by it. Emerson and Harper are scared to even face the media. Emerson is so scared of the Ottawa media, they had to send his staff to BC to brief him. I wonder if they'll use a cardboard cutout once parliament is in session...
And this has nothing to do with MPs embarrassing anyone. It has to do with electoral fraud.
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 03:01 PM
seems the phrase "false pretenses", is not in the Conservative/Tory guidebook...
have a nice fight; it would be lovely to expose anybody's wrongdoing, in any government, to actually lead to the "truth"; let alone accountability for one's actions and/or spurious behavior.
good luck to you all :)
Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 03:14 PM
Its not hiding from the media Dave, its ignoring them. Harper knows he doesn't need them.
Mostly because its obvious that they wouldn't present a friendly ear even if he did.
So they're a bit upset over being left in the cold having to work for a paycheque.
They must really miss that run up they used to get from Bucky Dither's eh? But its not like the old days (pre-blogger) when they had a monopoly on info either.
Now anyone with an internet connection can get the press releases the moment the Ottawa press gallery does.
Oh and btw, I won't for a moment try to defend Harper's actions, what he did went against the grain for sure. Matter of fact I enjoy rubbing it in the face of liberals posing as outraged voters.
They make it so easy to press the emotional hot button now after the electoral loss.
Meet the new boss.
Posted by: gimbol at February 24, 2006 04:01 PM
how much does $honesty$ & $integrity$ sell for, these days?
how come i get the feeling there are factions up north that would be willing to give Abramoff clemency, just cuz he's such a nice guy?
Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 04:19 PM
Gimbol:
"Its not hiding from the media Dave, its ignoring them."
--No, it's hiding. Everyone knows it. You can deny all you want, but Harper's afraid of the media. He talks tough during his speeches, but god forbid he should have to answer a question or 2. He's a chicken.
Harper knows he doesn't need them.
--No, Harper thinks he doesn't need them. Truth is, every day he hides from them, more and more people question why he's such a coward. What's he afraid of? Don't tell me he's scared of Don Newman and Mike Duffy. If he had any kind of media savvy, he'd be talking to them every day, building a good relationship with them. If you don't think that in 2006, a PM needs a good relationship with the media, well that would explain why you're a blogger and not this week's communication director.
Mostly because its obvious that they wouldn't present a friendly ear even if he did.
--Holy smokes!!! Where were you through December and January when the media were piling on Paul Martin and the Liberals on a daily basis? This election saw the friendliest media attention the tories have had since, since, well perhaps ever...
So they're a bit upset over being left in the cold having to work for a paycheque.
--The media work for their paycheque by reporting stories and covering the news. What do you think the media does for a living?
Now anyone with an internet connection can get the press releases the moment the Ottawa press gallery does.
--press release? So politicians should be allowed to report about themselves instead of having to face an independent media? Lovely. You've heard of accountability, right? Oh yes, of course you have...you just forgot about it the day after the election. Just like the rest of the conservatives.
Oh and btw, I won't for a moment try to defend Harper's actions, what he did went against the grain for sure. Matter of fact I enjoy rubbing it in the face of liberals posing as outraged voters.
--Do you enjoy rubbing it in the face of Conservatives who are disgusted with their party's behaviour?
They make it so easy to press the emotional hot button now after the electoral loss.
--Just a question: Why do conservatives treat the last election as a wedding instead of the first date that it was? A lot of people gave the conservatives their vote as a protest against the Liberals. Even then, the tories STILL only got a minority. Think about that: the conservatives couldn't win a majority against the MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT of the past 50 years at least, if not ever. How do you think that engaging in the same behaviour as the Liberals is going to keep those first time voters? I know what they're thinking: "I only voted for the tories to get rid of a corrupt government, not because I agree with their policies, Now they're behaving exactly like the Liberals did."
You better start thinking about how you're gonna keep those votes...the clock is ticking...
"Meet the new boss"
Yes indeed, same as the old boss. Nice to see we can agree on some things.
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 04:30 PM
oopsie! wouldn't want to push any emotional and/or seemingly all too typical conservative hot button/morally self-righteous outrage...
i'll keep my "right"-eous "left"-ist Yank freedom of opinion to myself; thankyouverymuchforyourtime
Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 04:31 PM
bullshipper:
You're alright by me! Keep pushing buttons!
Meet the new boss...
Posted by: Dave at February 24, 2006 04:40 PM
thank you, kind sir
it's just that i get tired of ppl lying right to our faces in the media; e.g.: Bush, Cheney (The Shootist, heehee) Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, et cetera, and esp. our new Attorney General/ lap dog Gonzales; who some don't think even needs to be "sworn" in, to testify in front of Congress.
again, good luck getting to the bottom of what sounds like a pretty stinky mess up there.
(btw, did you get a load outta the guy that got blasted by Shotgun Dick, actually apologizing to HIM??? good gawd, man.....get ya nose outta dick's butt...)
Posted by: bullshipper at February 24, 2006 05:08 PM
Update:
A motley crew of constituents (voters with addresses in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding) have taken over David Emerson's office on Kingsway, staging a peaceful sit-in protest until Mr. Emerson speaks to them. Reportedly, some are Conservative constituents.
It is expected to go on all weekend. Film at 11.
Posted by: X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 24, 2006 06:39 PM
Did you see the film at 11?
The police were sent to issue tickets to the sit-ins for disrupting a business.
Just when will Emerson figure out that running an MP office is NOT the same as running a business?
Posted by: X box said: Emerson, Liberal at February 25, 2006 02:10 AM
Here we go again, another impotent attempt to defend Emerson's action. You just don't get it.
Further, even if recall legislation does not exist, wouldn't it be very good idea? Consider e.g. that California Guv who they through out thanks to recall legislation.
Power to the people. Some accountability. Is there anything wrong with that?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 25, 2006 08:00 AM
Here we go again, another impotent attempt to defend Emerson's action. You just don't get it.
I do get it. But you don't. This is not about Emerson anymore. This is about that fact that an election result is inviolable as long as the election itself was free and fair. You might like the result. You might not like what the guy does. He might not keep his promises. But the only recourse is another election. Anything else subordinates the electoral process to whatever side can muster the best lawyers.
A "do-over" suggests that the previous election was invalid. That's the danger. The validity of the votes cast are not affected by the subsequent actions of the winning candidate.
He might subsequently commit an act that makes him unsuitable for office, but even then the bar is set high. A serious criminal offense, usually. Not political machinations.
Consider the America's Cup races. How many of those races were settled in the court? They raced boats, one side didn't like the result, and started coming up with reasons why the other side's craft that floated in water and had sails wasn't really a boat (or yacht or whatever). The race became the first act to the inevitable court challenge, making the race essentially irrelevant.
We can't let anyone overturn an election result on any basis other than that the election itself was compromised. An undesirable result is simply not justification enough. Not even close.
Otherwise, the logical (if extreme) conclusion is to do away with elections altogether, and just submit all the candidates to a court for evaluation and selection.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 25, 2006 02:43 PM
The courts have held consistently that the Charter doesn't "say" anything at all. It has no content. It simply allows the courts to make any disposition they see fit of any matter they choose to address.
So, don't waste your time looking at the words in Charter. The Charter doesn't exist.
Posted by: ebt at February 25, 2006 05:34 PM
X box said: Emerson, Liberal, isn't it interested how your chosen "user name" has Emerson's name first and political affiliation at the time of the election second? Doe that mean the candidate's name (Emerson) came before his party affiliation? Does that suggest something to you? In Canada, the law of the land says you vote for a candidate, not a party. If you have a problem with that, it's YOUR problem.
This manufactured crisis is typical of the left. They love screaming histrionics. The left credo says "If you can't win based on merit and logic, try to win based on volume and emotion!"
I don't blame Harper or Emerson for avoiding the mainstream media who've shown again and again how biased they are. Journalistic integrity is tied for the ultimate oxymoron with liberal logic.
Posted by: Mac at February 25, 2006 06:25 PM
Gee sure is easy to get you liberals going isn't it?
Here I'll do it again.
It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star leadership hopefuls.
Or are you going to say Brison or Belinda are better leadership material? Iggy perhaps?
Last I heard undecided was the top pick for the liberals.
How about that, a complete unknown is the front runner in the yet to be official liberal leadership race. All Bucky has to do is submit his resignation....unless he thinks he can pull a Trudeau.
Get used to the new boss, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Posted by: gimbol at February 25, 2006 08:03 PM
Steve,
1) So I suppose that you never critized Belinda for jumping to the Libs? Did you argue then that "an election result is inviolable"?
2) Some sort of recall procedure would certainly strengthen the democracy, in that it would provide a means to get rid of incompetent, lying and/or corrupt MPs. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 26, 2006 04:56 AM
Just got back from the Sunday protest at Emerson's Constituency office. (Noticed that he hasn't changed his Liberal sign from red to blue yet.) The protest at 15th&Main Saturday went well, with about 100+ people there from 10 till 4, and entire blocks putting up De-Elect Emerson lawnsigns. It's not widely reported, only a few stations carry anything on the news (could it be they have orders from headquarters to hush the constituents?)
Mac, that argument of yours won't work for long. What would you think if Steven Harper switched his Party? If Emerson and Harper get away with this, then look for other MP's to switch sides if offered a more lucrative/powerful position. Gee, isn't this like business, not democracy?
Posted by: the X box said: Harper, Liberal at February 26, 2006 07:56 PM
I don't think my words have an expiry date. As far as I know, no-one is proposing to change the nature of elections in Canada as part of democratic reform. We will continue to vote for the individual, not the party.
As for Harper changing parties, in a way, he already did so. Harper started off in the Reform Party but he left as a result of ideological differences. He ended up being one of the those involved in creating the new Conservative Party.
I can find no examples of a sitting Prime Minister changing parties but there are many examples of an MP crossing the floor. Hard to draw comparisons with a comically hypothetical situation and an actual one.
Since the "protest" isn't getting much coverage, I guess that means the media finally got tired of flogging a dead horse. How about you, X box?
Posted by: Mac at February 26, 2006 08:29 PM
Looking back I realized that I made an error in a previous post. I wrote:
"It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star leadership hopefuls."
That should read:
It must just rile the hell out of you guys that Harper stole one of your star small-c leadership hopefuls. Now your stuck with prominent left wingers and iggy the egghead.
Posted by: gimbol at February 27, 2006 12:13 PM
A chink in the armour of David Emerson: he said on the news today that he figures he could take the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway as a Conservative, though he leaves it up to the Prime Minister whether he will do it in a bye-election, or when Harper comes up to the voters again.
The people of Vancouver-Kingsway would take Emerson at his word and invite him to run in a bye-election any time SOON.
Posted by: Xbox said: Emerson, Liberal at February 28, 2006 01:18 AM
Oh yeah! I almost let you slide on the "Harper stole a leadership hopeful". A leadership hopeful? Stole? Are you serious? Maybe you are... and Harper left him twisting in the wind while he worked out with his party eggheads whether what he did was not only unethcial, but perhaps illegal?
Ahh but goods are so much more valuable to the thief, or what is a fence for?
Good luck on that, and hail the new Conservative Candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, David Emerson!
Posted by: X-Box at February 28, 2006 01:31 AM
Oh, it was priceless!
His Nibs Stephen Harper and entourage rapt by the croonings of The Trailer Park Boys leading a rousing rendition of "Don't Let Us Down" at the annual East Coast Music Awards.
Forever I will treasure the look in our Beloved Leader's eye.
Hope he listens to the music.
Posted by: X-Box at February 28, 2006 01:48 AM
The people of Vancouver-Kingsway would take Emerson at his word and invite him to run in a bye-election any time SOON.
The people can invite their MP to many events, but a surprise election, unfortunately isnt one of them.
Canada already has one of the strongest party systems in the world. This is the system that gave us the GST, if MPs are restricted from leaving their party, the parties will be even stronger, and even more bad or unpopular ideas will forced on the people.
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 10:39 AM
Yep it riles the hell out of you.
Here I'll do it again.
There will be no by-election in VK.
Meet the new boss......exceedingly more decisive than the old boss.
Posted by: gimbol at February 28, 2006 01:06 PM
Yep it riles the hell out of you.
Actually doesn't bother me at all. I think MPs should be allowed to freely cross the floor.
Posted by: Curtis at February 28, 2006 07:16 PM
X-Box, from your most recent posts, it is obvious your "issue" has nothing to do with MPs crossing the floor or David Emerson personally. It's that someone who was elected as a Liberal (the natural ruling party) moved to the evil Conservative Party who had the bad taste to actually win an election.
You probably cried tears of joy when Belinda crossed and helped prop up Mr. Dithers while laughing at Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay.
Posted by: Mac at February 28, 2006 10:24 PM
Saturday March 4 2006.
The constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway are holding their own by-election. Polling stations are set up in 4 locations in the riding and the results will be sent to Ottawa.
Also, at 10 am and 1:30 pm today, a funeral will be held for democracy at Conservative MP David Emerson's office at 2148 Kingsway.
Even though both Harper and Emerson are being investigated by the Ethics Commissioner, the people of Vancouver-Kingsway and outlying areas show no sign of letting up until Emerson resigns and runs in a by-election, as he said he would do.
The people will not have their votes negated by nefarious acts of self-indulgence and self-service as displayed by Emerson and Harper.
If the Vancouver-Kingsway riding want a Conservative MP, let them vote one in. Or not.
Posted by: X-Box at March 4, 2006 02:28 PM
We can't let anyone overturn an election result on any basis other than that the election itself was compromised. An undesirable result is simply not justification enough. Not even close.
Otherwise, the logical (if extreme) conclusion is to do away with elections altogether, and just submit all the candidates to a court for evaluation and selection.
The second paragraph is more than a stretch--it's just silly hyperbole. What we have in the Emerson case is a frustration of the rights of the electorate.
Most people vote for the party, not for the candidate. By misrepresenting himself as a Liberal, Emerson deliberately deceived the electorate. I believe that this court case has legs.
I think some here, not excluding Steve, would be screaming if one or two of the Harper folks had crossed the floor to the NDP before Parliament even resumed. The blogosphere would explode. Calls for reform would be shouted form the rooftops of every conservative blogger in the country. Come on, admit it.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at March 5, 2006 10:06 AM
just checkin to see if i'm still blocked.
i'm still shaking my head; as to the reference to "look @ the america's cup races"; for some kind of obscure precedent for matters y'all dealing with....
Posted by: bullshipper at March 14, 2006 06:48 PM
 
|
|
