Federal Election 2015

[bcguy42 38594]

Something to lighten the discussion.

 

This Badass Kid In A Stephen Harper Photo Op Just Won The Election

[Guest s******ecan****]

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

What to do? What to do?

 

Vote Conservative? :) Just teasing.

 

C-36 is not on any parties radar and it probably wouldn't be wise politically for any party to make an issue out of it now. Fair elections act? I think you should have valid identification to vote. C-51 has the support of your boy.

It's not going to be an easy choice.

 

What concerns me is if Harper gets a minority, count on Harper haters being so incensed they will demand the opposition parties bring the legitimate winner's fairly elected government down. Is that fair? Would it be fair if the minority winner in a 3 party system was NDP or Liberal. I would accept my lumps. I just hope those on the left can be as magnanimous. LOL

[Guest *t**e**x]

I know of no party that has said that they will repeal or change any of the following. The so called Safe Communities Act (Anti-prostitution Act). The so called Fair Elections Act. The so called Anti-Terrorism Act. And on and on and on.

 

Mulcair has stated that he will repeal the anti-terror act. He even said it back when it was an unpopular stand.

[mrrnice2 157005]

What to do? What to do?

 

Vote Conservative? :) Just teasing.

 

C-36 is not on any parties radar and it probably wouldn't be wise politically for any party to make an issue out of it now. Fair elections act? I think you should have valid identification to vote. C-51 has the support of your boy.

It's not going to be an easy choice.

 

What concerns me is if Harper gets a minority, count on Harper haters being so incensed they will demand the opposition parties bring the legitimate winner's fairly elected government down. LOL

 

You are right on regarding Bill C-36 (Safe Communities Act)

 

I also agree with a valid ID for voting however what I do not agree with in the Unfair Election Act are things such as the folloowing which are now law in Canada. It is now illegal for Elections Canada to put on a commercial telling people the election date and to use their democratic right to vote. It is illegal for Elections Canada to go into high schools to teach children how to vote or what a polling station looks like, or what a ballot looks like and a ballot box. It is very clear that he does not want people to vote, especially young people.

 

As for C-51 mentally unstable people are not terrorists and even though I have not a thing to hide, including being here, I do not give the government the right to read every text and email I send. You have more chance of being killed by falling in your bathroom or getting killed by a moose than by a terrorist. Should we pass a law?

 

Unjustified FEAR is NOT a reason to elect a government.

 

Finally. I would LOVE an NDP-Liberal coalition.

[Guest s******ecan****]

There has never been a voter fraud problem in this country. The changes to voter ID are specifically meant to supress voter turnout among groups that do not typically vote for the CPC. It's a cynical and disgusting importation of US right wing political think.

 

Bill C-51 should be repealed, I think Trudeau missed an opportunity there and has decided to hedge his bets by promising to make changes to "improve" it.

 

As far as a coalition being formed after Oct 19th that is perfectly legitimate. Parliamentary systems allow it and there have been others in Canadian history. If the CPC wins the most seats but less than a majority they will certainly do so with far less than 40% of the popular vote. In other words at least 60% of the country rejects them. They have no mandate in my mind at that point. I also think that most voters would welcome a coalition if it means an end to Harper. Raising the possibility of a coalition won`t work for the CPC because the Bloc are not part of it this time and I think Canadians on the whole are so sick of Harper they would be willing to try something new.

 

In fact the inability of either the Liberals or NDP to break out is that voters like them both and have concerns about both. By combining in a coalition many concerns would go away and Canadians get the satisfaction of having both Mulclair and Trudeau.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I always assumed you needed ID to vote and was shocked that you didn't in the past. Who doesn't have ID in this day? To me it's an understandable request that you bring ID to vote. That doesn't sound right wing to me.

 

It may be legitimate to form a coalition to bring down a new government but what if you lose again? Why would the result be any different? In fact it could bite them for being so disrespectful towards the process. Any government that wins a minority faces the same situation you mentioned. The majority didn't vote for you. I think you should have to wait a minimum of 2 years before bringing down a newly elected government.

 

I like the idea of a 2 party system but I doubt I will see it. I might vote for a center left party if I liked their ideas and felt they weren't too far left. I don't like too far right either but in this election it might mean voting for the devil I know. It should get interesting.

[Guest s******ecan****]

The ID must prove residency, many people (young and low income) are often forced to move often and do not always have their address information updated on those forms of ID. If it does not match what is on the voter registration they will be out of luck.

 

The CPC is well aware of this and is using this to suppress these voters who do not traditionally support them. As well just the mention of needing to show ID and that this may be difficult can often be enough to reinforce the idea among these types of voters that voting is too much hassle and why bother. Instead of making it harder to vote we should be looking at ways of making it easier. As well the education programs mentioned earlier tend to increase voter participation among non CPC voting demographics. No surprise they are now cancelled. We must be the only advanced nation that is purposefully de-educating people about voting. These tactics are widespread in the US where Republican's control State legislatures.

 

The bottom line in all of this is that there has never been a "voter fraud" problem. The idea came straight out of the PMO's office, there was no need for it other than a desperate attempt to gain an edge in the election by suppressing the vote. It's disgraceful, shameful and utterly undemocratic. Hopefully its one of the first things the next government gets rid of.

 

If the NDP and Liberals form a coalition they will have majority support since their combined totals of the popular vote would be well in excess of 50%

[bcguy42 38594]

I always assumed you needed ID to vote and was shocked that you didn't in the past. Who doesn't have ID in this day? To me it's an understandable request that you bring ID to vote. That doesn't sound right wing to me.

 

 

Who doesn't have valid ID? No offence intended but this is a question that comes from a place of privilege. Live on the streets? No ID. The ID you had until you lost your job two months ago and lost your home is no longer valid. Student? Does your ID have your current address? Unless you want to fly home and vote in a riding you really no longer live in, sorry, no vote. Victim of domestic violence and forced from your home? Does your ID match your current shelter? No vote. The list goes on.

 

Middle and upper class people comfortable in their situation have no problem with the Fair Voting Act. Hmm... Wonder where the Harper folk get most of their votes?

 

This whole issue strikes me as a Canadian version of the voter disenfranchisement laws the Republicans are enacting in the States.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nicolette Vaughn 294340]

Harper is going to win this next election and then resign.

 

Wasting any words on Harper and the shady sh*t Conservative party is simply an exercise in futility.

 

I will manifest that he is gone bye bye!

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

Rising voices a different way. This is a great Anti-Harper tune!!

 

[Ice4fun 78407]

Rising voices a different way. This is a great Anti-Harper tune!!

 

 

Great song...thanks for posting...

[mrrnice2 157005]

Rising voices a different way. This is a great Anti-Harper tune!!

 

 

Thanks for sharing. On September 17th there will be a national sing along across the country. If there is an event in Charlottetown I think I will go if \i am home.

 

For those unfamiliar with the story, the singer is a folk song singer who is also a scientist in Ottawa who studies migratory bird routes. He has been suspended from his job for the federal government for doing this song. For those who are undecided, is this the Canada that you want that Harperman has brought to us? I guess migratory bird scientists are terrorists too.

[PistolPete 61421]

Just want to mention this, regardless if Conservatives,Liberals,NDP and Green Party were/are in power currently.......The code of conduct applies to all federal public servants not just scientists.

 

The rules are in place to ensure neutrality and impartiality of public servants in their duties as they " serve the public " . Remember it's our tax dollars to pay public servants to provide a service not to give us their view on their choice of government. Public servants are well aware of this policy.

[MightyPen 67414]

The code of conduct applies to all federal public servants not just scientists. ... The rules are in place to ensure neutrality and impartiality of public servants in their duties as they " serve the public " .

The concern about "stifling scientists" isn't about limits on political speech, which is what I think you're referring to by "code of conduct".

 

It's about the current government's policy forbidding scientists to talk about their research and its conclusions without prior, central approval. These scientific conclusions are the fruit of public research money, and belong to all Canadians. Most of the time, they should also be available to the global scientific community to obtain maximum benefit for the research investment. But that's always more difficult, and often impossible, under the current government and its obsession with information control.

 

Remember it's our tax dollars to pay public servants to provide a service...

Yes... services like, say, doing scientific research. Shame we aren't allowed to learn about what they're finding unless some Harper Government PR hack in Ottawa decides it's okay.

 

The current government is a cancer on the nation. Not because it's conservative -- there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But because this particular government is neurotic and totalitarian about the control of public information.

 

It's really go to go, if just for that.

 

For reference, the tip of the iceberg: Steve Campana, Canadian biologist, 'disgusted' with government muzzling

[Ice4fun 78407]

Harper is wrong in the way he has stifled the scientific community but to be fair every federal public servant should understand the principles of nonpartisanship... the role of the public service is to dutifully advise the government of the day and implement the policies an legislation with out regard for politics. It will never be appropriate for the public servant to speak out against government policy... this may not seem fair but it is appropriate.

 

It should be kept in mind while public servants can't speak out individually they are represented by strong effective unions that can and do speak out on government policy.

 

All that said... Harper should be gone.

 

Just my Opinion

[Guest s******ecan****]

Harper is wrong in the way he has stifled the scientific community but to be fair every federal public servant should understand the principles of nonpartisanship... the role of the public service is to dutifully advise the government of the day and implement the policies an legislation with out regard for politics. It will never be appropriate for the public servant to speak out against government policy... this may not seem fair but it is appropriate.

 

It should be kept in mind while public servants can't speak out individually they are represented by strong effective unions that can and do speak out on government policy.

 

All that said... Harper should be gone.

 

Just my Opinion

 

More or less agree however if the same scientist had written a song about Trudeau not being ready I somewhat doubt he would have been put on leave.

 

I think the idea of the code of conduct is important and I do think this particular public servant has crossed the line. However the real outrage is the well known policy of the current government to actively suppress scientific research that runs counter it the desires of the CPC and PMO.

 

Additional Comments:

Most recent seat projections from CBC (they have a very comprehensive model so accuracy is fairly good).

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html

[Ice4fun 78407]

More or less agree however if the same scientist had written a song about Trudeau not being ready I somewhat doubt he would have been put on leave.

 

I think the idea of the code of conduct is important and I do think this particular public servant has crossed the line. However the real outrage is the well known policy of the current government to actively suppress scientific research that runs counter it the desires of the CPC and PMO.

 

Just to be clear I respect the scientist for standing up for something he strongly supports I just think he must have also understood the limits that were on his engagement in politics as a federal public servant.

 

As for equal treatment if the song had been about the readiness of Mr. Trudeau all I can say is that while I would not have expected the political masters in the government to react as swiftly I certainly would expect that the professional managers in the public service would have applied the same standard.

 

Just my Opinion

[mrrnice2 157005]

This is an interesting side debate to the entire election process.

 

I might understand the action taken against the songwriter and performer if he were using his role as a public servant to work against the political climate, or if he were verbally trashing his department or carrying it into the office. However, even if I understood the present decision and felt it were a correct decision to discipline him, this issue has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada in Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board). He has every legal right to have written, produced and distributed the Harperman song without penalty from his employer, the Government of Canada.

 

From the Supreme Court decision.

"The act of balancing must start with the proposition that some speech by public servants concerning public issues is permitted. Public servants cannot be, to use Mr. Fraser's apt phrase, "silent members of society". I say this for three reasons.

 

First, our democratic system is deeply rooted in, and thrives on, free and robust public discussion of public issues. As a general rule, all members of society should be permitted, indeed encouraged, to participate in that discussion.

 

Secondly, account must be taken of the growth in recent decades of the public sector -- federal, provincial, municipal -- as an employer. A blanket prohibition against all public discussion of all public issues by all public servants would, quite simply, deny fundamental democratic rights to far too many people.

 

Thirdly, common sense comes into play here. An absolute rule prohibiting all public participation and discussion by all public servants would prohibit activities which no sensible person in a democratic society would want to prohibit . . . .

 

On the other side, however, it is equally obvious that free speech or expression is not an absolute, unqualified value. Other values must be weighed with it. Sometimes these other values supplement, and build on, the value of speech. But in other situations there is a collision. When that happens the value of speech may be cut back if the competing value is a powerful one. Thus, for example, we have laws dealing with libel and slander, sedition and blasphemy. We also have laws imposing restrictions on the press in the interests of, for example, ensuring a fair trial or protecting the privacy of minors or victims of sexual assaults."

 

But then, we all know what respect Harperman has for the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Ice4fun 78407]

This is indeed not a simple issue and there have been a number of court cases on the issue and certainly the case cited by mrnice2 is one of those but I am not sure it "decided" the issue I think one would also have to consider. Fraser vs Public Service Staff Relations Board which like the Osborne case supported the rights of Civil Servents but with restrictions...

 

"The Court held that some speech by public servants on public issues is permitted. An absolute prohibition would not be consistent with the deep-rooted principles of robust public discussion in a democratic society, with the size of the public service, or with plain common sense. The Court added that:

 

... indeed, in some circumstances a public servant may actively and publicly express opposition to the policies of a government. This would be appropriate if, for example, the Government were engaged in illegal acts, or if its policies jeopardized the life, health or safety of the public servant or others, or if the public servant's criticism had no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or on the public perception of that ability. But, having stated these qualifications (and there may be others), it is my view that a public servant must not engage, as the appellant did in the present case, in sustained and highly visible attacks on major Government policies.

In the end, other interests must be balanced against the right to free speech, including the duty of loyalty to the employer and the ability of the public servant to do his or her job. Mr Fraser lost his appeal and his dismissal from the public service was therefore upheld"

 

http://www.erc-cee.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rtcls/a-019-eng.aspx.

 

In regard the scientist in question I would suggest that the application of the Fraser decision would support his public comments on the restrictions being applied to scientists in the public service but the song goes much further than that and may serve to demonstrat the individuals lack of political impartiality which does damage to the public service as a whole.

 

The fact that Mr Harper is an ass whose policies many (including me) feel are damaging our country is really not relevant that is a political opinion and the public service should be non-partisan a respect the fact that the government of the day was elected to govern.

 

Now back to the real reason fo this post... Let all vot t = rid of Harper so w can move on to the next group of politicians who will disapoint us.

 

And yes I am a political junkie and enjoy the dabate around this... hearing a broad spectrum of voices is a good thing.

 

Just my Opinion

[cinelli 22184]

When I served in the military, my Commander in Chief was NOT the Prime Minister.

It was the Queen and the Crown, as the personification of Canada and the people of Canada.

 

Likewise Harper is not this scientist's boss. The scientist serves Canada and the people of Canada.

 

Harper and his thugs have destroyed much of Canada's scientific credibility. Harper thinks he can say what is scientifically valid, and he is much like Stalin and Hitler in this regard. It is ridiculous and insane to have an official science policy where scientific "facts" are determined by party committees.

[Ice4fun 78407]

Harper and his thugs have destroyed much of Canada's scientific credibility. Harper thinks he can say what is scientifically valid, and he is much like Stalin and Hitler in this regard. It is ridiculous and insane to have an official science policy where scientific "facts" are determined by party committees.

 

While I fully agree with the sentiments of your post I have to think that the comparisons to "Stalin and Hitler" a a little over the top.

 

Just my Opinion

[EsQ69 1338]

On A lighter note - There Is Always Money For A War

 

 

The Harper Dictatorship

 

 

Michael Harris: Harper in the Hot Seat

 

[Cato 160314]

ABC! I say: Vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Con in your riding.

[cinelli 22184]

While I fully agree with the sentiments of your post I have to think that the comparisons to "Stalin and Hitler" a a little over the top.

 

Just my Opinion

 

Stalin had an official party line regarding science. His communist dogma frequently over ruled actual scientific data. "Lysenkoism" is a dogma named for one of his favourite scientists. It is also a synonym for fraudulent conclusions written to satisfy pilitical masters. Stalin's refusal to listen to real grain and soil experts caused millions to starve from massive crop failures. Instead he favoured Lysenko and his useless ideas on farming and breeding hardy grains.

 

Hitler also had "Aryan" science, especially his nonsensical race theory. Much valid scientific research from the 1920-onward era in Germany was discarded if done by Jewish researchers. This actually harmed the Nazi war effort in the development of radar and aviation because so many Jewish mathematicians and physicists fled in the thirties.

 

Harper follows a similar pattern. Actual scientific data that disagrees with Conservative Party dogma is muzzled or discredited. Scientists are not allowed to speak publicly on issues unless their statements are vetted in writing by the PMO. Scientists who speak out have their funding stopped. Coincidentally of course.

 

How does some Tory flunky in Harper's office know more about insects in the coastal rainforest than a PhD etymologist? How can a Tory bootlick know more about the effects of the tar sands on migratory birds than a career scientist? Harper dismisses climate change because he is owned by big oil, therefore climatologists and earth scientists are wrong too. All his positions that run contrary to real scientists are chosen for political reasons.

 

My comparison stands.