Are the Conservatives right to turn people away from rallies? - Macleans.ca
 

Are the Conservatives right to turn people away from rallies?


 

 

Are the Conservatives right to turn people away from rallies?

  1. This comment was deleted.

    • Take a deep breath Robert …. Check the polls Harper is 10 points ahead and will win a major majority hands down sure thing 100% . Canada's Greatest Prime Minister Ever! and perhaps the worlds also!!! Soon all Canadians and their children will be lined up begging for his praise ….. nothing can stop him …. good by same sex marriage …. everyone can have shotgun hagging on a rack in their pick up …..jail time for those women who do not fall in line and produce children and seek an abortion. Taxes and service fee increases for more and more defence toys so all our young Canadians can join the Winds of War around the world like it or not and that is just for starters. Oh yea good by opposition for ever!

  2. Take a deep breath Robert …. Check the polls Harper is 10 points ahead and will win a major majority hands down sure thing 100% . Canada's Greatest Prime Minister Ever! and perhaps the worlds also!!! Soon all Canadians and their children will be lined up begging for his praise ….. nothing can stop him …. good by same sex marriage …. everyone can have shotgun hagging on a rack in their pick up …..jail time for those women who do not fall in line and produce children and seek an abortion. Taxes and service fee increases for more and more defence toys so all our young Canadians can join the Winds of War around the world like it or not and that is just for starters. Oh yea good by opposition for ever!

  3. The Tories have every right to turn people away. I remember one rally in Halifax a few years ago where several 20 somethings stood up during a speech and started screaming incoherent nonsense at the speaker. They had to be dragged out of the speech by police literally kicking and screaming. The Tories don't send people to disrupt the rallies of Liberals or New Democrats. I don't see why the opposition feels the need to disrupt those of the Tories.

    Kicking people out of rallies is unfortunate but politically necessary. The John Kerry "…don't tase me bro!" incident comes to mind when one thinks of the politically disastrous turn some of these disruptions can take. All in all I think that the Tories actions—discreetly and respectfully escorting potential trouble makers out of the building—were far more favorable than other options such as police involvement leading to charges of mischief.

  4. The Tories have every right to turn people away. I remember one rally in Halifax a few years ago where several 20 somethings stood up during a speech and started screaming incoherent nonsense at the speaker. They had to be dragged out of the speech by police literally kicking and screaming. The Tories don't send people to disrupt the rallies of Liberals or New Democrats. I don't see why the opposition feels the need to disrupt those of the Tories.

    Kicking people out of rallies is unfortunate but politically necessary. The John Kerry "…don't tase me bro!" incident comes to mind when one thinks of the politically disastrous turn some of these disruptions can take. All in all I think that the Tories actions—discreetly and respectfully escorting potential trouble makers out of the building—were far more favorable than other options such as police involvement leading to charges of mischief.

    • This is still horrendous reasoning for turning people away from events where their own Prime Minister is speaking, but it might have some slight tinge of validity to it if there was any evidence whatsoever that the two young women in question were "potential troublemakers", or had anyone, ANYWHERE ever suggested that this is why they were removed.

      No one ever said this is why they were removed. CERTAINLY no one has said that this would have been a reasonable reason to remove these two young women. The closest we've come to hearing a reason for why they were removed is "one of them was once photographed with Michael Ignatieff". By that definition of "potential trouble maker" the CPC could have almost any MP in the country discreetly and respectfully escorted away from an event for being a "potential troublemaker". Hell, they could have the RCMP remove the Governor General as a "potential trouble maker" if that's the logic they're going to use!!!

      • "No one ever said this is why they were removed."

        Awish, the young woman who was discreetly escorted out of the rally quoted the staffer who led her out as saying "We have enough trouble with protesters outside…"

        "…the CPC could have almost any MP in the country discreetly and respectfully escorted away…"

        Opposition MPs aren't in the habit of attending partisan Conservative rallies.

        • OK, well that's horrible then that they actually removed her for being a "potential trouble maker" without any evidence whatsoever of her posing any potential risk of trouble-making.

          And, certainly opposition MPs won't attend Conservative rallies NOW. If I were an opposition MP I'd be too worried about possibly getting tasered to go within 100 feet of one of those events.

          • Nobody here has commented on the fact that it was not Harper's staff who did the dirty deed. This act was a result of the PCO (Privy Council Office) role of security for the sitting Prime Minister (even if it were for Layton!, perish the thought – the guy who votes against budgets without reading them) ) as through the RCMP. Probably the PCO (a non-political body) keeps a list of Arab-type names to alert them, just as the US Border people do. It looks to me like the RCMP people were over-zealous, not Harper staff.

      • Lordy Kitchener, you should know better.

    • "The Tories don't send people to disrupt the rallies of Liberals or New Democrats."

      Are you joking? This is how Jason Kenney got his political career started.

    • I agree with the party's "right" to turn away troublemakers … but, turning someone away because they were at another party's rally is DEAD WRONG. If I were a party leader, and felt that my policies and program were the best, I'd welcome voters taking the time to compare my policies with my rivals' policies. I think every voter needs to take the time to inform him/her self to be able to intelligently cast their vote.
      One last comment – DON'T FORGET TO VOTE … far too many Canadians are "not bothering" to do so – the soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives to preserve this right must be raging mad about that!!

  5. Obviously if the student were indeed a Liberal supporter this would not have been newsworthy. I have had my picture taken beside a politician more than once but that does not make me a supporter of that person or the party. The student who was removed took the time to get out and listen to the leaders to find out first hand what it is they represent. She should be commended for her efforts. Most people in this country would not bother. To say she was escorted discreetly and respectfully because she was a "potential trouble maker" is both false and a clear example of paranoia.

  6. Obviously if the student were indeed a Liberal supporter this would not have been newsworthy. I have had my picture taken beside a politician more than once but that does not make me a supporter of that person or the party. The student who was removed took the time to get out and listen to the leaders to find out first hand what it is they represent. She should be commended for her efforts. Most people in this country would not bother. To say she was escorted discreetly and respectfully because she was a "potential trouble maker" is both false and a clear example of paranoia.

    • Obviously if the student were indeed a Liberal supporter this would not have been newsworthy.

      Why? Are you suggesting that it's perfectly fine for the Prime Minister to be protected from having to interact with any citizen who is not a supporter of the CPC?

      The fact that the woman in question is not actually a Liberal supporter may make the story more interesting. but no more "newsworthy" imho. Even if she was a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada I fail to see how that is somehow sufficient grounds to have her removed from an event at which the Prime Minister was speaking.

    • She said her self that she was discreetly taken aside and led to the exit where she was asked to leave.

      The opposition have a long record of disrupting Conservative rallies. It is the repeated actions of their members that provoked the Conservative's response to this individual. This sorry state of affairs is a direct result the behaviour of opposition members. It is shameful that they have lowered Canadian political culture to this level.

      • Having to deal with people who disagree with you is part of being a grown-up, never mind a politician who is supposed to lead the WHOLE country, not just his/her supporters. If you can't stand people who disagree with you, you have no business governing.

        • "a politician who is supposed to lead the WHOLE country, not just his/her supporters."

          Harper was rallying his supporters at a Conservative rally, a partisan event, as leader of the Conservative Party. Why should such a decidely partisan event have to accomodate the partisan supporters of other political parties?

    • See above

  7. This is still horrendous reasoning for turning people away from events where their own Prime Minister is speaking, but it might have some slight tinge of validity to it if there was any evidence whatsoever that the two young women in question were "potential troublemakers", or had anyone, ANYWHERE ever suggested that this is why they were removed.

    No one ever said this is why they were removed. CERTAINLY no one has said that this would have been a reasonable reason to remove these two young women. The closest we've come to hearing a reason for why they were removed is "one of them was once photographed with Michael Ignatieff". By that definition of "potential trouble maker" the CPC could have almost any MP in the country discreetly and respectfully escorted away from an event for being a "potential troublemaker". Hell, they could have the RCMP remove the Governor General as a "potential trouble maker" if that's the logic they're going to use!!!

  8. Obviously if the student were indeed a Liberal supporter this would not have been newsworthy.

    Why? Are you suggesting that it's perfectly fine for the Prime Minister to be protected from having to interact with any citizen who is not a supporter of the CPC?

    The fact that the woman in question is not actually a Liberal supporter may make the story more interesting. but no more "newsworthy" imho. Even if she was a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada I fail to see how that is somehow sufficient grounds to have her removed from an event at which the Prime Minister was speaking.

  9. She said her self that she was discreetly taken aside and led to the exit where she was asked to leave.

    The opposition have a long record of disrupting Conservative rallies. It is the repeated actions of their members that provoked the Conservative's response to this individual. This sorry state of affairs is a direct result the behaviour of opposition members. It is shameful that they have lowered Canadian political culture to this level.

  10. Having to deal with people who disagree with you is part of being a grown-up, never mind a politician who is supposed to lead the WHOLE country, not just his/her supporters. If you can't stand people who disagree with you, you have no business governing.

  11. The media as usual haven't presented all the facts…

    Joanna MacDonald is not a political innocent, she is an executive member of the Sierra Youth Coalition and the Cdn Youth Delegation and a speaker on climate change policy and activism http://sites.google.com/site/guelphsustainability….

    She attended the Copenhagen Conference http://www.uoguelph.ca/ses/content/joanna-macdona… with Yvonne Su http://thecannon.ca/viewpoints/opinions/copenhage… and the Climate Change Conference in Cancun http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/11/student_to_at….

  12. The media as usual haven't presented all the facts…

    Joanna MacDonald is not a political innocent, she is an executive member of the Sierra Youth Coalition and the Cdn Youth Delegation and a speaker on climate change policy and activism http://sites.google.com/site/guelphsustainability….

    She attended the Copenhagen Conference http://www.uoguelph.ca/ses/content/joanna-macdona… with Yvonne Su http://thecannon.ca/viewpoints/opinions/copenhage… and the Climate Change Conference in Cancun http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/11/student_to_at….

    • So what? Does she have a criminal record? No, of course not. She's a Canadian who cares about Canada, which is more than Harper ever did, with his contempt for Canadians and for Parliament.

    • While I agree that you have the right to speak your mind, I completely disagree with your position. The debate shouldn't be about which organizations she supports or which issues she feels passionately about, it should be about whether or not it was right to force a Canadian citizen, who was posing no threat to politicians or other attendees, out of a rally. She had a right to be there, as any law-abiding Canadian citizen does. Denying her this right is deplorable.

    • Lock her up!

      • She's a witch! Burn her!

    • So what? Joanna MacDonald has a brain! Wow a youth who cares more about the country than she does about dancing with the stars or Jersey Shores. Arrest her!!

      ruralbelle, your choice.. Do we call this new "selective audience" McCarthyism or Harperism? Next thing you know we'll be asked to tatoo our political affiliation across our foreheads and move to ghettos.

      Until she became disruptive – IF she became disruptive she could have been removed. It is a sad day for democracy when our minority prime minister is so afraid of people (or most likely saying something that would finally awaken the 10% of swing voters to his corrupt and contemptuous plans for Canada) that he has to hide behind his gate keepers.

  13. She is a Canadian and she has a right to attend a political event……..deal with that and keep your lameness to yourself cause it's not impressive.

  14. She is a Canadian and she has a right to attend a political event……..deal with that and keep your lameness to yourself cause it's not impressive.

    • @Jade: And organizers of an event, political or otherwise, have the right to ask someone to leave who they think might cause trouble. And while you're whining about her rights as a Canadian, you can bloody well respect my right to have my say!

      • if she was disruptive, which she wasn't. You have your right to say what you want, don't get all bent out of shape because you're told by a MAJORITY of Canadians you are wrong. That is also part of the problem with the Harper hiding out events. How do you test policy when your presenting it to a bunch of supporters? You can't if there is no one to think critically. Critical thought is what disaster mitigation is all about. If you are intelligent, you welcome it because it will help you discover holes in your policy before they are put to the test. Instead, however, you want to celebrate the arrogant ignorance that "I make the rules" Harper will find will lead to disaster. He shuts down anyone who tries to advise him he is headed in the wrong direction. Some call that pig headed and it is not a good trait to be celebrating.

  15. So what? Does she have a criminal record? No, of course not. She's a Canadian who cares about Canada, which is more than Harper ever did, with his contempt for Canadians and for Parliament.

  16. @Jade: And organizers of an event, political or otherwise, have the right to ask someone to leave who they think might cause trouble. And while you're whining about her rights as a Canadian, you can bloody well respect my right to have my say!

  17. The Conservatives shouldn't be able to turn people away from rallies because they may challenge their policies or opinions. A true democracy takes everybody's opinion into consideration, not just those who agree with you. Unless there was a legitimate reason to turn the young woman away (ex. violence, drugs or alcohol, etc.) she should have been able to stay and participate in the rally. Considering the apathy with which (most of, myself excluded) today's youth regard politics, I am glad to see there was at least one individual trying to obtain information to make an informed choice this election.

  18. The Conservatives shouldn't be able to turn people away from rallies because they may challenge their policies or opinions. A true democracy takes everybody's opinion into consideration, not just those who agree with you. Unless there was a legitimate reason to turn the young woman away (ex. violence, drugs or alcohol, etc.) she should have been able to stay and participate in the rally. Considering the apathy with which (most of, myself excluded) today's youth regard politics, I am glad to see there was at least one individual trying to obtain information to make an informed choice this election.

    • Well said!

  19. While I agree that you have the right to speak your mind, I completely disagree with your position. The debate shouldn't be about which organizations she supports or which issues she feels passionately about, it should be about whether or not it was right to force a Canadian citizen, who was posing no threat to politicians or other attendees, out of a rally. She had a right to be there, as any law-abiding Canadian citizen does. Denying her this right is deplorable.

  20. Politicians avoiding citizens remind me of this inside joke in the I.T. community:
    – Our systems would be running great if it wasn't for the stupid users.

    Or another version of the same:
    – One Scout leader to another: the camping trip would've been much better if we didn't have to look after the darn kids.

    Moral: Mr. Harper, don't forget who you work for and why you are here.

  21. Politicians avoiding citizens remind me of this inside joke in the I.T. community:
    – Our systems would be running great if it wasn't for the stupid users.

    Or another version of the same:
    – One Scout leader to another: the camping trip would've been much better if we didn't have to look after the darn kids.

    Moral: Mr. Harper, don't forget who you work for and why you are here.

  22. "a politician who is supposed to lead the WHOLE country, not just his/her supporters."

    Harper was rallying his supporters at a Conservative rally, a partisan event, as leader of the Conservative Party. Why should such a decidely partisan event have to accomodate the partisan supporters of other political parties?

  23. "No one ever said this is why they were removed."

    Awish, the young woman who was discreetly escorted out of the rally quoted the staffer who led her out as saying "We have enough trouble with protesters outside…"

    "…the CPC could have almost any MP in the country discreetly and respectfully escorted away…"

    Opposition MPs aren't in the habit of attending partisan Conservative rallies.

  24. "The Tories don't send people to disrupt the rallies of Liberals or New Democrats."

    Are you joking? This is how Jason Kenney got his political career started.

  25. Lock her up!

  26. I think most peolple realize that it is usually only the conservative Party that has to put up with such crap for the most part.

    Those on the Left of the political spectrum, Young Liberals, NDP, Green’s, activists…etc..etc….are the exact folks who think they have a right to interrupt, heckle, throw pies, or worse towards those they disagree with. Yet, if you deny them this right…they claim “free speech”

    They don’t seem to comprehend that shouting someone down or acting like an ass during a speech of meeting is not free speech, it’s harassment. Seems the left only believes in free speech for themselves. Let’s not forget, some of these “facebookers” have made implied threats towards the PM. That’s the part the media never seems to mention.

  27. I think most peolple realize that it is usually only the conservative Party that has to put up with such crap for the most part.

    Those on the Left of the political spectrum, Young Liberals, NDP, Green’s, activists…etc..etc….are the exact folks who think they have a right to interrupt, heckle, throw pies, or worse towards those they disagree with. Yet, if you deny them this right…they claim “free speech”
    They don’t seem to comprehend that shouting someone down or acting like an ass during a speech of meeting is not free speech, it’s harassment. Seems the left only believes in free speech for themselves. Let’s not forget, some of these “facebookers” have made implied threats towards the PM. That’s the part the media never seems to mention.

    • One man's harrassment is another's freedom of speech; I get that J H.

      "Harrassment" to me is a Conservative MP getting up in the House during Member's Statements and Petitions
      to read an ugly attack on Ignatieff to "soften" him up (much as a boxer would) just before the leader of the Opposition rises to ask the first question.
      "Harrassment " is Pierre Polievre or John Baird issuing Conservative talking points in Question Period.

      • Not like the Conservatives don't face the same nonsense every question period…

    • Excellent point. Were you at the Halifax PC AGM when those students made the big scene a couple years back?

    • Oh really. John Baird and Jason Kenney are the poster boys for respectful behaviour. No, they've never shouted anyone down, not them. How can you be critical of idealistic youth who are looking out for what is best for everyone – including their own futures and defend the indefensible contemptuous men who have demonstrated time and again they don't give a rat's arse about democracy, my rights, your rights or anyone but their own pockets? You'll screen students attending a political event, but you won't screen the man who you put in charge of the Afghan files? What about national security? What about keeping that very same information from MPs we elected? Are you following what is going on, or are you getting your news from the CPC twitter account?

      It must be so awful to be incapable of defending your own position that you fear questions. How can you vote for a man who will only answer 4 questions a day?

      • Canadians have a right to c riticize the politicians who are supposed to be working for our interests. And if the politicians fail to do their jobs, we have a right to demand answers from them on why they are not doing their jobs, which is to serve Canadians.

        Do you get it, Conservatives? The people of Canada are the boss – Harper is just an employee who is facing a review of his work.

  28. Why should the media pay $11,000 to follow and cover Harper's public appearances only to discover they are at Party functions?
    Wish they'd get off that bus and tell Canadians why they can no longer trust Harper or his "tour".
    Culture of Deceit and Contempt at work.

  29. One man's harrassment is another's freedom of speech; I get that J H.

    "Harrassment" to me is a Conservative MP getting up in the House during Member's Statements and Petitions
    to read an ugly attack on Ignatieff to "soften" him up (much as a boxer would) just before the leader of the Opposition rises to ask the first question.
    "Harrassment " is Pierre Polievre or John Baird issuing Conservative talking points in Question Period.

  30. OK, well that's horrible then that they actually removed her for being a "potential trouble maker" without any evidence whatsoever of her posing any potential risk of trouble-making.

    And, certainly opposition MPs won't attend Conservative rallies NOW. If I were an opposition MP I'd be too worried about possibly getting tasered to go within 100 feet of one of those events.

  31. Not like the Conservatives don't face the same nonsense every question period…

  32. "…only to discover they are at Party functions?…Culture of Deceit and Contempt at work. "

    There is a difference between a public appearance at a factory or a farm and a Conservative rally in a rented hall. No one attending a rally is under any pretext other then they are at Conservative rally. All politcal parties have rallies. Your argument is not cogent.

  33. Excellent point. Were you at the Halifax PC AGM when those students made the big scene a couple years back?

  34. Atchison, you and our PM are definitely in sync… Blame it on everyone except the culprits – except today he is saying "obviously" he apologizes. He left you hanging, eh? Even Harper gets it after four days, but you're still on the old talking points. I am really tired of this dismissing of democracy like it is some kind of threat to security. Bullying and using force to quiet your opposition is not democratic. If you don't like to answer questions, get out of politics.

    If someone is disruptive at an event, by all means, have them removed. Stalking people in parking lots and on their online profiles? That is a tad KGB, don't you think?

    But you will defend all these mistakes because your logic is twisted and somewhere along the line you missed the ethics lessons. Must be all the spin from our multi minority PM.

  35. Atchison, you and our PM are definitely in sync… Blame it on everyone except the culprits – except today he is saying "obviously" he apologizes. He left you hanging, eh? Even Harper gets it after four days, but you're still on the old talking points. I am really tired of this dismissing of democracy like it is some kind of threat to security. Bullying and using force to quiet your opposition is not democratic. If you don't like to answer questions, get out of politics.

    If someone is disruptive at an event, by all means, have them removed. Stalking people in parking lots and on their online profiles? That is a tad KGB, don't you think?

    But you will defend all these mistakes because your logic is twisted and somewhere along the line you missed the ethics lessons. Must be all the spin from our multi minority PM.

    • Partisan rallies are partisan. They are not democratic. No one has a 'right' to be there.

      Harper may not take many questions but he provides answers unlike Ignatieff who takes questions and answers nothing.

  36. So what? Joanna MacDonald has a brain! Wow a youth who cares more about the country than she does about dancing with the stars or Jersey Shores. Arrest her!!

    ruralbelle, your choice.. Do we call this new "selective audience" McCarthyism or Harperism? Next thing you know we'll be asked to tatoo our political affiliation across our foreheads and move to ghettos.

    Until she became disruptive – IF she became disruptive she could have been removed. It is a sad day for democracy when our minority prime minister is so afraid of people (or most likely saying something that would finally awaken the 10% of swing voters to his corrupt and contemptuous plans for Canada) that he has to hide behind his gate keepers.

  37. if she was disruptive, which she wasn't. You have your right to say what you want, don't get all bent out of shape because you're told by a MAJORITY of Canadians you are wrong. That is also part of the problem with the Harper hiding out events. How do you test policy when your presenting it to a bunch of supporters? You can't if there is no one to think critically. Critical thought is what disaster mitigation is all about. If you are intelligent, you welcome it because it will help you discover holes in your policy before they are put to the test. Instead, however, you want to celebrate the arrogant ignorance that "I make the rules" Harper will find will lead to disaster. He shuts down anyone who tries to advise him he is headed in the wrong direction. Some call that pig headed and it is not a good trait to be celebrating.

  38. Oh really. John Baird and Jason Kenney are the poster boys for respectful behaviour. No, they've never shouted anyone down, not them. How can you be critical of idealistic youth who are looking out for what is best for everyone – including their own futures and defend the indefensible contemptuous men who have demonstrated time and again they don't give a rat's arse about democracy, my rights, your rights or anyone but their own pockets? You'll screen students attending a political event, but you won't screen the man who you put in charge of the Afghan files? What about national security? What about keeping that very same information from MPs we elected? Are you following what is going on, or are you getting your news from the CPC twitter account?

    It must be so awful to be incapable of defending your own position that you fear questions. How can you vote for a man who will only answer 4 questions a day?

  39. She's a witch! Burn her!

  40. Canadians have a right to c riticize the politicians who are supposed to be working for our interests. And if the politicians fail to do their jobs, we have a right to demand answers from them on why they are not doing their jobs, which is to serve Canadians.

    Do you get it, Conservatives? The people of Canada are the boss – Harper is just an employee who is facing a review of his work.

  41. You know these types of polls are everywhere media sites, face book, blogs and they all show the same results 70+% against the Harper Government. Even if he gets his stinking minority Harper's not getting the house regardless of what Harper and his zombies think.

  42. You know these types of polls are everywhere media sites, face book, blogs and they all show the same results 70+% against the Harper Government. Even if he gets his stinking minority Harper's not getting the house regardless of what Harper and his zombies think.

  43. I thought we were trying to encourage the younger people to get interested and involved in politics as "they are our future leaders"!
    I googled my name today and was astounded at how many of us share the same name and I wonder who has done what that would get me booted. However, It wouldn't have been at a Harper rally!

  44. I thought we were trying to encourage the younger people to get interested and involved in politics as "they are our future leaders"!
    I googled my name today and was astounded at how many of us share the same name and I wonder who has done what that would get me booted. However, It wouldn't have been at a Harper rally!

  45. sounds a bit like the days of whites only blacks only sickness that prevailed years ago…thank heavens things change

  46. sounds a bit like the days of whites only blacks only sickness that prevailed years ago…thank heavens things change

  47. Let us not forget..taxpayers are footing the bill (in part) for these campaigns. they are not therefore private parties

  48. Let us not forget..taxpayers are footing the bill (in part) for these campaigns. they are not therefore private parties

  49. Partisan rallies are partisan. They are not democratic. No one has a 'right' to be there.

    Harper may not take many questions but he provides answers unlike Ignatieff who takes questions and answers nothing.

  50. Well said!

  51. Please, Mr. Harper, continue these tactics; they will help the opposition defeat you, and that would be a good thing.

  52. Please, Mr. Harper, continue these tactics; they will help the opposition defeat you, and that would be a good thing.

  53. Rallies are private events and legally any political party has every right to throw anyone out for any reason. However…if they do, a lot of people are going to think they're being childish, petty jerks. And I'm one of those people.

  54. Rallies are private events and legally any political party has every right to throw anyone out for any reason. However…if they do, a lot of people are going to think they're being childish, petty jerks. And I'm one of those people.

  55. as a person who always voted Conservative federally there is no way I can vote for Haper……..
    it is time for a change

  56. as a person who always voted Conservative federally there is no way I can vote for Haper……..
    it is time for a change

  57. I'm disappointed there wasn't a fourth (or more) option for this question.

    I'd suggest the following:

    O The poll constructor's cognitive level was at an unusual low so he/she couldn't think of a more important topic or…
    tv
    O I thought I was reading Macleans magazine, not watching Global TV's newscast or…

    O Rate the following as to seriousness:

    1) a party official kicking a person out of a rally.
    2) a Prime MInsiter giving a chokehold to a protestor in a crowd.

  58. I'm disappointed there wasn't a fourth (or more) option for this question.

    I'd suggest the following:

    O The poll constructor's cognitive level was at an unusual low so he/she couldn't think of a more important topic or…
    tv
    O I thought I was reading Macleans magazine, not watching Global TV's newscast or…

    O Rate the following as to seriousness:

    1) a party official kicking a person out of a rally.
    2) a Prime MInsiter giving a chokehold to a protestor in a crowd.

  59. I'm disappointed there wasn't a fourth (or more) option for this question.

    I'd suggest the following:

    O The poll constructor's cognitive level was at an unusual low so he/she couldn't think of a more important topic or…

    O I thought I was reading Macleans magazine, not watching Global TV's newscast or…

    O Rate the following as to seriousness:

    1) a party official kicking a person out of a rally.
    2) a Prime MInsiter giving a chokehold to a protestor in a crowd.

  60. I'm disappointed there wasn't a fourth (or more) option for this question.

    I'd suggest the following:

    O The poll constructor's cognitive level was at an unusual low so he/she couldn't think of a more important topic or…

    O I thought I was reading Macleans magazine, not watching Global TV's newscast or…

    O Rate the following as to seriousness:

    1) a party official kicking a person out of a rally.
    2) a Prime MInsiter giving a chokehold to a protestor in a crowd.

    • How about that outrageous Conservative Prime Minister who got drunk and threw up during an election rally? It was more than a hundred years ago, but everyone is still most indignant about it (clutching pearls and preparing to faint).

      If we are going to dredge up ancient history…

  61. Big deal for the media, manufacturing hysterics and feigned outrage over an NDP activist, Alish Alam or whatever her bloody name is being asked to leave the Conservative rally. Just more Nixonian dirty tricks from the coalitionists and their media whores. Shameful, corrupt media.

  62. Big deal for the media, manufacturing hysterics and feigned outrage over an NDP activist, Alish Alam or whatever her bloody name is being asked to leave the Conservative rally. Just more Nixonian dirty tricks from the coalitionists and their media whores. Shameful, corrupt media.

    • Good for you, TL.

      That's why I made reference to Global TV. Your terms 'manufacturing hysterics and feigned outrage' is very apropos.

      I don't know about the coalitionists aspect but the 'shameful, corrupt media' perspective is right on target.

      • You approve of telling lies? "Trudeau lover" claims Awish Aslam is an NDP activist, which is a lie.

        It is most disturbing how close to racism some of the Conservative supporters come when they try to smear Ms Aslam.

  63. Good for you, TL.

    That's why I made reference to Global TV. Your terms 'manufacturing hysterics and feigned outrage' is very apropos.

    I don't know about the coalitionists aspect but the 'shameful, corrupt media' perspective is right on target.

  64. As a young person (some 45 yrs. ago) I attended every political event I could in order to decide which particular philosophy was the most agreeable. If a person is not able to do this how else are they to make such decisions? What is wrong with asking questions whether they are embarassing to the politician or not? Why should politicians surround themselves only with sycophants? Doesn't this distance a politician from what others may be thinking and give the candidate a false sense of godhood?

  65. As a young person (some 45 yrs. ago) I attended every political event I could in order to decide which particular philosophy was the most agreeable. If a person is not able to do this how else are they to make such decisions? What is wrong with asking questions whether they are embarassing to the politician or not? Why should politicians surround themselves only with sycophants? Doesn't this distance a politician from what others may be thinking and give the candidate a false sense of godhood?

    • Exactly.

    • I totally agree with you. whats to say they were not there simply to hear the opposition and listen to their platform to see if they may change their vote. Is it really necessary to be so paranoid. Did the conservatives just loose a potenial vote or two or several thousand by their immaturity and paranoia????????

  66. You will notice that President Bashar al-Assad also doesn't allow protesters to be at his meetings in Syria. If we elect Harper's gang with a majority , we might see the same thing here, including an "emergency law" similar to the one they have in Syria. In fact Harper already promised to pass strict "law and order" legislation and build plenty of jails for those who refuse to follow Harper's doctrine.

  67. You will notice that President Bashar al-Assad also doesn't allow protesters to be at his meetings in Syria. If we elect Harper's gang with a majority , we might see the same thing here, including an "emergency law" similar to the one they have in Syria. In fact Harper already promised to pass strict "law and order" legislation and build plenty of jails for those who refuse to follow Harper's doctrine.

    • What are you smoking, Yury, hashish from home?

      • Well, we had already a pretty good example in the manner in which the protests were handled at the G20 meeting in Toronto. All our constitutional "human rights" guarantees were set aside by the police who were paid $1G to trample them. Just wait and see what will happen if Harper gets a majority.

        • You're an idiot Yury! It was the Liberal Government of Dalton McSquinty that suspended the rights of citizens and "protesters" at the G20. Get you're facts straight before you go into one of you're hate filled rants. If you're so concerned with the rights of "protesters" at the G20 then you should pressure the McSquinty Liberal Government of Ontario to hold a public inquiry.

          • Get your facts straight, stupid. McSquinty government had nothing to do with G20. The Toronto police acted because the federal government requested them to do so. In fact plenty of police and RCMP officers from Halifax to Vancouver were flown to Toronto to assist the Toronto police. Actually there were several inquiries and those who were victimized are trying to start a class action against the federal government and the police, but not against the government of Dalton McSquinty which had nothing to do with G20.

          • Why not, with a bunch of so called protesters who were actually window-breaking car- burning anarchist thugs. That is not protest, that is organized vandalism and is the reason why security was upgraded. Ever heard of Seattle and the others? If they had been peaceful there would be very minimum police presence.

          • Absolute BS. There were thousands of people arrested and thown into a fenced prison for 24 hours or more, who were not even protesters, but merely happened to be walking there. Some old and sick people were arrested. Out of all those arrests, only a handful were charged. All the others were simply let go without even an apology. Harper's Canada really showed its face to the world that day, since the arrests were shown on TV in every corner of the globe.

          • Not until the end. Anyone dumb enough to hang around there on Sun day should have had their head read. I think they werre IIDing them for the next time.

          • Why the heck would you walk through a riot squad if you were "old", or "sick"???? I'm in my prime and if I saw I riot squad, I would turn around, change my plans and get the heck out of there.

  68. This needs to be said.
    If newcomers to this country persist in wearing middle eastern garb, this is a blatant advertisement or statement, that they do not care to 'fit in'. With young, non-conformists tweeting & texting each other at these rallies, I too, would attempt to exclude them, as they have an agenda not supported in this country.

  69. This needs to be said.
    If newcomers to this country persist in wearing middle eastern garb, this is a blatant advertisement or statement, that they do not care to 'fit in'. With young, non-conformists tweeting & texting each other at these rallies, I too, would attempt to exclude them, as they have an agenda not supported in this country.

    • A democratic country does not tell people what clothes they have to wear.

      • O yes they do. They must wear some clothes in public. Anyway, wearing a dish rag on your head doesn't show much eagerness to fit in. And don't say it is religious – it's cultural. All sorts of Moslem wom,en do not wear anything omn their head.

  70. Nobody here has commented on the fact that it was not Harper's staff who did the dirty deed. This act was a result of the PCO (Privy Council Office) role of security for the sitting Prime Minister (even if it were for Layton!, perish the thought – the guy who votes against budgets without reading them) ) as through the RCMP. Probably the PCO (a non-political body) keeps a list of Arab-type names to alert them, just as the US Border people do. It looks to me like the RCMP people were over-zealous, not Harper staff.

  71. See above

  72. What are you smoking, Yury, hashish from home?

  73. Petty and paranoid is an understatement. It is undemocratic and a violation of our Charter rights. You may want to re-considder the alternatives that you offer in your polls to better reflect the FACTS so that you don't appear as biased next time.

  74. Petty and paranoid is an understatement. It is undemocratic and a violation of our Charter rights. You may want to re-considder the alternatives that you offer in your polls to better reflect the FACTS so that you don't appear as biased next time.

  75. Surrey – 1993………..the Conservatives used to plant people in the Reform meetings and cause a ruckus that was disruptive
    and got press……………and worse still they would buy a membership and lie to get in!! The fear thus is that something similar will befall them because they practice deception all the time. And the fact was when Harper got in as a Conservative, he formed a so-called Alliance or coalition through Reform………who had a lot of opposition seats………….and the Conservatives only had ONE…….THAT of Mr. Joe Clark…………….Joe who? was a patsy…for Harper…as was Reform. I am tired of his sick attack ads edited and taken out of context and I am sick of people who don't vote and believe everything they hear. Other parts of the world are fighting for democracy…….we should care more about ours.

  76. Surrey – 1993………..the Conservatives used to plant people in the Reform meetings and cause a ruckus that was disruptive
    and got press……………and worse still they would buy a membership and lie to get in!! The fear thus is that something similar will befall them because they practice deception all the time. And the fact was when Harper got in as a Conservative, he formed a so-called Alliance or coalition through Reform………who had a lot of opposition seats………….and the Conservatives only had ONE…….THAT of Mr. Joe Clark…………….Joe who? was a patsy…for Harper…as was Reform. I am tired of his sick attack ads edited and taken out of context and I am sick of people who don't vote and believe everything they hear. Other parts of the world are fighting for democracy…….we should care more about ours.

    • Those were PROGRESSIVE Conservatives – a different bunch. And John A. MacDonald was a drunk. As Lincoln said of general Grant when his own generals (other than Grant) were regularly unsuccessful, "Find out what brand he drinks and issue it to all my generals."

      Know of whom you speak.

  77. Well, we had already a pretty good example in the manner in which the protests were handled at the G20 meeting in Toronto. All our constitutional "human rights" guarantees were set aside by the police who were paid $1G to trample them. Just wait and see what will happen if Harper gets a majority.

  78. You're an idiot Yury! It was the Liberal Government of Dalton McSquinty that suspended the rights of citizens and "protesters" at the G20. Get you're facts straight before you go into one of you're hate filled rants. If you're so concerned with the rights of "protesters" at the G20 then you should pressure the McSquinty Liberal Government of Ontario to hold a public inquiry.

  79. It's funny when an NDP volunteer and activist, Alish Alam, gets asked to leave a Conservative rally the media have a collective s##t, and demand an apology from the PM, who incidentally had nothing to do with security at the event, but when a Liberal PM ( Chretien) grabs a protester by the throat and strangles him to the ground knocking the poor shlubs teeth out, the media think it's funny, and even go so far as to give the assault a nickname… " The Shawnigan Handshake". The media are disgraceful hypocrites, and corrupt to the core.

  80. It's funny when an NDP volunteer and activist, Alish Alam, gets asked to leave a Conservative rally the media have a collective s##t, and demand an apology from the PM, who incidentally had nothing to do with security at the event, but when a Liberal PM ( Chretien) grabs a protester by the throat and strangles him to the ground knocking the poor shlubs teeth out, the media think it's funny, and even go so far as to give the assault a nickname… " The Shawnigan Handshake". The media are disgraceful hypocrites, and corrupt to the core.

    • Get your facts straight, stupid. It's Harper who has introduced the American stile protective shield for himself. Wherever he goes you have six guys in black following him and protecting him. Look at the picture on pages 16-17 of Maclean's in April 4 issue where Harper is shaking hands in a restaurant while six probably RCMP officers in black (three at the door and three just behind him) watch. When Chrétien was PM he was walking alone in the crowds and, of course, when he was being pushed by some slob, he just pushed him back. Obviously Harper will never have such an opportunity, since his guards will probably "taser" any one approaching him without permission.

      • You need a bit of education, Yuri, it started after Kennedy was assassinated for ALL first line political figures in off ice.

        • It never happened in Canada until Harper implemented it.

          • Nonsense. The PM carried RCMP strongmen wherever he went back in the late 60s. I eas there.

  81. I agree with the party's "right" to turn away troublemakers … but, turning someone away because they were at another party's rally is DEAD WRONG. If I were a party leader, and felt that my policies and program were the best, I'd welcome voters taking the time to compare my policies with my rivals' policies. I think every voter needs to take the time to inform him/her self to be able to intelligently cast their vote.
    One last comment – DON'T FORGET TO VOTE … far too many Canadians are "not bothering" to do so – the soldiers, sailors and airmen who gave their lives to preserve this right must be raging mad about that!!

  82. It's right to do the control before the potential trouble makers/ undisciplined people (could be hired with a special purpose) spoil the sacred hour of the meeting.
    The young people lose nothing in the name of democracy, but the goal of the rally for the candidate does. We must do some homework before focusing ourselves in giving support to one group. Respect the hosts and avoid the suspicion of the security/hosts. I'm glad the workers concerned take the effort and time to prevent further trouble, have good reasons not to let these people with so many 'interests' in.

  83. It's right to do the control before the potential trouble makers/ undisciplined people (could be hired with a special purpose) spoil the sacred hour of the meeting.
    The young people lose nothing in the name of democracy, but the goal of the rally for the candidate does. We must do some homework before focusing ourselves in giving support to one group. Respect the hosts and avoid the suspicion of the security/hosts. I'm glad the workers concerned take the effort and time to prevent further trouble, have good reasons not to let these people with so many 'interests' in.

    • There's nothing sacred about a Conservative rally. It's a lie from start to finish.

      • Holly, you are almost as much a pain in the butt as Emily.

  84. 1. Since the CONs/Harper only likes the presence of yes-men at their rallies; at least they should have the decency of paying them minimum wage for attending their rah-rah circus.
    2. 19% of the respondents to this poll probably also believe that: (a) Elvis is alive, and/or (b) landed here recently in UFOs.
    3. The CONs should pay for using RCMP personnel as bouncers – way beyond their job description.
    4. Harper's response to rally screening: "I think we're having good success getting people to come out; as I say, I think it's better when you're turning people away than when you can't get people to come." – exemplifies his disconnect with reality.

  85. 1. Since the CONs/Harper only likes the presence of yes-men at their rallies; at least they should have the decency of paying them minimum wage for attending their rah-rah circus.
    2. 19% of the respondents to this poll probably also believe that: (a) Elvis is alive, and/or (b) landed here recently in UFOs.
    3. The CONs should pay for using RCMP personnel as bouncers – way beyond their job description.
    4. Harper's response to rally screening: "I think we're having good success getting people to come out; as I say, I think it's better when you're turning people away than when you can't get people to come." – exemplifies his disconnect with reality.

    • Point already covered here. Security of the Pm and other cabinet ministers, whether Lib, NDP (Perish the thought) is a responsibility of the Privy Council Office through the RCMP and CSIS. Not party hacks. .

  86. Get your facts straight, stupid. McSquinty government had nothing to do with G20. The Toronto police acted because the federal government requested them to do so. In fact plenty of police and RCMP officers from Halifax to Vancouver were flown to Toronto to assist the Toronto police. Actually there were several inquiries and those who were victimized are trying to start a class action against the federal government and the police, but not against the government of Dalton McSquinty which had nothing to do with G20.

  87. Get your facts straight, stupid. It's Harper who has introduced the American stile protective shield for himself. Wherever he goes you have six guys in black following him and protecting him. Look at the picture on pages 16-17 of Maclean's in April 4 issue where Harper is shaking hands in a restaurant while six probably RCMP officers in black (three at the door and three just behind him) watch. When Chrétien was PM he was walking alone in the crowds and, of course, when he was being pushed by some slob, he just pushed him back. Obviously Harper will never have such an opportunity, since his guards will probably "taser" any one approaching him without permission.

  88. Remember when Judy Sgro (spelling) Lib MP was at a Harper rally in Toronto with a megaphone interupting Harper as he spoke.

  89. Remember when Judy Sgro (spelling) Lib MP was at a Harper rally in Toronto with a megaphone interupting Harper as he spoke.

  90. after the g20 protesters made a mess of Toronto it makes sense to be very careful who is allowed in. Protesters have shown they aren't very civilized

  91. after the g20 protesters made a mess of Toronto it makes sense to be very careful who is allowed in. Protesters have shown they aren't very civilized

    • No, it was the police who acted like barbarians.

      • Ibid

      • Holly,
        For your own sake go back to reading comic books & watching 2 1/2 men. You are not ready for the adult world.

    • Wow, "protesters" that's an extreme generalization. That's like saying all boys are immature or all Muslims are terrorists. Most of the protesters marched peacefully with only a subset of the population becoming violent and engaging in criminal activity, its just these people weren't talked about; you need to see the whole picture before making such a judgement on a group. Not only that, but many major national and international organizations (i.e. Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Amnesty International, etc.) called for a review of the actions of the police during the G20 Summit.

  92. No, it was the police who acted like barbarians.

  93. There's nothing sacred about a Conservative rally. It's a lie from start to finish.

  94. A democratic country does not tell people what clothes they have to wear.

  95. Exactly.

  96. You approve of telling lies? "Trudeau lover" claims Awish Aslam is an NDP activist, which is a lie.

    It is most disturbing how close to racism some of the Conservative supporters come when they try to smear Ms Aslam.

  97. How about that outrageous Conservative Prime Minister who got drunk and threw up during an election rally? It was more than a hundred years ago, but everyone is still most indignant about it (clutching pearls and preparing to faint).

    If we are going to dredge up ancient history…

  98. O yes they do. They must wear some clothes in public. Anyway, wearing a dish rag on your head doesn't show much eagerness to fit in. And don't say it is religious – it's cultural. All sorts of Moslem wom,en do not wear anything omn their head.

  99. Holly, you are almost as much a pain in the butt as Emily.

  100. ibid

  101. You need a bit of education, Yuri, it started after Kennedy was assassinated for ALL first line political figures in off ice.

  102. Why not, with a bunch of so called protesters who were actually window-breaking car- burning anarchist thugs. That is not protest, that is organized vandalism and is the reason why security was upgraded. Ever heard of Seattle and the others? If they had been peaceful there would be very minimum police presence.

  103. Point already covered here. Security of the Pm and other cabinet ministers, whether Lib, NDP (Perish the thought) is a responsibility of the Privy Council Office through the RCMP and CSIS. Not party hacks. .

  104. Those were PROGRESSIVE Conservatives – a different bunch. And John A. MacDonald was a drunk. As Lincoln said of general Grant when his own generals (other than Grant) were regularly unsuccessful, "Find out what brand he drinks and issue it to all my generals."

    Know of whom you speak.

  105. Ibid

  106. Lordy Kitchener, you should know better.

  107. Holly,
    For your own sake go back to reading comic books & watching 2 1/2 men. You are not ready for the adult world.

  108. Wow, "protesters" that's an extreme generalization. That's like saying all boys are immature or all Muslims are terrorists. Most of the protesters marched peacefully with only a subset of the population becoming violent and engaging in criminal activity, its just these people weren't talked about; you need to see the whole picture before making such a judgement on a group. Not only that, but many major national and international organizations (i.e. Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Amnesty International, etc.) called for a review of the actions of the police during the G20 Summit.

  109. It never happened in Canada until Harper implemented it.

  110. Absolute BS. There were thousands of people arrested and thown into a fenced prison for 24 hours or more, who were not even protesters, but merely happened to be walking there. Some old and sick people were arrested. Out of all those arrests, only a handful were charged. All the others were simply let go without even an apology. Harper's Canada really showed its face to the world that day, since the arrests were shown on TV in every corner of the globe.

  111. Not until the end. Anyone dumb enough to hang around there on Sun day should have had their head read. I think they werre IIDing them for the next time.

  112. Nonsense. The PM carried RCMP strongmen wherever he went back in the late 60s. I eas there.

  113. Dictatorship with minority!

    Majority?! LOL! can you imagine the Harper regime with a majority government?! SCARY!.

  114. The Harper regime platform –

    -Prorogue Parliament on multiple occasions at the cost of $millions of taxpayers dollars.

    -$16-30+ Billion on American first strike fighter aircraft.

    -$Billions wasted on G8/G20.

    -$Billions on American style mega prisons.

    -Attacks on low-income seniors.

    -Attack veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran for doing his job.

    -For the first time in the history on the UN, Canada is in the noose-bleed section & not the main table.

    -A world disgrace from Copenhagen to Cancun with its head up American AXX on climate change.

    -Scrapping of the long-form census in spite of unanimous condemnation.

  115. -$Millions wasted on partisan advertising and Economic Action Plan signage.

    -The biggest spending finance minister in Canadian history.

    -Authoritarian style government Muzzling dissent and stifling free speech.

    -A PM who vowed to "never appoint an unelected senator" who now cant appoint them fast enough.

    -A government who campaigned on accountability & ethics now causing an un-necessary election in 2011 for being found in contempt of Parliament for the first time in CDN history.

    -$Billions to help the Americans control our border & sovereignty.

    -Attack the PBO Kevin Page for doing his job.

    -More $Billions in profits for large corporations, banks & dirty oil. ZERO for health care, day care, pharmacare, retirement, etc.

    -Kill gun control.

    -The largest deficit in CDN history.

    Did I miss anything?, oh that's right its all hidden from both the opposition & the CDN public. get out & VOTE!.

  116. I totally agree with you. whats to say they were not there simply to hear the opposition and listen to their platform to see if they may change their vote. Is it really necessary to be so paranoid. Did the conservatives just loose a potenial vote or two or several thousand by their immaturity and paranoia????????

  117. Yes, the Tories have the right to turn away hecklers that are not there to listen to what the Party has to offer.

    Hecklers are disrespectful spoiled brats who have no respect.

    Most of these hecklers are left wing NDP type people.

    & We don't need Iggy as Prime Minister, he's not a leader, he's an idiot.

    Liberals & NDP (socialists) caused the downfall of our current Gov't. and you guys want to vote for Iggy or Jacko Wacko!! YOU OTTA BE ASHAMED!!!

  118. Yes, the Tories have the right to turn away hecklers that are not there to listen to what the Party has to offer.

    Hecklers are disrespectful spoiled brats who have no respect.

    Most of these hecklers are left wing NDP type people.

    & We don't need Iggy as Prime Minister, he's not a leader, he's an idiot.

    Liberals & NDP (socialists) caused the downfall of our current Gov't. and you guys want to vote for Iggy or Jacko Wacko!! YOU OTTA BE ASHAMED!!!

  119. Time to update this poll, maybe?

  120. Time to update this poll, maybe?

  121. Liberal to NDP.

    I was going to vote Liberal but now I will vote NDP, none of the other leaders can touch Jack Layton when it comes to just an average Joe you can TRUST as an average Canadian.

    Liked the debate format.

  122. Liberal to NDP.

    I was going to vote Liberal but now I will vote NDP, none of the other leaders can touch Jack Layton when it comes to just an average Joe you can TRUST as an average Canadian.

    Liked the debate format.

  123. Jack won the debates for me, no other leader can touch Jack as an average Joe Canadian you can TRUST.

    I was considering voting Liberal, but when Jack mentioned the Liberal leaders lack of attendance it really hit a nerve for me, as I've always thought to myself that I just cant picture Iggy sitting their in opposition after he looses the leadership?, I think he'll be long gone back to his American home.

  124. They are SCARED OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE.

    Silly to turn people away. I am surprised they don't club them like the early Nazis did.

  125. They are SCARED OF THE CANADIAN PEOPLE.

    Silly to turn people away. I am surprised they don't club them like the early Nazis did.

  126. Why the heck would you walk through a riot squad if you were "old", or "sick"???? I'm in my prime and if I saw I riot squad, I would turn around, change my plans and get the heck out of there.

  127. "A democratic country does not tell people what clothes they have to wear."
    France does, and they invented democracy. Burkahs are very degrading to women and goes along with female circumcision and stoning female adulterers to death. I don't think it's worth it to accept these practices for the handful of women who actually choose to wear burkahs and have not been subject to any of the above mentioned crimes against women