Your name has been flagged - Macleans.ca
 

Your name has been flagged


 

Another university student says she was turned away from a Conservative rally.

Joanna MacDonald, a fourth-year environmental sciences student at Guelph University, says she pre-registered for Harper’s election campaign event at the school Monday. But after arriving with a friend, MacDonald says she was directed to a desk where she was told her name had been flagged and she was asked to leave.”It was very bizarre to be on the flagged list but have no one there to tell you why you were on the list,” MacDonald, 21, told The Canadian Press in an interview.


 

Your name has been flagged

  1. And who put you up to this "IGGY" It is his style!!

  2. And who put you up to this "IGGY" It is his style!!

    • Turnabout is fair play?

      Maybe the Conservatives should plant some students into a Liberal rally.

      Of course if they are not refused entry, and Mr igantieff attempts to engage them in a meaningful dialog, the contrast will be even more pronounced.

      • Already done.

        Not the deliberate planting. There would be no reason as anyone could show up at Ignatieff's various tours last fall, and many Conservative MPs did show up as well as Conservative/NDP/Communist/environmentalist supporters. Some of those discussions, while always civil, were quite confrontational. Ignatieff wasn't afraid.

        And now anyone can meet up with him at his many open public events.

    • Again, even assuming what you say is true, why did the Chicken Party of Canada turn her away?

      • Are they affiliated with the Cowards Party of Canada?

        • Ack! Don't dilute the meme.. we're going with Chicken Party of Canada for the CPC.. it works better for the plane (chicken wings), the media restrictions (they're in the chicken coop), and lends itself very well to "Chicken on the way" and any number of "clucking" euphemisms.

          My dreams of success are when one of Harper's staffers calls the media pen the "chicken coop"

          Failing that, if Mr. Harper campaigns in front of a St. Hubert at any time.

          • No problem. I didn't get the meme modifier memo.

  3. I'm surprised nobody has connected the security clampdown with this.

    An Ottawa mother crashed a Conservative press conference Saturday morning to ask two ministers why Canadians should give the Harper government another chance after it was found in “contempt of Canadian democracy for years.”
    At a news conference held by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Ottawa MP John Baird, who was government house leader in the last parliament, 51-year-old mother Sheenagh McMahon interrupted reporters asking questions so she could ask why Canadians should trust the Conservatives.

  4. I'm surprised nobody has connected the security clampdown with this.

    An Ottawa mother crashed a Conservative press conference Saturday morning to ask two ministers why Canadians should give the Harper government another chance after it was found in “contempt of Canadian democracy for years.”
    At a news conference held by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Ottawa MP John Baird, who was government house leader in the last parliament, 51-year-old mother Sheenagh McMahon interrupted reporters asking questions so she could ask why Canadians should trust the Conservatives.

  5. PMSH: We're the party that stands for Canada, for freedom, for accountability and, most importantly, democracy. We are the voice of real Canadians.

    Student: Can I come to your campaign rally?

    PMSH: Nope.

    Student: I can't? Why not?

    PMSH: Because.

    Student: Don't you think I deserve to know why?

    PMSH: Nope.

    Student: Wait a sec, where do you get off…

    PMSH: OK! That's four questions! You've been a great audience! Vote Conservative!

  6. PMSH: We're the party that stands for Canada, for freedom, for accountability and, most importantly, democracy. We are the voice of real Canadians.

    Student: Can I come to your campaign rally?

    PMSH: Nope.

    Student: I can't? Why not?

    PMSH: Because.

    Student: Don't you think I deserve to know why?

    PMSH: Nope.

    Student: Wait a sec, where do you get off…

    PMSH: OK! That's four questions! You've been a great audience! Vote Conservative!

  7. It is good that the RCMP is doing such a good job of protecting our PM from Mexican trained terrorists.

    Macleans: kudos for being out front with this. I too wondered why all our youth flocked south early each spring. Clearly our universities and colleges have become bastions for those seeking to undermine this country which has always been ours, except before we had it. The Liberals are clearly in cahoots with these trouble makers and have even proposed sending them money. Thank goodness we will soon have the jets necessary to protect Canada from these so-called students.

  8. It is good that the RCMP is doing such a good job of protecting our PM from Mexican trained terrorists.

    Macleans: kudos for being out front with this. I too wondered why all our youth flocked south early each spring. Clearly our universities and colleges have become bastions for those seeking to undermine this country which has always been ours, except before we had it. The Liberals are clearly in cahoots with these trouble makers and have even proposed sending them money. Thank goodness we will soon have the jets necessary to protect Canada from these so-called students.

  9. Hopefully they don't read my comments. I'd be shipped off to Kingston Pen.

  10. Hopefully they don't read my comments. I'd be shipped off to Kingston Pen.

    • They are tracking you down as we write.

    • Surely, it's an unreported crime.

    • And people wonder why I post under an alias..

    • only after Harper gets his mega-prisons built.

  11. I should try to go to an event and see if they flag me, given that I've said lots critical about them.

  12. I should try to go to an event and see if they flag me, given that I've said lots critical about them.

    • Wear body armour. In case that doesn't work, leave your cell on, so your relatives can find your body.

  13. If the Conservatives return to office, what will they do with the lists of flagged people?

  14. If the Conservatives return to office, what will they do with the lists of flagged people?

    • .
      It's what they will do with the flagged people that worries me. In recent months, Beijing has stopped the publicity. They just disappear people. No dissent, no discourse. The Government of Harper has learned from other people's mistakes.

      They become 'unpeople'. Orwell, 1984.
      .

  15. They are tracking you down as we write.

  16. "I was just really curious about what Stephen Harper has to say," said MacDonald. "He's the prime minister of Canada, so I'd like to ask questions."

    It seems to me that Team Harper's inability to deal with these incidents and their resulting bad publicity, reflects a government that can't seem to think on it's feet.

  17. "I was just really curious about what Stephen Harper has to say," said MacDonald. "He's the prime minister of Canada, so I'd like to ask questions."

    It seems to me that Team Harper's inability to deal with these incidents and their resulting bad publicity, reflects a government that can't seem to think on it's feet.

    • I expect your first clue for that would have been that with nearly a generation spent out of power, they came to government with only 5 ideas.

      Your second clue would have been their first budget.

      Your third would have been their second, and so on.

    • .
      I think Harper's minimalist response approach is working extremely WELL. He is a student of success, and optics that succeed. Anything that fascist states and the Beijing politburo have learned, the Government of Harper has applied, and it will show in the polls.

      Scary stuff. But it works.
      .

  18. Just how private are these political events? Can the CPC ask, and expect, the RCMP to turn away anyone they wish – say, based on Facebook pics or participating in an environmental group or for no reason at all? Obviously, this is atrocious behaviour on the part of Harper and the CPC, but I'm curious as to where they stand legally. The costs associated with these events is partially reimbursed from public funds and Harper is a candidate standing for public office.

    Perhaps this whole issue with Harper highlights the needs to clarify citizen's rights in attending such publicly funded events which could help to inform them as voters.

  19. Just how private are these political events? Can the CPC ask, and expect, the RCMP to turn away anyone they wish – say, based on Facebook pics or participating in an environmental group or for no reason at all? Obviously, this is atrocious behaviour on the part of Harper and the CPC, but I'm curious as to where they stand legally. The costs associated with these events is partially reimbursed from public funds and Harper is a candidate standing for public office.

    Perhaps this whole issue with Harper highlights the needs to clarify citizen's rights in attending such publicly funded events which could help to inform them as voters.

    • Legally, they stand fine. These are private events masquerading as public events in that they are on private property booked by the Conservative Party for a Conservative Party event. It's by invitation only like a Shriner's convention.

      The only thing "public" about them is that the media is invited along and the Conservative Party events are held at locations minutes before and minutes after are more accessible. As private events, they can invite anyone to their party or block anyone. Bush was famous for this kind of "townhall" but Democrats and Republicans now never or extremely rarely hold truly public events.

      Harper doesn't hold any public events and doesn't take questions from the public.

      • The media is invited but not free to do their job. They are directed to a separate room and forbidden to join in the crowd. Le Devoir's Guillaume Bourgault-Côté has written a few times on this.

        "Le Devoir n'a pu aller discuter avec les sympathisants ou les pompiers présents à l'événement: interdiction formelle pour les médias de pénétrer dans la salle de conférence avant l'arrivée des autobus de campagne et la présentation du message. Il y a bien sûr moyen de contourner cette interdiction, mais l'intention semble être de limiter au maximum les échanges entre médias et partisans conservateurs. Plusieurs ont d'ailleurs refusé de nous parler hier."
        http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/elections-2011/

      • Thanks for the explanation, ted. These events are often advertised in the newspapers with time and location given, which is why people like these students sign up. I see by signing up for a CPC event, you are opening yourself up to an investigation which likely goes right into the extensive CPC database. This database may now contain information on these students, including who their friends and family are, that they objected, etc.

        I have not been very impressed with how our privacy laws protect us from this kind of intrusive data collection. One of the many fallouts from Harper government, is a greater awareness of which laws and rules need to be studied more. If there is one thing Harper is known for, it is finding grey (or perhaps not even that grey in the case of in-and-out and other matters) areas of the law and exploiting them to his benefit.

        • Quite McCarthyesque, eh.

      • Yeah, but the Democrats and Republicans have guns. Here in Canada , …uh-oh, my bad.

    • Alternatively, if the Conservatives continue to close their events ONLY to conservative supporters, than I hope that they make the commitment to pay for ALL costs through party funds, and not seek reimbursement for expenses incurred (I do beleive that the Canadian tax payers pays for about 50% of these costs).

      If the party decides to have a private event, then the Harper Government can flip the bill – if it is the Government of Canada that is paying, then it should be open to all.

      • Huh. Very interesting point. I wonder if someone could bring a legal challenge to EC claiming that as the events were not public, they cannot be considered to be campaign events, thus are not eligible for reimbursement.

        • Well, for clarity, we could reach out to either Senator Finley or Senator Irving Gerstein to solicit their interpretation of what sorts of expenses should be covered.

          Once we have their thoughts, it would be a safe bet to do the EXACT opposite. That way you will be sure to be in compliance with both the intent and spirit of the law.

      • All parties hold private rallies of supporters. Nothing new in that.

        The difference here is that Harper is only holding private rallies of supporters, tarting them as though they are public, and, most importantly, also not doing any open public events at all or taking open questions from the public.

        Democracy in Harperland: by invitation only.

  20. Turnabout is fair play?

    Maybe the Conservatives should plant some students into a Liberal rally.

    Of course if they are not refused entry, and Mr igantieff attempts to engage them in a meaningful dialog, the contrast will be even more pronounced.

  21. Already done.

    Not the deliberate planting. There would be no reason as anyone could show up at Ignatieff's various tours last fall, and many Conservative MPs did show up as well as Conservative/NDP/Communist/environmentalist supporters. Some of those discussions, while always civil, were quite confrontational. Ignatieff wasn't afraid.

    And now anyone can meet up with him at his many open public events.

  22. Surely, it's an unreported crime.

  23. Legally, they stand fine. These are private events masquerading as public events in that they are on private property booked by the Conservative Party for a Conservative Party event. It's by invitation only like a Shriner's convention.

    The only thing "public" about them is that the media is invited along and the Conservative Party events are held at locations minutes before and minutes after are more accessible. As private events, they can invite anyone to their party or block anyone. Bush was famous for this kind of "townhall" but Democrats and Republicans now never or extremely rarely hold truly public events.

    Harper doesn't hold any public events and doesn't take questions from the public.

  24. Alternatively, if the Conservatives continue to close their events ONLY to conservative supporters, than I hope that they make the commitment to pay for ALL costs through party funds, and not seek reimbursement for expenses incurred (I do beleive that the Canadian tax payers pays for about 50% of these costs).

    If the party decides to have a private event, then the Harper Government can flip the bill – if it is the Government of Canada that is paying, then it should be open to all.

  25. The media is invited but not free to do their job. They are directed to a separate room and forbidden to join in the crowd. Le Devoir's Guillaume Bourgault-Côté has written a few times on this.

    "Le Devoir n'a pu aller discuter avec les sympathisants ou les pompiers présents à l'événement: interdiction formelle pour les médias de pénétrer dans la salle de conférence avant l'arrivée des autobus de campagne et la présentation du message. Il y a bien sûr moyen de contourner cette interdiction, mais l'intention semble être de limiter au maximum les échanges entre médias et partisans conservateurs. Plusieurs ont d'ailleurs refusé de nous parler hier."
    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/elections-2011/

  26. Huh. Very interesting point. I wonder if someone could bring a legal challenge to EC claiming that as the events were not public, they cannot be considered to be campaign events, thus are not eligible for reimbursement.

  27. Lets see, this person attends University CHECK
    She studies science CHECK
    Environmental science CHECK
    OK – obviously a security risk….. NEXT

    Pol Pot's goons singled out people wearing eye glasses. Harper is so much more sophisticated.

  28. Lets see, this person attends University CHECK
    She studies science CHECK
    Environmental science CHECK
    OK – obviously a security risk….. NEXT

    Pol Pot's goons singled out people wearing eye glasses. Harper is so much more sophisticated.

  29. Again, even assuming what you say is true, why did the Chicken Party of Canada turn her away?

  30. And people wonder why I post under an alias..

  31. Thanks for the explanation, ted. These events are often advertised in the newspapers with time and location given, which is why people like these students sign up. I see by signing up for a CPC event, you are opening yourself up to an investigation which likely goes right into the extensive CPC database. This database may now contain information on these students, including who their friends and family are, that they objected, etc.

    I have not been very impressed with how our privacy laws protect us from this kind of intrusive data collection. One of the many fallouts from Harper government, is a greater awareness of which laws and rules need to be studied more. If there is one thing Harper is known for, it is finding grey (or perhaps not even that grey in the case of in-and-out and other matters) areas of the law and exploiting them to his benefit.

  32. only after Harper gets his mega-prisons built.

  33. This has not been a good campaign so far. If things keep up like this, they may not get their majority.

  34. This has not been a good campaign so far. If things keep up like this, they may not get their majority.

    • That's what I'm hoping for!

    • Hey …
      the polls suck but so does the CPC campaign
      the debates are next and given the wooden performance on the trail so far, Harper will look bad
      Harper can be beaten!

  35. Here's an interesting blog post by Liberal MP Glen Pearson on a man at Ignatieff's event who refused to shake his hand, but still got in to ask his question:
    http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/prope

    How one deals with people who do not support you and your views tells a lot about the person. Big difference between Ignatieff and Harper. BIG.

  36. Here's an interesting blog post by Liberal MP Glen Pearson on a man at Ignatieff's event who refused to shake his hand, but still got in to ask his question:
    http://glenpearson.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/prope

    How one deals with people who do not support you and your views tells a lot about the person. Big difference between Ignatieff and Harper. BIG.

  37. Interesting how no one in the CPC wants to explain exactly how they are screening people. Hiding behind 'security' measures, obfuscating who's in charge of what, deferring to unnamed staffers. Seems typical really.

    I'm an admitted partisan, but another CPC government would seem to be akin to G.W. Bush's second term – leaving the world scratching their heads and wondering what happened.

  38. Interesting how no one in the CPC wants to explain exactly how they are screening people. Hiding behind 'security' measures, obfuscating who's in charge of what, deferring to unnamed staffers. Seems typical really.

    I'm an admitted partisan, but another CPC government would seem to be akin to G.W. Bush's second term – leaving the world scratching their heads and wondering what happened.

    • I'm still scratching my head over the last time….

    • Voting in a government that had just been found in contempt of Parliament would send an, um, interesting message to the world.

    • Exactly. I would like to know what else is being screened.

      They used the facebook photo as a reason but did they screen anything else without finding anything incriminating?

      Another guy was ejected because of his bumper sticker. How did they connect the bumper sticker to him? Do you sign in with your license plate? Did they film everyone as they parked? Did the RCMP see the sticker and look up the registered owner of that plate?

      It would be great if these kind of questions could be thouroughly investigated and not just commented on on an internet blog.

      • Good luck getting a straight answer! Who even knows how screening responsibilities are divided between the RCMP protective force and the staffers at the Conservative election centre in Ottawa (apparently set up a year or more ago in some kind of suburban office block). It's a protective security matter that would never be discussed.

        Since people register for Conservative rallies online, it would be easy to take advantage of commercial web services that search & consolidate the online material found for a particular name–a kind of prescreening. Would the RCMP require the entire guest list as a matter of course, or only those names that already raised some suspicion on the part of Conservative pre-screening? Which side would take the initiative for closer examination in any case? Would having an "unusual" name trigger extra checks alone?

        Unless you want to be tagged as part of the tin-foil-hat brigade, I think further speculation is useless–we've reached the point in the public life of our country where such security-relevant questions won't ever be answered.

      • The bumper sticker one bugs me. How did they connect the car to the man. Where RCMP resources being used to vet political ideology? Is a differing opinion now legal considered a threat to safety?

  39. Are they affiliated with the Cowards Party of Canada?

  40. That's what I'm hoping for!

  41. I'm still scratching my head over the last time….

  42. Ack! Don't dilute the meme.. we're going with Chicken Party of Canada for the CPC.. it works better for the plane (chicken wings), the media restrictions (they're in the chicken coop), and lends itself very well to "Chicken on the way" and any number of "clucking" euphemisms.

    My dreams of success are when one of Harper's staffers calls the media pen the "chicken coop"

    Failing that, if Mr. Harper campaigns in front of a St. Hubert at any time.

  43. Quite McCarthyesque, eh.

  44. All parties hold private rallies of supporters. Nothing new in that.

    The difference here is that Harper is only holding private rallies of supporters, tarting them as though they are public, and, most importantly, also not doing any open public events at all or taking open questions from the public.

    Democracy in Harperland: by invitation only.

  45. Voting in a government that had just been found in contempt of Parliament would send an, um, interesting message to the world.

  46. Yeah, but the Democrats and Republicans have guns. Here in Canada , …uh-oh, my bad.

  47. I expect your first clue for that would have been that with nearly a generation spent out of power, they came to government with only 5 ideas.

    Your second clue would have been their first budget.

    Your third would have been their second, and so on.

  48. .
    The Government of Harper party is applying his minimalist fiscal policies to a Beijing politburo style of discourse: less WORKS.

    Specifically, the less you explain or apologize, the less you paint yourself into a corner, and the less wheel-spinning, stress, and work you make for yourself, and the more time you have to plan and project positive optics where the voters are likely to see it.

    Briefly: Spend little time explaining and apologizing, much time playing the piano with 10-year old Lady Gaga covers.

    Amazingly, Ignatieff has learned nothing from decades of lessons writ large over the political landscape. And his constant topic of discussion will be Dear Leader, instead of himself and his policies. He is a student of FAIL. Remarkable, considering his academic and journalistic background. This man does NOT want to be Prime Minister.
    .

  49. .
    The Government of Harper party is applying his minimalist fiscal policies to a Beijing politburo style of discourse: less WORKS.

    Specifically, the less you explain or apologize, the less you paint yourself into a corner, and the less wheel-spinning, stress, and work you make for yourself, and the more time you have to plan and project positive optics where the voters are likely to see it.

    Briefly: Spend little time explaining and apologizing, much time playing the piano with 10-year old Lady Gaga covers.

    Amazingly, Ignatieff has learned nothing from decades of lessons writ large over the political landscape. And his constant topic of discussion will be Dear Leader, instead of himself and his policies. He is a student of FAIL. Remarkable, considering his academic and journalistic background. This man does NOT want to be Prime Minister.
    .

  50. Exactly. I would like to know what else is being screened.

    They used the facebook photo as a reason but did they screen anything else without finding anything incriminating?

    Another guy was ejected because of his bumper sticker. How did they connect the bumper sticker to him? Do you sign in with your license plate? Did they film everyone as they parked? Did the RCMP see the sticker and look up the registered owner of that plate?

    It would be great if these kind of questions could be thouroughly investigated and not just commented on on an internet blog.

  51. No problem. I didn't get the meme modifier memo.

  52. Well, for clarity, we could reach out to either Senator Finley or Senator Irving Gerstein to solicit their interpretation of what sorts of expenses should be covered.

    Once we have their thoughts, it would be a safe bet to do the EXACT opposite. That way you will be sure to be in compliance with both the intent and spirit of the law.

  53. S'okay.. we're starting small.

    As Batman said.. "Now we're two.." :)

  54. Well – based on these quotes from Joanna MacDonald who was part of the Canadian Delegation to the COP-15 in Copenhagen last December, why would the Conservative Party want to let her into a rally of their supporters? Am I missing something here?

    Quote 1
    The Canadian Youth Delegation used every opportunity we had in the Bella Center to shed light on the disgraceful actions of the Canadian government.

    Quote 2
    I think there is encouraging news and unfortunate news for Canadians. The unfortunate news is that we are being misrepresented by our government. The Canadian government acts like Canadians don't care about climate change…

  55. Well – based on these quotes from Joanna MacDonald who was part of the Canadian Delegation to the COP-15 in Copenhagen last December, why would the Conservative Party want to let her into a rally of their supporters? Am I missing something here?

    Quote 1
    The Canadian Youth Delegation used every opportunity we had in the Bella Center to shed light on the disgraceful actions of the Canadian government.

    Quote 2
    I think there is encouraging news and unfortunate news for Canadians. The unfortunate news is that we are being misrepresented by our government. The Canadian government acts like Canadians don't care about climate change…

    • So that would disqualify you from getting close to the PM while a criminal dossier for forging signatures and defrauding clients would not.

      • We are not arguing about the right or wrong of a criminal dossier and "getting close to the PM" as a general principle and you should not confuse or obfuscate the facts of this issue. We are talking about whether a partisan political rally has the right to exclude from attendance people who are likely not to be supporters and may even be disruptive. There are other venues for Miss MacDonald to voice her displeasure with the governing party and she has availed herself of at least some of those venues. A conservative supporter rally is not such a venue. I maintain every political party has this right and it is nothing special for the conservative party to have this right and to exerciise it. All of you who are posting here and venting solely against the conservatives on this issue are conveniently overlooking this basic principle. And I suppose you all invite people who hate you to your birthday party. Let's stop being so ridiculously naive to the point of absurdity because you are comiung off as just plain dumb.

        • If you told me that Harper was holding a "town hall" style meeting to hear from Canadians on their issues and excluded Joanna, I would be outraged. But you get no sympathy from me over exclusion at a partisan rally.

  56. .
    I think Harper's minimalist response approach is working extremely WELL. He is a student of success, and optics that succeed. Anything that fascist states and the Beijing politburo have learned, the Government of Harper has applied, and it will show in the polls.

    Scary stuff. But it works.
    .

  57. .
    It's what they will do with the flagged people that worries me. In recent months, Beijing has stopped the publicity. They just disappear people. No dissent, no discourse. The Government of Harper has learned from other people's mistakes.

    They become 'unpeople'. Orwell, 1984.
    .

  58. Wear body armour. In case that doesn't work, leave your cell on, so your relatives can find your body.

  59. If you're lucky.

  60. Hows that openness and accountability working out for you Conservatives anyways?

  61. Hows that openness and accountability working out for you Conservatives anyways?

  62. Hey …
    the polls suck but so does the CPC campaign
    the debates are next and given the wooden performance on the trail so far, Harper will look bad
    Harper can be beaten!

  63. Good luck getting a straight answer! Who even knows how screening responsibilities are divided between the RCMP protective force and the staffers at the Conservative election centre in Ottawa (apparently set up a year or more ago in some kind of suburban office block). It's a protective security matter that would never be discussed.

    Since people register for Conservative rallies online, it would be easy to take advantage of commercial web services that search & consolidate the online material found for a particular name–a kind of prescreening. Would the RCMP require the entire guest list as a matter of course, or only those names that already raised some suspicion on the part of Conservative pre-screening? Which side would take the initiative for closer examination in any case? Would having an "unusual" name trigger extra checks alone?

    Unless you want to be tagged as part of the tin-foil-hat brigade, I think further speculation is useless–we've reached the point in the public life of our country where such security-relevant questions won't ever be answered.

  64. Thanks for this.

    Sadly I have to agree with you.

  65. The bumper sticker one bugs me. How did they connect the car to the man. Where RCMP resources being used to vet political ideology? Is a differing opinion now legal considered a threat to safety?

  66. So that would disqualify you from getting close to the PM while a criminal dossier for forging signatures and defrauding clients would not.

  67. That's alright. I'm used to being ahead of the curve.

  68. That's alright. I'm used to being ahead of the curve.

  69. Just do a Google on Joanna. Cancun, Copenhagen, ardent Kyoto and successor to Kyoto. Sounds like someone who would like to have her 15 minutes of fame at Harper's rally. Heck, she could even be a shill for Liz May, George Bush or Bozo the Clown, I dunno.

    Not knowing what the content might be of Joanna's 15 minutes of fame, the RCMP took the prudent course. They're responsibility is safety and security of the PM. Same with other countries' protection details. And Harper would never blame the RCMP, or even suggest they were a problem. Big men don't … they take the heat.

    They will err too cautiously on occasion, and this young lady (and 2/3 in London, I believe) was a casualty. Ignatieff has had at least 3 similar occurences, but we didn't hear about it because, I guess, the telephone link to the G&M, Star and CBC was down, probably.

    So let's maintain some perspective, eh?

  70. Just do a Google on Joanna. Cancun, Copenhagen, ardent Kyoto and successor to Kyoto. Sounds like someone who would like to have her 15 minutes of fame at Harper's rally. Heck, she could even be a shill for Liz May, George Bush or Bozo the Clown, I dunno.

    Not knowing what the content might be of Joanna's 15 minutes of fame, the RCMP took the prudent course. They're responsibility is safety and security of the PM. Same with other countries' protection details. And Harper would never blame the RCMP, or even suggest they were a problem. Big men don't … they take the heat.

    They will err too cautiously on occasion, and this young lady (and 2/3 in London, I believe) was a casualty. Ignatieff has had at least 3 similar occurences, but we didn't hear about it because, I guess, the telephone link to the G&M, Star and CBC was down, probably.

    So let's maintain some perspective, eh?

  71. We are not arguing about the right or wrong of a criminal dossier and "getting close to the PM" as a general principle and you should not confuse or obfuscate the facts of this issue. We are talking about whether a partisan political rally has the right to exclude from attendance people who are likely not to be supporters and may even be disruptive. There are other venues for Miss MacDonald to voice her displeasure with the governing party and she has availed herself of at least some of those venues. A conservative supporter rally is not such a venue. I maintain every political party has this right and it is nothing special for the conservative party to have this right and to exerciise it. All of you who are posting here and venting solely against the conservatives on this issue are conveniently overlooking this basic principle. And I suppose you all invite people who hate you to your birthday party. Let's stop being so ridiculously naive to the point of absurdity because you are comiung off as just plain dumb.

  72. If you told me that Harper was holding a "town hall" style meeting to hear from Canadians on their issues and excluded Joanna, I would be outraged. But you get no sympathy from me over exclusion at a partisan rally.