123

Loud noises


 

The NDP house leader and the Prime Minister’s press secretary yell at each other on national television over what may or may not have been going on in Vancouver and what the NDP house leader may or may have had to do with whatever was or was not happening.

Kady O’Malley has the supplementary e-mails and tweets. The Canadian Press, Globe and CBC report from the scene.


 

Loud noises

  1. Gotta love the way these protesters make a sham of democracy. Not only that, using chains to shut people into a building should have resulted in arrests.

    • Um.. how is protesting a "sham" of democracy, pray tell?

      • Protesting is one thing, chaining a door is another. That's how. There are many people in support of the government position on this issue. Preventing the government from partaking in a completely unrelated activity is making a sham of democracy. I didn't like Martin in power, but I didn't go to his house and bolt his door shut.

        • That's ridiculous. Apparently police were going in and out of the building the whole time… So there was no danger at all….. I mean, fire hazard? where do you people come up with this stuff!??! There's no way police would stand around and let the people inside be at risk.

          I'm shocked that the conservatives have been able to frame this story into a public safety issue…. I mean, isn't it ridiculous that our prime minister has to run away from protesters who disagree with him??? Apparently he has an enormous security detail … I though conservatives were supposed to be tough and aggressive… But apparently they can't handle any criticism without freaking out….it's almost like Harper is allergic to dissent. I'm not a Chretien fan, but at least he would have faced the protestors down and given them a shawinigan handshake if he had had any problems.

          • There's no chain. They put duct tape on the doors, that's all. Not a serious impediment to people getting out, if there had been any danger, which there wasn't.

            And Harper was going to see a rehearsal of a Chinese New Years' celebration. That's a photo op, not the foundation of democracy. "Democracy," as in MP actually representing their constituents in a format allowing government accountability, has been temporarily shut down.

          • Look at the photo.

          • It was really bad to chain some of the doors, it's true. No doubt whatsoever. However, I somehow doubt you'll find any examples of people dying in buildings with only SOME of the doors chained, while the building is surrounded by literally dozens of police officers. The "people could have died" argument is ludicrous.

            If there was a serious hazard here, is it not equally a scandal that the many, MANY police on scene allowed the doors to be chained and didn't immediately remove the chains?

          • There are lots of examples of what you say. When a fire happens, you go to a door. Or when there is a crowd rush for whatever reason, if the door won't open, you don't have the opportunity to wander around the building to find another door.

            As for your question, it's the same reason why police allowed Caledonians to be harrassed, and why elections Canada takes Conservatives to court and ignores Liberal spending violations, and why "driving while black" was an offense in the US. Because the police don't apply the law equally. Police will fine bar owners for allowing a few extra people in beyond the legal capacity. And they will fine establishments for blocking exits. They do it all the time. Just not when there are anti-Conservative protesters doing it.

            One other thing… the police DID remove the chain.

          • Thanks for exposing the Liberal-police bias rampant in our country. Out of curiousity, does any institution exist that doesn't have an anti-conservative bias? Or is everyone just out to get you?

            By the way, police take anti-abortion protesters seriously because they tend to try to assasinate and blow people up. (no not in the US, here.)

          • "tend to"? Do you mean "about three in the last 25 years have done so"? Because if so, that's another blatant exaggeration…much like saying that war veterans "tend to" blow things up because a few did in Oklahoma City a while back.

            Again, don't cloud legitimate issues with wild exaggerations.

          • First of all, grandiose statements add hilarity and awsomeness to arguments.

            Also, anti-abortion protesters murder people a lot. A doctor was killed just last spring I think. They also assault people a lot. And yeah, between here and the states they bomb a lot more than most other protest groups. Not mention all the death and bomb threats. Which makes the police pretty wary and vigilant I'd imagine.

          • Grandiose statements ca also add slander and false accusations to arguments, as yours did.

            Pro-life protesters do not "murder people a lot". There are millions of such protesters, and have been for decades, and yet I can count the number of murders and assaults throughout North America during that time period on my fingers.

            Incidentally, the day after that doctor was murdered (I assume it's Tiller you're referring to), a pro-life protester was shot to death while holding a sign at a protest. I assume that (a) you've never heard of this, and (b) you'd agree that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that pro-lifers are murdered "a lot".

            What does actually happen "a lot" is that pro-life protesters are assaulted while engaging in peaceful protests. I've witnessed this firsthand – in fact I've been the target. Charges are currently pending against a guy in San Jose who allegedly hit a girl protesting outside a PP clinic.

            Watch your claims please. Hyperbole is fine and dandy, but not when you casually smear people as frequent murderers.

          • I'm not a partisan, I'm just using common sense on this.

            There's no way there was every any actual danger. The exit is essentially made out of a wall of glass, surrounded by emergency crews with guns.

            In fact, I think the protest probably made the community centre much safer!! I mean there were tons of police inside and outside monitering the building in case anything went wrong.

          • There's no way there was every any actual danger

            Wrong. There's a reason there's a law against it.

          • Oh. My. God. Protestors locked a set of *glass* doors shut. If there was a fire, there's NO WAY the dozens of police surrounding the building could have gotten people out. Beside's how would any know if people were trying to escape??? It's not like there were hundreds of people watching the exit corridor. oooohhh won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!?!

        • Speaking of locking offices shut, where are the irony police on this one??? Harper doesn't like dealing with a majority opposition so he actually *does* bolt MP's place of work shut. I think scaring Harper away from a photo-op hardly qualifies as 'making a sham of democracy'. He should be at work *governing* instead of electioneering. We have a head of state for ceremonial events…. and it isn't the Prime Minister.

          • "Harper doesn't like dealing with a majority opposition so he actually *does* bolt MP's place of work shut"

            Um…the point here is that people were locked inside

          • I admire your faith in reason to deal with the unreasonable.

          • It's being shaken, I have to admit. Severely shaken, since I joined IntenseDebate.

          • I admire it too, it takes effort.

  2. Bizarre.

  3. Are there any pictures showing the chains on the doors?

  4. This boils down to a matter of fact: if the protesters did seal the exits (with chains or in any other way) then two things should happen tout suite:
    (1) the protesters who did so should be charged with false imprisonment and reckless endangerment, and
    (2) Libby Davies should denounce the rally's tactics (if not it's cause) and apologize to Soudas for essentially calling him a liar on this point.

    On the other hand, if the exits were not sealed then Soudas should be fired for casually accusing people of reckless endangerment and impugning the honesty and responsibility of a sitting MP on a public broadcast.

    Based on the Canadian Press report and the CBC report, the protesters did seal the doors and police had to remove the chains. The Globe and Mail does not mention this. To me this suggests that there is a high likelihood that Case 1 is what happened, and Ms. Davies along with the protesters should be in a heap of trouble – we'll see once the "chains" claim is verified or debunked.

    • However, other reports about police moving in and out freely suggests that all the doors were not blocked. So probably not false-imprisonment (or kidnapping as some suggested) but yeah, I'd support a reckless endangerment charge.

      • According to the reports, police got there and removed the chains/tape on the doors. So yes, once that happened they were able to move freely in and out, as were the people who had been locked inside.

        • Supposition on your part that the two are connected.
          It's entirely possible that not all doors were blocked, and that the police removed the tape/bike-chain from the doors that were.

          • Not supposition, a quote from a police report.

            ""Safety concerns arose after protesters chained and barred the doors to the centre, leaving the people inside the centre with no means of exit," police said in a statement.
            Officers removed the chains and there were no injuries or arrests, police said."

  5. Kady attempted the following FUD: "What's not clear is why the police would have stood by while protesters…"

    Really. Kady watched as RCMP and Ottawa police stood by while protesters took downtown Ottawa and Parliament Hill hostage for eight days this past spring. She's aware that the police are standing by watching the ongoing terrorist activity in Caledonia.

    It's standard operating procedure for Canadian police officers to view protests as a good opportunity to make some easy overtime by letting everything slide and not actually doing anything. Kady knows that. She also knows that cops are unionized, as are the NDP organizers of this protest, so of course the police are going to stand in solidarity with the pro-heroin crowd.

    This time, however, the world is actually paying attention to Canada. You read it hear first: somehow, someway, the police are going to give Canada a black eye during these Olympics.

    • " pro-heroin crowd"

      Safe-injection site advocates don't want anyone to be on herion either. They argue that the sites provide a better means of assisting individuals in overcoming addiciton, and reducing harm to themselves and society even if they don't.

      • Heroin is a perfectly smokeable drug, people have been smoking opium for a long time and I hear the kids today love chasing the dragon. You're not a mind reader Sean and you have no idea for sure whether they want people on heroin. Neither do I, I suppose, except there is a great deal of evidence that people in this country knowingly an purposefully support policies that harm Canada. Believe it or not, some people aren't very nice, or sane, or smart.

        What about the free crack pipe program then? Completely unnecessary, there is nothing more inventive or industrious than a crackhead with crack and no pipe, you get a toilet paper roll from a public washroom and tinfoil from a discarded pack of smokes and you have yourself a pipe, everyone knows that. You no more get disease from passing a crack pipe than you do from passing a joint or cigarette; the advocates of the program know this, they just get off on giving out taxpayer paid for crackpipes because they know it pisses off guys like me and makes Canada a worse place to live.

        "provide a better means of assisting individuals in overcoming addiciton"

        There are some passable arguments to be made for Insite, that isn't one of them. Giving people free needles and a nice warm place to shoot up is the exact opposite of assisting individuals overcome their addictions. Yes, it cuts down on diseases like Hep B and HIV, but as noted you don't have to shoot the stuff up and in any case that's an argument against public health care, not an argument for Insite. Laos, home of the Golden Triangle, doesn't have heroin junkies on the street or an Insite program, and that's where they grow opium. Neither does Afghanistan, though I'm fairly sure we're trying our best to establish one there.

        Insite is merely the latest salvo from the nihilist/anti-western civilization crowd in their war on western civilization. Datsitdatsall.

        • It's totally their own fault, so we should try and make them suffer as much as possible since they're weak people. Maybe kids will think twice before trying drugs if they know they'll get HIV too.

          Some Questions.
          1) How is this an argument against public health care?

          2) If Loas doesn't have a heroin problem, and we do in the West… how does insite become anti-West by trying to solve the problem? Maybe we should get some good christian missionaries into the east side to help fight off all that nihilism, since that's clearly the root of the problem here.

        • Insite allows the junkie a chance to receive some help, however limitted,in a safe supervised facility – without shooting up in some back alley. which, they're going to do anyway. It aint perfect, but what the hell's wrong with that?

          • Well, then, by all means let's tape up the doors of a building housing a gathering of Chinese Canadians. Makes perfect sense. In a this-is-what-heroin-does-to-your-judgment way.

          • Hey everybody does dumb things some time or other…i doubt their were too many junkies there in any case.

          • When I fail to tell my kids often enough how much I love them, that's a dumb thing.
            When I forget to put on my safety goggles before running the drill, that's a dumb thing.
            When I am late filing my taxes, letting the dab gummint sit on my refund a little longer, that's a dumb thing.
            When I join up with fellow thugs to tamper with the doors to a public building when there are people inside, that is criminal conduct.

            Did you spot the difference?

          • Not really. You're overreacting. There's criminal conduct and there's criminal conduct. If the police thought it was serious, they'd have arrested people. It's illegal to spit on many city streets.

          • I spit on a city street.

            I join up with fellow thugs to tamper with the doors to a public building when there are people inside.

            Did you spot the difference? Now that I know an HTML tag or two, I am trying to help out here.

          • You spit on city streets? Lawbreaker!! Have you no RESPECT?!?! What kind of message are you sending to our children? Do you spit ON children? That's next, you know. Endangering children with your spittle.

            (Your HTML tags seem not to have worked: [ul] [li] [li] [li] [/ul] with pointy brackets is the key, I think.)

          • As to the police thinking whether the criminal conduct was serious. Sorry, not buying it. The police are required to balance the need to arrest lawbreakers with the risk of getting their (and others') heads bashed in by the thugs as they announce to their audience that Her Majesty's peace has been disturbed and would they all be good sports and walk themselves into the paddy wagons…

          • Riiiight, the police were too afraid of the frightening pro-Insite demonstrators. Hahaha.

          • Hey Jack….when the natives in Caledonia beat a man into a coma and burned down public bridges and destroyed public property….the cops didn't arrest anyone then either.

            Does that mean no laws were broken?

          • It's adorable watching you try to think, James.

          • And that answers the question… how, exactly?

          • Did you ask a question? There was a dog yipping, I couldn't hear.

            I guess I am arguing that public protests are an essential part of a free society, and thus to a certain extent override normal legal procedure. An extreme example is Iran in the last 24 hours. What the brave Green protesters are doing there is technically illegal, but we're all on their side. Of course, Iran is a quasi-fascist dictatorship and we're not, but it doesn't follow that just because we are a free and just society that it is always immoral to break the law: on the contrary, sometimes it is immoral not to break the law. I mention it because that seems to be the implication behind your scorn of the protesters.

            I think we're making this a lot more complicated than it need be, though. It doesn't look to me like the locking / taping of the doors of this building was a determined effort to obstruct ingress & egress; I think it was somebody's stupid idea of a symbolic gesture. Since, unlike some guys named Soudas, we're grown-ups, we can acknowledge that, mention that it was silly, and move on; pretending that it was some kind of hazard to public safety is absolutely disingenuous and quite unworthy of an adult mind.

          • Tampering with the doors of a public building is merely silly but not dangerous? Roll your allegedly adult mind over to various tragedies where nightclub owners failed to keep emergency exits properly cleared, and get back to us.

            And I guess I have an awful lot of growing up to do to get to where threatening the safety of a bunch of Chinese Canadians is morally ok because Iran has despotic lunatics running things.

          • Was there some kind of KISS-style fireworks display going on inside the community centre? Was there only one exit? Was it jammed to the gills? Was there no one on hand able to open a door?

            Oh, sorry, you were just being sophistic.

          • Dude. Public buildings have numerous exits accessible at all times for a reason. This was not just a silly-buggers stunt that made the protesters look stupid. Though it was that in spades. It. Was. A. Crime.

            But it was performed by a mob of people who were mocking Harper, so never mind: speaking truth to power, flipping The Man the bird, everybody just relax…

          • Drugs are bad, m'kaaayy?

    • Alcan thanks you for your support.

  6. Harper prefers to pay Canadian tax dollars to expensive lawyers than to create new spots in rehab centres. If he truly was passionate about helping addicts, he knows where to put his money. Kinda like wanting to help women and children around the world and then standing idly by during the climate change crisis grows, or not supporting language on native indians' rights. Is 'noshame' his middle name?

    • Yeah or helping mothers and infants in the developing world by limiting access to contraception. What universe do these people come from???

      • Yeah or helping mothers and infants in the developing world by limiting access to contraception.

        Huh? Are you basing this on actual events or are you just spouting inane talking points?

      • Limiting access?? What the hell are you talking about?

        • Bev Oda's statement today. Check it out.

  7. Hmm… quite conflicted here.

    On one hand, even taping doors shut goes beyond what I feel the spirit of respectful protest should be, I've never been comfortable with safe injection sites, and if they were using chains, that's more than crossing a line.

    On the other hand, Soudas is very clearly mastering the art of talking out his own butt. He lied at least twice in that interview and the police didn't seem too concerned about the actions of protesters, so likely they weren't doing anything too terrible (or we've got a bigger problem – those police are going to be part of the wider Olympic security team).

    Well, goes to show the quality of our elected officials and their chosen support staff, on both sides of the spectrum.

      • Oh, great. You want to use FRANCE as a model?

    • I didn't notice any lies, now that the "chains" claim turns out to be true. What are you referring to?

      If the police moved in and removed chains from the doors then I'd say they were concerned, and rightly so. What's problematic for me is that they didn't arrest anyone. If a pro-life protest involved locking the doors of a Planned Parenthood clinic, you can bet there'd be arrests, prosecutions, and jail time for all involved.

      • The first lie is that he said that he claimed that Davies organized it (repeatedly until called on it).

        What I thought was a second lie may just be hyperbole, based on what else came out, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt given that all politicians always engage in rampant hyperbole. I was referring to his claim that the doors were chained and locked – there's evidence of chains (well, one), but not locks or chains being put up in a manner that was any more restrictive than the police tape, and the Vancouver Police Department, according to Kady indicates that the doors were blocked (but again, not necessarily locked).

        As I said, I don't like the protest much either, because of both content and message. But just because they're wrong doesn't mean Soudas is right (or that his anal oration isn't first-rate).

        • There`s not much to be gained by splitting hairs here. Whether Davies helped organize it or tweeted her approval of it after the deed was done, it`s no different in the public`s eye.

          And whether the doors were taped and chained or taped, chained and locked, it`s the same.

          If there is a unanimous condemnation of these reckless acts, Davies and others will think twice before they act again. If you rationalize and deflect, then be prepared for the escalation of their protest.

          • There's a lot to be gained by splitting hairs, that's why Soudas does it so consistently. He takes something that is true (Davies expressing support), then runs with a a fabricated embellishment of that truth until cornered. He never fully admits that he's wrong and gains by linking true charges to his more severe fabrications.

            And it's not the same if the doors were taped and draped with chains or chained and locked – one can be easily circumvented both by the people inside and easily removed by those outside, the second is far more restricting, especially if there was a crisis like a fire.

            I'm not trying to justify or rationalize the actions of the protesters, I believe they were in the wrong to put tape up. At a sheer minimum, that's vandalism. But I don't think fabricating the charges against the protesters is helpful or even necessary – if anything, it's just given them more media face time, which is exactly what they want.

          • In your second paragraph you rationalize and explain criminal activity, and in your third paragraph you forgive yourself by saying you didn`t really mean it.

          • In my second paragraph I explain what the protesters did and why it's not as bad as what Soudas claimed they did. Less bad does not mean not bad – the world is not so black and white and you seem to be viewing it, common man.

          • OK, in your second paragraph you explain the criminal activity.

          • Craig has a good point. It's entirely possible to both condemn the judgement of some of the protesters and call to attention Soudas' hyperpole and torquing of the facts for political gain. He's done it before…the man is an unprincipled clown. The sort that are becoming all too common in politics these days as it becomes evermore professionalized.

          • There most certainly is a difference in this "public's" eye. Not defending the indefensible chaining or taping shut the doors, but just because Libby Davies was there with the protestors does not mean, a) she knew that some of them had chained and taped any doors, or b) that she organized the entire protest. She did not tweet approval of chaining or taping doors shut (since she claims she didn't even know it occurred).

            And yet the spin is that Libby Davies was directly responsible for putting Chinese-Canadians in immediate peril of their very lives. A little overdone, I think, when they finally had 'right' on their side for once. As Gaunilon reminds us, they "clouded the issue with blatant exaggerations"

          • Call me a cynic if you wish. I'm guessing that you and the folks that are focused on the doors willfully overlook the fact that the risk and damage posed to Harper's image and reputation by this demonstration was significantly higher than any risk to innocent bystanders.

            All this little commotion has proved is that Harper, again by his very absence from any situation where his image may be at peril, remains the quiche-eater he has always been.

            Conversely:

            http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/prime_ministers/t

  8. Wow, I go out for dinner and THIS is what happens? Dude. Can't leave these kids alone for a minute, can we?

  9. Curse those evil Conservatives for limiting access to contraception in third world countries! They haven't actually done anything, but curse them all the same!

    • "CIDA Minister Bev Oda says the government's child and maternal health strategy will not address unsafe abortions in developing countries or support access to family planning and contraceptives. Rather, she said that to ensure the aid agency remains effective, "it's the lives of mothers and babies that we are focused on."

      But with nearly 15 per cent of all maternal deaths being attributed to such abortions, and up to 40 per cent of maternal deaths preventable with access to family planning and contraception, experts and critics say support for these areas is essential."

      http://embassymag.ca/page/view/oda-02-10-2010

      I don't know how they'll actually manage to accomplish this…. since they'll probably have to work through aid organizations who support family planning and contraceptives… Maybe they'll go the Bush route and threaten to withdraw donations unless organizations stop giving out condoms.

      • Refusing to fund X is not the same as "limiting access to" X. I do not fund my next-door neighbor's grocery purchases. This does not mean that I limit his access to groceries.

        There are legitimate arguments to made about the CPC's social policy. Don't cloud the issue with blatant exaggerations.

        • There you go again, resorting to reason.

          • Sorry. My bad.

            There you go again trying to leaven the atmosphere with humor. We're just tilting at windmills, I tell you.

          • It was for sure a hyperbolic statement.

          • The Liberals' own strategists admitted this was a "wedge issue" intended to score political points. Harper never even said anything about abortion, but Ignatieff insisted out of the blue that abortion funding must be one of the key components of any international aid that Canada grants to women and children in the third world.

          • Yup. The weird thing is that it's a wedge issue among Liberal voters and MP's as well. I'm really surprised Ignatieff went there.

          • Lots of people were suprised. Apparently, no Liberal leader in Canadian history has ever taken such an aggressive pro-abortion stance. Most recently, prime ministers Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were both Roman Catholics, and both had a very guarded position on abortion.

        • "Refusing to fund X is not the same as "limiting access to" X. I do not fund my next-door neighbor's grocery purchases. This does not mean that I limit his access to groceries"

          "A difference that makes no difference is no difference" Spock.

          Where else are they going to get funding? You're being disingenuous. More honest would be to say: let someone else fund that…but that would mean taking an unpopular stand with Canadians. Not something Harper's gov't is noted for.

  10. Speaking of protests, sounds like a few people in Victoria will be going out to greet Harper when he comes to the B.C. Legislature. Should be another fun time. Welcome to B.C., Steve!

    • OMG! I hope they don't chain the doors. There could be seniors and children in there.

  11. I was inside the building when the protestors were outside of the main door of the auditorium. At first they wrapped the building in colored tapes similiar to police crime tape. I saw the tapes and I saw the chain and lock.

    I was in favour of the Insite but if this is the way to protest against the prime minister, imagine the affront of the 200 people, including the vets, dancers, women and children and the movers and shakers of Chinatown. If they had favorable stance towards Insite (it's only a couple of blocks away) imagine what their impressions are of Libby Davies, the protestors and Insite now.

    All we felt inside the building was a protest irrelevant to the Chinese New Year Celebrations taking place. The protest made no sense but it leaves not a favorable impression.

    • Well Dimitri Soudas may be a disgrace, but he seems to have effectively smeared Libby Davies. Way to go Dimitri! Did Harper give you a doggy treat?

    • Larry……..what you need to realize about left-wingers and their various movements is this….

      THEY DON"T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!

      got that? What matters to you…..does not matter to them. The only thing that matters to them is that you let them do what they want…and of course, you have to pay for it.

      The type of people at these protests…..are in effect, the MOST SELFISH people you will ever meet, but most of them don't know it. They consider themselves morally superior. If you disagree with their cause, or their methods….then that is because YOU are a failure as a human being. You are not "Progressive" enough for them. That makes you the enemy….and being the enemy, you deserve no respect. Nothing is sacrosanct. They will threaten you with violence, commit violence, and act out in violence. All in the name of tolerance and "progressive-ness"

      Get used to it.

      • Funnily enough, exchange "left" for "right' and "Progressive" for "Conservative" and it makes the exact same amount of sense.

        Now, if you wanted something that was actually accurate, replace "left-wingers" with "extremists" and "Progressive" with "extreme"

  12. OK, so much for peaceful protest. The police should be instructed to have zero tolerance for any kind of law-breaking during a protest.

    While the rest of the world is watching us it would be wise for our paid security forces to actually keep innocent civilans secure. Even the Danish police seemed to have more control over these hire-a-thugs at Copenhagen.

  13. Yup, the Chinese community is going to be really happy this. It is Ujal Dosanjh's riding (barely)….he is wisely staying quiet for the moment.

    Two observations.

    1) The protest went too far. They shouldnt have touched the building, the cops shouldnt have let them touch the building. Duct tape, chains it doesnt matter, nothing should have been on the doors and nothing should have been put on the building. Carry signs, circle the building, yell and scream, things above that are too far.

    2) Dimitri is losing his cool, Tenyacke (sp?) was much better at this stuff, a little less obvious spin, less emotion.

    • I thought that one of Kory's strengths was his ability to be deliberately obtuse, a skill that I have not noticed in Soudas.

  14. Having just listened to the argument, I have a few observations:

    If they did indeed chain all the doors shut, that's forcible confinement, which goes beyond the bounds of peaceful protest.

    That police were able to enter and exit the building suggests that they may not have been able to secure the building for the PM's entrance…but there probably wasn't an issue of confinement. For those inside the building, that wouldn't take away from their fear that 200 protesters had surrounded them and were chanting stuff that was intended for the PM's ears, not theirs.

    As to Soudas' comments of "how would you feel if you were trapped inside a chained building, and couldn't get out?" I feel compelled to respond, how would you feel if you were trapped outside Parliament, and couldn't get in? His accusations weren't classy, at all – and when Libby was trying to refute his statements, he'd just talk over her.

    "I'm louder than you, therefore I win" is no way to run your communications. This isn't third grade, this is the Government of Canada. Grow up, folks. The Olympics are two days away, it's time to drop this bunk and play nice in the sandbox.

    • Do we know for certain that the chain was actually secured/locked in a manner that held the door shut? Is there a chance it was simply wrapped around for symbolism? Presumably, the police would have had to use some form of cutter or bludgeon if the former were true, but I haven't seen a report of that.

      • The continued rationalization of criminal activity will only encourage the escalation of it. The issue is not what type of barricade was used to prevent the easy exit of a public building. The issue is a group of protesters forcibly confined innocent people and the local MP expressed her approval of the protest.

        If the protesters had stood there and yelled obscenities at Harper, then that`s your lead story along with Harper`s reaction to them. Davies can tweet her support all she wants and Soudas has no reason to object. Maybe that would be a good reason for you guys to condemn the taping and chaining of the doors or you could condemn it because this type of criminal activity gives lawful civil protest a bad name.

        • "The issue is not what type of barricade was used to prevent the easy exit of a public building."

          Funnily enough, I agree with you. If only Soudras did too.

          • I`m confused. How can you agree with me about the irrelevance of the type of barricade, but in your previous post you question how the chain-tape etc. was secured ?

            It`s OK to condemn the criminal activity. We won`t think you`re praising Soudas or Harper. I`d give you a big thumbs up if I could.

          • When the government accuses an MP of participating in the chaining of a building, I'd like it first established if the building was in fact chained. First things first, before we start moving the goalposts.

    • Lynn Asked
      "how would you feel if you were trapped outside Parliament, and couldn't get in?"

      Or worse yet Lynn…..what if you were trapped in a room with Libby davies and couldn't get out!!!

      Especially if there was nudity involved. (shudder)

  15. Good ol Dimitri! – Libby has spent too much time in the sun – then again I have always found her backroom stunts rather hilarious … I was disappointed the police didn't break out the pepper spray – hopefully they are just saving up for the games to really let the anarchists have it – ooh boy lots's of fun coming up – time to recharge all the Tazers and make it a double shot!

    • Good to see your tolerance for dissent is only skin deep.

    • I'd actually argue that the protestors did that when they went too far.

  16. Think of the implications of a Provincial government being able to legally ignore a national and international law, if Insite wins the SCoC case.

    Provinces can break federal laws,
    don't even have to bring out the 'notwithstanding clause'.

    As an Albertan I'm a little torn over this,
    because any future coalition government could not resurrect the NEP.
    And that's a good thing.

    • The NEP is dead. Pierre Trudeau is dead. Get over it.

    • You do realize, Wilson, what the "notwithstanding clause" is, and the limited thing it applies to, right?

    • Actually, if Insite wins the SCoC case, it will probably be on charter grounds, and basically strike down the law that prevents such sites from opening up elsewhere.

      • Well that`s just great. Our future as the gathering place for the heroin addicts of the world looking for a fix is in the not so wise hands of the SCoC.

        • Blame the gov't for pushing it this far.

  17. Dam gubbiment, Just because they believe it is not the role of gov`t to provide a place and materials for addicts to shoot up doesn`t mean they couldn`t have backed down when the addicts threatened them.

    • Yes, how dare the Supreme Court protect Charter rights over what any particular political party wants.

      The precedent set in Quebec with regard to the ability of private hospitals to operate if the public hospitals are not providing service suggests that if Insite can show it's meeting a health need of Canadians that the government isn't, the law will be struck down and similar facilities may be able to be opened up elsewhere.

      That said, it's certainly not a slam-dunk case.

    • "Dam gubbiment, Just because they believe it is not the role of gov`t to provide a place and materials for addicts to shoot up doesn`t mean they couldn`t have backed down when the addicts threatened them"

      Yeah, we should just let'm shoot up and die in the alley…oh wait! They already are…

      If you don't like insite suggest some workable alternative…politicians have been dithering over the DT east side for over 40 years now…What alternative has Harper suggested, beyond more cops that is? Squat! As far as i know.

  18. One can only hope there is a little common sense on the SCoC that will differentiate between legitimate health care and whatever the hell is a " safe injection site ".

    Maybe they will issue one of those wishy-washy judgements like the Khadr one where they say " this is what we would like to be done but you don`t have to do it if you don`t want to ".

  19. That was one smart protest. You want insite to go through, you lock up some of the leading citizens in the community inside a building. An object lesson in how to set your cause back. I support insite inprinciple and this will not help, which angers me…dumb , dumb, dumb. Unless you regard getting on the news as more important, which it isn't…in this case the polar opposite.

  20. If a door gets chained, and noone tries to get out, has anyone been confined?

    If a tree falls in the woods…

    • I think that is a question for Gaunilon. He is off in that direction —–>

  21. I support the Insite program but I felt the protesters went too far. There is lot of reporting to suggest that the entrance to the cultural centre was indeed chained and taped until the police removed them. I think it's unfair for the protesters to have included citizens who are not involved in the issue at a cultural event that had nothing to do with support or condemnation for insite.
    I don't generally agree with the Conservatives, but I am also disappointed with how flippantly Libby dismissed the claims that what the protesters did may have led to other's harm.

  22. Any idea how many "crimes" of this sort are overlooked every single day in Canada? At a conservative guess, 100 000.

    • OK, I'll bite. Do you have evidence of over 100,000 episodes per day where somebody interferes with the ability to open the exit doors to a public building while there is a large number of people inside? Because the only thing I can come up with would be the prisons, where a system is in place to open things up in the event of an emergency.

      • No, but I saw somebody spit their gum on the sidewalk today. I almost went up to them to deliver a lecture on public cleanliness, not to mention the slipperiness of frozen gum, but something told me I would sound extremely ridiculous.

        • Sigh. I learn how to italicize in HTML, just for you, and you still fail to notice the difference between the two scenarios you cite.

Sign in to comment.