• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cenotaph/Memorial Vandalism/Solutions-Laws (merged)

Some votes are "free" - members may vote, or not, as they please; some are whipped to varying degrees - a three line whip is compulsory to attend, one must vote the party line and real punishments will follow if one "refuses" the whip. (one and two line whips are less onerous.) See here for lots of UFI about whips.
 
Thanks E.R. for the clarification on the whips and chains of our elected MPs.  I have written Mr. Stoffer and have yet to receieve a reply, on why?.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Thanks E.R. for the clarification on the whips and chains of our elected MPs.  I have written Mr. Stoffer and have yet to receieve a reply, on why?.


In fairness to Mr. Stoffer, or any NDP member, if it was a three line whip then the consequences of "voting his conscience" or "voting his constituents' interests" may have had consequences that would severely limit his effectiveness as a constituency MP - especially on a bill about which many people, including me, agree with JM:

Journeyman said:
While I still believe that it's a wasted law, NDP opposition isn't remotely surprising -- a large number of their supporters can only express themselves through spray paint.....and it's their "right" to vandalize others' and public properties.

Now, I am not a populist so I don't believe your MP owes you a duty to vote as you please:

“If, from this conduct, I shall forfeit their suffrages at an ensuing election, it will stand on record an example to future representatives of the Commons of England, that one man at least had dared to resist the desires of his constituents when his judgment assured him they were wrong”
Edmund Burke: Speech To The Electors Of Bristol
 
Ah democracy... "represent your constituents, until Fearless Leader tells you otherwise"
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
These douchbags vandalizing  cenotaphs and memorials don't bother me as much anymore-in a way I'm actually glad.

In my opinion the anger and disgust most people express over this disrespect move them to remember the sacrifices paid much more than just throwing on a poppy every November. Its easy to pass these stone monuments everyday and start to forget what they stand for.
I'm glad it makes the citizens we defend so angry.
Good take on it. Very true.
 
Kat Stevens said:
Ah democracy... "represent your constituents, until Fearless Leader tells you otherwise"


Again, in fairness, in a system as revolutionary as ours, where the government can be tossed out on the street when it loses the confidence of the Commons, whipped votes on confidence issues, budgets, for example, are critical. In this particular case, and again because I agree with JM on this being a "wasted law," I am somewhat dismayed that any party would bother to whip the vote. This was not, Constitutionally, a confidence issue - even if it had been in the Throne Speech; a Canadian PM need not resign when a private member's bill, even one supported by his government, fails. Thomas Mulcair whipped the vote to keep his team focused on opposing and on being seen to oppose; the situation is different, but he remembers the price he and Jack Layton extracted, at the polls, from the Liberals for having supported the Conservative minority government too often.
 
ER, I understand the strategy and tactics behind it, but I guess I'm still naive enough to think the guy I elect is supposed to be, there to represent my interests, not what his boss tells him my interests are... ah well, ignorance is bliss, and I'm one of the most blissed out guys you'll ever meet.
 
I'm with Kat.  I always thought our form of government was based on the democracy that grew from the Ancient Greek city states.  In the early days it was a direct democracy where everyone was represented by themselves and had a voice.  When that grew beyond that practicality it evolved into a representational democracy wherein the Representative voiced the concerns of those who put him there for that purpose.  Silly me, I was always under the apparent misunderstanding that my MP is there to be my voice in the HoC as that was the model our system was based upon.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with Edmund Burke and I suppose by extension you as well E.R. however much I do respect your opinions.  It is to me, vox populi, the peasants may be revolting in their understanding and opinions (pardon the pun) but Mr. MP is there to speak and act on their behalf not to be his own or the Parties man per se, at least in my world view.  And I do as a voter express my delight and dismay by word of mouth and by deed each election upon those who are my representative in the various levels of government.
 
But put yourself in Burke's shoes, please: when your conscience, or your good judgement, or your knowledge of the full scope and details of a problem tells you that your constituents are wrong then should you really vote as they wish? It doesn't have to be in a parliament: suppose you are on a ship or unit committee, the people you represent say "we want this" but you have looked at the budget and at the regulations and you know you mates are wrong - sincere, but wrong - what do you say? How do you vote in that committee: as "they" wish or in a manner which you know to be responsible and best for everyone.

 
So my opinion only matters when it agrees with my selected representative's personal beliefs?  Have the lawyers been made aware of this concept?
 
Kat Stevens said:
So my opinion only matters when it agrees with my selected representative's personal beliefs?  Have the lawyers been made aware of this concept?


That what Burke said nor is it what I am suggesting. Your MP represents everyone in his riding, regardless of status, party loyalty or anything else. But representing does not involve consulting the constituency on every issue. You voted for him, hopefully, because he and his party came closest to sharing your values ... but it will be vary rare to find any elected representative who has exactly the same views on every issue and any of the people (s)he represents. Your MP can and, in my opinion, should:

1. Consider, always, the best interests of his constituency but, usually he will have to adopt a utilitarian approach to do that ~ the greatest good for the greatest number sort of thing;

2. Vote his party's position - the one on which he ran and the one one which he got elected - whenever he, in good conscience and with due consideration of the needs of his constituency, can; and

3. Always vote as his conscience (his honour or integrity or whatever term you want to use) dictates.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
But put yourself in Burke's shoes, please: when your conscience, or your good judgement, or your knowledge of the full scope and details of a problem tells you that your constituents are wrong then should you really vote as they wish? It doesn't have to be in a parliament: suppose you are on a ship or unit committee, the people you represent say "we want this" but you have looked at the budget and at the regulations and you know you mates are wrong - sincere, but wrong - what do you say? How do you vote in that committee: as "they" wish or in a manner which you know to be responsible and best for everyone.
I have stood on many committees over the years.  And as I was there to represent as voice for the others, I acted as such inasmuch as I made it clear what their wishes and desires were.  You're right it was not always possible to give them what they wanted for various reasons, however, their voice was heard by proxy through me. 

If my wishes and beliefs do not concur with the majority of my fellow citizens, that's just TFB for me on this occasion.  Things won't always jive with the herd, if they do then that's golden.  But, however, if whomever is sent to Ottawa to stand in my stead is going to do as he's damn well told by the Party or what he wants to do all the time what's the sense of having our present form of democracy?  It then ceases to be representational and is less than democratic in my view. 
 
All this being said I'm going to ask Meagan Leslie why she voted against it. She comes out to support us on a regular basis and constantly profess her admiration of our veterans.
 
http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/421128--toronto-war-memorial-vandalized-in-hate-crime-police-say

Scum walk among us.
 
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/12/coronation-park-war-memorial-defaced-canada-will-burn-praise-allah

Much more in depth.
 
The police officer quoted in that story may be a bit out of his depth on the 'hate crime' laws. Such laws are very limited. First and foremost, you can only really be brought up on 'hate crimes' if you're *inciting* hatred, which 'Canada will burn, praise Allah' definitely doesn't equate to.

Under the sentencing principles that can increase a sentence for other offense if hate is a motivation, 'veterans' wouldn't be categorized as one of our enumerated 'identifiable groups' for such laws- nor would the language used in this case of vandalism be bale to be deemed to be distinctly targeted at veterans, either.

So hate crime? No, not in any way that matters under the law. Legally this should be treated as would any other vandalism case.

Still scum though.
 
Saying Canada will burn is hate, and is said by only enemies and traitors to this country in my opinion. Its these people who conspire to kill hundreds and thousands of inoccent people in our own backyards, while they benefit from our ways of life, and freedoms. Makes me sick.

RIP to the soldiers  :brit poppy:
 
Occam said:
http://openparliament.ca/ is a good alternative to the recently closed http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/.  Details on this particular vote are here - http://openparliament.ca/bills/votes/41-1/487/
This link includes the statements made in Parliament: http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-217/?page=1
The NDP vote has more to do with opposition to minimum sentencing than anything else.
 
hagan_91 said:
Saying Canada will burn is hate, and is said by only enemies and traitors to this country in my opinion. Its these people who conspire to kill hundreds and thousands of inoccent people in our own backyards, while they benefit from our ways of life, and freedoms. Makes me sick.

RIP to the soldiers  :brit poppy:

I'm not saying it's not hateful. I'm saying it's not a hate crime under Canadian law. There's a distinction.
 
Brihard said:
I'm not saying it's not hateful. I'm saying it's not a hate crime under Canadian law. There's a distinction.

Well; the latest news out of Toronto is that they ARE treating it as a "Hate Crime".


Short sound bite on the radio this morning mentioned that there were protesters at the the Remembrance Day Ceremonies in Toronto who were stopped by people attending the ceremony.  It was mentioned that these protesters were women who were Afghan immigrants/refugees.  All I can think of, is that this is like biting the hand that feeds you and WTF is going through your minds?

[edit to add]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

WORLD NEWS

Remembrance Day protest an insult to Canada's war dead

First posted: Monday, November 12, 2012 09:58 PM EST | Updated: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:22 PM EST

By Joe Warmington ,Toronto Sun 


LINK

It was spitting in the faces of Canada's 158 Afghanistan war dead and the thousands who fell in wars before them.

And done on the very day families were tearfully remembering them.

It was also grossly disrespectful to a group of veterans — aged 80 to 90 — from both World War II and the Korean War.

It was disgusting.

But freedom can be as ugly in what it must tolerate as this protest on Remembrance Day at Old City Hall was crass.

Interesting that much of this disrespect came from, seemingly, some of the very people who should have been at this ceremony saying thank you.

Instead they attempted to ruin it.

"I cannot, and will not, be silent in a ceremony used to glorify Canada¹s mission in Afghanistan, where many of my fellow Afghans were detained,
tortured and killed because of the Canadian military," explained Suraia

Sahar in an e-mail to Newstalk 1010 reporter Siobhan Morris, as well as Showgram host Jim Richards and producers Jessie Lorraine and Jordan Whelan.

Sahar wrote she and friend Laila were protesting because "there is no honour" in Remembrance Day.

"As an Afghan Canadian my anger can be justified," she wrote. "But I faced enough verbal abuse by racist, angry old white people telling me to go back
to my country, and that the Canadian military should kill more Afghans."

We have free speech here. But we also have innocent until proven guilty.

Should the police officer so concerned about a citizen filming their protest, have also checked to see if there were Taliban sympathizers at this protest?

The deadly Taliban, after all, is our enemy and responsible for many deaths.

One thing for sure is the Taliban would not have tolerated the same kind of shouting from these women at one of their important traditional ceremonies.

But freedom of speech allows Suraia and Laila the freedom to be at this ceremony and entitles them to say whatever they want — with or without
class, respect, accuracy or manners.

The war dead gave them that right — and the right of many women in Afghanistan to attend school and have a chance at a free life.

A second part of this story is the freedom to cover such a protest. Newstalk 1010's Morris did a great job of capturing the commotion — as did citizen
journalist Derek Soberal, a throwback character from the G20 and Occupy Toronto.

"I was just down there to pay my respects when I saw this dispute developing," he said.

He took out his cellphone and captured the women yelling, as well as an arrest of an individual.

He says he was threatened to be arrested by a police officer who Soberal claims demanded he send him the video.

Post G20 — where accredited journalists, photographers and cameramen were arrested, detained, punched, had guns pointed at them and threatened — there
needs to be some clarification on what are the exact rules.

What law is it that states shooting or videoing in public is a crime? Are police, without a warrant, able to retrieve someone¹s camera?

Are they able to erase images from someone¹s camera?

There doesn't seem to be a censorship law but still there are many stories like Soberal's, and like the one in the YMCA arrest captured on phones
currently before the courts, where people claim they have had their cameras confiscated and had images deleted.

"I have had two cameras broken by police," said Soberal.

Just a reminder to those who need to be reminded, it's not a police state but one that celebrates the freedom of speech and the press that has been
won thanks to the sacrifice by thousands of Canadians lying in graves around the world.

If these women supporting the Taliban¹s position are entitled to spoil a service for those who choose to remember them, a citizen capturing them do
that is okay too.

We can¹t do anything to stop people from desecrating the graves of our fallen other than to remember them and hang on to what it is they died for.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
fortuncookie5084
F
Back
Top