# Little page girl holds up sign "Stop Harper"



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Yesterday, it was all over the news. During the throne speech, a little
page girl holds up a red octogon sign.. "STOP HARPER".....now the
"stop" should have replaced with another word that is synonym to "whacK'
..but that of course would have gotten her into deep do-do, including being
charged with death threats.

I haveta give her credit though..it was a brave thing to do. I don't know
if the networks had their cameras in there as well as the parliamentary feed,
but she has "balls" to do it. Of course she was escorted out and fired later,
but nevertheless, I'm glad that there is somebody who at least in principle
will stand up to "the leader" of this great nation.

Apparently she was offered a job by the opposition? ..or somebody.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

I think She was rather stupid, and what exactly did She want Harper to stop doing?

The opportunity this job may have afforded to some one who would have lived up to its' responsibilities were squandered by this obviously immature, petulant Female.

I would assume She will soon join the ranks of NDP MP's??


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

While not the most effective of actions, I think it was fabulous what she did.

No laws were broken, but she did voice her opinion, albeit a simplistic one.

I am happy to see people willing to take more unconventional methods of action, if within the structure of our laws.

It is better to see someone so young active and engaged, rather than been ambivalent and removed. Hopefully in the future, she can learn to use more effective ways to evoke political change.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Let's not be patronizing. This was not a little girl, it is a 21 year old woman.

I think this was unprofessional. She is an employee, and when you're working you agree not to act in a way that casts a bad light on your employer. She's been terminated, and deservedly so.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I wonder about some hints of misogyny I hear on this forum.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Report 'em when you see 'em. This is why I like the upvote/downvote paradigm, so I can give out downvotes to ridiculous posts.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm Howard said:


> I think *She was rather stupid*, and what exactly did She want Harper to stop doing?
> 
> The opportunity this job may have afforded to some one who would have lived up to its' responsibilities were squandered by this obviously immature, petulant Female.
> 
> I would assume She will soon join the ranks of NDP MP's??


Or maybe "smart"..but she needed to get fired first. In a short media interview
later, she mentioned that she hated Harper (for something)...anyway,
she's now being wooed by yes..the NDP as a..wait for it.."media spokesperson"..at some undisclosed salary..probably around $112k a year,
compared to her hourly rate as a "go-fer"/page...

so it's the old story again..huh?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Sampson said:


> It is better to see someone so young active and engaged, rather than been ambivalent and removed. Hopefully in the future, she can learn to use more effective ways to evoke political change.


you mean like getting a cushy $117K a year job as a NDP member of some
unknown Quebec riding..that she has never visited...nothing like Layton 
"stacking the deck" for the next showdown in 4 years time. At least this
one has some experience in parliament compared to the bartender at
Carleton U.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Let's not be patronizing. This was not a little girl, it is a 21 year old woman. /quote]
> 
> Ok, she was a 21 year old dressed in cute pigtails as a little girl.....
> hmmm..never mind..maybe I'll just take a cold shower.
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I wonder about some hints of misogyny I hear on this forum.


Now wait a minute....I don't really hate em' (although I was accused by
one forum member that I did)..hence my sig...saves them the trouble of
accusing me again..

I just want to use them the way I was used!
Besides..at my age I can be persuaded to go either way..
miss-so-gnynist or lecher....
either way, it works for me.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Report 'em when you see 'em. This is why I like the upvote/downvote paradigm, so I can give out downvotes to ridiculous posts.



THIS IS A "DRIVE BY" POST...Bajng! Bajng! 

similar to an Amish drive by shooting.."bang! bang!...clip-clop! clip-clop!


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I have some small admiration for the rebellious gesture. But I also agree it was highly inappropriate behaviour for a Page. if she could not subsume her personal political beliefs and serve all Parliamentarians in a non-partisan manner she should never have applied to be a Page, nor been accepted as one.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I agree with OGG. This was inappropriate and disrespectful. We just had an election last month, the people have spoken. Time to get on with the business of the country.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well as Trudeau was overheard to say.."Fuddyduddy"..or facsimilie. 
Even if she was considered a "1%er" and a "rebellious page" at that...
(hmm? maybe she deserves to be taken over one's knee and spanked
for her outrageous behaviour?) 
nevetheless, she was later heard to say over an interview...

"[Prime Minister Stephen] Harper's agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation," DePape, who also goes by Brigette Marcelle, said in the statement.

*"We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate."*The release stated DePape had been a page for a year but didn't believe she could change the system from within.

------------*SHAMEFULL! SHAMEFULL! Here! Here!..<loud thumping of parliamentary woodwork everywhere>..."we should put her on trial!"*

The Speaker of the Senate, meanwhile, expressed embarrassment over the stunt.

"The incident raises serious security concerns which the Senate will fully investigate," Noel Kinsella said in a statement."

------------and the investigation continues...

How did she gain access to the Senate? CSIS and the RCMP should be
involved to investigate this incidence of subversion!!

Perhaps?...no?..could it be?.., Jack Layton on March 21, 2011.. compared the Harper Gov't similar in tactics to the regime that prompted the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Canada_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada_Rebellion

and after that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion

Louis Riel, a MP up until 1874, led the rebellion and he was hanged by
the gov't of John A. for treason....


now back to 2011....what to do with this rebellious page?...the death penalty
has been abolished., so we can't do that..

Does the charter of rights and freedoms..mean free speech for all citizens?

Should we consider that this "little brat with her rebellious nature" 
has a right to ..ahem!..FREE SPEECH OR EXPRESSION?

and what does STOP HARPER really mean? Rise up and form a rebellion
against him after he has just been given a majority to do as he pleases?

Off with her head?..maybe off with all the heads that oppose him?

"Canada's aversion to free speech has two legislative sources. The “hate literature” sections of the Criminal Code prohibit any communication that may expose a person to hatred because of colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Since a Crown attorney is not required to prove either specific intent or actual harm, this section has a chilling effect on free speech, even though prosecutions are infrequent.

Even more totalitarian are the provisions of provincial human-rights legislation; these statutes routinely dispense with most of the safeguards built into the criminal law, including the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, an impartial court, and truth as a defence. *The cost of defending oneself before kangaroo tribunals will incline most people to keep quiet."*

Not that long ago, in a nation not that far away...opposition meant death to those that would even think of that! The sound of jack boots on the pavement...


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

I'd be careful about opposing the government. The Harper government is debating on whether to update the laws on treason !!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/05/31/high-treason-tories-conservative_n_868987.html


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I agree with OGG. This was inappropriate and disrespectful. We just had an election last month, the people have spoken. Time to get on with the business of the country.


I don't think that has anything to do it. We're allowed to oppose the government outside of the writ. It's our duty as citizens to keep a close eye on what they are doing on our behalf.

The problem here is that she is employed to be a servant of the House, and she failed in that duty. It's like a clerk at a store telling a customer to f-off.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

slacker said:


> I'd be careful about opposing the government. The Harper government is debating on whether to update the laws on treason !!
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/05/31/high-treason-tories-conservative_n_868987.html


Yeah, that power will never be abused.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

slacker said:


> I'd be careful about opposing the government. The Harper government is debating on whether to update the laws on treason !!
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/05/31/high-treason-tories-conservative_n_868987.html


Ah!..so that is the reason behind the new "superjails"...these will be
perhaps now as "work camps" or koncentrationlagers"...

From Wiki:
Originally Nazi concentration camps were established to hold political 
prisoners and *opponents of the regime*."
"number of camps quadrupled between 1939 and 1942 as Jews, political prisoners, criminals, homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally ill and others were incarcerated, generally without trial or judicial process." <end of extract. 

Do we expect the gov't of Kanada to issue pictures of Mr. Harper to hang
on our walls to salute every morning?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> The problem here is that she is employed to be a servant of the House, and she failed in that duty. It's like a clerk at a store telling a customer to f-off.


No, it is not exactly the same as that Andrew. 
Insulting a customer is one thing, but holding up a sign so that the viewers can think about what is happening is well within her rights to protest in a peaceful
manner, well, at least for now..until it becomes a "crime" to speak out in protest. 
We are still allowed to protest at least for the time being..
until the machine gun squads come out, like in other countries.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Even the opposition, whose job it is to oppose the government, remains respectful during this ceremony. This young lady swore an oath to respect parliament. If she couldn't abide by that she simply shouldn't have taken the job. Since when has non-performance of duties (that she was paid to do) and breaking oaths become laudable?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Spidey said:


> Even the opposition, whose job it is to oppose the government, remains respectful during this ceremony. *This young lady swore an oath to respect parliament.* If she couldn't abide by that she simply shouldn't have taken the job. Since when has non-performance of duties (that she was paid to do) and breaking oaths become laudable?


Where does it say in this document that pages (more than likely a summer
university student gov't job) have to swear an oath?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=12&Language=E


Yes, MPs do, so do senators..an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen,
but she was employed as a senate page (gofer) and that is basically just a job.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

This world is upside down & frankly, I'm sick of it. Where are the days when people [young & not so young alike] had more respect and had to suffer consequences of their actions? 

Today it seems that all one needs to do is misbehave to get rich & famous; ok., this may apply more to Hollywood, but the same seems to apply to regular people, do something bad/inappropriate and a flood of job offers will come your way [after you get fired first]; spill your hot MCD coffee while driving, no problemo, just sue and you'll retire with $1M. The good people seem to get little or no attention/recognition while the bad ones get rewarded.

This 21 year old woman does not seem bright to me at all and I doubt she'll inspire other young people with her behaviour. I have to agree with the comment below [from NP]:

"DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab Spring.” That’s right, we should all take to the streets and demand free and fair elections — you know, like the one we had on May 2. Now you’d think that a college student would know that we enjoy the freedom and system of government that thousands of Arabs are fighting, and dying, to achieve."

I'm not saying she has no right to criticize & exercise her voice, but I can think of a million other ways she could have expressed her thoughts & there are many tangible ways in which she could be making a difference [assuming she's really concerned about anything and maybe she's doing idk].


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

carverman said:


> Where does it say in this document that pages (more than likely a summer
> university student gov't job) have to swear an oath?
> 
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=12&Language=E
> ...



A comment at the National Post (from another forum):

_There is nothing commendable in her behavior. When she took the job she undertook an oath to serve and respect the interests and traditions of parliament. She most certainly wasn't awarded this most coveted position in order that she could promote her own agenda in flagrant disrespect for the institution that so generously hired her. There is no honor or courage in betraying a trust. Her acts were motivated not by high principle but rather by selfishness that refuses to accept public duty over personal convictions and the ignorance that flows from confusing the exploitation of opportunity with courage._


There seems to be a tendency to think that (what usually would be considered to be) unethical actions are acceptable when taken against large institutions. For example, let's say you own a small business, "Carverman's Burgers". You hire this girl, who in the interview promises to work hard and do a great job. Impressed with her attitude, you pay her reasonably well. The next afternoon you walk in and find that instead of serving customers, you find her holding a sign saying "Eating beef promotes unethical treatment of animals". If you don't like the burger example you could extrapolate it to almost any business. Somehow I don't think you would find it so cute if she was your employee.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I wonder about some hints of misogyny I hear on this forum.


Really?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I loved your example Spidey and I bet he would fire such employee in a NY minute.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> No, it is not exactly the same as that Andrew.
> Insulting a customer is one thing, but holding up a sign so that the viewers can think about what is happening is well within her rights to protest in a peaceful
> manner, well, at least for now..until it becomes a "crime" to speak out in protest.
> We are still allowed to protest at least for the time being..
> until the machine gun squads come out, like in other countries.


She's allowed to protest on her own time. I'm not allowed to represent my employer in my private activities, neither should she be able to use her position for her personal goals.

It's not illegal to have an opinion, and it's not illegal for an employer to expect you to keep that opinion to yourself while you're on the job.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Spidey said:


> A comment at the National Post (from another forum):
> 
> _There is nothing commendable in her behavior. When she took the job she undertook an oath to serve and respect the interests and traditions of parliament. Her acts were motivated not by high principle but rather by selfishness that refuses to accept public duty over personal convictions and the ignorance that flows from confusing the exploitation of opportunity with courage._


Well maybe so. She is an impressionable 21 year old university student..and
possibly into some politics..or there is more in the background than we know
about. Reminds me of a "few elections ago", during the debate when
Stockwell Day held up a sign "No three tier health care"..or something to 
that effect. I'm not saying that she shouldn't have been fired for pushing
her agenda during a throne speech..but she also has a right to her political
views, just like anyone else. 



> For example, let's say you own a small business, "Carverman's Burgers". You hire this girl, who in the interview promises to work hard and do a great job. Impressed with her attitude, you pay her reasonably well. The next afternoon you walk in and find that instead of serving customers, you find her holding a sign saying "*Eating beef promotes unethical treatment of animals"*. If you don't like the burger example you could extrapolate it to almost any business. Somehow I don't think you would find it so cute if she was your employee.


Well, yes, I see the point, because that action would perhaps impact my
sales and that's what I'm in business for..to sell burgers and fries..and
coffee. Of course as a private employer, I would emphasize to her that
she would be on probation for a while. So if she held up a sign as you
say, I would ask her to come into my office and discuss why the change
in attitude and if she couldn't give me a valid reason, then I would dismiss
her right there. 

I remember, my former employer (Nortel) dismissing employees that had
violated some company regulations..ie: design/selling of similar ideas/or
equipment..conflict of interest. They were summoned by the manager to
the personel office, where their badge was confiscated and they were
usually either escorted or allowed to leave with some dignity to the front
door. Their views/ideas were not the issue in the dismissal, only the
fact that they violated company rules..and for some things, there was
no temporary reprimand or warning letters given.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

[x] Federal government spends a billion dollars for photo op, fake G20 violence and incarcerates more than 700 peaceful protesters in cages with poor sanitary conditions
[x] Harper in contempt of Parliament
[x] Harper prorogues parliament 3 times to muzzle Parliament
[x] Conservative MP Bev Oda lies under oath
[x] Media lectures Page for unconventionally pointing out a broken system

A lot of people that strongly disagree with the views of their employer similarly decide to go out in style


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

ddkay said:


> [x] Federal government spends a billion dollars for photo op, fake G20 violence and incarcerates more than 700 peaceful protesters in cages with poor sanitary conditions
> [x] Harper in contempt of Parliament
> [x] Harper prorogues parliament 3 times to muzzle Parliament
> [x] Conservative MP Bev Oda lies under oath


[x] Harper wins majority government in federal elections with approx. 40% of popular vote.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

That's not really a talking point though since all elections have historically had low voter turnout: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

More like Harper wins majority government because of vote splitting..


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

The Conservatives won a majority government. The election campaign is over. It's well past time for the left-wingers to move on. Let's get back to the business of running the country instead of pandering to left-wing malcontents.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

C'mon, TRM. Diversity is a fine thing, not just for investments - it works for opinions, too.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*pro'lly off topic*

speaking of conservatives and majorities, I think the C's owe us one.

I submit that _*Inclusion of Capital Gains*_ for taxation be reduced to ZERO.

jmo

ohhh zen masta, what say you?
You will not be punished for your anger; 
you will be punished by your anger.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> A lot of people that strongly disagree with the views of their employer similarly decide to go out in style


Well in any case, she got her 5 secs of fame on the cameras..and she lost
her job because of that. I don't believe that pages have to go through
the same solemn ceremony/oath of allegiance to the crown, but she would
have to abide by some code of conduct as a parliamentary employee.

Lets just wait for 3.5 years and see how some of the people that critisized
her feel at that time when things are not quite as they should be.

As they say..absolute power..corrupts absolutely. History has proved that
time and time again.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

"Whose bright idea was it to hire pages from *universities*? They're infamous for independent thinking and "activism". - InfoAlerteBot


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I wonder about some hints of misogyny I hear on this forum.


Rusty - Misogyny


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> The Conservatives won a majority government. The election campaign is over. It's well past time for the left-wingers to move on. Let's get back to the business of running the country instead of pandering to left-wing malcontents.


This is exactly what Harper preaches, and sadly, people clearly fall for this "brush anyone who questions the Harper Government aside, they must be left-wingers" way of dismissing anyone who dares contradict or question the Harper Government in any way. 

Personally, I feel at NO point should Canadians stop questioning their government, regardless if the most recent election is over or not.

I believe Harper to be the absolute worst leader this country has ever had. His pride and lack of morals continues to astound me. As someone who had voted conserative until Harper became party leader, I, as does every other Canadian, have every right to question his tactics.

I feel strongly that if more people had become aware of what party leaders are truly like, rather than basing their votes on psychologically targeted election commercials and fake interviews (teleprompter, anyone?) then this country would be much, much better off.

As much as I detest Harper for his lack of morals, the way he roped in so many naive Canadians to vote for him is pretty impressive.

As for the news of the page who held up the sign, kudos to her. I hope more young people stand up against this monster.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

carverman said:


> Lets just wait for 3.5 years and see how some of the people that critisized her feel at that time when things are not quite as they should be.
> 
> As they say..absolute power..corrupts absolutely. History has proved that
> time and time again.


I absolutely agree. I am torn between being able to say "I told you that you would regret voting for Harper", and heart break at the thought of what this country is about to experience.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> I believe Harper to be the absolute worst leader this country has ever had. His pride and lack of morals continues to astound me. As someone who had voted conserative until Harper became party leader, I, as does every other Canadian, have every right to question his tactics.


Addy, do you really believe that Harper has fewer morals than Mulroney, who admitted to accepting an envelope stuffed with cash and then only paid tax on it several years later when he realized he was going to get found out? Or Chrétien, who led a grossly corrupt government throughout the sponsorship scandal? Harper is not my idea of an ideal prime minister, although I voted Conservative as the best of all available options, but to me his sins look pretty mild compared with those leaders.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

No one said that the government shouldn't be questioned, for goodness sake, this is Canada, not Syria.

I don't know if it was you Addy, but somebody called Mr. Harper a Hitler, now a monster; don't you think you're overreacting just a little? If you believe Mr. Harper is a monster, what do you think of the voters that made him PM 3 consecutive times? 

It's your right to dislike anyone or hate even, but I think you're using very strong language.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Karen, this government, like most governments, seems to be fairly amoral. Their primary guiding principle is gathering and consolidating power, and everything they do, and every government does, should be viewed through that prism.

Power corrupts, and it's the nice part about democracy. Eventually they become so corrupt that the people throw a new bunch of bums into office, and the cycle begins anew.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> I don't know if it was you Addy, but somebody called Mr. Harper a Hitler, now a monster; don't you think you're overreacting just a little?


I believe that was our Condescending, Arrogant, Rude, 
Vitrolic, Exasperating friend 

It is, of course, the fundamental right of every citizen to protest [by peaceful means].
However, certain protests and at certain times get ridicolous and counter-productive.
Everyone wants to be the modern day Guy Fawkes.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Andrew, I don't have any argument with what you've said. But there's a big difference between your saying that Harper's government "seems to be fairly amoral" and Addy's saying that Harper is "the absolute worst leader this country has ever had" and that his "...lack of morals continues to astound me." Toronto.gal puts it well when she questions whether some people aren't overreacting in their comments about Harper.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think Harper is a bad guy, per se. I don't agree with some of his policies and I have a distaste for his MO. But then, most politicians, and politicians with power especially, don't act in admirable ways. Hero-worshiping is a dangerous thing. Better to think they are a devil who can do no good than to think they are an angel that can do no wrong.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I can understand a little of the bitterness following the election but I have a hard time comprehending terms such as "monster". (This is, after all, a man who shelters homeless kittens.) Of course, some criticism is, at times, warranted but it's not as though it was a choice between Harper and someone who walked on water. The other choices were Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe. Given those alternatives, Harper was the best candidate and that's why Canadians gave him a majority. Simple as that.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Spidey said:


> The other choices were Ignatieff, Layton or Duceppe. Given those alternatives, Harper was the best candidate and that's why Canadians gave him a majority. Simple as that.


+1! 

@Harold, I don't recall, but I don't think it was Carver as I seem to recall he was critical of the Hitler comment too.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Spidey said:


> Harper was the best candidate and that's why Canadians gave him a majority. Simple as that.


The problem with this is that we don't live in a country with a prime ministerial democracy. But this debate has already been had in a different thread.

If I get back to the original topic, look how much discussion this action has spurred in this forum, discussion is never a bad thing, and the price to pay, broken tradition. The woman was fired, and accordingly so, but people sure are engaged.

I'm sure even people that didn't vote have an opinion on this action, that's alot more discussion than the election itself generated.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

All good points Sampson. I suspect the reason there is so much controversy here is due to the forum that was used. It bears repeating that the JOB of a page is to serve parliament in a *non-partisan* way. She did not follow this key element of her job description.

Most people will be fired if they do not follow key elements of their job description. The workplace is not the place for protesting.

And people wonder why Prime Minister Harper had to screen people based on their backgrounds and Internet content. Expect more of this in the future and for pages to be under more scrutiny in the future pre and post-hire. Of course, the detractors will use this reaction to further vilify Prime Minister Harper (seems to be a favourite thing for a certain group of people on the Internet) as being "controlling" etc etc similar to the comments herein.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hey, I'm a 'detractor' and I don't condone or support what this page did.

And there is a world of difference between not allowing partisan antics from servants of Parliament and hiding from Canadians during an election campaign. You shouldn't have to be a card-carrying Conservative to get within eye-shot of your Prime Minister.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

I have a button similiar to her sign.

But there is a time and a place for everything and her actions are way out of bounds. This was a speach from the throne, she doesn't just attack Harper but she insults the crown itself.

Her action are not one that anybody who respects democracy should reward. 

I didn't vote for Harper in the last election but he won a majority and I respect his right to govern.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Hey come on...

To scrutinize her for doing inappropriate actions at the work place...I don't buy that as a big enough reason for this action to receive this much flak. She was let go, that was the consequence, and it was her decision to make an action with resulting effects. 

Just because it is the Parliament, I don't believe it is at a higher standard or practice and 'tradition'. Or do we hold our Parliament and Parliamentarians up to a higher stature than the average citizen or average employer?

How many of us CMF'ers visit the blog on company time? And how many of us are permitted to do so?

I'll bet you many of us are breaking TOU agreements with our employers by being here, thankfully, I'm not one of them


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Isn't it the good voters in GTA that we have to thank for the majority government? Let's hear from them.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

I will accept responsibility for ensuring that Layton and Iggy did not get in, tha the PQ were decimated, and that a Government can finally govern.


----------

