People are pissed. Another nail in his chance for majority rule:

quote:

---

Earlier in the evening, the Canadian co-chairman conference criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for declining an invitation to open the event.

"We are dismayed that the prime minister of Canada, Mr. Stephen Harper, is not here this evening," said Dr. Mark Wainberg at the Rogers Centre.

"Mr. Harper, the role of prime minister includes the responsibility to show leadership on the world stage. Your absence sends a message that you do not regard HIV/AIDS as a critical priority and clearly all of us here tonight disagree with you," he said, prompting a standing ovation from the crowd.

People crowded the front of the stage, carrying signs that read "Sleep in Steve? HIV Never Sleeps!"

---

Harper Under Fire

Bill Clinton will be presenting today. And where is our shit for brains leader? Not interested it seems.

And from the Toronto Sun:

quote:

---

Two Liberal leadership hopefuls stood outside the Rogers Centre and chided Harper for his behaviour.

Scott Brison, a Nova Scotia MP, said Harper's decision not to attend the conference sends a clear message to Canadians about the government's stance on HIV/AIDS.

"Stephen Harper's absence here tonight demonstrates a shocking lack of leadership and an appalling lack of compassion," Brison said.

St. Paul's MP Carolyn Bennett said she believes Harper decided not to attend because of the stigma attached to AIDS, and the connection between it and homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
I guess no one should be surprised but just in case anyone needs further evidence that our current "leader" is a complete and utter sham of a politician, Stevie decided he didn't have to show up at the world's most importnat conference.

People are pissed. Another nail in his chance for majority rule:

---

quote:

---

People are pissed. Another nail in his chance for majority rule:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

God I hate that man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
I'd like to think so too, but if you're at a World HIV/AIDs conference... Likely that you're already socially awake enough not to vote for Harper in the first place ^^

---

Yes, I agree. And furthermore, the people that did vote for Harper probably don't give a shit about HIV/AIDS and still think of it as the "gay disease", so none of them would be at the conference anyway.

Bill Gates put a lot of focus on issues of women's rights and finding ways to ensure that they can protect themselves against infection. He and his wife Melinda spoke a lot more pointedly than I was expecting about harm reduction approaches and eliminating the stigma of HIV. Melinda's speech in particular was quite political, and in a good way.

Tony Clement was booed and jeered by a sizeable group all the way through his speech, which was nice to see.

When Mulroney spoke at the AIDS conference in 1989, activists booed him and chanted "too little, too late", and some unfurled a banner saying "Mulroney = Death".

When Jean Chrétien refused to attend the Vancouver AIDS Conference, and sent David Dingwall as his replacement, activists shouted 'shame' while he was speaking.

quote:

---

Tony Clement was booed and jeered by a sizeable group all the way through his speech, which was nice to see.

---

It's becoming more and more apparent that people are only upset about the PM's absence because of the lost opportunity to boo him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dackle:

It's becoming more and more apparent that people are only upset about the PM's absence because of the lost opportunity to boo him.

I'm going to boo the PM and say he's a horrible leader because he didn't show up at the Aids conference so I could boo him and call him a horrible leader.

---

I am led to believe only the ollowing NEITHER the liberals or the cons give a damn about HIV AIDS and the war against it.

As far as I am concerned any Lib pol who is talking now and was an MP in '96 had better have a paper trail condemning their leader for the same thing.

quote:

---

It's becoming more and more apparent that people are only upset about the PM's absence because of the lost opportunity to boo him.

---

quote:

---

Oh, how interchangeable the two parties are.

---

quote:

---

Neither the Liberal PM of the day Jean Chretien had the decency to show up in Vancouver in '96 nor the Conservative PM Harper does not show up in Toronto.

---

I fail to see how showing up for the world's most important conference on a deadly disease which affects millions of people would have been 'bad' for him. Is the right wing going to hnestly say out loud and in the papers that Stevie Harper not showing up was some kind of positive moral stance? Even they are too cowardly to expose their biases so clearly to the rest of the world.

The leader of the host country chooses to be absent.

If I were a conference attendee from another country I would expect the elected leader to be here, out of respect, out of a sense of humanity. The fact that Chretien didn't show 10 years ago and Harper didn't show now is embarrassing and shameful.

quote:

---

dackle: It's becoming more and more apparent that people are only upset about the PM's absence because of the lost opportunity to boo him.

---

Not so fast there. By not showing up, the Prime Minister effectively put the kibosh on visiting Heads of State. Protocol means that a visiting Head of State cannot attend if the host PM does not show up.

So, as a direct result of the non action of PM Harper, the first female head of state in African history, the President of Liberia, was not able to attend the Conference. She's probably not the only one, either. That's not just "booing" from people who wouldn't vote for Harper anyway. What a shitbag.

No woman in Canada should vote for this asshole in protest of this inaction alone.

Correction: no one should vote for him.

This is a Prime Minister who would not honour Canadian dead by allowing the flag to be flown at half mast; a Prime Minister who tried to prevent public grieving of the loss of Canadian lives; a Prime Minster who did not even raise his voice, puny though it might have been, against the killing of an unarmed Canadian observer-soldier by Israel; a Prime Minister who openly muses about taking away hard won rights of equality for same sex marriage and, now, a Prime Minster who snubs an African hero, a first for that great continent, out of his own peevish set of neocon priorities. He shames all Canadians.

[ 14 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

So, as a direct result of the non action of PM Harper, the first female head of state in African history, the President of Liberia, was not able to attend the Conference.

---

quote:

---

Gene Long: "There is a protocol issue when there are visiting heads of state in an official function to be greeted by the prime minister,'' he told the Globe.

---

Chretien did the same thing back in 1996:

quote:

---

The decision by former prime minister Jean Chretien to skip the same conference in 1996 caused Nelson Mandela, South Africa's president at the time, to pull out.

---

Interestingly, former PM Mulroney DID address the 1989 meeting in Montreal.

CTV story (from the Globe and Mail I think)

quote:

---

Gene Long, a spokesman for the 16th annual International AIDS conference, said an invitation was sent "to the Prime Minister's Office to participate in the opening, to have the Prime Minister welcome the delegates and to open the conference.''

But he recently "received a letter that he (Harper) would not be attending," Long told the Globe and Mail in a report published Friday.

Harper's spokeswoman Sandra Buckler said she was unaware that her boss had declined the invitation to the August conference.

"We never confirm the prime minister's schedule until we get closer to an event that we're going to do,'' she told the Globe.

---

“I don’t understand WHY Harper would want to speak if this was what he knew he would encounter? Plus, the people who might vote for him aren’t here, and he would probably lose votes from his neo-con base if he showed up. So it’s a no-win situation.”

I took the bait, and started to explain the responsibilities of a national leader during an event like this, the concept of the “mushy middle” and that he needs to court more votes from the centre if he hopes to win a majority, and besides, HIV/AIDS is not nor should be an issue that divides along partisan lines…but gave up because I was more interested in what was happening on stage and throughout the stadium at the time (it was a fabulous event).

Today, we were talking with an acquaintance who is a long time conservative and Harper supporter, and to my knowledge has given nary a thought to HIV/AIDS issues. Out of the blue he mentions that he was dumbstruck that Harper didn’t show, and that he couldn’t imagine ever supporting him in the future. No argument from me could have persuaded my friend more about Harper’s stupidity than this exchange.

What an idiot the man is!

Out of interest, were there any other heads of state attending the conference? If so, did they have any protocol issues. If not, why was the President of Liberia the ony head of state attending?

[ 14 August 2006: Message edited by: Jooge ]

[ 14 August 2006: Message edited by: Jooge ]

Please turn your away, folks. I want to (...) on HIS smirky face !

[ 14 August 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Boom Boom: I think that protocol argument is false. Anyway, if the GG is there, she can welcome any visiting head of state.

... I also believe she has the authority by way of her position to welcome any head of state who may wish to attend, so I don't believe that's an issue whatsoever.

---

Maybe you can substantiate your claim with better arguments other than "I believe" and so on. The Conference spokesman made a specific reference to protocol requirements and was not challenged on it THEN or NOW.

quote:

---

Jooge: It was widely known back in June that he wasn't going to attend so why all the shock and horror now?

---

What are you, tag team with Boom Boom? It's a issue now because the Conference is on and some people aren't there ... because the PM isn't there. As simple as that. And one of the people who isn't there is the female President of Liberia, the first female Head of State in African history.

Oh wait, HE DID:

quote:

---

Health Minister Tony Clement attended the conference on the government's behalf. Earlier Sunday, he told CBC the government had sent adequate representation.

---

quote:

---

Stephen Lewis is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to implement a four-point Canadian AIDS program approved by Parliament but not put into effect because of a "delinquent" and "hypocritical" inaction at top government levels in Ottawa. "I actually believed, with a kind of charming innocence, that the government of Canada would really take this seriously," he said. "I made a significant error in judgment."

---

quote:

---

Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.

---

Canada's Order of Precedence:

quote:

---

1. The Governor General of Canada or the Administrator of the Government of Canada

2. The Prime Minister of Canada

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:
Tony Clement was booed and jeered by a sizeable group all the way through his speech, which was nice to see.

---

People relentlessly complain about Harper not attending but at the same time they make it clear that if he attends he'll be booed.

Now, if I'm Harper, why would I show up, get jeered by a bunch of activists and look like an idiot on the 11 o clock news. I get bad press if I don't go - but I'll also get bad press if I do go. So why go?

I have not followed the list of those attending close enough but I am wondering which senior Democrats and Repugs are at the conference. We know that Bush is not there. Clinton is a past pres so in my opinion does not count.

Is Nancy Pelosi the next Speaker of the House of Reps or Harry Reid next Senate Majority Leader in attendance?

I also wonder if any of the top Canadian business people are making their presence known like Bill Gates in both words and deeds. Calling Ted Rogers, Calling the Thompson family, calling Gerry and Heather, calling Galen Weston, Calling Jeff Skol of Ebay fame and last and certainly not least Calling the Irving Family.

Now if all have given money and time etc then I apoligize to besmerching their reputations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
If teenagers are talking about it on the street, there are probably some legs.

---

quote:

---

I cannot believe you guys are actually defending his stance on not get booed. Too bad for him.

---

Question (or musing)... I wonder if it's possible to make this issue into a voting issue, and not just some sideline issue Harper feels fine ignoring.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
If teenagers are talking about it on the street, there are probably some legs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
...The Prime Minister is honouring his commitments in Canada's North, so the a senior cabinet minister with the most relevant portfolio attends on the government's behalf. Imagine that.

---

quote:

---

Gir Draxon: Harper had previous engagments, so the least he could do would be to send the Minister of Health.

---

This is a barefaced lie. The planning for the Conference took place long before Stephen Harper ever became Prime Minister. The Conference was public knowledge, and it was well known that previous PM Mulroney DID attend a previous Conference, just as PM Chretien DID NOT attend.

Harper snubbed the Conference and by so doing PREVENTED the President of Liberia, important not only as the first female Head of State in African History but also as a significant politician from a part of sub-Saharan Africa so profoundly ravaged by the AIDS public health epidemic, from attending and opening this Conference.

Moving on, Stephen Gordon's remarks are skillfully misleading as well. Here's why, as best as I can figure out:

First of all, the claim made by the Conference organizers is part of the public record. I've quoted some statements already. Here is another from today's Winnipeg Free Press:

quote:

---

Her non attendance is really a direct consequence of Mr. Harper not being here," said Dr. Mark Wainberg, head of the McGill University Centre for AIDS and the Conference co-chair. "I think, honestly, that he made a political mistake by not coming ..."

---

OK. So the Conference organizers themselves make the claim. Perhaps they didn't make a fuss until it was clear that the quisling in 24 Sussex Drive wasn't going to change his mind. But there's more:

quote:

---

The conference was "elated" when President Johnson-Sirleaf, Africa's first female head of state and a representative of the AIDS-ravaged sub-Saharan region, agreed to attend.

But her office later withdrew, indicating that she would not come to a foreign country if the head of government would not be there to meet with her.

---

So it looks very much like it is a question as well of the international and/or Liberian protocol for such visits, not just Canadian protocol, that is guiding the actions of the President of Liberia.

In any case, the Governor-General was at the conference. If her presence was enough for the protocol requirements involving the President of Liberia to be met, then she would undoubtedly have come and honoured us by her presence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
Question (or musing)... I wonder if it's possible to make this issue into a voting issue, and not just some sideline issue Harper feels fine ignoring.

---

The only party that can do this is the NDP. If the Liberals attempt to use this then the Cons will throw the Chretien snub right back at them.

I hope that the NDP attacks both the Libs and Cons over their leaders being too busy to go.

quote:

---

johnpauljones: I wonder if it's possible to make this issue into a voting issue ...

---

There is now a veritable litany of things that the current PM has done, or NOT done, that falls into the category of moral "opprobrium" or disgrace. I've already enumerated a mini-list on this thread.

This is a Prime Minister who would not honour Canadian dead by allowing the flag to be flown at half mast; a Prime Minister who tried to prevent public grieving of the loss of Canadian lives; a Prime Minster who did not even raise his voice, puny though it might have been, against the killing of an unarmed Canadian observer-soldier by Israel; a Prime Minister who openly muses about taking away hard won rights of equality for same sex marriage and, now, a Prime Minster who snubs an African hero, a first for that great continent, out of his own peevish set of neocon priorities. He shames all Canadians.

By the time this Prime Minister faces the Canadian people there will be a list "as long as your arm" suitable for walloping this US "Yes" man, this "Chester" Harper to "Spike" Bush, this Canadian poodle, this quisling, this neoconservative ideologue. He just needs to be beat around the head and shoulders with his own "albatross" of (in)actions.

quote:

---

So it looks very much like it is a question as well of the international and/or Liberian protocol for such visits, not just Canadian protocol, that is guiding the actions of the President of Liberia.

In any case, the Governor-General was at the conference. If her presence was enough for the protocol requirements involving the President of Liberia to be met, then she would undoubtedly have come and honoured us by her presence.

---

So the President of Liberia not recognizing our Head of State as our Head of State is somehow Harper's fault?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

There is now a veritable litany of things that the current PM has done, or NOT done, that falls into the category of moral "opprobrium" or disgrace. I've already enumerated a mini-list on this thread.

---

NB I am responding to the issue of attendance at the conference only. If the Libs try to use this one issue it will fail since they have no track record to defend either.

Only the NDP can use this and I would think that they also have a list a mile wide to use against Harper.

quote:

---

dackle: So the President of Liberia not recognizing our Head of State as our Head of State is somehow Harper's fault?

---

That's just obtuse. Look more carefully. Stephen Gordon did, with his links to the GG role, etc., even if his reference is ultimately misleading. The quote from today's Winnipeg Free Press mentions

"But her office later withdrew, indicating that she would not come to a foreign country if the head of government would not be there to meet with her."

The office of the Prime Minister would know very well exactly what the protocol would be for Canadian purposes as well as for Liberian purposes. A visiting dignitary at that level would be treated with careful consideration else risk offending or creating an international incident.

Head of Government. Head of State. Canadian protocol. Liberian protocol. It's all so confusing, isn't it? Let's just put our trust in Prime Minister Harper, shall we?

I think not. And I'm betting that a majority of Canadians will agree with me whenever Harper finally faces the wrath of Canadians at the polls. Then he can slink back to the Nazional Citizen's Coalition or whatever it's called now.

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I think not. And I'm betting that a majority of Canadians will agree with me whenever Harper finally faces the wrath of Canadians at the polls. Then he can slink back to the Nazional Citizen's Coalition or whatever it's called now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Do shut up; there's a good chap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

I hope feverishly that you are right. If he and his party are ultimately re-elected, and particularly to a majority, I'm afraid I just won't know what to think of this country, anymore.

---

quote:

---

As Kenehan has pointed out, it really depends what street, where, and who. A politically active teen would likely be an activist of some form (otherwise I doubt they'd care about politics)... And then you're just getting back to the ground where the only people that care are the ones already not voting for Harper.

---

Yea, that would be grim. Still, elections aren't the only way to "do" politics and, furthermore, for many people in our current FPTP system, elections may not be the best vehicle for long term change for the better anyway. Not that I'm able to elaborate a complete or coherent path forward from the socialist perspective; there's a dynamic aspect to politics that can't be grasped by theory alone. Furthermore, there are lots of others with a better/broader sociopolitical "view" than the one I have.

There is a sizable and perhaps growing part of the Canadian population that treat FPTP elections as not worth their efforts. That's just as disturbing/alarming as the election of this or that neocon.

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: Stephen ... I don't know why you always get away with that shit around here. Uncredentialed trolls get turfed for such behaviour.

---

I didn't know that Stephen's exclamation violates any babble rules. I suppose I could check. My mischevious side thinks that it is a backhanded, grudging and hard-earned compliment and therefore I'd want it to stay. Ha ha. But then I get confused when it is followed by what reads like a thin-skinned whine. Michelle sternly chided me when I mentioned the circumstances surrounding a previous remark by Stephen wherein he described himself as a "pinyata" (spelling?) - but if someone willingly makes himself a target then he can hardly complain when someone else gets a bullseye.

Well, this place has definitely been through a shit-storm and I guess the long-term impacts are still working themselves out.

I think it's interesting that people who are obviously more centre-ish keep posting. I'm inclined to think that says something positive about (many of) them, in that they feel a kinship with the place even though most people get annoyed at their not-that-lefty perspective.

Personally, I haven't noticed much fawning over S.G., except for one comment months ago that Magoo made - something about his being a tenured professor. I didn't take it seriously, probably because I'm one myself and I certainly don't take myself seriously just because of that.

...ok...enough thread drift.

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]

Hmm. A conference with Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Stephen Lews ......... anyone else consider that Harper might not cut much of a distinguished figure in that group.

But it's too late for the President of Liberia to open the conference. And that's too bad.

PS - LTJ check your PMs.

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[reply to Boom Boom. There's been a few intervening contributions.]

Yea, that would be grim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
"But her office later withdrew, indicating that she would not come to a foreign country if the head of government would not be there to meet with her."
[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
In a word? Yes.

---

Isn't that a little egotistical? Hang on a minute, which question were you answering?

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: Jooge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:
Maybe this is my own prejudice, but they were coming out of a tanning salon and wearing Lululemon outfits. Not generally the type I associate with politically engaged, but again that might be my prejudice.

---

Maclean's did a mega-post-mortem of the 2006 election and (among other tidbits) it revealed that the Tories had divided voters into "types" based on polling. The one "type" they gave up on was young single women in their 20s who live in downtown urban centres.

quote:

---

Not really "Tim Horton" voters are they?

---

No, but they are also not the politically engaged champagne socialist type voter we would often associate with this type of issue. In fact, I would say they are pretty representative of a lot of GTA voters.

quote:

---

get made in Canada solutions to all the world's problems

---

(For the record, I think Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's excuse is equally weak. She made it to this conference in London just a few weeks ago and UK PM Tony Blair wasn't there. Why does she now only attend conferences with a Head of State present?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Noting wrong with Timmy's - I love the place, and it's probably much healthier than the burger joints.

---

My only beef with them is that they are owned by an American corporation (Wendy's), and had a string of billboards in the last few years playing on the 'patriotism' of going to Tim Horton's - i.e. a picture of a TH cup of coffee with the slogan 'True, Patriot Love.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
My only beef with them is that they are owned by an American corporation (Wendy's), and had a string of billboards in the last few years playing on the 'patriotism' of going to Tim Horton's - i.e. a picture of a TH cup of coffee with the slogan 'True, Patriot Love.'

---

Wow! I never saw those. Were they in Canada or the US? I'd steal some of those anti-SUV bumperstickers and put them on those billboards, instead, if I could.

[ 16 August 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenehan:

Now, if I'm Harper, why would I show up, get jeered by a bunch of activists and look like an idiot on the 11 o clock news. I get bad press if I don't go - but I'll also get bad press if I do go. So why go?

---

Also,

quote:

---

Perhaps he didn't feel like having his speech drowned out by boos, over his SSM stance...

---

Yeah, because Clinton did so much for this issue during his Presidency.

And please, Canadian leaders get booed ALL THE TIME. Martin and the Grey Cup, anyone? It's a rite of passage.

[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: glacier76 ]