babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Fortier currently ineligible for Senate

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fortier currently ineligible for Senate
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 11 February 2006 07:22 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently he doesnt own the 4K worth of land as required by our archaic constitution.

Which leaves me with a bit of a quandry. Assuming he gets the land somewhat inapproriately, ie, from a Con or a Con backer, or gets the loan to buy the land from a Con or corporate Con backer, should we complain about his circumventing the rules,

Or do we say its a stupid rule/law anyway and deserves to be ignored/wored around?


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Triz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10214

posted 11 February 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Triz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe I get to be the first person to respond to this but 1) very much hoping it is true; if true, 2) I will be laughing right through next week. (Although a bit embarrassed as I've been sure till now SH had every strange move mapped with a reason behind it. And, presumably, research).

Crossing my fingers and toes this is good info!


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 08:15 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good heavens! How much land is that again?

I don't mind seeing Harper embarrassed once more by lack of foresight, but I think I gotta oppose a rule like that.

Many years ago, our local citizens' organization was called the Annex Ratepayers' Association. Sometime in the 80s, I think, it finally occurred to all those (notoriously progressive) people that there was something a little undemocratic about both the name and the structure of the organization, so it became the Annex Residents' Association. Quite rightly, too.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 February 2006 08:52 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Well the Senate, by its very nature, is undemocratic.

I think opponents of the Senate can still take pleasure in its unfair rules biting its supporters in the ass without being hypocritical.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 11 February 2006 08:56 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He hasn't actually been appointed to the Senate yet. Harper's just announced that he's going to appoint him to the Senate.

Seemed pretty obvious to me that it was what Fortier was referring to when saying that there were technical requirements that needed to be fulfilled before he was actually appointed to the Senate.

Further note that the requirement for Quebec isn't just $4000 in land, and isn't even just $4000 in land in Quebec, it's $4000 in land in the Senatorial district for which the Senator is appointed. (That rule only applies to Quebec.) Even Senator Delaire had to go out and buy $4000 worth of land just prior to being appointed to the Senate.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 08:57 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is 4 Ks of land? Can someone help me to visualize?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 08:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh. Ok. (But where in Canada can you buy such a thing?)
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 11 February 2006 09:02 AM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
4 thousand. But yeah, I dont know if some Tory conncetion will parcel out their property and then rent it back for a dollar a year, or.

How has the requirement been met in the past by ppl? Did they sincerely buy a full property, at market-value, and pay for it through a bank mortgage,
Or do they get the land from partisan supporters, or the money to buy the land from partisan supporters (or both)?


From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 09:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Embarrassed confession: I thought the K meant kilometres, so I thought this was a serious landholder's rule.

I was trying to imagine how enormous the estates of our senators must be.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 February 2006 09:13 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I was wondering how you expected anyone to answer how much land $4000 is, since it depends so much on where the land is.

I imagine at confederation this was quite an obstacle to ordinary people.

If it were 4,000 square kilometres it would be 63.25 x 63.25.

Or if you prefer, a strip 76 metres wide, stretching from Toronto to Montreal.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 09:15 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Owning anything is still a serious obstacle to most people, I fear.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 February 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Well of course the ownership requirements for the Senate pale beside the cost of running for the Commons.

It's a bit more of a complication in Quebec, because their senate seats are divided into 24 ridings.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 11 February 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bernard St-Laurent interviewed Fortier this morning on The House. The question of his needing to own land came up and Fortier defused it with a joking comment hoping that the interview didn't cause a round of land speculation. Otherwise Fortier's side of the conversation was non-stop Conjob Party bafflegab about his commitment to resign his Senate seat and run in the next general election, rather than in a byelection, and praise for Emerson as courageous and principled.

Meet the new slime..., same as the old slime.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 11 February 2006 01:59 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
$4K worth of land may be meaningless in itself ... usually communities have zoning laws that restrict selling land in smaller parcels than are required to build a suitable home. So unless I want to buy enough land to build a home, which I would never get for $4K, I would not be able to get the transaction certified (usually there are exceptions for people with existing land and adding adjacent land to expand, so if I already had a home, I could buy a small piece of and from my neighbour to add a dog house, or a shed ... since he doesn't already own land, that probably wouldn't apply.)

This might mean that he has to buy a home in the proper area of Quebec ... although there may be special prepared "out" where investing $4K in a property owning corporation or some such thing might count ... we shall see.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
spiffy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3518

posted 11 February 2006 02:22 PM      Profile for spiffy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
where does one find a map (on-line) of quebec's senatorial districts?
From: where do you think i'm from? | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 February 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd never heard there were such things as Senatorial districts -- thought Senators were just Senators-at-large for their respective provinces -- and can't find a map, but here's a list of Senators by province and "division".

I laughed when reading that Peter Stollery of Toronto is the Senator for "Bloor and Yonge." I should think so, too.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 February 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's lovely, isn't it, 'lance.

Have you heard about the family disputes over that property? Delish. We gossiped viciously about them a few months back.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 February 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Damme, where was I?

Stollery's Senate appointment, which was supposed to leave the "safe" Liberal riding open for Jim "Bagman" Coutts, actually led to the election of Dan Heap. Equally delish.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 11 February 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
Further note that the requirement for Quebec isn't just $4000 in land, and isn't even just $4000 in land in Quebec, it's $4000 in land in the Senatorial district for which the Senator is appointed. (That rule only applies to Quebec.)

Or $4000 anywhere in the province, while residing in that district.

22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:--

2. Quebec;

which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators;

In the case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

23. The Qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:

(1) He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years:
(2) He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parliament of Canada, after the Union:

(3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all the Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:

(4) His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above his Debts and Liabilities:

(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed:

(6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 11 February 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
Damme, where was I?

Stollery's Senate appointment, which was supposed to leave the "safe" Liberal riding open for Jim "Bagman" Coutts, actually led to the election of Dan Heap. Equally delish.


Ugh. Dan Heap. Blecchers.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
His constituents disagreed. They elected him three times running.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 11 February 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
$4000 of land - just about enough room for a bus stop, I'd imagine.

That's the crazy thing about tradition - obviously the rules have never been updated from the point of inception when $4000 would obviously buy a fair chunk of land, but rather than turf this undemocratic* requirement, they just let it drift on into increasing ridiculousness.

*Yeah, I get the irony. Believe me, I get the irony here.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 11 February 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, the going rate for a house in Leaf Rapids, Manitoba is around $8500 (the mine closed, and the place is a thousand kilometres from Winnipeg and several hundred kilometres from Thompson). Perhaps if he's lucky his district contains a community in a similar situation.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 12 February 2006 12:41 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He should have no trouble buying a nice chalet at the foot of Mont Rougemont. There was one for sale in September for only $18,000, 30 minutes from Montreal, ideal for a couple with young children:
quote:
Petit chalet a vendre pour amateure de camping ou de golf au pied du mont rougemont a 5 min du golf rougemont (18 trous) a 30 min de montreal ideal pour fin de semaine romantique ou
pour une semaine paisible tranquile en couple
ideal pour couple avec jeune enfants

comprend: grand terrin avec arbre mature parc avec balencoire petite veranda piscine creuséé bbq cuisine tout equipe, vesselle poele au gas, frigidaire tv, video, salle de bain avec douche
1 chambre séparéé 1 sofa lit dans le salon couche 4 prs
reserve maintenant pour l'ete 2005....encore des semaine disponible



Looks lovely. Maybe a little plain for a Senator?

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 12 February 2006 12:58 AM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
His constituents disagreed. They elected him three times running.

Did any of them actually meet the man? God, he was enough to give anyone obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Ugh, ugh, UGH.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 12 February 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Maybe a little plain for a Senator?

I wonder what kind of propert Sister Peggy got for her qualification?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 12 February 2006 01:07 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles: I wonder what kind of propert Sister Peggy got for her qualification?
If memory serves me right, a group of citizens who admired her purchased a sliver of land in her name. She also got a special dispensation from the Church for the duration of her senatorial term to become a property holder because of her poverty vows.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
cfkane
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12023

posted 13 February 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for cfkane        Edit/Delete Post
Well, there was one for David Emerson and now there's one for Michael Fortier. A petition to "recall Michael Fortier" web site gives those who believe his "anointment" should be scrapped can do so now, at:

Recall Michael Fortier

Perhaps there's hope for democracy yet!


From: North York | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 13 February 2006 10:25 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage,

(that answers my question)


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 13 February 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 'lance:
His constituents disagreed. They elected him three times running.

And the same constituents elected Tony Ianno four times in a row. No accounting for taste...


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 13 February 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Krago:
And the same constituents elected Tony Ianno four times in a row. No accounting for taste...


There is that; I'd forgotten.

On the other hand, the riding boundaries were changed in 1987 -- could that partly account for it? I don't know, though I imagine some Toronto babblers could hazard a guess.

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 13 February 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Oh. Ok. (But where in Canada can you buy such a thing?)
Do shares in a housing co-op count?

From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
up
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9143

posted 13 February 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for up     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He can't sit in cabinet until he gets the land and ergo the Senate seat correct?
From: other | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 February 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
No, there's no legal requirement for a member of cabinet to ever be in either house, just a very strong tradition.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 13 February 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
I was wondering how you expected anyone to answer how much land $4000 is, since it depends so much on where the land is.

I imagine at confederation this was quite an obstacle to ordinary people.

If it were 4,000 square kilometres it would be 63.25 x 63.25.

Or if you prefer, a strip 76 metres wide, stretching from Toronto to Montreal.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


So, which senator owns Highway 401?


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
margrace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6191

posted 13 February 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for margrace        Edit/Delete Post
off topic a bit but I was just wondering. Last night I could not get into either the Emmerson or fortier polls. I was told that it was something to do with me.

This morning I could get into the Emmerson one but not the Fortier. Evidently although my email address was okay for Emmerson it was not for Fortier. So I went in and reposted it, I still can't get in Wrong address. What is going on???


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by pebbles:
Ugh. Dan Heap. Blecchers.

I used to be a friend of Dan Heap while I was at Trinity College (late 1970's). What's your problem with him?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I used to be a friend of Dan Heap while I was at Trinity College (late 1970's). What's your problem with him?

Just makes my skin crawl.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
No, there's no legal requirement for a member of cabinet to ever be in either house, just a very strong tradition.

Which makes it a legal requirement under the common-law conventional part of our Constitution.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 13 February 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
So, which senator owns Highway 401?

Actually, Peter Stollery officially represents the Senate district of "Bloor and Yonge", while Senator Anne Cools has grander ambitions.

If our new Prime Minister wanted to give Toronto a cabinet seat, and increase his female and VM presence at the same time, he could have made Sen. Cools a Cabinet minister. The fact that she is a noxious homophobe probably wouldn't have been a drawback for him.


From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I used to be a friend of Dan Heap while I was at Trinity College (late 1970's). What's your problem with him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just makes my skin crawl.


I guess Pebbles has a problem with principled self-sacrificing, hard-working people who give their lives to fighting for peace and social justice.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 February 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which makes it a legal requirement under the common-law conventional part of our Constitution

Hmm not if non-MPs/senators have been given cabinet seats in the last 50years or so. Be interesting to find out. A strong tradition does not meet common law requirements if there were exceptions.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 February 2006 05:44 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
They have been. Stephane Dion. Pierre Juneau. It is true that when they didn't subsequently win a byelection (Juneau) they have resigned, but there is no legal requirement.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
fellowtraveller
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11962

posted 13 February 2006 10:09 PM      Profile for fellowtraveller     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Apparently he doesnt own the 4K worth of land as required by our archaic constitution.

Don't know about Quebec, but in most other provinces a transfer of ownership for a bit of land can be accomplished in a few days or less, with payment to the old owner of $1.00.
Easy enough to establish an irrevocable contract to sell it back later for the same $1.00.

From: ,location, location | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I guess Pebbles has a problem with principled self-sacrificing, hard-working people who give their lives to fighting for peace and social justice.

No, I have a problem with people who creeped me the bejeezus out.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 11:37 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

Hmm not if non-MPs/senators have been given cabinet seats in the last 50years or so. Be interesting to find out. A strong tradition does not meet common law requirements if there were exceptions.

Non-MPs have been, BUT, they have always run for election to my knowledge, and resigned if they fail to get elected. Someone is free to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't know of any exceptions. The tradition is part of the common law of Parliament, and a constitutional convention.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
They have been. Stephane Dion. Pierre Juneau. It is true that when they didn't subsequently win a byelection (Juneau) they have resigned, but there is no legal requirement.

Not in statutory law, no, but under the conventional or common-law part of our constitution, yes.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 February 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it's your prerogative. However, those of us who are friends of Dan have the prerogative of concluding you are an asshole.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 11:39 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When in doubt, ask Eugene Forsey
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 13 February 2006 11:40 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jrootham:
Well, it's your prerogative. However, those of us who are friends of Dan have the prerogative of concluding you are an asshole.

It is my prerogative, and I have my reasons, and no, I'm not an asshole.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 February 2006 11:42 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm just operating on the availble evidence.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 February 2006 11:45 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only politician you seem to worship is that creepy homophobic Liberal MP from Labrador who fortunately dropped dead before being able to shit on the gays and lesbians of Canada by casting a shameful vote in favour of hate. I'm sure the guy is roasting in Hell as we speak for having dedicated his pathetic political career to trying strip other people of their human rights.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
The only politician you seem to worship is that creepy homophobic Liberal MP from Labrador

Creepy and homophobic, eh?

quote:
who fortunately dropped dead

Nice. Real class act, there, Stockholm?

quote:
before being able to shit on the gays and lesbians of Canada by casting a shameful vote in favour of hate. I'm sure the guy is roasting in Hell as we speak for having dedicated his pathetic political career to trying strip other people of their human rights.

You are hereby challenged to produce ONE WORD -- just one -- from the dead man's mouth that would justify this statement, or do the decent thing -- if you have any decency, which is highly doubtful -- and retract your statement.

One word, let alone "dedicated is pathetic political career".

One word, asshole.

One word.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 02:19 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Incidentally, Stockholm, you sack of -- never mind -- are you confusing the late Lawrence O'Brien with Pat O'Brien? Because it would be really embarassing on your part if you were.

I repeat my challenge: find one word that Lawrence O'Brien ever had to say about gays, lesbians, or same-sex marriage.

Thank you.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 February 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I'm sure the guy is roasting in Hell as we speak for having dedicated his pathetic political career to trying strip other people of their human rights.

It seems more like he dedicated it to avoiding voting on gay issues.

He voted for the 1999 Reform motion on marriage and for the Modernization of Benefits Act, as did almost all Liberals, except for the rabid so-cons.

He was absent for C250, the Alliance's 2003 repeat of the 1999 motion, and the 1996 Human Rights Act amendment.

Egale's site has no quotes from Hansard for him.

He doesn't seem to have been an advocate for gay issues, but I can think of lots of Liberals who are much worse. Is there something I missed?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
kevout
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6942

posted 14 February 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for kevout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:

Which makes it a legal requirement under the common-law conventional part of our Constitution.


Is it correct that only members of parliament are allowed to speak in the House? If so, does not being a MP make it really difficult, but not impossible, to be an cabinet minister? Especially if you are the minister of public works, which is supposed to be extensively reworked in the next session, if the Conservatives are to be believe?


From: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 February 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I repeat my challenge: find one word that Lawrence O'Brien ever had to say about gays, lesbians, or same-sex marriage.


According to the Egale website, he was on record as being adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and as being a rock solid NO vote. When he died, it meant one less vote for the NO side. Perhaps you can enlighten us on why this guy had such a pathological need to make sure that gays and lesbians were to be treated as second class citizens.

I apologize for wishing someone dead. As it happens, the SSM bill passed by a wide enough margin that even his homophobic machinations would not have been enough to stop it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
He was absent for C250, the Alliance's 2003 repeat of the 1999 motion

Having cancer is a pretty good excuse for being away from the House.

quote:
He doesn't seem to have been an advocate for gay issues, but I can think of lots of Liberals who are much worse. Is there something I missed?

You haven't missed as much as Stockholm.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kevout:
Is it correct that only members of parliament are allowed to speak in the House? If so, does not being a MP make it really difficult, but not impossible, to be an cabinet minister? Especially if you are the minister of public works, which is supposed to be extensively reworked in the next session, if the Conservatives are to be believe?

Ministers who are not MPS (Senators, unelected ministers waiting for election) can speak to the House and answer their questions, with the House's dispensation.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
According to the Egale website, he was on record as being adamantly opposed to same sex marriage and as being a rock solid NO vote.

Does EGALE use the words "adamantly opposed" and "rock solid NO"? Or are those your editorial comments?

quote:
Perhaps you can enlighten us on why this guy had such a pathological need to make sure that gays and lesbians were to be treated as second class citizens.

Perhaps, asswipe -- and that's too nice a word for you, as an insult to toilet paper -- you can explain where the phoque you get off saying the man had a "pathological need" for anything? How do you know?

[quoet]I apologize for wishing someone dead. As it happens, the SSM bill passed by a wide enough margin that even his homophobic machinations would not have been enough to stop it.[/QUOTE]

What "homophobic machinations"?

Please find me just ONE word from his own mouth which supports your theory.

Not from the EGALE site -- from Hansard, from the web, from anywhere.

One word, you coward.

One word.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 14 February 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And while your'e at it, what about the "creepy" bit?
From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 14 February 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Having cancer is a pretty good excuse for being away from the House.


he incdicated to Egale that he was implacably opposed to equal marriage and was going vote against it. If you have information to the contrary, please share it and I will forgive him posthumously.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have opposed equal marriage, other than total hatred of gays and lesbians. If he indicated that he planned to vote NO, he was ipso-facto and man of hate.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 17 February 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
he incdicated to Egale that he was implacably opposed to equal marriage and was going vote against it.

Provide the source. Thank you. What jumps out at me on the Google cache of the page (the original is now taken down) is his Yes vote on C-23.

"Ipso-facto a man of hate"?

Ipso-facto, you are an idiot.


quote:
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have opposed equal marriage, other than total hatred of gays and lesbians. If he indicated that he planned to vote NO, he was ipso-facto and man of hate.

That's the stupidest fucking logic I have ever heard.

Do you know, for example, that Lawrence O'Brien had, before his death, given his tacit support to Todd Russell to succeeed him if he were to die?

Man of hate?

You don't know the first goddamn thing what you're talking about. Why don't you do the honourable thing -- if you have any honour in you, you lying slandering bag of scum -- and admit it.

The target of your lies is no longer able to defend himself. You are a spineless coward.


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left_Wing_New_Democrat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11258

posted 17 February 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for Left_Wing_New_Democrat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do my eyes decieve me or does the NDP have a senator? this is news to me as I understand it the NDP opposed the senate and advocated its abolishment. yet it seems Lillian Eva Dyck is above that policy and we as a party look away. I could be mistaken but it lists her as a New Democratic Senator from Saskatchewan. Im not opposed to New Democrats sitting in the senate but they shouldnt sit as New Democrats but as Independents. If we dont stick to our guns then we'll have to take the word 'Democratic' out of our name, and I dont want to be a member in good standing with the 'New Party of Canada (the party formally known as NDP). Ofcourse Im overeacting for dramatic effect and making use of EXTREAM HYPERBOLE but it is curious...does anyone know how that came about?
From: Lucknow | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 17 February 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
L_W_N_D, you might want to check out this recent thread, where people are discussing the questions you've raised here (not that we can't discuss them here as well):

I'm confused about Lillian Dyck.. is she an NDP senator???

[ 17 February 2006: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca