On Sunday, in London, Ont., people who were signed up to attend a Conservative rally with
Harper were forcibly removed, apparently because of a perceived association with another party:
About 30 minutes after arriving and signing in, the two girls were asked by a man to follow him out of the rally, Aslam said. Though confused, they complied.
In a back room, Aslam said he ripped off their name tags, tore them up and ordered them out.
“We were confused. He said, 'We know you guys have ties to the Liberal party through Facebook'. He said … 'You are no longer welcome here.'”
Another attendee, Ali Aref Hamadi, said he was asked by an organizer to leave the same rally because of an NDP bumper sticker on his vehicle.
Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's chief spokesman, apologized, telling the London Free Press, “”I will personally apologize to them,” he said. “We should be encouraging young people to get involved in politics.” But the next day in Guelph, Ont., it happened again. Conservative campaign organizers prevented students from entering the Harper rally even though they had pre-registered. Their offence this time? They had participated in a “Get Out the Vote” demonstration to encourage young people to pay attention to politics and vote.
Several of the peaceful mob participants had registered to attend the Harper event, but they were turned away by RCMP officers. Cara Dawson and Izzy Hirji were among those asked to leave the venue.
A Conservative Party of Canada official approached them and indicated they were not welcome because of their involvement in an action that was perceived as a protest by party insiders. Dawson and Hirji tried to explain that it was not a protest and that they had registered to attend the campaign event, but the official could not be persuaded.
RCMP Cpl. Tony Fowler of the “O” Division/VIP Security Section told the students the event was by invitation only and they would have to leave. Outside the venue, Hirji said because he and Dawson had exercised their democratic right to express themselves in a peaceful fashion, they were barred from entry. That was unfair and disheartening, they said.
“All I want to do is hear all of the political platforms of the various parties,” said Hirji. “So, why am I not allowed to attend.”
Last week in Halifax, the Harper campaign prevented a man who is an advocate for homeless veterans from attending a Harper rally.
This seems to be a fairly blatant use of the RCMP for partisan political purposes: They are being used as “shock troops” for intimidation and crowd control, much as the SA were used in Germany in the early 30's.
What a shame for what was once 'a shining symbol' for Canada, respected worldwide…
Good information. Disturbing to hear. Also hard to read when the entire post is centered text. 🙁
Amm, maybe the kids in Guelph were actually rejected because of their known affiliation with another Federal Party? http://www.flickr.com/photos/27170540@N05/2723268084/
So what is the problem?
But why can't students who have attended Liberal/NDP events attend a Conservative event? We apparently want to work together, but then students are given the message that they can't even be in the same room? It seems like a bad message to send our youth. We should be encouraging them to attend every event they can and actually be involved in politics!
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/17875211.html
“… Concerns over security at recent London rallies weren’t confined to Tory events. When Ignatieff was here last week, the RCMP got physical with two Free Press reporters, even elbowing a pregnant reporter in the stomach …”
If the incident at the Conservative rally was newsworthy enough for Terry Milewski and Roger Smith and David Akin to talk up, why wasn't the incident at the Ignatieff rally also considered newsworthy?
The difference between the two incidents (being blocked from the Conservative and Liberal events) was that the RCMP were used by the Conservatives to engage in a partisan activity, something they are not supposed to be doing. If the students were being ejected because they were felt to be a security risk, that would be one thing, but being ushered out by federal employees because they might ask an unflattering question or not applaud loudly enough, based on their presumed affiliation, is crossing the line. Public servants (which RCMP officers are) have a sworn duty to serve the government of the day in its lawful activities. They have no obligation to assist the government of the day (whomever they may be) get re-elected, and in fact are excluded by law, from engaging in partisan activity.
Do the RCMP always interpret the duty to provide security appropriately, as in the case of the London incident you refer to? No. Cast your mind back to the 1997 APEC pepper spray incident. Do things always work out neatly in crowd situations? Not for anybody.
I strongly doubt whether any of this was the doing of Mr. Harper, and I imagine the RCMP involved simply did what they were asked to do. But the staffers and campaign people that engineered this have some serious “splaining” to do. It was dumb, dumb, dumb, on top of being wrong, wrong, wrong. An important line was very foolishly crossed for very little gain, and probably more loss.
At this time, Stephen Harper is wearing two hats: one, as the leader of the Conservative Party seeking another mandate from the electorate and the other as the Prime Minister of Canada, who, BTW, has received death threats in the past. That is the explanation for the presence of the RCMP.
If it is indeed true that the student was tossed out merely because of a picture of her standing next to Ignatieff, then I might agree with you. But it is also possible that she and her friend may have been disrupting the rally — which by definition is a partisan gathering. And all parties make sure that the party faithful comes to such rallies, so to scold the Conservatives for inviting those who support the party is disingenuous.
As a matter of fact, there may even be more to the story than we've been told so far.
http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2011/04/inventing-scandal-what-msm-didnt-tell.html
Regarding the Harper campaign bubble, there is a vacuum of questions to Stephen Harper about what his preferences have been for appointments to the Senate and to the members of the provincial/territorial Judicial Advisory Committees that the Department of Justice appoints.
Such questions should be asked during this campaign as there are some indications that an (unstated) preference has been for people with track records of pro-life, anti same sex marriage, “pro-family” activism and values, as well as members of evangelical Christian faiths or ultraconservative groups such as Opus Dei. For example, have heard some members of the Party openly talking about the value of appointing people of this profile to the Senate and the Courts in order to leave a lasting legacy. There seems to be some evidence of that, consider the appointments of Nicole Eaton, Doug Finley, Suzanne Fortin Duplessis, Don Meredith, Don Plett, and Bob Runciman to the Senate and Gerry Chipeur to the Alberta Judicial Advisory Committee.
If these indications are in fact part of a definitive pattern, voters should know that in order to make better informed voting decisions, in particular since these values and ways of being do not represent even the majority of conservative or Tory opinion in this country much less Canadians in general, and could significantly change the manner in which Canada is governed. Anyone have additional information to share?