Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:You're all so damn polite, I'm not sure how you get through an election process.

Candidate one: No, no...you should lead.

Candidate two: That's very kind of you, but I think you're a much better candidate.

Candidate three: You're both so wonderful, I'm not sure how our country could possibly choose between you. But I do know you're both better at this than my humble self. Now, who wants some poutine?

Moliere wrote:I would vote for the beard. We need to get back to the 1800s when candidates could have facial hair.

The Canadians are off and running in what will be the nation's longest general election campaign since 1874. Over the weekend, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally launched the nation's electoral season, which will last a whopping (by Canadian standards) 78 days, before voters in 338 electoral constituencies, called ridings, head to the polls on 19 October. (That sound Canadians may hear is laughter from US presidential candidates, who take 78 days just to come up with a catchy name for the "independent" committee they'll use to rake in millions from rich donors.) The decision to kick off the race so early - previous campaigns have lasted about five weeks - is seen as a tactical move by the Conservatives, who can bring the most financial resources to bear over a lengthier campaign season that has strict spending caps (cue more laughter from the Americans).

Now, none of this is to say Trudeau or Mulcair would be incompetent prime ministers. Maybe they'd be fine. They just don't seem very good at TV debates, and this was after all a TV debate, even if it was sponsored by Maclean's magazine and hosted by a print journalist. An awful lot is made of TV debates during elections; the very crystallization of democracy, and so on. And, true, they are sort of a refreshing change from the canned daily tedium of the longest election campaign in human history. But they're also just TV. They're impressionistic, and they require some acting skill. Reality, on TV, does sometimes matter less than delivery. A TV reporter could tell you that.

Fireball wrote:Justin Trudeau is sorta hot, for a politician. As I'll have to see pictures of the Canadian PM from time to time, I ask that Canada please elect him.

Canada’s system of production and consumption of goods and services was put on the defensive at the Maclean’s National Leaders Debate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused it of misleading Canadians.

"The economy keeps changing its mind”,” Harper said confronting his invisible opponent. “First, the economy said that the price of oil was $100 a barrel in 2014 and now it’s suddenly $45 a barrel. Then, when GDP is expected to grow, it shrinks. The economy should stop playing politics with the Canadian people and admit that it is hiding the truth that everything is fine."

"The economy’s blatantly untrue facts are clearly designed to undermine Canadian faith in the economy, which thanks to the Conservative government has never been stronger," added the Prime Minister.

An Edmonton man was given a $543 ticket for refusing to remove a sign from the back window of his car that says "F--k Harper."

Rob Wells was stopped by RCMP in Leduc, south of Edmonton, because they deemed his large, hot-pink sign a distraction to other drivers. He was fined when he refused to take it down. While Wells admits the sign's language isn't appropriate, he says removing it would violate his right to free expression. He says the sign shows his feelings about Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and his government.



"I want to express my complete disdain for the conduct of the Harper government and that's the only way I know to do it," he said. "I'll gladly pay that $543 if I have to in order to express my rights in a free and democratic society."

Further, Traffic Safety Act 115(2)(j) - allows police to charge a driver who permits anything, including a pet, to cause any obstruction to the driver's clear vision in any direction.

Isgrimnur wrote:Alberta driving laws

Further, Traffic Safety Act 115(2)(j) - allows police to charge a driver who permits anything, including a pet, to cause any obstruction to the driver's clear vision in any direction.

(e) perform or engage in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the highway;

Isgrimnur wrote:Well, we can go from (j) to (e)

(e) perform or engage in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the highway;

Max Peck wrote: Perhaps, but using that sort of regulation to chill political speech gives me a sad. If they gave him a ticket because the sign is hot pink and says "Fuck Harper" then I hope he beats the ticket.

Isgrimnur wrote:I would imagine that a large, hot pink sign in the rear window is going to be classified as a distraction, regardless of content.

GreenGoo wrote:

Max Peck wrote: Perhaps, but using that sort of regulation to chill political speech gives me a sad. If they gave him a ticket because the sign is hot pink and says "Fuck Harper" then I hope he beats the ticket.

Me too. It's so obviously a bullshit reason used to cover what is almost certainly punishment for voicing his political opinion.

Go pre-approved free speech land!

hepcat wrote:Okay Canada, you win this round.

El Guapo wrote: The officer obviously wasn't acting at the direction of Harper or the administration, though (it's not part of a general plan to squelch speech on the roads)

Max Peck wrote:You mean Harper's courage in opposing a tax that nobody has proposed?

Who's been proposing to bail out Greece or send parkas to ISIS?

Jolor wrote:

Max Peck wrote:You mean Harper's courage in opposing a tax that nobody has proposed?

Who's been proposing to bail out Greece or send parkas to ISIS?

Why, that guy that's "just not ready", according to the ads I've seen.

Isgrimnur wrote:I imagine the lack of slick ads comes from the idea that the industry can't budget around a set timeframe like ours can. It's not because of a shortage of TV talent. Heck, how many tv shows have been filmed in Vancouver?

* A lot

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote: The officer obviously wasn't acting at the direction of Harper or the administration, though (it's not part of a general plan to squelch speech on the roads)

Actually, the current conservative government has taken many unprecedented steps to squelch critical speech, so it wouldn't surprise me if his home province had some sort of nudge nudge wink wink thing going on, but the more likely story is that an officer decided it was in his power to stop speech he didn't like.

A union representing federal public servants condemns a memo sent to employees in the Department of Justice that warns against social media activity critical of the federal government. The email was sent by Bruno Thériault, a director general at the department's workplace branch in Ottawa, advising employees that social media does not "absolve them" from their duty of loyalty to refrain from criticizing the government. The memo went on to list recommendations about personal social media use, saying "you are a public servant 24/7," and reminders to "assist" public servants in "upholding your obligations under the Code." The code Thériault mentioned is the "Department of Justice Values and Ethics Code."

The email eventually made its way into the hands of union officials, who call it an intimidation tactic aimed at putting a "chill" on the rights of civil servants. "This government appears to be using fear and intimidation to shut people down in participating in the way they ought to be able to," said Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Daviau referenced a 1991 ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down a ban on election activity by federal employees. Public servants can't campaign at their offices but can go door-to-door or post election signs on their lawn. Daviau said social media posts are a similar type of political activity.

When Stephen Harper kicked off the election campaign on the August long weekend he said voters would have a clear choice between proven leadership they can trust, or unproven risky alternatives. Three weeks in and trust has indeed become a central theme, just not in the way Harper intended.

The Conservative leader wants the question of trust framed around which of the federal party leaders is best equipped to manage the Canadian economy, which of them is the one voters can trust to keep taxes low and their families safe. But the past week of testimony at the Mike Duffy trial by Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright is helping the other party leaders reframe the question.

Max Peck wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

El Guapo wrote: The officer obviously wasn't acting at the direction of Harper or the administration, though (it's not part of a general plan to squelch speech on the roads)

Actually, the current conservative government has taken many unprecedented steps to squelch critical speech, so it wouldn't surprise me if his home province had some sort of nudge nudge wink wink thing going on, but the more likely story is that an officer decided it was in his power to stop speech he didn't like.

Case in point:

Federal public servants warned about social media use during election campaign