NDP House Leader Libby Davies, how do you respond?
October 28, 2009 · By Sean Calder
In the not too distant past (March 13th of this year actually), Libby Davies spoke to Parliament regarding the decorum of the House:
When is this going to stop? Things are really bad around here. People who watch us from the gallery or on CPAC are appalled at the kind of behaviour that takes place. To somehow characterize this as we are shutting down criticism or legitimate debate, that is not what this is about. This place is about debate, analysis and criticism and we do that every day, but this is about the kind of personal attacks that are being made.
We should be calling on the Speaker to stand by his ruling and to say to the majority of members of the House, I would dare say from all parties and maybe some people do not feel comfortable saying it, to support the Speaker’s ruling. I believe that things have gone too far. We should be upholding our Speaker. How many times have we called on the Speaker to intervene and to bring back decorum? He is trying to do that, and we should support what he is trying to do. You did it today, Mr. Speaker.
In light of recent events, I wonder just how self-righteous the House Leader for the NDP is feeling about her party’s commitment to restoring order and decorum to the House of Commons when her Leader, Jack Layton, is being implicated in orchestrating a virtually unheard of disruption in the House of Commons himself?
“…somehow the NDP organized the protest in the House is ludicrous. There is no conspiracy except in the mind of the Government House leader. The fact is we knew nothing about the protest.”
And Jack Layton’s press secretary Karl Belanger?
“Ya, that’s right. We organized a protest to interrupt our Leader during his question. Clearly, it was a socialist plot from the NDP.”
‘ll admit, it’s a weak suspicion with no proof, but hey, since they opened the door to conspiracy, does having a protest take place during one of their own speeches give some grounds for plausible deniability? Hey, it’s a weak argument, but that’s what you get with a weak defense.
So ultimately, if the NDP are in fact to blame for this ruckus, can Ms. Davies truly stand up in the House of Commons any longer and preach about NDP desires for decorum with any credibility?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t this group meet with Layton and NDP officials before the ruckus started?
So even if the NDP wasn’t aware of the groups intentions, they should be more careful who they associate with, particularly if they’re going to act shocked when jackasses, like this group of protesters, act out publicly.
Well, correct me if I am wrong but that second quote from Karl Belanger sounds like sarcasm. It is not like I would not know or anything.
Let’s hope the speaker finds the NDP in contempt quickly. It won’t change anything.
The theatre of the absurd will continue, led by the opposition in the fake outrage everyday on every question to get a sound bite replayed on tv.
Is it any shock fewer and fewer people are listening to our political leaders or watching the traditional news?
Greg: Yes, you’re right. The NDP need to be careful about who they promote/meet with. That said, Jack Layton sought to take advantage of the presence of these protesters by making special arrangements within the Parliamentary Precincts to meet with a larger group of them. This gave them access and momentum. Whether he knew or not, I’d argue that he was definitely a contributing factor to setting this in motion.
Charles: Yes, it was definitely sarcasm. His intended point being a defense that they wouldn’t stage a protest that would interrupt their own speech, obviously. I’m just saying that that denial is a classic stance in plausible deniability preparations.
Canadiansense: True, the circus we call Question Period will continue on as it always has, but then I’ve believed for years that QP is simply that. A theatre where nothing of substance is conducted other than a release valve for pressure that builds during the day and a chance to steal the spotlight for a time each day.
Lets face it, the overall negative decorum in the House is welcomed by all parties. Why else would they continually to elect a completely ineffective house speaker like Peter Milliken?
You’re right Greg. Doing so allows everyone to be held to a lower standard than they might otherwise be held to.
In another post, I commented on the “throw-away” nature of our society these days, and how we seem to be throwing away some of our older traditions because they appear stuffy and restricting. In cases like this, the restrictive and “stuffy” nature of the tradition served a purpose and achieved a desirable outcome as far as order and respect are concerned.
These days, poor behaviour is far too acceptable and is excused for whatever reason they’re using now. Some people may not believe it, but it’s possible to restrict behaviour without restricting freedom of speech.
Weak sauce. Do you seriously believe that Jack or the NDP organized this protest?
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca.....A790F545-0
So everything you say here about Jack goes for Jim as well I guess right? What are tories doing meeting with dangerous terrorists on the hill? These questions have to be asked. Are they bringing the terrorists to Copenhagen to disrupt the meeting there?
Jack and Jim have a lot to answer for here.
Devin: Let me put it this way, if it was going to advance NDP agenda and force the government to bend to their will, I certainly wouldn’t put such antics beyond the NDP.
I mean, what if they were to secretly conspire with the Bloc to try and trap the Liberals into a Coalition to usurp the government when the time was right? Oh wait…..
Woodsworth: Had Jim Prentice booked a hall in Parliament in order to meet with a much larger group than his office could hold for optics, and then proceeded to provide them with passes to Question Period, then yes, this would also be directed at Jim Prentice.
Terrorists? Who said anything about terrorists? Protesters caused the disturbance in the House of Commons. Or are you maybe trying to turn this into something it isn’t with over the top rhetoric? This government and past governments (of all types) have never brought protesters with them to international events, and as far as I’ve been informed, the current government has no plans to break with that habit.
Sean, it might be true that the NDP cooked this up. I doubt it, but it is certainly possible. Regardless, I think it’ll do them little good, and most of us will probably forget about it really soon.
Get over yourself. The NDP had nothing to do with this protest, no matter how badly you want to make them look. Sometimes people are capable of making independent political decisions, and AREN’T guided or controlled by political parties.
Jonathan: You may very well be right. If they did, it backfired on them. If they didn’t, then they were duped by people who aught to be supporting them. So yes, I agree. Either way, it has done little good.
Abattoir: Get over myself? This isn’t about me. This isn’t even about the protesters. If you read the question at the end:
That’s a valid question bud. IF they are to blame….I haven’t declared them guilty and IF there is an inquiry and if if if…. My question stands. IF they are found to be at fault, can they continue to try and claim that moral high ground with any credibility?
What I have stated, is that regardless of whether or not the NDP had a hand in this, Jack Layton’s desire for better optics that prompted him to secure the facilities under his name in order to meet with more protesters than anyone else makes him a contributing factor to the series of events that led up to the disruption in the House of Commons. Even the protesters claimed that since they were there, and it was only about an hour before Question Period that they decided to take advantage of the situation. So they claim….
I stand by that. You may think it’s me finger-wagging (pointing?) but I believe it to be a valid question, and the actions that were taken are factual.
And if you were to be found guilty of embezzling, you would have no credibility either. I have no proof of said embezzlement, but I guess that shouldn’t stop anyone from spreading FUD and throwing the muck around. Same logic.
You can’t put the word ‘if’ in front of such an inflammatory accusation and claim total innocence. When you have one single solitary shred of evidence that the NDP had any prior knowledge of, or hand in, this protest, I’ll gladly listen to such accusations. Until then, have better sense and don’t sink to that level. It’s the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty.
Given the negative reaction towards the NDP, maybe in fact the Conservatives were behind it. Notice I used the word ‘maybe’, so there must be nothing wrong with that.
Abattoir, if the Conservatives were clever enough to pull this off and have the NDP take the blame, then they’ve got my support!