thanks for that.

You would think that if the party wanted nothing to do with these guys, the MP in question could have quietly sent his regrets about a previous engagement. You're ignoring the very real, and very simple explanation:

The border guard was on a power trip, and the PMO couldn't care less. (And for what it's worth, even ADMs are busy people.)

As for the possible partisan motivation, that one was covered by a previous comment.

As for the possible partisan motivation, that one was covered by a previous comment.

-Harper, Van Loan, and Kenney, let alone most backbenchersm on either side, don't have the spare time to be personally invested in something this small and trifling. I mean really, we're in a war, we have a massive economic downturn, and the isotope crisis, among other things. If I were in office, I probably wouldn't even be aware of this. And secondly, if I did, I wouldn't care.

-Where, pray tell, is the partisan benefit in doing this?

This whole situation makes much more sense if you assume that the border guard was a douchebag, and that the minister likely doesn't know/doesn't care. Ockham's razor: the simplest answer is often the right one.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Conservatives have always been quite prepared to use the investigation and enforcement organs of the state apparatus for their own partisan political purposes. The Mulroney government was notorious for this. Please don't try to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians.

" inquired about the suspension of rights he and Pete were experiencing at the border, noting that they did not consent to the search. The male border bureaucrat said “according to the Charter” they had such authority and that our rights were not being violted. Pete then asked “Well what if the Charter said people’s rights were suspended not just at the border but 100 miles or 1,000 miles from the border? Would that be just?” Pete was not answered. "

What your thoughts would be?

The reason I think there's a little uneasiness in the party is that minority government doesn't lend itself well to ideological consistency. Yes, we are in government, but no, we can't do as we please. Unfortunately that's made for some odd bedfellows in policy.

And like you, i'm no fan of this pandering to the "base". I don't really believe it exists to the extent the party does. Social conservatism irks me in a way I can't really explain. I like to think that a good deal of Canadians are more of the fiscal conservative brand: get your house's finances in order, and let the market do what it does (you can even consider social issues to have a marketplace of ideas, if you will… the good ones always win.)

I thought it was summary.

btw. I'm curious. The 'net has that "they came for" poem Kady's alluding to as written by Bonhoffoer. anybody know which book?

What they are doing is harming the actual notion of conservatism with these (and arbitrary funding of festivals) events.

The only thing being omitted here is consistency in your conspiracy theory. I think this is just a case of power-tripping border guards trying to poo-poo somebody's documentary that will "change the world".

(sorry for feeding the trolls, but steph's out to lunch here.)

"They" didn't come for that clown Galloway, either. They just told him he'd best stay away.

Convening the Court of Mullet based on some twitter blasts seems a trifle bit over the top.

Exactly.

Thanks for helping to get the word out KadyITQ.

So this is what officers do who are probably really busy.

So this is what officers do who are probably really busy.

So this is what officers do who are probably really busy.

So this is what officers do who probably really busy.

So this is what officers do who probably really busy.

I HIGHLY doubt that one can be charged with an indictable offense (or its equivalent) for possession of beer ANYWHERE IN NORTH AMERICA though.

" 3.9 When not to use the "committing an act" provisions

- in most cases, when authorities in the foreign jurisdiction indicate that they would not lay a charge or make known to an officer their decision or intent to drop the charges. …"

Two possibilities : either the CBSA officer erred, which is not unlikely given that most at land border points are former Customs staff who do not know how to exercise appropriate judgement concerning immigration matters (they tend to go in jackboots first) and have even less knowledge of the subtleties of immigration law in its application ; or, the CBSA officer was told not to let these characters in by somebody higher up and to find some way of stopping them.