Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'You are no longer welcome here'

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:44am - 148 Comments

The London Free Press recounts the stories of two individuals who say they were ejected from a Conservative rally after they were accused of being sympathetic to other parties.

Aslam and a friend registered online to attend Harper’s Sunday rally — part of the restrictions the Conservatives place on such events. Aslam said her friend’s dad is a card-carrying Tory who showed them how to sign up online.

About 30 minutes after arriving and signing in, with thundersticks in hand, 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,’ ” Aslam said. “He said . . . ‘You are no longer welcome here.’ ”

Aslam and her friend both attended last week’s Liberal rally in London, where they managed to snag a picture with Ignatieff that both posted as their Facebook profile pictures.

Tags: election, Election 2011, london, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://twitter.com/printinghost @printinghost

It seems right and if it is then I think it big deal
Style

Yes, that is a good question. I too would like to hear practical mom's explanation for why she would eliminate the tax deduction for political donations.

lenny

While I agree with you that it's futile to even imagine Harper would ever answer an unscreened question, I can't agree that "practical mom" is an appropriate substitute to answer my question – particularly considering she clearly stated she wishes to keep the smaller subsidy and eliminate the larger subsidy.

Style

The Globe graphic suggests the tax deductions are the smallest subsidy, unless I've misread it. And that's what practical mom wants to eliminate.Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network

lenny

Practical mom indicated she was displeased with the tax refunds and the EC refund, which together dwarf the per-vote subsidy.
But you're right, the per-vote subsidy isn't the smallest subsidy when considering all the parties, though it is the smallest part of the conservative's subsidies.
Funny coincidence, that.

Brian Clark

I've just finished watching an interview with Awish on CTV. I really think Ignatieff should hire a better actress next time. It's clear that this young lady was at the rally for less than altruistic purposes. My hat is off to Ignatieff, as I 100% believe that he found out or simply guessed that Harper would do this and sent her there for this exact purpose. This is nothing new in Canadian Politics and is certainly nothing the Liberals haven't done in the past. I remember being booted out very similarly from a "public speech" by Chretien who was in Barrie to bolster Aileen Carroll for fears she might lose the seat as the conservatives had finally merged back into one party.
Having Awish's profile picture as one posing with Ignatieff clearly infers that she is a supporter. Between the fact that it this is her profile pic, (completely public) and her laughable performance on CTV, it seems more than a little plauseable that this was hatched in a Liberal backroom as opposed to 'students wanting to know how to vote'. Again congratulations Mr. Ignatieff – well-played.

craigola

1- Having Awish's profile picture as one posing with Ignatieff clearly IMPLIES that she is a supporter. You would INFER that she is an Ignatieff supporter from the profile picture she posts of herself with Michael Ignatieff. Though it wouldn't necessarily be a strong inference.
2- But so what?

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Hah, this is nothing. The other day a CPC campaign organizer knocked on my door and told me I'd have to close my drapes as the Harper bus passed by my house.
RealityCheck

I have to say, I have a VERY hard time believing this story. I know that's not going to be popular, but I am willing to believe it if there is further corroboration, but as it stands right now, it's from one side, and it just seems to ridiculous. I know many of you have no problem believing Harper and his team are ridiculous, but some of us are less biased. So again, this just seems to far-fetched, and until there is further information, I for one am dubious. I mean, he ripped their name tags off and tore them up? C'mon.
Mike514

"I for one am dubious."

You might want to edit that sentence from your comment.
Andrew (not PorC)

You find that hard to believe?
catherine

What do you make about the media reporting a specific RCMP Cpl's name then? Seems that person could easily speak out and say he never asked these young women to leave. I have a difficult time believing a newspaper would name an RCMP officer and attribute actions to him that were fabricated.
Freda

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/178…
practical mom

I was initially very skeptical as well. Since the conservatives are not denying it and have offered to apologize I no longer have any doubts that this actually happened. It's unbelievable that this took place in Canada.
Anon

It's the Muslim-sounding names that is throwing you off, eh RealityCheck? Maybe they were terrorists coming in to smack Harper over the head with thundersticks?
TJCook

Did they explain why?
Thwim

In fairness, that's as much for your protection as it is theirs.
TimesArrow

"Hah, this is nothing. The other day a CPC campaign organizer knocked on my door and told me I'd have to close my drapes as the Harper bus passed by my house."

C'mon Robert, fess up.You were mooning him weren't you? I can see it all over your"face" :)
André

Oooooooh so many possible answers..
What's in it for me? … Come to think of it what's in it for you?

YES! Absolutely! All hail the 1000 year reign!

I'll do it for 100 million sponsorship dollars.

What if I have blinds?

Wuh?… ooooohhh! *wink wink* I'll break out the chocolate fountain, the 30 year champagne, and the Micheal Bolton cds.
Patchouli

Look at his avatar — Robert wasn't wearing any pants (just a pair of glasses…)
RealityCheck

Like I said, I'm willing to believe when further information comes out. Until then, when it's just one side of the story reported in a local paper, I am suspending judgment. That's all.
Style

That's a different incident, where two people peeled off from a protest and tried to enter the event. Have there been any protesters at Liberal events?
RealityCheck

Why's that?
RealityCheck

I know. I read that. Wherry linked it. Thanks.
RealityCheck

Ummmmmm….does this guy make these sorts of accusations often?
RealityCheck

Yeah, they probably were asked to leave, which is disappointing, perhaps even outrageous, full stop. But some of the details? Because of a picture on facebook? ripped the name tags off? I'm just curious to hear what really happened, that's all. And like I said, if the other side comes out and admits this is how it really happened, then fine.
Mike T.

you are pathetically transparent, conbot!
tedbetts

The Conservatives have already apologized and passed the buck by throwing another volunteer under the bus.
Andrew (not PorC)

Soudas has apologized, so that implies tacit acknowledgment of the occurrence of this event.
briguyhfx

Soudas has already offered an apology. His normal modus operandi is to deny, deny, deny. There's no way he'd offer an apology if there was any wiggle room. Ergo: the story is true.
Amateur Hour

"Why's that?"

Unless you mean to say that YOU are the dubious thing (as opposed to your being doubtful), the comment displays poor usage.

Oh, the individuals involved, the press and Tory staffers acknowledge it happened.
RealityCheck

My goodness. Is it your guys' goal to discourage me from every participating on these boards ever again? Because you are actually succeeding.
RealityCheck

But he did not confirm that it happened the way it was reported. That's all I'm saying, really. Nothing more. Just dubious about the way it went down. Didn't know so many of you were so sensitive. Now I know.
tedbetts

Not sensitive. Pissed. And moreso every day. I never liked Harper but I haven't always been so pissed with him.

Harper is hiding from Canadians. Media aren't allowed to do their job and are fenced off far away from him. He is trying to block two significant accountability reports from coming out, one on detainees and one on G20. You aren't even allowed to hear him speak, let alone ask questions, unless you pre-qualify and even then you risk getting kicked out if you are not "the right kind of person". There are at least three incidents now of ordinary Canadians getting kicked out of Harper events for exercising their fundamental rights of association and free expression prior to the Harper events in question (i.e. not because of their behaviour at the event). The Conservatives are even shouting at their own volunteers for even mentioning to local reporters where Harper was going that day.

This is connecting to Canadians? This is how you apply for a job? This is Harper's version of open, accountable and transparent government? This is Harper's democracy.
Anon

For what it's worht, I don't think you are a Conbot and I have no problem with you commenting here even though I completely don't buy your equinanamous view of how things went down in London.
Guest

There is a very angry little group of Liberals here that dominate the discussion. Not very informative but it can be entertaining at times.
Anon

Un-frickin'-believable.
Anon

Just so you know. That wasn't me making those accusations there.
RealityCheck

You mean someone else posted under "Anon"? Or that someone else originally made that accusation?
practical mom

First I was outraged that Canadians are not allowed to hear the man trying to become our Prime Minister.

Now I realize that all of us tax paying peons get to pay for these events that we aren't allowed to attend.

What percentage of campaign expenses gets refunded to the conservatives by Elections Canada?

If we aren't allowed in maybe we should refuse to pay.
Style

I believe that the Conservatives tried to let you stop paying a couple of years ago. It didn't work out for some reason, but they've said they'll try again after this election.
elmo

It's not a trivial amount. Harper got more money from his expense refunds then he did from fundraising and vote money combined. It puts his illegal in/out scheme in a new light when you see the volume of it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/part…
practical mom

I fully support the per vote subsidy. Its the refund for donations that I am against and would like to see phased out.

But this about refunding election expenses, a third form of income to political parties. If the Conservatives are running private events, then Canadian taxpayers should not have to subsidize the cost.
lenny

Wrong.
practical mom

So cheering for Canada and encouraging young people to vote is a protest?
dave

Someone please investigate who is gathering the information on these individuals: PC Party agents or the RCMP.

I say this because there's a pretty fricken thick line between executing a background check to determine if RSVP guests pose an imminent danger to a party leader and expanding that search to include executing one to remove those who might simply state a dissenting opinion or be an "agent" of another party. Our Police forces should never cross it, and if any party is requesting or encouraging such they should be dealt with severely.
Loraine Lamontagne

OK – I went to the link – what's wrong with practical mom's understanding of this?
BCer in Mtl

Maybe if he wore dark glasses he'd be OK?
Holly Stick

Groucho Marx glasses with eyebrows, nose and beard would be my preference. ;)
Holly Stick

I wonder if they are taking pictures and using face-recognition software at these events.
Style

Thanks. Eliminating expense reimbursements seems like it would tilt the system even more toward the party's with the most successful fundraising apparatus – making our system operate much more like the American system. Am I missing something to this argument?
Style

It does look like a crowd of Liberals thanks to the unfortunate colour scheme. But no, it was silly to ask them to leave. Maybe the Conservatives could keep some blue sweater vests on hand so future partipants could cover up their red and white outfits.
Thwim

Your standard of proof is bizarre. If someone is willing to stand in front of the press and admit they did something stupid, then and only then will you believe they might have done something stupid. Even if they apologized for doing the stupid thing. If they didn't specifically admit that they were being stupid, then you don't think they were.

Do you apply that logic to everybody, or just the CPC?
John.K

Unfortunate colour scheme? Seen a Canadian flag lately?
TimesArrow

This is the ground Ignatieff needs to win on if he is to convince joe average Canadian to support him. Canadian's don't like this kind of behaviour.
The cons are going to say it's no different from the Trudeau bubble election strategy [ i didn't like that either] in 1980. No comparison. It was hard to pin old fuddle duddle down – but he wasn't screening people; kicking people out of his events or limiting acess to the media overtly. This is our future folks. You can have dissent, but only controlled dissent. Welcome to Steve's brave new world!
TimesArrow

Style thinks our flag is a liberal party plant. He's argued as much here before. And been taken to school. Probably he was just joking here – at least i hope so.
TimesArrow

You'll never know….mmmwwhahahaha…

Anon
lenny

Nothing at all. I was responding to Sty.
lenny

Yes. You're missing the fact that Harper has never expressed any interest in ending the flow of millions of taxpayers dollars his party receives, despite your claim to the contrary above.
Style

Right, we've covered that. I'm now asking why we would want to end the reimbursement of campaign expenses. While it doesn't eliminate the fundraising gap between political parties, it seems to help all parties afford to maintain a professional campaign. The concept that it should be tied to how the party organizes its election events seems like petulance aimed at the current PM.
Style

Is there actually a conspiracy theory out there that Lester Pearson manipulated the choice of the Canadian flag's color scheme in order to favour the Liberals? I just think it's inappropriate to let one political party use the flag's colours as its own.
TimesArrow

Sure…let's just colour it blue whenever the tories are in…don't be surprised if that isn't on Harper's to do list if he gets his majority.
Style

I disagree that we're funding public events when we reimburse a share of some campaign expenses – we're supporting the political process. We probably don't want to regulate too closely how parties conduct their campaigns, such as by specifying how attendance at their rallies should be determined.

Your second point can be collapsed to "why should I pay for causes I don't support". Put that way, you probably don't agree with the argument. We subsidize fundraising this way because it's part of how Canadians build civil society, which we all value and which is subject to free-riding.
Style

Yes, the only solution to the Liberals using the flag's colour scheme is to change the colors used on the flag. What colours should we use on the flag during an election? Or if there's a coalition?
practical mom

How does a private event support the political process? I think it distorts it. We have images of everyone clapping and cheering – not because everyone agrees but because anyone who doesn't agree isn't allowed to be there. So the answer may be not lie in funding restrictions but in public awareness. Maybe we should require any footage from a private event to be labeled as such. Call me naive but I was shocked to learn that Harper's events had restricted attendance.

I agree that we don't want to overly regulate how parties conduct their campaigns. Voters just need to know what is happening and then they can vote accordingly.
practical mom

I am not one who doesn't want to pay for causes that I don't support. Taxes pay for all kinds of things that each of us may or may not support. But those items have been approved by Parliament, which was elected by us to make those decisions. But a personal decision is just that – one person deciding to support a cause without any scrutiny. Why should that trigger repayment from all taxpayers?

Why do you think people would reject building a civil society just because they won't get a refund? People are better than that and I'm sure we will all continue to support what we like. In fact if personal income taxes are reduced we may choose to donate more. Isn't that the argument? Les taxation and let people decide what to do with their money?

I'll repeat that it is unlikely that refunds for donations will ever change. It is just too entrenched. If we had never gone down that road, I'm sure we would still have lots of charitable giving. we have gone down that road so I doubt we can turn back now.