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

'It offended her professional responsibilities'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 6, 2011 8:50am - 90 Comments

Ned Franks considers the circumstances of the rogue Senate page.

Brigette DePape’s breaking of the rules governing the behaviour of the staff of Parliament was not civil disobedience. She was not protesting a specific law or policy. She was simply objecting to the results of a democratic nationwide election in which she, along with every other citizen 18 years or older, was entitled to vote. Her act was amusing, and held a sort of childish charm. But it offended her professional responsibilities.

Tags: Brigette DePape, house of commons, Ned Franks, Parliament, Senate, Senate page, Speech from the Throne, Throne Speech

More by Aaron Wherry

Anonymous

Two words in response to Ned Franks’ authoritarian thoughts on the professioonal responsibilities of government employees: Munir Sheikh.
Anonymous

Two words in response to Ned Franks’ authoritarian thoughts on the professioonal responsibilities of government employees: Munir Sheikh.
Anonymous

Other than that last sentence (which became the title of this article) I tend to agree. It wasn’t civil disobedience, any more than someone working for Suncor coming out and saying that we should make oil companies pay for the increased rates of cancer we’re seeing around Fort MacMurray.

Was it high-stakes principled political action? Yes.. (whether you agree with her principles or not, it’s pretty obvious she went into this knowing she’d probably lose her job and decided it was worth it) so she has my admiration for that.

Other than that though.. not sure how terribly effective it was. A general message like that, without there being any larger issue it could be attached to is unlikely to survive past the first busy news cycle. She was fortunate that there seems to be not a helluva lot going on right now, so it’s extended her presence.

Anonymous

Good post, Thwim. I have no problem with her staging a protest. My problem is a substantive one regarding the mixed message she was giving out. It’s the fact that she was mixing up a procedural/structural political objection (the shortcomings of our first past the post electoral system) with a nakedly partisan one (she hates Harper and his policies and makes this ridiculous assertion that he’s a dictator akin to Assad and Mubarak etc.). That’s what I had a problem with. If you have a problem with our first past the post system, then to have credibility as a protestor or spokesperson on that issue I think you have to keep your objection principled and non-partisan, and address the obvious point that, e.g., Jean Chretien won power with 38% of the popular vote (and we didn’t have lefties or liberals protesting about that), Glen Clark won a provincial election in the 90s while losing the popular vote (and we didn’t have Dippers or other lefties protesting about that — wonder why?).

But in her interviews, she started ranting about how Harper is a dictator because he won an election under first-past-the post, as though that’s somehow illegitimate. But there are so many obvious counterpoints to that (e.g., who is she suggesting SHOULD BE Prime Minister, Layton, who got even fewer votes than Harper?), and she didn’t even attempt to address any of them. Nor did the journalists like Solomon, who just pitched meatball/powderpuff questions to her, allowing her to spew out predictable lefty talking points in reply.

The bottom line for me is that this woman is obviously extremely partisan politically, and if she wants to criticize Harper for his policies, fine. But to claim that she’s some sort of spokesperson for reform of our electoral system while making these ad hominem accusations of Harper being a dictator (along with that idiotic, histrionic reference to the Arab Spring), to me that’s where her credibility flew right out the window and she was revealed for what she really is: a partisan hypocrite.
Anonymous

Good post, Thwim. I have no problem with her staging a protest. My problem is a substantive one regarding the mixed message she was giving out. It’s the fact that she was mixing up a procedural/structural political objection (the shortcomings of our first past the post electoral system) with a nakedly partisan one (she hates Harper and his policies and makes this ridiculous assertion that he’s a dictator akin to Assad and Mubarak etc.). That’s what I had a problem with. If you have a problem with our first past the post system, then to have credibility as a protestor or spokesperson on that issue I think you have to keep your objection principled and non-partisan, and address the obvious point that, e.g., Jean Chretien won power with 38% of the popular vote (and we didn’t have lefties or liberals protesting about that), Glen Clark won a provincial election in the 90s while losing the popular vote (and we didn’t have Dippers or other lefties protesting about that — wonder why?).

But in her interviews, she started ranting about how Harper is a dictator because he won an election under first-past-the post, as though that’s somehow illegitimate. But there are so many obvious counterpoints to that (e.g., who is she suggesting SHOULD BE Prime Minister, Layton, who got even fewer votes than Harper?), and she didn’t even attempt to address any of them. Nor did the journalists like Solomon, who just pitched meatball/powderpuff questions to her, allowing her to spew out predictable lefty talking points in reply.

The bottom line for me is that this woman is obviously extremely partisan politically, and if she wants to criticize Harper for his policies, fine. But to claim that she’s some sort of spokesperson for reform of our electoral system while making these ad hominem accusations of Harper being a dictator (along with that idiotic, histrionic reference to the Arab Spring), to me that’s where her credibility flew right out the window and she was revealed for what she really is: a partisan hypocrite.

Anonymous

Other than that last sentence (which became the title of this article) I tend to agree. It wasn’t civil disobedience, any more than someone working for Suncor coming out and saying that we should make oil companies pay for the increased rates of cancer we’re seeing around Fort MacMurray.

Was it high-stakes principled political action? Yes.. (whether you agree with her principles or not, it’s pretty obvious she went into this knowing she’d probably lose her job and decided it was worth it) so she has my admiration for that.

Other than that though.. not sure how terribly effective it was. A general message like that, without there being any larger issue it could be attached to is unlikely to survive past the first busy news cycle. She was fortunate that there seems to be not a helluva lot going on right now, so it’s extended her presence.
Anonymous

Brigette Depape’s behaviour is certainly acceptable. It is the hockey stick
by which many will measure her generation. A country may make the
mistake of voting fascists in but, as our parents’ and grand parent’s
generation proved, – there was but one way to get them and their
appointments out. It wasn’t through signs or voting. As part of the 60% not favoured by the Inner Party, I vote for Brigette’s actions.
Anonymous

Brigette Depape’s behaviour is certainly acceptable. It is the hockey stick
by which many will measure her generation. A country may make the
mistake of voting fascists in but, as our parents’ and grand parent’s
generation proved, – there was but one way to get them and their
appointments out. It wasn’t through signs or voting. As part of the 60% not favoured by the Inner Party, I vote for Brigette’s actions.

Anonymous

So we’re not going to be able to get Harper and the Conservatives out of office by voting against them in the next election?
Anonymous

So we’re not going to be able to get Harper and the Conservatives out of office by voting against them in the next election?
Anonymous

So we’re not going to be able to get Harper and the Conservatives out of office by voting against them in the next election?

Anonymous

No. I think that was it, Orson. Any fifth grader will tell you that Parliamentary Democracy is a way for the citizens of sissy countries to hand over their personal liberty to someone else.

Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?
Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?
Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?

Anonymous

I’d be OK with carrying Rex Murphy on our shoulders into the House. He would make an excellent ‘dollar a year man’. Although, Orson, I did get a phone call from Alexis de Tocqueville warning me about handing my liberty over to anyone.
Anonymous

I’d be OK with carrying Rex Murphy on our shoulders into the House. He would make an excellent ‘dollar a year man’. Although, Orson, I did get a phone call from Alexis de Tocqueville warning me about handing my liberty over to anyone.
Anonymous

I’d be OK with carrying Rex Murphy on our shoulders into the House. He would make an excellent ‘dollar a year man’. Although, Orson, I did get a phone call from Alexis de Tocqueville warning me about handing my liberty over to anyone.
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

If Harper received ONLY 39.6% of the the vote why is he allowed to maintain 100% of the power?
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

If Harper received ONLY 39.6% of the the vote why is he allowed to maintain 100% of the power?

Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?
Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?
Anonymous

So would you have been ok with us handing our personal liberty over to Jack Layton?

Anonymous

No. I think that was it, Orson. Any fifth grader will tell you that Parliamentary Democracy is a way for the citizens of sissy countries to hand over their personal liberty to someone else.
Anonymous

No. I think that was it, Orson. Any fifth grader will tell you that Parliamentary Democracy is a way for the citizens of sissy countries to hand over their personal liberty to someone else.
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

Harper can do a lot of damage in four years.
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

Harper can do a lot of damage in four years.

http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

I couldn’t agree with you more! I vote for brigette Depape’s action.
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

I couldn’t agree with you more! I vote for brigette Depape’s action.

Anonymous

Brigette Depape’s behaviour is certainly acceptable. It is the hockey stick
by which many will measure her generation. A country may make the
mistake of voting fascists in but, as our parents’ and grand parent’s
generation proved, – there was but one way to get them and their
appointments out. It wasn’t through signs or voting. As part of the 60% not favoured by the Inner Party, I vote for Brigette’s actions.
http://idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Omen

This was a self-serving publicity stunt, nothing more, nothing less.
She didn’t even really have a point.

http://www.idrinkinthemorning.com/?p=97

http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

Why is it that everytime somebody does something just to make a point, (that the right doesn’t agree with,) then there must be some ulterior motive. Brigette DePape held up a sign that simply pointed out her concerns with Harper. She wasn’t expecting to get rich from this action. She wasn’t expecting to become a star from this action. And, yes, she didn’t expect to make a profit from her actions. I know that that’s hard for somebody like you to believe. She simply wanted to make a point! NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Watson/100001637979611 George Watson

Why is it that everytime somebody does something just to make a point, (that the right doesn’t agree with,) then there must be some ulterior motive. Brigette DePape held up a sign that simply pointed out her concerns with Harper. She wasn’t expecting to get rich from this action. She wasn’t expecting to become a star from this action. And, yes, she didn’t expect to make a profit from her actions. I know that that’s hard for somebody like you to believe. She simply wanted to make a point! NOTHING MORE!!!!!!!!!!