The exclusion of two apparent Liberal party supporters from a Conservative campaign event in London, Ontario is being blamed on a sinister plot by the PMO to screen out opposition supporters. The story has even led Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to directly accuse Stephen Harper of demanding more rigorous background checks on people showing up at his campaign events than advisers he hires to work for him.
Ignatieff went on to tell reporters during a stop in Newfoundland that “you are in a very un-Canadian place” when people get barred from public meetings for being friends with him on Facebook. One of the women who said she was barred from the event had to pre-register for the rally and that’s how the Conservatives screened her out.
First off, it’s an obvious bit of turnabout being fair play for Ignatieff, who is taking the opportunity to mock Stephen Harper for his party’s own campaign against Ignatieff’s own allegiance to Canada. And it’s clear that he’s exploiting the situation to create his own media spotlight, happily granted by the mainstream press.
Second, it seems to be taken for granted that this was deliberate, and further indicative of the sort of contempt for democratic practices that the Conservatives have displayed in this country’s most hallowed institutions. Stop me if you’ve heard this before.
But does it seem logical, or even practical, to screen every person who pre-registers for a campaign event, and then exclude them if they’re seen to belong to another party? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that the party would be less interested in the decided Conservative voters who will do little more than wave banners, and more interested in the kind of people who might be pursued to abandon Ignatieff and add a vote for the Conservatives?
Lost in the narrative of this whole exclusion story is the fact the Conservatives are on a campaign to win over the soft Liberal support that will grant them the majority government they so desperately covet. The idea that Stephen Harper is ordering the PMO to draw up lists of political enemies to exclude them from campaign rallies is about as ridiculous as it gets.
And if these women were excluded because of the Quixotic decision of one or more Conservative staffers, then it seems a little overdone to continue belabouring the point long after the party has issued a statement of apology and indicated it was a mistake. Assigning motives from the highest tiers of power to exclude potential voters from rallies is pretty much the textbook definition of Harper derangement syndrome.
Of course there is another, albeit equally implausible, version of events to this story. As ridiculous as it is to suspect the prime minister of trying to exclude voters from a campaign rally designed to gain more voters, is it at all possible the Liberal party hired young students to go to these rallies in order to make the claim they were denied entry?
I mean, is it at all possible that given the political fodder that has been made over the claims of two people in the entire country of Canada, that a calculation was made somewhere in Liberal party headquarters to further the conspiratorial theories that Stephen Harper’s anti-democratic government is out to be mean and nasty to young, innocent students?
Possible? Yes. Plausible? No. But neither is the sort of claims that are being given serious consideration by people who pretend to have serious minds in organizations that pretend to be serious dispensers of news.
No. You’re rationalizing.
More and more people are now coming forward with stories of how they have been unfairly screened, including one advocate for homeless veterans. Read the news. Do you read the news? It seems that everyone in the country but you knows that Stephen Harper prefers to campaign in bubble.
Do I read the news? I’m fairly certain this is what you’re referring to: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/david_akin/2011/04/05/17885346.html
How about the media talking about Party policies and fact checking claims by all Parties for a change and taking seriously that choosing who will lead us for the next 4 years ! ( Or a lot less than 4 years if it’s a Conservative minority or an unstable Coalition ).
If people really want a Government way off to the left they should vote massively for Ignatieff, but if they prefer a stable Conservative Government then vote for a Conservative majority: These are the only real stakes in this election in my opinion.
If the Canadian people don’t want a Coalition Government of the Left with a weak Liberal P.M. having to give in to every NDP economic wish list and pay off the BLOCK to stay in power, then they should vote for a Conservative majority.
Isn’t this important enough for the Media to take seriously instead of playing games and doing the usual horse race and ” gotcha ” cheap journalism ?
Interesting article but if the same had happened to Harper visiting a diner, and gotten sarcastic and honestly an impolite reception I’m sure we would have heard a lot about how people hate Harper and are rejecting his message !
The article treats the way Ignatieff was received as if it’s a funny anecdote and very lightly and not really important and actual praises Ignatieff for being poised in the face of rudeness ! And to be fair this is the way it should be reported, but I would like the same fairness shown all around, including Harper !
Maybe the point is are we going to choose a Government and P.M. based on this trivial stuff that is completely irrelevant to competence or policies related to running the country.
But considering the way the Media is living up to the Conservatives expectations of unfair coverage one can understand maybe a little excessive measures taken to avoid incidents ! Although clumsy or tactless application of this prudence has it’s own risks of creating bad P.R. !
As much as I hate to be a self-promoting douchebag, I’d like to point out that it isn’t necessarily the Liberals giving in to the NDP that we have to worry about, but the NDP giving into the Bloc.
Or both giving in to the BLOCK ? What would be sad and very destructive for the country is if the majority of the people don’t want a Left Wing Coalition in charge but that’s what they get because the Conservatives don’t get a majority ! If people like the idea of this Coalition then fine and we will see if we are right that it will be a disaster for the Country socially and economically !
I can easily see the West or at least Alberta seriously considering separation and Canada breaking up should the Coalition prove unpopular once it’s starts making the laws and the rules ?
Canadians should really take this seriously and decide in what direction they want to go but not stumble by accident in the direction they don’t want to go !
Have you considered that the Libs sent an envoy to purposely distrupt? This seems most likely.
The last 3 paragraphs dead with that possibility.
To me, this whole campaign is just one silly non-issue after another. I am kind of hoping that all the parties ditch their leaders after this election and then choose people that act like adults, both in Parlaiment and on the campaign trail
Media is consistent. Liberals good…Conservatives bad.
I am 55 years old and have heard this my whole life.
Canada lacks media accountabilty. Even the comedians in the USA hold the media to account.
Not all the parties need to change leaders Mike
..There is nothing wrong with PM Harper that a
good dose of MSM honesty would not cure.As for
the opposition leaders YES get rid of the lot
of them and don,t forget Elizabeth the mouth.
It would be pretty obvious to me, that, if you knew the media was looking for stumbles, and, you knew the other partys were pushing an image of the Cons of being secretive and contemptuous then maybe being so secretive and comtemptuous isnt such a good idea. This campaign should be over and done by now, but, Harper has allowed the LPC to define the party and him in the first two weeks.
What should have been a 180 seat majority is now a 150 seat minority. Quit bitching about the media, we know who and what they are yet still yet we still whine when they behave the way we knew they’d behave…and that makes no sense.
How could you say that Harper has “allowed” the media to set the agenda – how does one defend against a full frontal attack? \the media is simply no longer hiding their bias.
I’m with BillG, this is nothing new. It’s what, the millionth mini-scandal that the media will try to pin on Evil Harper and the Dark Side of politics? I mean, this is the SAME guy who didn’t give his son a hug on the way to school and put his communion wafer into his pocket!!
Another non-story about a non-issue. If you don’t want bigger deficits, and some semblance of fiscal responsibility, there is only one choice to be made.
Vote Conservative!
Seems like Iggy kicks out Liberals from his campaign too. It’s too bad it’s not more widely reported. No bias there!
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/dossiers/elections-federales/201104/05/01-4386903-le-premier-passage-dignatieff-a-quebec-marque-par-un-cafouillage.php
This would never happen to Harper because he NEVER travels outside his protective bubble.
Which is the point.
It is perfectly legitimate for the media to contrast the outgoing, responsive campaign of Michael Ignatieff to the protected, isolated non responsive campaign of Stephen Harper. That is called reporting the news.
So you would like the media to report on your little fantasy fabrication instead of what is actually happening?
Interesting way to define bias.
Oh boo hoo Fay. Maybe at 55 it is time you grew up and held people accountable instead of blaming the media when the CPC screw up.
Nothing changes with the Liberal media. Here’s friendly for you.
Gayle will fondly recall Warren Kinsella sitting beside bobblehead Lloyd Robertson
and using a Barney doll on CTV’s 2000 coverage, which directly focussed on
Stockwell Day’s religious beliefs. It was the very worst character assassination
Canadians have ever seen.
I am in no way religious, but that laughing fest on national TV was just disgraceful.
And with all the relevence Gayle can muster….she, like reporters chose to ignore
that dozens of Liberal MP’s also happened to belong to the same Church as Day.
This all started on the first day of Harper’s first mandate when the media made a big deal about Harper shaking his son’s hand when leaving him at school and made a big deal about it and it seems to have set and shown the same pattern since then.
As someone suggested maybe the ” bunker mentality ” seemed like the right approach and maybe being more open might work if there was a chance that the media would report anything positive about the Harper campaign.
That said re-thinking or re-evaluating the strategy should be done to see what can be improved to get the message out and avoid things like this.
On the other hand I haven’t seen, so far, any of the ” frat boy ” childish nonsense that happened early in the 2008 campaign when the war room got much too aggressive with bad jokes that backfired and out us off message for a week !
Just heard it on the radio a minute ago, so some reporting is going on !
The radio news and talk shows seem a lot more varied in their coverage and not just Liberal cheerleaders.
Seems like Ms.Aslam has some affiliation with the NDP. Bourque has a link to a memo that went to NDP staffers and MPs – and Awish Aslam.
It would be nice if the parties attacked each others policies instead of playing silly games like this and pretending its important to voters.
I am with you, but then we cannot undo 2 years of personal attack ads.