Wednesday, May 04, 2011

 

STOP! The Election isn't over .. it never took place!

.

The May 2 Election Improper, Illegitimate. Null and Void.  YOU READ IT HERE.


By Robin Mathews
May 4, 2011

The facts are very, very simple.  But first: these facts came to me in mid-election when I was (a) travelling, (b) sick, (c) overcome with family matters.  They came to me through BC Mary from Rita Dawson.

The key facts make the election Improper, Illegitimate, Null and Void.  I am going to lay out the facts as they came to me.  They come originally, it seems, from a Native Canadian organization. They have been ignored by Elections Canada, by the political parties, and – of course – by the Mainstream Press and Media.

Plainly action is in the hands of Canadians.  We must protest and demand an answer from Elections Canada.  We must demand Elections Canada seek a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Elections Act. We must prepare to prevent Parliament from meeting if it is called with an illegitimate Harper government attempting to pretend legitimacy. We must act.  Now.

Individuals, organizations of all kinds must be heard. Write Elections Canada. Now. Demand an answer.  Organize.

___

Here is a YouTube which catches Harper's words as he blames his citation of "Contempt of Parliament" on the Opposition. The YouTube is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTRF92cC1k4



And here is another:

 http://www.cfne.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5387

_______


 NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR ANY POLITICAL OFFICE!


Rita Dawson comment: While doing some research for a fellow activist I came across this item on a Native website.  I'd say they're on to something and one would only hope that some hot-shot Constitutional lawyer is working day and night on this one 'cause, from the looks of the evidence submitted, Harper is in "breach of privilege" and isn't [wasn't] qualified to run for any political office.  Rita


Credit/Source: MrSteeper33

Info By: PAUL W KINCAID


Canada Elections Act


CANDIDATES -- Qualifications

Click HERE:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx? ... =res&dir=loi%2Ffel%2Fcea&...


Ineligible candidates


65. The following persons are not eligible to be a candidate:


(b) a person who is dis-entitled under paragraph 502(3)(a) while they are so dis-entitled;


Stephen Harper was found guilty of the crime of contempt of parliament by the Canadian House of Commons. The guilty verdict disqualified Harper for re-election as he was  dis-entitled as Prime Minister by the House of Commons.


TABLE OF OFFENCES


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT

Click HERE:

http://www.elections.ca/res/loi/his/2000/TabOffences_e.pdf


On March 21, 2011 a House of Commons committee ruled that the Harper government was in contempt of Parliament -- an offense against the authority or dignity of Parliament, including disobedience to its commands or libel against it or its Members. Punishment for such an offense may take a variety of forms, up to and including imprisonment.


On March 25, 2011 the finding of contempt led to a motion of non-confidence introduced by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. The NDP and BQ supported them, which resulted in the adjournment of the 40th Parliament of Canada, and made Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government the first to fall on a charge of contempt of Parliament.


Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a "breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House. There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its Officers.



Source: AFC REPORT CANADA



http://afccanada.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... dont-care-about-contempt/



Source: "NATIVES SAY NO TO STEPHEN HARPER'S RE-ELECTION."

(Facebook)

Link, click HERE:  http://www.cfne.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5387



Robin concludes: Organize.  Write to Elections Canada demanding a reply.  Prepare to be lied to and to be misled. 

(Elections Canada may try to escape its responsibility.  It has done so before in my direct experience with it. Don’t take a flabby put-off. And Political Parties may respond out of self-interest, not the national interest. Don’t be misled by them.)

Demand Elections Canada seek a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the Elections Act.

Prepare to stop Parliament from meeting in an illegitimate form.

The Election is not over.  It never took place!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Comments:
Whatever way anyone wants to spin this the reality is an untouchable four-year Harper dictatorship against a political-aberration opposition party waging a one-sided war in a radicalized two-party state.

The NDP having "failed" to expand its western and Ontario base must now fall back on a grossly ill-trained and politically-unreliable force of Quebecois carpetbaggers.

Effectively Stephen Harper and the Reform Party of Canada now has no opposition . . . and divisive social issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, along with the ever lurking privatized health care plans are now on the table and in parliament (and the courts) for the next decade.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/05/canadas_federal_election
 
We must demand Elections Canada seek a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Elections Act.

Why does it have to Elections Canada who asks the Supreme Court that? Why can't it be anybody?

Oh yeah, I forgot. This is Canada. Pity.
 
Was it not the responsibility of the Gov. General of Canada (touted as an expert on constitutional procedure)to be ready to allow or not allow Mr. Harper to proceed in his capacity as a potential PM? After all, the dissolution was due to CONTEMPT of PARLIAMENT so how do we just gally-lag along to proceed to a new election for the 41st parliament without dealing with this contempt of parliament? My commonsense understanding is that Mr. Harper, being the leader of this previous gov't that was dissolved due to contempt of parliament, should have been held accountable to his decision to stall and isolate and violate parliamentary procedures.
Shouldn't this accounting for this behaviour have happened? Do we just ignore this subversion of democracy?
 
Hi Mary,
Much as I wish it were the case, I don't think Robin's argument is sustainable - the offences described are offenses committed by 'persons' which have led to charges and convictions in a court of law. Being in contempt of parliament is the basis for the non-confidence motion which brought down the Harper Government - it does not mean that each member of that government has been found guilty of anything.

One might sustain the argument against Bev Oda as an 'individual' but, once again, she has not been charged, tried and convicted according to the meaning of the relevant sections of the Elections Act.

I wish it could be otherwise - but it's not - in my view.
Here are the relevant sections:

Illegal Practices and Corrupt Practices

Illegal practice

502. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence that is an illegal practice who

(a) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, contravenes section 92 (publication of false statement of withdrawal of candidate);

(b) being a candidate or an official agent, contravenes subsection 330(2) (foreign broadcasting);

(c) being an official agent, a candidate or a person authorized under paragraph 446(c), wilfully contravenes section 443 (exceeding election expenses limit);

(d) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, commits an offence under subsection 480(1) (obstructing electoral process) or 480(2) (inciting, conspiring to act in disorderly manner);

(e) being a candidate, contravenes subsection 549(3) (taking false oath) or 549(4) (compelling or inducing false oath); or

(f) being a candidate, contravenes section 550 (signing of document that limits freedom of action in Parliament).

Corrupt practice

(2) Every person is guilty of an offence that is a corrupt practice who

(a) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, contravenes section 7 (voting more than once);

(b) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, contravenes paragraph 43(a) (obstruction of election officer);

(c) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, wilfully contravenes paragraph 43(b) (impersonation of revising agent);

(d) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, contravenes paragraph 56(b) (making false statement to have person deleted from Register of Electors);

(e) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, contravenes paragraph 56(c) or (d) (forbidden acts re Register of Electors);

(f) contravenes section 89 (signing of nomination paper when ineligible);

(f.1) being a candidate, wilfully contravenes subsection 92.2(1) (accepting prohibited gift or other advantage);

(g) contravenes paragraph 111(a), (d) or (e) (forbidden acts re list of electors);

(h) contravenes paragraph 167(1)(a) (apply for a ballot under false name); or

(i) being a candidate or an official agent of a candidate, commits an offence under subsection 481(1) (offering bribe).

Consequences of illegal, corrupt practices

(3) Any person who is convicted of having committed an offence that is an illegal practice or a corrupt practice under this Act shall, in addition to any other punishment for that offence prescribed by this Act, in the case of an illegal practice, during the next five years or, in the case of a corrupt practice, during the next seven years, after the date of their being so convicted, not be entitled to

(a) be elected to or sit in the House of Commons; or

(b) hold any office in the nomination of the Crown or of the Governor in Council.

2000, c. 9, s. 502; 2006, c. 9, s. 58.
 
Here is a great cartoon showing us the future with Harper.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/toon.php

Look at it today as it may be replaced by tomorrow's MacKinnon cartoon in the Halifax Chronicle Herald.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home