Iggy wants to talk about “fraud”?

Check out Michael Ignatieff’s recorded Statements in the House (here) where he directed the word “fraud” 15 times since March 1 at the Conservative government.

Funny how the only politician actually found guilty of fraud is one of his senators. (see here)

Advertisements

33 Responses to “Iggy wants to talk about “fraud”?”

  1. Heather Says:

    Well, since Lavigne was kicked out of the Liberal caucus as soon as his actions became known… I’m not sure what your point is. Senators have the right to call themselves a representative of any political party they want – we even had an NDP senator for a while but that doesn’t mean that the NDP ever had anything to do with her.

    But I guess that without the misinformed “Liberal” element to this story, it doesn’t really support your point of view. Typical.

    • Steve Says:

      Move along folks, no controversy to see here folks. Will keep you posted when another msm concocted Conservative controversy comes along.

  2. Frances Says:

    Heather – the point is that M. Lavigne was part of the Liberal caucus while the fraud was being committed. You imply he was kicked out of caucus as soon as his colleagues knew something was amiss; my recollection is that they waited until charges were laid. If the latter, then it’s just damage control, not a virtuous act.

    • TerminalSix Says:

      Exactly, once charges were laid something was done. They didn’t wait for the conviction to take action.

  3. LTD.Edition Says:

    Let’s make the comparison then:

    Lavigne: charged and immediately kicked out of the party and senate caucus. Now convicted he is to be voted out of the senate (you can’t fire someone for a crime until they have been convicted).

    The 4 Conservative party members charged with electoral fraud: Adamantly defended by the government and the conservative party, still members of the party, still members of the senate. Now found in contempt of parliament (2nd time this has EVER happened) and they STILL are party members.

    I realize a committee is meeting to discuss the repercussion so we will see action on this. However, the liberal party took action as soon as the charges were being investigated and they did not defend him, whereas the conservatives did not take action and DID defend their men.

    Really, it’s not too comparable since the hypocrisy lies with those who say the liberal party is being hypocritical (they aren’t, they took action). Not to mention that Lavigne was acting on his own while the conservative members were involved in a scheme that their party was well aware of and approved.

    I challenge you to explain why this is the same or worse than the charged of electoral fraud and inaction on the part of the conservative party.

    P.S. I in no way approve of or support the Liberal Party of Canada. They simply want to keep power and generally stick to the polls as opposed to having any innovative ideas. At least, however, they have some ethics when it comes to taking action on crimes being committed by their memebers.

    Also, if you want to bring up leave with pay, look at our RCMP system, it’s much the same, an investigation takes place and the member is on leave until proven innocent or guilty (at which time they may be re-employed or terminated, much as with the liberals)…

    I would compare the conservative handling of this to that of the Catholic Church and child molesting bishops. They have impunity from the law as representatives of the Vatican and therefore keep their jobs in all aspects… even when proven guilty in some cases.

    • LTD.Edition Says:

      Oh, I didn’t have notifications on. Reply to this if you want to discuss this. I feel that it may be helpful since you are overlooking some glaring facts and making unbalanced comparisons that seem to drive from ideology and not reason or rationality.

      • BC Blue Says:

        lol Ya, like comparing systematic child molestation to a non-criminal code election act charge.

        • TerminalSix Says:

          I like that you avoided all my points.

          Even here… I am not comparing child molestation to breach of the elections act of Canada.

          What I am comparing is being kept on as a member of an organization after breaching the trust in-which you are endowed. Though I can understand how you thought I was comparing the charges, I am not.

        • BC Blue Says:

          I don’t “debate” with fanatics like yourself who equate child molestation and Election Act infractions.

        • TerminalSix Says:

          It was a good attempt on your part of avoiding the issue though.

        • TerminalSix Says:

          How did you get finatic out of me clarifying for you that I am comparing the retention on membership in response to a breach of trust?

          It is obvious (as I stated) that the offenses are incomparable and are not being compared. What is being compared is the reaction of an organization with a breach of trust.

          We can throw that example aside even and simply use my example of the RCMP, which is sufficient to get my point across. If you can’t uphold the principles of your post you lose your moral authority to hold that post.

          What I would like is a discussion that actually addresses the issue and doesn’t resort to calling someone a fanatic or refusal to have a dialog based on a point I made that was unclear and I have attempted to clarify with you.

          As you can see, I am trying to be accommodating and have a real discussion and would like to hear your opinion on the matter of why the Liberal reaction to Lavignes charges were comparable to the conservative reaction to the point were the Liberals could be called hypocritical for calling out the conservatives over their stance on their 4 members.

          I hope this is clear enough.

  4. wilson Says:

    ”Senators have the right to call themselves a representative of any political party they want”

    Gee Heather, the fact that Lavigne was also a former LIBERAL MP means he was chosen by the LIBERAL leader to represent the LIBERAL brand.

    • TerminalSix Says:

      I’m speaking of party membership.

      • wilson Says:

        Who cares what YOU are speaking of,
        I was responding to Heather,
        or are YOU all of these posters:

        1. Heather and
        2. LTD.Edition and
        3. TerminalSix

        Seek help for that split personality thing, eh.
        You might hurt yourself.

  5. Alberta Girl Says:

    I would like to ask LTD how this could be “fraud” when the rules at the time stated they could do this – all the other parties did this and the rules were not changed until after the Tories took power – not to mention that it was their own money they were spending!

  6. wilson Says:

    wiki:
    Lavinge successfully contested the riding in the 1993 election. He was re-elected as the MP for the riding, with altered boundaries, in the 1997 and 2000 federal elections. He served until he was appointed to the Canadian Senate on March 26, 2002.

    He was appointed to the Senate on the advice of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to make his riding available for Liza Frulla, a former Quebec cabinet minister.

    • TerminalSix Says:

      And yes they did appoint him but they also revoked his party membership when the charged were levied.

      • Steve Says:

        And Harper is heavy handed? So I am going to assume by your comments that the LPC stripped him of his party membership before he had the opportunity to disprove the charges against him.

      • wilson Says:

        ‘Montreal MP Pablo Rodriguez will remain a member of the Liberal Party caucus while he fights a charge of refusing to take a breathalyzer test following a car accident in April.

        ….

        Rodriguez will retain his role as the Official Opposition’s critic for Canadian heritage and the official languages, he said…’

  7. Martin Says:

    I notice on the CBC web story of this, Lavigne is identified as a Liberal Senator about 15 paragraphs into the story. His appointment by Chretien is mentioned on the very last line.
    (see CBC.ca)

    • BC Blue Says:

      I caught CBC’s Greg Weston avoid using the term Liberal completely here

      • TerminalSix Says:

        I hate it when that takes place in reporting. The question I always wonder is was it the editor or the journalist who made the call?

        I find Lavigne grossly miss-used his position of public trust and wish there was a way of getting that pay between being charged and convicted back.

        That’d be nice hey? Having a method of recourse to recoup lost taxpayer dollars once the conviction is made.

  8. Martin Says:

    My understanding is that the editors write headlines. CBC headline continues to avoid Liberal designation.

    • TerminalSix Says:

      Honestly, I think we’d be better off if there were no parties. Then spinning stories one way or the other would be much harder and the public and media would have to judge each individual representative on their own merits and not that of a greater “party” or group that may or may not share similarities / tactics and so on.

      It’d sure make it harder to plan for big policy changed but maybe it would allow for gradual changes with a more balanced and less ideological approach. How to achieve that while maintaining a workable system though…

  9. NO QUARTER Says:

    Hey, what about Pablo Rodriguez??
    Charged with DUI and still sitting. Defended by Liberal brass.
    Hypocrites!!!

  10. wilson Says:

    Not-a-Harper-fan, Andrew Coyne writes that the CPC is right and the Opposition and the media are a lynch mob.

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/11/electoral-fraud-tell-it-to-the-judge/

  11. wilson Says:

    BARRIE, Ont. – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s cross-Canada tour hit some more speed bumps on the weekend, the result of some less-than-desirable local candidates.

    In Chatham, Ont., federal Liberal candidate Steve Pickard faces six serious criminal charges of forcible confinement, assault, and uttering threats — charges Ignatieff won’t talk about.

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/17/14746401.html

  12. Ontario Girl Says:

    what the media (CBC) doesn’t want Canadians to see…Liberal Paul Szabo abusing his power in the Kangaroo Court disallowing 12 witnesses to appear on the Election Canada issue…Democracy the Liberal way..

  13. Ontario girl Says:

    The Liberal senator just made the list of 199 reasons not to vote Liberal go up to 200

    http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1188318&site_id=1


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: