She can do whatever she wants on her own time but she doesn't have a right to "lawfully and peacefully protest" while she's on duty as a page in the Senate. 

Well, our politicians dont' show respect in the house.....

 

I think she decided how to protest and now she will pay the price for it.

Hi Olivet_Sarah,

 

 

I don't believe so.

 

She is lawfully in the house as a page which means she is an employee of the Canadian Parliament.  She is not there to do her own thing, she is on the clock.  She abused her position and has been fired for her breach.

 

 

Not a security breach but a breach of duty certainly.

 

 

The "rightness" of the message cannot be properly measured as it is an opinion.  The "wrongness" of the time is manifold.  She is being paid to assist politicians not critique them.  Now that Harper has a majority she is fundamentally preaching against the choir and the choir isn't going to be listening to her.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

She wasn't fired in anything other than name.  SHe made a choice that would only end in the termination of her employment.  I call that quitting--with style.

I agree with both revjohn and gord on this one. I certainly applaud what she said. I can even see her as a public heroine.  But a firing for that is virtually automatic.

I think I'm pretty much coming to the 'right message, WRONG time' stance myself (and yes RevJohn you're right, at that, the correctness of the  message is a matter of opinion). I DO sympathize with her views, find Conservatives complaining about others' contempt of parliament a bit hypocritical, and I DO resent the references I've heard on the news to how this was a breach in security which needs to be reviewed (although I'll grant hiring practices probably do from here out ...)

 

BUT, at the end of the day, she wasn't doing her job, and was in fact interfering with others doing theirs while she was on the clock. It was not the time - just as, as a high school teacher, it would be out of line for me to discuss my own personal politics inside a publicly funded classroom, and just as police officers must enforce laws regardless of whether or not they personally agree with them.

 

On the other hand - I also agree that this girl isn't stupid. She knew the consequences of her actions, and obviously decided it was worth it. On that score, as I said, while I disagree with her actions, I can't help but be a bit admiring of her chutzpah.

Hi Olivet_Sarah

 

 

Well that depends.  As a high school teacher you are not likely under the employ of the Parliament of Canada and so critique of the Canadian Government should not result in you being fired.

 

Open criticism of your Provincial government would be skating on thin ice.  Open criticism of the Trustees or Admin of the local school board would be spitting into the wind and open criticism of your union leadership would be tugging on superman's cape.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

There is a time and a place to express your opinions - and this was neither the time nor the place. She must have known that she would get fired for protesting.

 

She made a sacrifice for something she believed in and that, I believe, is always commendable even when it appears futile to me....

 

 

 

LB

---------------------------------

A good sacrifice is one that is not necessarily sound but leaves your opponent dazed and confused.

     Nigel Short

The level of her "sacrifice" is debatable, you know. Her job was scheduled to end in August anyway, and with Parliament adjourning by the end of June? I also think that she's going to gain far more from the publicity than she'll lose. I'm not questioning that she believes in what she did and in what she stands for, but it's not exactly a prime example of "take up your cross and follow me." 

Hi Rev Steven Davis,

 

 

True.  It works well for having one's cake and eating it too.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Having said and/or agreed with all the above, I wonder if this was handled in the right way.

Her act was, by the nature of her employment, wrong.  The government response is understandable, but entirely negative.

Could this not have been handled in a more positive and useful way? Everyone,  surely, would have benefited from that.

It comes to mind because I'm working through a similar situation - and I have been slowly realizing there are positive ways I can deal with it.

Since this is a church site, shouldln't we be looking at this in a religious context?

Do we have the details as to how she was fired?  What did her supervisor say to her?  What was that person's non-verbal message?  She was an employee of the House -- her firing would have been by a supervisor, not a member of parliament.  The government is not likely to have had any direct role in the process.

For me, I guess I could not possibly care less about what our outdated rules of propriety say about the appropriateness of this action.  There is little doubt in my mind that our current system is broken, and that we are on a colision course with significant change in how our world is run.  That change will not come at the ballot box (see: FPTP).  That change will not come through peaceful street protests (see: G20 etc).  But it will come.  The question is, who will drive it?  All evidence suggests that we are heading into a period of decreased citizen participation, but I remain hopeful.  Actions like these, and others that are far more disruptive, and far less "appropriate" will be required, but I'd like to think we have a chance.

 

Wouldn't it be awesome if faith communities took some leadership role?  All we need is a bit of courage, a bit of gospel, a bit of evangelism, and a whole lot of openness.

 

I used to know a denomination like that...

This girl choose to express what I, and i suspect many others, are feeling right now.  That Harper and his policies will destroy much of what we love and value about Canada, and may eventually destroy Canada as well.   She had the opportunity to make her protest in a public way, and she did so.

 

She must have known what the consequences of her action would be.  She would be dismissed from her job.  Rightly so - she was working a a page.  Part of her job would be to follow decorum - I believe that pages are supposed to do their work quietly and as unobtrusively as possible.   She got fired.  Unfortunately she will probably also be blacklisted for many years to come - and find it very difficult to find employment.  

 

I agree with her sentiments, I admire her guts, but I question her wisdom.  Was this the time and place to make her statement or would there be more effective methods down the road which might now be blocked for her. 

 

Will she inspire others to question why an intelligent, educated person would feel so threatened by this government that she is willing to risk so much to get her point across? Will they rise up in protest against Harper?    And what form will that protest take?

 

 

I agree with both above.

As to the firing of the page, what I am suggesting is that this is a case where the government should step in. The persono who fired her is an employee of the government.

We are left here with two negatives - the ifiring of the page, and the failure of the government to show any Christian spirit in its reponse. One negative cannot be undone. The other on can.

When a disciple suggested doubts about Jesus, he was not told he was fired.

"She abused her position and has been fired for her breach."

 

or...?

 

She counted and paid the cost, offering all who hear the story opportunity to consider their own priorities and commitments.

 

 

How often is faithful public witness eclipsed by self concern justified as playing 'by the rules' while those very rules spoil and oppress creature and creation?

 

 

Brueggemann cites Woodsworth as a prime example of faithful public witness in his arrest on the charge of sedition for quoting Isaiah's criticism of those who withhold wages and oppress workers.

 

Sometimes we Christians appeal to the rules as a way by which we may have our cake and eat it too, an inversion of the parabolic servants who say "we have only done our duty."

 

Some of what I read above seems a little like saying: "Jesus was out of bounds castigating the buyers and the sellers by his symbolic action in the temple precincts."

 

 

Hi graeme,

 

 

That rather presumes that we haven't been discussing this in a religious context already doesn't it?

 

My thoughts on the matter while not being proof-texted are not completely divorced from scripture and are, I would argue, informed by my worldview which is shaped by my understanding of scripture.

 

So, with respect to the page who is a servant of the Canadian Parliament.  There is Biblical precedent which suggests this particular servant is not acting in good faith.  To determine that we would need to know who it is that the page is the servant of or with whom the page's ultimate allegiance must lie.  At present I do not know enough about the page to know if she professes faith in any particular deity or ideal which can be understood to trump her employer.

 

As you point our her employer would not be Prime Minister Harper or even the Federal Government though I have no doubt it is the Government which issues her paycheque or at the very least guarantees that the Canadian Parliament has the funds to issue the page her paycheque.

 

Has the page served her master well or has she embarrassed her master?  I am of the mind to believe that her master is not pleased with her service and as such has dismissed her.  Is that action just or unjust?  If the page has been told, as a condition of her employment, that she is to be impartial in her dealings with politicians of all stripes then I would suggest that her statement has violated instruction given by her master and her dismissal is just.

 

Are the religious called to do justice?  Yes, they are.  So if the page is terminated justly there should be no cause for any who are religious to complain.

 

Should she have been disciplined allowing for correction and forgiveness to happen along religious lines?  Sure, that should have been an option.  Do we know that such an option was never considered and do we know why such consideration never happened.

 

Certainly the pages ability to be impartial will be called into question by all who are aligned to Prime Minister Harper.  Can the pages Master demonstrate that the page has no intention to not perform her duties faithfully to the Prime Minister and all who are aligned with him?  Were I in the Master's place I would not be willing to risk my reputation for a page who failed to be impartial unless the page was able to convince me that it was a mistake and not one which would be repeated.

 

Public statements made by the page indicate that it was not a mistake and that there is strong possibility that future similar action might occur were she to keep her post of privileged service.  So not only would I dismiss the page I would be apologizing to the Canadian Parliament for the page's breach of service.  If the page is not willing to repent then I would not be inclined to restore her to her previous service.  That means forgetting the affront is not going to happen either and without the possibility of forgetting forgiveness will be stalled.  

 

I note also that the discipline applied, loss of position is not a hardship.  The page has not been imprisoned or been subjected to a fine.  She has lost employment which she was about to lose shortly at any rate.  It seems that she was willing to sacrifice a few months pay, and I suspect a valuable reference for future employment.

 

If she had come to me, as her employer and spoken to me about it I would have advised her against taking such a course of action because of what it would force me to do.  She is an adult and made an adult decision which comes with adult consequences.

 

Would I trust her with the same position?  No.

 

Would I trust her with another position?  That would depend on her previous performance and whether or not I can keep her from insulting those I am supposed to be serving as well.  If so, perhaps.  If not, by no means.

 

What I feel about who it is that she has insulted has nothing to do with the office I am entrusted to.  Doing my duty does.

 

While I am sympathetic to the sentiment of her message she has sacrificed her integrity.  I choose not to sacrifice my own.  I believe that she was out of line and that the just consequence of that breach of duty is dismissal.

 

Theologically speaking Romans 13:  1-7 needs to be taken into account and I think it speaks very plainly to such a situation.

 

As a Christian minister what would be my response should the page in question walk in through our doors on any given Sunday?  She would be welcomed and included as much as she wanted.  

 

What if she interrupted the service to flash her stop Harper sign?  That would be an interruption of the worship service and as best I can remember such interruption is illegal in Canada.  I don't know how the congregation would react.  I would probably continue with the order of service.  If she was simply standing holding a sign that doesn't interrupt anyone from reading scripture.  It certainly doesn't get in the way of my ability to preach.

 

How long could she do that and remain welcome?  That would be an interesting discussion.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi GeoFee,

 

 

That presupposes it is an either/or choice and not a both/and choice doesn't it?

 

I suspect that as far as her employer goes it is an either/or choice.  Either you follow the rules of the position you are given or we take the position away from you.  Did she agree to abide by those terms?  I suspect she did or she wouldn't have had the position in the first place.  If she rejected those terms and was hired anyway then her dismissal is unjust.

 

I am open to it being both/and.  She has abused her position and she has counted the cost of doing so.  That being the cost I hope that her accounting was accurate or she will be one disappointed young woman.

 

As to the text of her message.  It is an election to short or possibly four years to early.  I am of course open to it being both.  Either way the timeliness of her message is off.  Those who are sympathetic to it did not need her demonstration to know that they don't like Harper and many will see this (unfairly I think) as how controlling and manipulative  he can be when in reality it isn't his control or manipulation at play in her dismissal.  It is her decision and her performance.

 

If she is the epitome of resistance to Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada they will not be threatened anytime soon.  It will be some test to see if this is even remembered come next election.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I remember David Suzuki's daughter giving a speech at the UN about taking care of the environment for future generations. It was effective for 16 minutes and nothing much came of it except to momentarily tweak our consciences. Of course we continue with our rampant disregard for the environment.

 

I hope this young woman continues using her voice and speaks out more on the abuses of the environment that her generation have been silent about for too long.

 

It's not the fact that she spoke out in an inappropriate place that we should be focusing on, it's her message that we should take to heart. This gives me hope that there are some young people out there willing to be ridiculed and reprimanded for saying what needs to be said, out of context and at a most unexpected time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amen Waterfall.

 

When is the time or place appropriate to protest what one views as a corrupt and obdurate agency?

 

This was a non-violent, *silent* and therefore not overly disruptive, act against a government within the walls of that government.  In my ever so irrelevant opinion, it was the appropriate place and time.

 

 

 

LB - pondering the propriety of  temple table tossing 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

in dim lit rooms, i spill my guts
i'm the revolution when the doors are shut
i'd bite the hand that slaps me senseless
but my patience is too relentless
     Spirit of the West, Far Too Canadian

 

The analogy is not a good one because Jesus was not under the authority of the buyers and sellers. A better analogy would be Jesus before the Sanhedrin and the high priest, where he behaved impeccably as one who as a Jew was under their authority. He spoke only when invited to do so, acknowledging that at that particular moment and in that context it was they who possessed legitimate authority.

 

The page in question was under the authority of the Parliament of Canada. Had she engaged in protest outside the grounds of parliament that would - to me - be fine. Within Parliament - she is subject to Parliament's authority and as a page must perform her duties impartially - otherwise she cannot  perform her duties.

It is interesting to see a clergyman putting the firing of a person into a Christian context without using the words love or forgiveness.

Oh graeme, I take it as a given that God loves and forgives Brigitte Depape, whoever it is who told her she was fired as well as you and I. I take it as a given that all four of us are desperately in need of both love and forgiveness. As to Brigitte and her actions, she has no need for "forgiveness" for her actions on the Senate floor. She made a decision and paid the price for her decision. She didn't do anything "wrong" per se for which "forgiveness" is required. I admire her for standing up for what she believed in. I also recognize that there's an inevitable cause and effect involved here.

Your last sentence is the part that bothers me. I don't think their is an inevitable cause and effect. I'll illustrate that with a problem I've been dealing with.

My daughter and another girl were attacked by a boy with a knife. All three were age eleven. All three are in the same class - though the attack took place in a park. My daughter was (very) slightly injured in deflected a stroke aimed at her friend's stomach. When she came home, I reported it to the police. Next day, since all were in the same class (and since the boy had often physically attacked  my daughter's friend on the school grounds), I informed the school principal.

He seemed uninterested, but mentioned he thought the boy might have a crush on my daughter's friend. Three days later, having heard nothing, I spoke to the principal. He said he was still studying the case.

An hour later, my daughter came home from school in  tears. The teacher had said to her "that was a terrible thing you did to that boy."

I emailed the principal. He hinted the girls had caused the problem - but would tell me no more.

I wrote to the school board. The liaison officer conducted an inquiry that cannot have taken more than twenty minutes. She phoned to say the school was entirely right, and suggested I did not understand education.  (I have been fifty years a teacher.)

On Friday, the boy attempted, in school, to stab another boy with a pencil. He was suspended for half a day.

 As it  happens, I have connections pretty high in the school system. I intend to use them. But I don't want to get even or vent anger or even have reprimands issued. All of t hose are negative - as was the firing of the page.

I want people to come out of this feeling it was a worthwhile learning experience. I think I've figured out how to do it - though I can't figure how to do it for the boy. (As an elementary school teacher, I watched too many of my students drift into violence, crime and early death.)

When I talk about dealing with the page in a Christian context, it's that sort of response I'm thinking of. In any cause, the effect need not be inevitable. We have a choice.

 

 

I repeat.  She quit her job.  Maybe someone else made the final statement that her job was over.  But she quit.  Unless of course she was too clueless to realize that is what she was doing.

 Sorry, Gord. I didn't catch your quit point. I was following the other arguments that it was reasonable simply to fire her.

Couldn't you change that white surplice for something snazzier? Perhaps yellow and blue soccer stripes. Or perhaps one of those little badges that lights up in the dark and says, "kiss me quick, baby."?

When I spoke of inevitable cause and effect, graeme, I was only meaning that a parliamentary page who protests against the government on the floor of the Senate during the Speech from the Throne has to expect that she's no longer going to be a parliamentary page.

 

Let me set the record straight. I have no issue with Brigette DePape or with her opinions. To a large extent I agree with her about much of what she's protesting. My real concern is with the nature of the coverage she's been receiving.

 

One group is building up her actions to a ridiculous level. I've seen her compared to Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and those who were massacred at Tiananmen Square. She herself has drawn some analogies between her actions and the "Arab Spring" and has referred to herself as part of "the resistance." Such comparisons are ludicrous.

 

Another group are attacking her personally. I've seen her criticized for her looks, I've seen her criticized for her education (which seems quite fine to me), I've seen her called a "little girl." I've seen all sorts of people who don't like her speaking out against everything except the issues she's protesting.

 

In short, my concern is that this has become about Brigette DePape and not about the issues Brigitte DePape claims to be standing for - something she contributed to herself at the end of an interview on CBC with Evan Solomon when she effectively ended the interview by appealing for a job. The issues have been lost behind the personality. Clearly she has a future in politics!

Hi graeme,

 

 

So we teach employees that there is no consequence to abusing their privilege?  I presume that all pages are aware of what kind of behaviour will result in disciplinary action.  How is it loving to change the rules when lines are deliberately crossed?  If this behaviour is condoned what will we draw the line for or do we constantly erase lines?

 

Put into a Church context, the treasurer absconds with Church funds.  Do we look the other way or address the issue?  Do we decide to defraud others to replace the funds that have gone missing asking our sticky fingered treasurer to hold on to those funds for us?

 

 

How have the police responded?  Did they ask if you wanted to press charges?  Even if they don't ask you can press charges can you not?

 

The principal appears to be a mutton-head.  Though I don't know why an assault not on the school grounds suddenly becomes his problem to resolve?  It would be great if he could be a part of some solution though he doesn't appear to be equal to such a task.

 

 

Great a consequence.  I hope it isn't too draconian.

 

 

What is worthwhile about assault with a weapon?

 

What is worthwhile about having the victim of the assault blamed for it?

 

How can you transform either into something worthwhile?

 

 

I believe it.  I've sat in class with some myself.  I know that the violent tend to threaten more violence if the victim squeals.  I have never seen the violent give the target who keeps the violence a secret a free pass from further violence.  Those who learn how to manipulate and intimidate tend to spend a lot more time rehearsing those lessons rather than outgrowing them.

 

 

The page operates in the context of the Parliament of Canada and I don't believe that this outcome is unexpected nor do I believe that dismissal is automatically unChristian or unloving.  The 15 minutes of fame she has gotten from it is probably more destructive.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Perhaps a more appropriate (not necessarily accurate) analogy would be:  The music director witnesses constant abuse by those in authority.  Attempts at dialogue fail.  The director silently holds up a sign during the offering hymn....

 

 

LB

-------------------------------------------------

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.      

     Edward R. Murrow

Hi LBmuskoka,

 

 

This analogy is certainly similar in scale.  Are we assuming that the Page had already requested time with Prime Minister Harper or that she had previously communicated with Mr. Harper's employer?

 

Is your analogy the same if we ditch the part about attempts at dialogue.  Not simply their failure but rather their actual existence?

 

Is the Church organist blaming the Clergy, M&P Chair, Presbytery, The UCW or Gertie Fencebuster lead Soprano and wearer of fabulously oversized hats?

 

Is it legitimate criticism or publicity stunt?  Has the page been wrongfully dismissed?

 

Is the attention spent nationally on this issue proportionate?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

 

 

 

I think you are absolutely correct here.  The child graduated form university on Friday and wanted the summer off.  What a good way to go and get on TV too.

 

i heard her interviewed on CBC by Evan Solomon and he was pretty good at  calling her on her "facts"  If I heard her say one more ti me  " 3/4 of Canadians voted against Harper"  even after Evan reminded her that in fact 40% voted for him.  He also reminded her time and again that we had just had an election and that this was not the time or place.......

 

It does also speak to security in the Senate that a "trusted" employee can smuggle something in under her skirt. 

 

Really what a twit.  Those page jobs are highly sought after, prestigious jobs.  Thousands of university students apply to hope for one. 

 

I guess everyone hopes for their 15 minutes of fame

The page broke her job requirements in a big way.  She didn't just accidentally do something she shouldn't have done; she very deliberately and blatantly broke her conditions of employment.  She's not a child, either.  This isn't a situation that calls for a slap on the wrist.  She was fired quite justifiably.

 

I'm in complete sympathy with her perspective.  I agree with her politics.  I applaud her for taking a stand in a very public way, especially since she must have known that she'd be fired for it.  Sometimes protesting involves making a sacrifice and this is what she's done.  I doubt it's going to make any difference politically, but at the very least it has people talking and some day she'll be able to tell her grandchildren about the cool, rebellious thing she did when she was 21.

 

Any comparison to Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. or Tiananmen Square is ludicrous.  She didn't risk her life.  She wasn't thrown in jail.  She wasn't beaten or attacked or tear gassed.  No one is living in fear now because of what she did.  Her risk was very, very small:  the loss of a few weeks of work and probably the loss of a good recommendation, although we don't know for sure about that part.  She's also gained a fair bit of media attention and there are probably just as many people who would hire her BECAUSE of what she did as there are people who would toss her resume in the trash.  I'd say she's come out of this pretty well.

Mists a very good analysis - having walked with KIng I do not see her actions as the same - now I too share her perspective - but for me it is like standing up in the pulpit and using the sign - or if I was leading a public worship or event and did the same thing - I would expect to be reminded of my office and suffer the outcome.

 

I remember an event when because of legal responsibilities I had to cross a pick line - one of the other members of the board resigned to the press - this was his last meeting. 

Gord - you misled me. CBC news says she was FIRED.

 

just a few points.

1. Consequences are not always inevitable. We have the power to shape them.

2. I recognize she broke a contract. Christianity is not just about the sanctity of contracts.

3. it's ridiculous to compare her the Martin Luther King? Depends on the range you're comparing her to.

       Harper has sent Canadian pilots to kill people in a war that even the US Congress says it knows no reason for. Now, in my possibly naive way, this seems to be is disregard of any Christian principle I have ever heard of. This kind of murder has been going on for over ten years. And the closest thing I've heard to a criticism of it comes from a house of commons page. Certainly, I have not heard a peep from t he United Church or any other.

So, yes, I can see her as being closer to Martin Luther King than lots of other people who are standing around with their faces hanging out.

Officially her ROE will say she was fired with cause.  THat is just the mechanism of the employment ending.  Her action can not be interpreted as anything other than saying "I QUIT". 

I think what she did was a good example of civil disobedience. It was clear that she knew the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules. It was also clear that she felt what she had to say was important enough to accept the consequences of breaking the rules.

 

Non-violent disruption. Making people think. Getting a message across.

 

I think we're going to see more - and perhaps even participate in (?) - acts of civil disobedience in the days and years to come.

 

Calling her a "twit" falls into the category of personal attack or personal criticism and once again deflects the attention away from the issues Brigitte raised and on to Brigitte herself. She's not a "twit." She believes in what she did and I think she's sincere in her concern for the issues she raises. I think she's well educated and aware. 

 

I also think that there was most certainly an aspect of self-promotion involved. It would be naive to expect otherwise. The truly cynical and suspicious part of me (me?) thinks that - this being done only weeks before she'd be out of a job and knowing the publicity she's get out of this act - this was almost a sort of job application. I have no real problem with her promoting herself while she's also trying to highlight serious issues. I just think the issues have been lost.

 

Having been following this story I've become fascinated by the responses to her. The left tends to engage in the hyperbole - "she's just like Ghandi" - while the right tends to either engage in personal attacks (I've seen "airhead," "spoiled brat," etc.) or they become patronizing (I've seen "little girl" or "cute as a button") - both of which are ways of saying that she shouldn't be taken seriously. Maybe the proper response to her is to actually engage the issues she raises. Do we need military bases around the world and fighter jets? Do we need to reform our electoral system? Should we do away with subsidies to political parties? Should there be greater regulation of the oil sands? Should we be in Libya?

 

One of the things that has concerned me about Stephen Harper is that his rationale for cutting subsidies to political parties is to do away with "non-stop campaigning." Come now. Who was it who was engaging in "non-stop campaigning?" Whose TV ads were all over the place long before the May 2 election was called? From the moment of Stephane Dion becoming Liberal Leader whose every waking moment (agreed, a bit of an exaggeration for dramatic purposes) has been devoted to personally attacking and discrediting and (some would say) slandering both he and Ignatieff? (I suspect Layton was left off the hook because his rise was so sudden and unexpected that the Tories weren't prepared, unless the "massage parlour scandal" was a ham-fisted attempt.) If that's what's going to stop I'm all in favour!

 

But surely we should be in a non-stop campaign in the sense of constantly reflecting on, commenting on and engaging policies and issues, and advocating for or against that which we feel passionate about and even - sure - engaging in civil disobedience if we feel strongly enough.

 

So - again - no problem with Brigitte DePape. She took a chance, knew the risks and paid the price. I can't really blame her for trying to build a future off her actions, either.

Hi RichardBott,

 

 

Good points all around.

 

 

Agree that it was non-violent disruption and that she got a message across.  I cannot disagree that she hasn't made people think although I'm not encouraged by some of the quality of that thought.

 

Like Rev. Steven Davis and Panentheism I think comparisons to Martin Luther King jr, Tiananmen Square and the Spring Revolution are overstatements.  True they all participate in kind, there is a huge difference of degree.  Staring down a column of tanks and refusing to move is nothing at all like allowing the Sergeant-at-arms to escort you out of the room.

 

The character assassination of her by others is easier than dealing with her particular issue and trying to determine whether there is a critique of the Prime Minister that might actually be valid.

 

The best civil disobedience forces that which is critiqued to act in a certain way.

 

Blacks walking the streets of Selma, Alabama must either be allowed to walk or stopped from walking.  Nobody forced the Selma Police force to turn a peaceful protest into Bloody Sunday that was their own brutality and it was having that brutality exposed for what it truly was that ultimately led to President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act.

 

What caused the tanks to stop rolling in Tiananmen Square?  Was it knowledge that the world was watching and nobody in their right mind would see a university student with a flag as a threat to one tank let alone a column of tanks?  Was there someone one in China who had the ability to think about what the consequences of brutality would be?  Did somebody finally say that they could stomach no more blood?

 

Was the rogue page fired?  Yes.  Was she imprisoned?  Nope.  Was she physically abused?  Nope.  Apart from being dismissed by her employer what consequences does she face?  And how much heat has been put on Harper?  None.  Did her actions force him to take any action of his own?  Apart from stifling a yawn it doesn't look like it.

 

Canada could have stopped him on May 2.  Canada decided not to.  Canada gets another chance four years from now.  What happens then?

 

 

Possibly.  Some of it may even be effective.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

I was scrolling down the thread, ready to make this point, RichardBott. (Emphasis in your quote is mine.) This is the very nature of civil disobedience. When the appropriate people don't listen and the appropriate channels yield no change, this is a completely legitimate response.

 

Also, I didn't hear her say that 3/4 of Canadians voted for Harper, what I heard was that only 1/4 of eligible voters put an "X" beside the Conservative candidate on the ballot. That's quite a different statement.

Perhaps. I had hoped only to propose an alternative to your somewhat negative characterization of the person and her action in the suggestion that she abused her position. I may be splitting hairs here. Perhaps. With the buyers and sellers Jesus is under the authority of those who administer the protocols of the temple. Persons are expected to behave civilly and in accordance with rules enforced by temple police. Jesus does neither. This is one of the reasons he appears before the Sanhedrin. Again, maybe splitting hairs on a matter of opinion.

 

Turning to consider the wide array of symbolic actions expressed by the Hebrew prophets, can we base our evaluation of an action on the change it produces only? One day Jeremiah stuffed his shorts in a rock face. Did this change anything?

 

We may also wonder about time lines. Can a seed sown today produce fruit in a decade?

 

 

 

 

Boy - that was a bit of reading, and I agree, calling her a 'child' and 'twit' was wrong.  She absolutely is not either of those things.  She was no twit if she managed a job as page, and she is no child at 21 with such knowledge of politics and policies to undertake such a protest.

Good that they fired her - they had to, and she knew it.  She deserves it for exactly as you, Steven Davis, originally said.  "On the company dime" as my husband would say.  And I hope it doesn't happen again for a few decades - otherwise our beloved, revered (don't laugh!!) Parliament will be turned into, from all sides - civilian and government - into a 3 ring circus.  That is my BIG worry in this.

I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Bott & Rev Matt - good civil disobedience.  She knew her  message, she had the press release already written & ready to distribute.  She knew her target, and she picked the finest hour to be notices.  As Matt said -the regular channels won't work - election is years away, and Harper never listens anyway. 

 

I haven't posted much in politics since the black day of May 2.... I was thrilled to see Brigitte DePape right in his face.

I'm afraid we're going to be in for a good deal of civil disobedience - and I'm not sure all of it will be as rational as this case.

It's not entirely due to Harper. There are other forces driving us.

In any case, it has become evident that if we need civil disobedience - or even discussion of the situation - we are not likely to find it in our churches.

Interview with her.

 

lastpointe - way, way out of line, and a prime example of the dismissive, condescending attitude that is so rankling.  Not to mention the insane fear mongering.

 

This is an example of one church person who regularly presses the boundary to make visible resistance where complacency seems to rule the day. I carry out such small acts of political theatre wherever and whenever opportunity knocks. Once in a while someone with a camera is nearby to capture the moment. This action took place on the steps of the New Brunswick Legislature on Friday, June 3; by coincidence the same day Brigette acted on her conviction in the Federal parliament.

 

 

 

 

The church is trying to reach young adults. On a shoestring budget I find myself in the company of young persons who comprise something of a resistance to status quo. Here is a comment on a picture of me in the New Brunswick media:

 

"I love Fr. George! He is my hero and I consider him my mentor when it comes to guerilla theatre! I actually did some of my own this summer after discussing possible acts with him. I enjoyed it a lot and I think I got a lot of my messages out to the public. I don't understand why people are so fearful of a priest with a clown nose on. Great story Charles! I saw the photos last month on your blog and I was wondering what the story was behind it. Do you know what he was saying, or were you too far away?"

 

This young activist mistakes me for a priest, a small mistake and of no consequence. The main thing is she has been encouraged in her faith. I hope someday to hear good news related to the young activist's faithful public witness.

 

 

This thread has been a good read.  I feel compelled to add that I got a big kick out of our new Speaker gravely stating she was "in contempt of Parliament" as if he didn't know that "contempt of Parliament" has already been demonstrated to be a paltry and negligible offence that cuts no ice whatsoever with the Canadian public (or else Mr. Harper would have been booted out on his ass in the last election).  I think it was a pretty cool and calculated and (judging by the storm of discussion it has caused here and elsewhere) effective piece of civil disobedience.  By highlighting the dissonance of the Harper agenda with the interests of young Canadians in such a startling and memorable way she has left a lasting political image that Harper will not easily overcome.  It puts me in mind of Bob Dylan song "Times They Are a'Changin' ".  Good on you Brigette!  One whole voting bloc mobilized and put permanently out of reach.  In the future, if you are a young person, will it be considered cool to be opposed to Mr Harper's Conservatives?  Hell yeah!  It'll give you instant "attitude" just like that cool "Brigette chick".  All the sputtering and fury and the laughable clownish impotence of Brigette's firing only underlines this kid's cool and the deadly accuracy of her political aim. 

Welcome Canadian Spring...

 

and GeoFee -- I enjoy watching your acts of simple Breaching Experiments :3  The human imagination is quite powerful, isn't it?

Breaching Experiments

 

Exactly and precisely. The things you learn while leaning into boundaries. I am specially intrigued by the boundary between public and private space.

 

Its a very strange world and I thank you master Jack.

Hi qwerty,

 

 

Bingo.

 

So, how do Canadian citizens go about demonstrating the opposite?  How does Canada in general show, with startling clarity, that we will not allow our Parliament to be held in contempt?

 

Would said page filing a wrongful dismissal charge be enough?  Seriously, when is contempt of Parliament actually contempt of Parliament?  Further to that if the Prime Minister can be found to be in contempt of Parliament only to waltz back into Parliament a month or so later as the Prime Minister should it not also be possible for a dismissed page to return to Parliament a month later without any appreciable restrictions or sanctions?

 

Should this event be more than fodder for pigs already gorging themselves at partisan troughs?

 

I don't know if it should.

 

I'd be more than pleased if it would.

 

 

It was that.  I'm wondering who, in the end, will be hoist by this petard.

 

 

In the same way what's-her-face was booted from the Conservative gathering in that city and how the change in the polls took a party from minority government to majority government?

 

 

I'm betting not.

 

 

It was thinking on such lines that lead to the rise of Disco.  Then one day people looked in the mirror and decided that flock of seagulls was cool.  I think the word you are looking for might be "trendy."

 

 

To be completely honest qwerty I think that there is more sputtering, fury and laughable clownish impotence surrounding Ms. DePape's firing coming from somewhere other than the Parliament.  She acted, her employers acted end of story except for partisan reaction.

 

There is nothing new under the sun.  Vanity of vanities and all of that.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John