>Harris concluded, “Having an MP from the fourth party in the House just doesn’t cut it when it comes to actually getting things done for the folks in Skeena-Bulkley Valley .
Funny, when the Libs were in power they would often come to Alberta and say - you need to stop voting Conservative all the time because nothing will ever get done if you don't have a voice in the government. Conservatives would, of course, be outraged.
It's hypocritical but not unconstituional. Cretien tried something similar a few years back when he appointed a special " western advisor".
I wonder whether Smith would be obligated to register as a lobbyist however - I'll have to look at the leg and get back to you.
Nbob:
Thanks for this. I wonder if the appointment of a riding representative doesn't, however, take things to a new level. A "Western advisor," after all, doesn't represent constituents or any specific riding. And asking people to vote Liberal because otherwise the hapless Westerners wouldn't have a voice in government is, however put, a statement of fact (or, rather, was back then). What we have here is the apparent circumventing of a voice in Parliament.
Many thanks in advance for digging around on this--could you, perchance, check the issue of Parliamentary privilege?
Sure Dawg - got some errands to do etc. but I'll look into it later today.
I should add - one thing Cretien didn't do is try and extort votes like Harris - the implication being those projects ( the water system, airport, green plan) won't get done until there's a Conservative representing the riding or, from another angle, those worthwhile projects won't get done becasue you didn't vote for us.
Fits right in with the current Conservative mindset- we don't govern for all Canadians, only the ones that agree with us.
I think, legal or no, this could wind up blowing up in their faces.
Any idea how an issue like this one would play out if there would be MMP or STV in this province?
Regarding your update, Dawg, I do agree generally with personal privacy for public figures -- if she had a husband in AA or a child in jail or if the photos were from her own hottub, I think that would be different. But snapping the naked pics in her mayoral office, wearing her chain of office, was such a colossal error in judgment that I think this crosses over into politics.
Cathie,
With all due respect, and you should know I have a lot of that for you, I disagree. Because it's you, I'll forbear to use words like "prissy," but, dammit, this was a two-person romp that never should have seen the light of day, there is nothing holy about mayoral regalia and no public disrespect was ever contemplated, and none of this has anything to do with the supplanting of a duly-elected MP. None of it.
Oh, Dawg, please. People with power who engage in anti-democratic behaviour deserve all they get.
End of story.
What, even if we invoke the same values that we oppose? What do we stand for, then?
We stand against the abuse of power. Jesus, Dawg, what planet do you live on?
I'm not going to participate in some destestible pogrom excoriating Ms. Smith for her lapse in judgment much after the MSM picks up on the assault on democracy.
...until then...
All I will say is that the photos were published in both hard copy media editions as well as in online edition. Whether the image was stolen, and it appears that it was due ti her sons' carelessness, it is in the public domain.
If the story of the S-BV appointment does go into the MSM and goes national, the image is going to be brought up and likely spread around again. Some will publish, others will not. Didn't she or the party consider that? Seems to me they either didn't really care or they didn't vette this properly. Once the genie's out of the bottle...
Hi, Dawg -- thanks for the kind words. You do have a valid point, I think, about privacy, but maybe we draw the line in different places.
My reaction when I saw the photo was "Oh, so THAT'S who she is!" -- likely the rest of Canada will have the same reaction. For me, the photos gave the story a "face" (so to speak" that it hadn't had before.
You are, of course, correct about the political and constitutional implications -- regardless of the photos, the Conservative idea that a mere candidate is supposed to have some kind of authority or legitimacy in the federal government is ridiculous and demonstrates how everything they touch is getting politicized.
Nbob, you can look at more than just her leg in those pics
(sorry, couldn't resist, tried, but just couldn't)
we'd be the first to yell and stamp our feet if that sort of thing was done by some Blogging Tory to one of us.
They've already accused of any and all degeneracy imaginable, so at this point, I don't think that threat has much meaning.
According to the Blogging Tories, I'm already wallowing in pedophilia, treason, racism, bigotry, terrorism, theft, drug-addled debauch, atheism, murder (of the pre-born), poor hygiene...
I'm with Dawg on the photo. Even though it wasn't very smart it still constitutes "intellectual" property to which a copyright applies. The fact it was stolen makes it worse. Not only is there an infringement but I'm a firm believer that no one should get any use or benefit from something that derives from crime.
I've done a little digging around on the other legal issues involved here and will have more to say after I get home from work.
am I the only progressive getting a little squeamish about the "naked mayor" pics of Sharon Smith floating around the blogosphere in connection with this story? Not really, because I had some second thoughts. In fact, I quite intentionally did not add a picture to my post on the subject because I felt propagating it wasn't appropriate.
This has nothing to do with politics. Privacy is a right, folks, and we'd be the first to yell and stamp our feet if that sort of thing was done by some Blogging Tory to one of us. There's where we part company. It has everything to do with politics. It shows the way Smith's mind operates. Given that the Conservatives are willing to unabashedly corrupt the system of democracy which exists in Canada, they clearly have no regard for propriety. Smith's involvement, in no small part, shows a willingness to participate in improper and unethical political maneuvers.
Had that photograph been taken outside the precincts of Houston city hall, without the ceremonial badge of office on full display, I would agree with you, but, she clearly intended to get personal pleasure from an act which, if ever made public, would embarrass her politically and personally. What she did not intend, was to get caught. She did and as corollary as it may seem to the primary issue, it forms a part of it.
The problem with a fight with the Conservatives is that they will kick you when you're down. Having been in that physical dilemma I've learned to make sure you break the bones in their feet first.
Dave:
It has everything to do with politics. It shows the way Smith's mind operates. Given that the Conservatives are willing to unabashedly corrupt the system of democracy which exists in Canada, they clearly have no regard for propriety.
Shows the way Smith's mind operates? No regard for propriety? And yet it's people like me who are being accused of priggishness? As a private act, what Smith did in the Mayor's chair was in no way wrong. It caused no harm. Because someone else made the act public doesn't transform it into something immoral if there was nothing wrong in the first place. The undercurrent in all this is, frankly, an outmoded Puritanism that I always believed was the province of the Right.
Had that photograph been taken outside the precincts of Houston city hall, without the ceremonial badge of office on full display, I would agree with you, but, she clearly intended to get personal pleasure from an act which, if ever made public, would embarrass her politically and personally.
What's the argument here? Again, I can't see that she did anything wrong. Is there, once again, a vague whiff of priggishness here, a little moral outrage about the "ceremonial badge of office?" That badge only acquires its social authority and symbolism when it's on public display--something that was never intended. Had Smith published the photos herself, of course, she would have been showing disrespect and all of that. But she didn't.
The problem with a fight with the Conservatives is that they will kick you when you're down. Having been in that physical dilemma I've learned to make sure you break the bones in their feet first.
But I'd like to be able to distinguish you from the enemy, Dave. And the more you act like them, the more confused I'm liable to get.
For what it's worth, Garth's posting of the photo had a lot of people from all over the political spectrum expressing some discomfort. Not for prudish reasons (although the cropped version he originally had wasn't cropped quite closely enough for a PG rating), but because it was a cheap shot and was distracting from more serious issues.
That said, I love the LOLCats version that's floating around 
You're going to make me ask you where that is, aren't you? : )
We discussed using some form of the pic for a shopped graphic, but the other blog owner and I both felt uncomfortable. At the end I decided to do this:
Skeleton Closet
I had some fun making it too!
LOL! Hey, pale, thanks for that!
You're going to make me ask you where that is, aren't you? : )
Sigh. Fine. Just for you. But only because it's so very, very funny:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_Oij0-
PyQ...yor212small.gif
!@#$#! broken links...
Try this one.
Geeze, Jennifer, I meant the LOLCats one that pale already posted, not that other one. But thanks...
Dr. Dawg,
There is indeed more to this story than just Skeena-Bulkley Valley.
See: http://www.acreativerevolution.c...78#comment-
1549
And updated my original post
http://www.acreativerevolution.c...ion.ca/node/
164
Frank,
My update, with due acknowledgment. Many thanks.
This is a great victory for Canadian bloggers, to have awakened to this travesty before the MSM and bring it up to them.
Now, could all "big blogs" likewise pick up on a little something that I have feebly attempted to bring up to the MSM' attention ( http://pov-mentarch1.blogspot.co...r-
canadian.html )?
Help would be much appreciated in this matter - thanks in advance. 
Here's another blog entry on this - if you haven't already seen it.
http://morenotesfromunderground....ron-
smiths.html
GAB
Duly added in second-last UPPERDATE, GAB. Thanks.
Canadian Press wire story issued.
Picked up so far by the Brandon Sun
http://www.brandonsun.com/story....?
story_id=67959
and by CTV - http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...29?
hub=Politics
under 'top stories politics'.
Note the backpedalling. 'Harris kinda did this by himself'?
Riiight. Con MP's do stuff all by themselves?
Uh huh..right. And he "just sort of thought up" all the other reps that have been mentioned above.
While I couldn't find anything saying it was illegal -it sure smelled funny. I suspected it might blow up in their faces.
Right now the Cons must be asking " who let the Dawg out ? who who? "
High 5 to you and the other blogs that kept on top of this!
Commenting by HaloScan
