Judge overturns nomination of Calgary MP Anders

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I have very little knowledge of what went on in South Africa but I know enought to say that it can't be summed up with a cliche.

Why do you keep bringing al-qaeda up? That is obviously a different issue and totally incomparable to what we are talking about.

It wasn't summed up in a cliche, i explained my opinion above that sentance.

I'm brining in Al Quada as an example to contrast the situation?

Most can agree the Iraq war is a total farce, as most can agree the segregation of races was too. But reguardless of popular belief or what you believe is morally right/wrong, you are to be held accountable. Whether that be operatives killing civilians on a daily basis in the name of Allah, full blame on America and the end of the occupation, or if your blowing up white / nationalist targets in the name of ending segregation and for the goals of their beliefs (far left wing)

The point i'm trying to make is both the Iraq war and segregation are wrong, both where/seem to be more and more un-popular as time goes on. So no matter how wrong the United States may be in going to war, it doesn't excuse the acts of violence there when it comes to the opposition. Just as it should also apply to the former situation in South Africa.

I am using Iraq was an example to contrast the two. I could just as easily use the Panestinian issue and the Palestinian resistance. I could use the fact most Muslim nations treat women "inhumane" compared to modern-day standards or I could use the slave issue that took place in the United States. All are precieved as wrong, all are/where precieved as extreme and in the latter examples all would be precieved as such if violence was used to solve the problem. Nevertheless you are to be held accountable for your actions, not simply been let off the hook due to public or popular belief.

The issue is a little more complex -- as you have just mentioned -- than a group of individuals simply wanting to be free from segregation.

Originally Posted by rube

Would you say the same thing in regards to collateral damage sustained in the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Well that depends, you can't stamp a generalization on things and especially not war.

In some cases, if negligence is the issue, then yes I believe so. This is also evident in several trials / punishments due to negligence or out-right brutality. But if it's the matter of a building or a civilian death getting caught up in a strike where no wrong doing was intended, the no. War isn't suppose to be pretty and things like this will happen.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

So no matter how wrong the United States may be in going to war, it doesn't excuse the acts of violence there when it comes to the opposition. Just as it should also apply to the former situation in South Africa.

Humans have a crazy tendency defend themselves when they are threatened and/or subjugated. I don't know if it's an "excuse" or not, but that's how it goes.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by moon

I think that Anders reason for not giving Mandela honorary citizenship was pretty stupid, but can agree with him that Mandela really doesn't deserve the honor.

At the very least I hope this means we will finally be rid of the endless "get rid of Anders/Anders is an idiot" threads.

Well, here's an idea for you; stop reading the threads if you hope to be rid of them!

I'm not even going to dignify the "I can agree with him that Mandela really doesn't deserve the honor" comment....

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Humans have a crazy tendency defend themselves when they are threatened and/or subjugated. I don't know if it's an "excuse" or not, but that's how it goes.

Exacly.

The Iraq war is precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Segregation was precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Just as slavery was at one point, accepted. Just as women where looked at as second class citizens for a good period of history. It was precieved as right then, wrong now.

South Africa may have took a little longer to abolish it's segregation than lets say the United States or other countries, but different circumstances bring about different time tables. There is no doubt in my mind, South Africa would be a free nation today even if it was not for the rout the ANC took.

Just as when it comes to women in society, for most nations in the world, women are treated eaqually now, but in some nations they are still treated second class and in some cases, little more than objects which leads me back to:

Different circumstances have different time tables. Just as the "western world/christian nations" treats women eaqually, one day Islam will too, do the same. Just as the United States abolished segregation, South Africa did follow suit...years later...but different circumstances.

Looking back at history, people took a lot of ridiculous stances on things, as citizens in the 21st century we can look back and see it as such, but going back in time, it might not be precieved as wrong as it is now. Bottom line is, all of what i've just said is wrong and i'm not defending any of these acts, all i'm saying is you have to be held acountable, no matter what the majority of the public may think. Murder is Murder. Segregation is Segregation. Punish both or punish neither.

If you have a bone to pick with segregation in the 21st century, give Israel a call.

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not even going to dignify the "I can agree with him that Mandela really doesn't deserve the honor" comment....

He didn't.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, here's an idea for you; stop reading the threads if you hope to be rid of them!

I'm not even going to dignify the "I can agree with him that Mandela really doesn't deserve the honor" comment....

I don't read them that much and it isn't the posters I am angry with for posting them, they usually are relevant posts that should be talked about. I will be happy to see them gone because it means that there is no need to talk about a joke of a MP and that the situation will stop being an embarassment for Calgary, Canada and most of all the Conservative Party.

As for the doesn't deserve the honorary citizenship I don;t think he does. He deserves a ton of honors, awards etc. I just don't what he has done to benefit Canada that he should recieve honorary citizenship. Seems like there are a lot more relevant awards honors that we could give him. That on doesn't seem like it makes sense to me.

[Slava]

I don't think that the point of honorary citizenship is what the recipient has done for Canada, just like an honorary university degree isn't given purely because of what the individual has done for the institution.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't think that the point of honorary citizenship is what the recipient has done for Canada, just like an honorary university degree isn't given purely because of what the individual has done for the institution.

I know that but I personally think that it should have something to do with it. Either way Mandela has done some great things in SA and the world and deserves every honor he recieves. I don't think that Anders or anyone should have spoken out against it, just that there may be better ways to honor him.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Exacly.

The Iraq war is precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Segregation was precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Just as slavery was at one point, accepted. Just as women where looked at as second class citizens for a good period of history. It was precieved as right then, wrong now.

South Africa may have took a little longer to abolish it's segregation than lets say the United States or other countries, but different circumstances bring about different time tables. There is no doubt in my mind, South Africa would be a free nation today even if it was not for the rout the ANC took.

Just as when it comes to women in society, for most nations in the world, women are treated eaqually now, but in some nations they are still treated second class and in some cases, little more than objects which leads me back to:

Different circumstances have different time tables. Just as the "western world/christian nations" treats women eaqually, one day Islam will too, do the same. Just as the United States abolished segregation, South Africa did follow suit...years later...but different circumstances.

Looking back at history, people took a lot of ridiculous stances on things, as citizens in the 21st century we can look back and see it as such, but going back in time, it might not be precieved as wrong as it is now. Bottom line is, all of what i've just said is wrong and i'm not defending any of these acts, all i'm saying is you have to be held acountable, no matter what the majority of the public may think. Murder is Murder. Segregation is Segregation. Punish both or punish neither.

If you have a bone to pick with segregation in the 21st century, give Israel a call.



He didn't.

I'm not to sure what you're getting at with your quote from me here?

Anyway, I seriously think that you are muddying the waters bringing all of the other conflicts into this discussion. The South Africa situation was a colonial remnant, and part of the "western world" that was mistreating the majority of the population. As a result, naturally the standard that the South Africans were held to is the rest of the western world who had long since abolished this policy and treatment of people.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not to sure what you're getting at with your quote from me here?

Anyway, I seriously think that you are muddying the waters bringing all of the other conflicts into this discussion. The South Africa situation was a colonial remnant, and part of the "western world" that was mistreating the majority of the population. As a result, naturally the standard that the South Africans were held to is the rest of the western world who had long since abolished this policy and treatment of people.

Segregation was evident in the US in the 1960s, thats quite recent when you look at the violence in the 70s-80s in South Africa. To some extent it still exists in some southern states today -- most notably Alabama.

We're talking segregation here, not slavery which was abolished many years previous so in retrospect "had long been abolished" is not true.

I'm bringing in other situations as examples and comparisons, they are all relavant in there own way. In parts of the world in this day and age, women are still second class, this should not be. In parts of the world, some religious groups or races are still second class, this should not be. Just as in South Africa, colors where second class, that should not have been. All i'm saying is it's a constant transition. From womens rights in America/Britain to women being able to vote, to the US abolishing segregation in the mid-60s to some Arab countries slowly allowing women more freedom to South Africa abolishing it's segregation...it's a constant change. When you look at the big picture, blacks shouldn't have been segregated even in the 1950s, we should have been way past that, but we where not. Which brings me back to South Africa.

As i have just said, Bottom line is, all of what i've said are acts of wrong doing and i'm not defending any of these acts, all i'm saying is you have to be held accountable, no matter what the majority of the public may think. Murder is Murder. Segregation is Segregation. Punish both or punish neither. Mandela was reponsible for deaths of innocent civillians and used tactics that are/have being used in Columbia, Iraq, Panama, Palestine etc yet only difference is, all of the latter are considered criminals, yet Mandela is a hero...kind of a double standard. From an Arab prespective, i'd assume the invasion of Iraq is seen as very demeening and supressive, hence the attacks by terror groups yet they are hardcore criminals, yet Mandela was organizing the same types of things and he isn't.

I'm all for his passion and determination, i'm in support of what he wanted to accomplish but nevertheless it comes right down to accountability and even though he was fighting oppression, so to are the Insurgents in Iraq. They're all still criminals through the way they chose to fight.

and again...If you have a bone to pick with segregation in the 21st century, give Israel a call.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Exacly.

The Iraq war is precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Segregation was precieved as right to a lot of people and wrong to a lot. Just as slavery was at one point, accepted. Just as women where looked at as second class citizens for a good period of history. It was precieved as right then, wrong now.

South Africa may have took a little longer to abolish it's segregation than lets say the United States or other countries, but different circumstances bring about different time tables. There is no doubt in my mind, South Africa would be a free nation today even if it was not for the rout the ANC took.

Just as when it comes to women in society, for most nations in the world, women are treated eaqually now, but in some nations they are still treated second class and in some cases, little more than objects which leads me back to:

Different circumstances have different time tables. Just as the "western world/christian nations" treats women eaqually, one day Islam will too, do the same. Just as the United States abolished segregation, South Africa did follow suit...years later...but different circumstances.

Looking back at history, people took a lot of ridiculous stances on things, as citizens in the 21st century we can look back and see it as such, but going back in time, it might not be precieved as wrong as it is now. Bottom line is, all of what i've just said is wrong and i'm not defending any of these acts, all i'm saying is you have to be held acountable, no matter what the majority of the public may think. Murder is Murder. Segregation is Segregation. Punish both or punish neither.

If you have a bone to pick with segregation in the 21st century, give Israel a call.



He didn't.

That's a pretty strange argument. You acknowledge that these practices were wrong but criticize the people who fought against them.

And the idea that "it was accepted at the time" or "different circumstances" are an excuse for a downright crazy practice like apartheid don't quite cut it.

I don't buy that "murder is murder" stuff either. If someone burns down your house and kills your kids while he's at it, you might kill him, and if you do, it's a little more understandable than if you went into a gas station and shot the clerk for the cash in the till.

As far as I'm concerned, condemning Mandela for his actions is like condemning someone who resisted the Nazis.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's a pretty strange argument. You acknowledge that these practices were wrong but criticize the people who fought against them.

I criticize the way in which they fought, not the mentality of fighting segregation in general. I criticize the bombs in civillian areas, the tactics etc. Is that so wrong? The US black community managed to accomplish it without violence and bombs, Ghandi managed to accomplish quite a bit without violence and bombs. The British/IRA didnt accomplish very much with violence and bombs, but started to make progress when violence had ceased - to a degree. What did Israel just accomplish with violence and bombs in Lebanon..other than creating another 1982 which will simply strengthen Hezbollah? There are many ways of resistance and many ways to solve issues, planting bombs on streets filled with people certainly isn't the best rout, and those who do that, should be brought to justice and not looked at as heros.

As much as we, as westerners look at the Arabs and wonder how they can support a group like Al Quada or similar groups, how they can support it's leaders the same can apply to you. Mandela applied these same tactics and you agree with him. So maybe try to understand an Arab prespective of the issues facing them these days? To many Arabs, Al Quada is fighting the "evil" American empire and the supression of it's citizens through sanctions, support for Israel and wars such as Iraq. Seems very legitimate from there stand point, just as the ANCs tactics seem legit to you.. Hence why i believe they are connected and why i use them as examples. Sure the death ratio of Al Quada to those in South Africa cannot be compared, the negligence and tactics are the same.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

As far as I'm concerned, condemning Mandela for his actions is like condemning someone who resisted the Nazis.

Thats a bit extreme.

Comparing seperating races with a regieme that exterminated 6+ million people? Simply seperating races and making people second class citizens, whether that be by race, religion or by sex is certainly no where near the extremes of what the Nazi party managed to do.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't buy that "murder is murder" stuff either. If someone burns down your house and kills your kids while he's at it, you might kill him, and if you do, it's a little more understandable than if you went into a gas station and shot the clerk for the cash in the till.

If someone brutally murders my mother and i seek revenge, I too am a murderer. No matter how much the situation may be understood.

We're not talking self defense here, so i don't know where your going with this. You have already admited you don't know much about South African history or the full motives of the ANC and it's resistance wings, so...

[Bobblehead]

The CPC have appealed the decision. link

The lawyers on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada have filed an appeal of a decision overturning the acclamation of MP Rob Anders in Calgary-West.

I haven't heard anyone (on this board or elsewhere) complain about Anders being ousted. Are the CPC making a mistake in fighting this? Or are they more interested in the principle? With the number of time Anders has been implicated in minor scandals (Mandella, a campaign worker sued Anders claiming misuse of constituency funds, Anders working with a BC candidate who had smuggling charges, Anders skipping candidates debates, etc), why is Anders always defended and put back in to run? I'm sure there are many better candidates, why can't the CPC get a better one for that riding?

[Bobblehead]

The challenger for Calgary West has dropped out of the race. link

In a release, Wakula says he won't run because the party's new rules can be changed at any time and allow the party to cancel the process at any time and declare anders the winner.
Wakula says the party has given Anders a head start while challengers have been fettered.

Does he have a valid concern, or is he just sour grapes?

[troutman]

I'm amazed the party would do anything to help Anders. He is an embarrassment to the party as much as he is to my riding.

[Cerebral]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm amazed the party would do anything to help Anders. He is an embarrassment to the party as much as he is to my riding.

Anders is apparently pretty involved in developing party strategy. While he's a pretty dumb guy at times, he is also pretty smart as well.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cerebral

Anders is apparently pretty involved in developing party strategy. While he's a pretty dumb guy at times, he is also pretty smart as well.

Just because someone is involved in party strategy doesn't mean anything. I've known quite a few people involved in this for a few different parties. Some of them were complete morons, while others were very smart...by and large they have one common thread though; they have enough time to donate to the cause.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The challenger for Calgary West has dropped out of the race. link
Does he have a valid concern, or is he just sour grapes?

Some more here as well: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...anders-mp.html

Veteran MP Rob Anders will carry the Conservative party's banner in the next federal election in Calgary West after being declared the winner by acclamation Tuesday night amid controversy.

Anders is expected to comment on his win later Wednesday, but disgruntled party members are already calling the race unfair.

"It's just a farce," said former MP Jim Hawkes.

....

Calgary businessman Walter Wakula said he didn't challenge Anders for the Conservative nomination because the contest wasn't fair.

Wakula said it's like running a 100-metre dash, but Anders is on the 50-metre line while challengers are at the start line with a ball and chain tied to their legs.

[soulchoice]

Wow, we continue to have people like this as a representation of govt in our city. Its bad enough we have morons whom are more suited to be aldermen in rural towns, rather than a growing metro in city hall(ie, Madeline King, etc), now we may be having to watch this unfold yet again, to represent in the provincial realm.

[fredr123]

My information is that the rules set by the nomination committee stated that in order to be eligible to vote in the nominations, you had to be a member of the party before June 1, 2006. Therefore anyone who recently purchased a membership to support Wakula was ineligible to vote. And who were all the members before June 1, 2006? Anders supporters.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm amazed the party would do anything to help Anders. He is an embarrassment to the party as much as he is to my riding.

The only reasonable explanation for the length of his tenure as MP is that he must have pictures of high up CPC members in some pretty compromising situations.

I've met him once back in my university days, at a UofC campus conservatives social at the den. All the other conservatives didn't even talk to him during the less formal part of the evening. He was kinda like the elephant in the room that everyone wanted to ignore. Shows some class by not showing up at any of the campus debates but has no problem showing up when the beer and wings are free and is in the surrounding of less hostile people.