The Liberal Party's Constitution If Dion Wrote It

Here is a version of the Liberal Party's Constitution if Stephane Dion wrote it. This is a satirical response to the claim the Liberal Party does not have to run candidates in all 308 ridings; on the record I agree, however if we have the opportunity to be able to run all 308 candidates then the Constitution of the Liberal Party demands it as it's the Party's most fundamental Purpose.

Again, for introduction sake, here is the Liberal Party's Constitution if Stephane Dion wrote it:

2 PURPOSES
(1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:

(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election to the House of Commons and supporting their election, well you see that only applies to what ridings I want and for what I get in exchange for any deals I make. So really this purpose is more like a suggestion;

(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies in some circumstances, it's really tough to call, considering it all depends on where oppositional Party leaders will be running. Liberal principles and policies don't have to be an option in all 308 ridings, 308 is such a large number anyway.

(c) to promote membership in the Party, well we'll see. If a situation arises in a riding or two, we'll sweep it under the rug, and we'll tell everybody principle before partisanship, even if it's someone else's principle.

(d) to raise money to support the fundamental purposes of the Party, hell yeah! This one is unbreachable. Seriously, no kidding. This is in all seriousness a purpose. I know I was kidding around with the other ones, but this one is a keeper. Seriously. THIS ONE REALLY IS A PURPOSE .... seriously.

(e) to provide a forum for members of the Party to have their say and influence the policies and platform of the Party, that is if we choose to.

(f) to coordinate the activities of supporters of the Party, maybe, like we say, these purpose depend on the circumstances. I guess you could call these really oportunities rather than purposes.

(g) to ensure equitable representation of aboriginal peoples at all levels of the Party, well that's only in some ridings. This isn't for all ridings. Aboriginals can be equally represented in 307 or less. Hey I like that, hell-oooo new campaign slogan.

Logically, Dion Has Acted Contrary To The Constitution

From recent blogs, the idea that the Dion/May deal is unconstitutional has arisen. Cerberus this morning discusses every EDA (Electoral District Association) has a right to elect a candidate and thus the deal is possibly problematic in that regard. Liberal Outsider in a convoluted form points that Dion is "contradicting" a very purpose of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Upon looking at both cases I feel that both are of concern; however when reading the
Liberal Party's Constitution it is demonstratable that the Dion/May deal was at least not in correspondence with the Constitution.

In "Chapter 1 - Founding Provisions" Section 2-1 states:

1) The fundamental purposes of the Party are:

(a) to participate in the public affairs of Canada by endorsing
members of the Party as candidates of the Party for election
to the House of Commons and supporting their election;
(b) to advocate and support Liberal philosophies, principles and
policies;

Now in the non-compete agreement made between Dion and May, Dion clearly does not endorse a member of the Party for election in the riding of Central Nova. This seems quite blantant to me to be acting against the Constitution.

The second point could also be argued quite well to be supporting evidence, as Dion, by this agreement did not advocate or support Liberal philosophies, principles and policies. The Green Party's principles and policies are not the Liberal Party's, yet for Central Nova Dion suggests they are.

One could argue about the impact on the local riding Liberals, as did Cerberus and Liberal Outsider, howerver that can be construed many different ways as there are many Liberals in that riding and therefore many perspectives. But one thing that cannot be miscontrued is the logical conclusion that Stephane Dion has acted against the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada.

YouTube Unmasks Rural Conservatives

At a public meeting, in a public place, Conservatives in a small rural riding in BC illustrated characteristics not far from a Facist regime. A student, Scott Ross filmed an "Open House" with Ron Cannan, his Conservative MP. It was advertised as an open house for discussion of the 2007 budget and as a commentor on a blog wrote, the local news site, castanet reported it to be a meeting of all constituents.

While filming however a senior citizen took the floor stating he wanted to ask questions before the people. Well a Conservative staffer quickly retook the mic and announced the meeting was for Conservative members only. The senior was silenced and Scott who was diligently filming the affair was physically forced to stop filming the event with the accusation he was breaking the law. Indeed the Act mentioned cannot even apply to an organization or individual besides the Canadian government.

This whole incident is too similar to occasions in third world countries that pretend to be democratic and open but in reality limit freedoms and individual rights.



This occurance demands all Liberals to pick up camaras and follow suit but also demands from us that we will never let this happen to our Party.