Friday, June 3, 2011

On Brigette Marcelle

Brigette Marcelle (or DePape, or something), the page who waltzed into the Senate with the "Stop Harper" sign, gave me little reason to actually support her actions today.

I oppose Harper. I oppose the Conservatives. I don't support their agenda, nor do I see a compelling reason to ever do so. I agree from time to time on matters of free trade and such, but overall, I'm not a fan.

Neither is Brigette Marcelle. Fair enough. But the problem I have with her is that, fact is, she herself offered no compelling reason for her own actions today. She was brave to do it, I agree there - but her interview with Evan Soloman on CBC's Power & Politics afterwards left me wondering why she risked her job for what will be little gain. All Ms. Marcelle could say was "two-thirds of Canadians didn't vote for Harper" - well, sure, but I don't see people freaking out over it. Harper won an election under our system's rules and people across Canada accept that fact. They don't want to see some page running about with a "Stop Harper" sign when the election was already over and done with.

So what were Brigette's other reasons for what she did?

Well, she didn't offer any.

That's the issue right there. Again, I applaud the initiative, though not the setting, but she was more a talking piece than someone I thought had an independent voice. There's the danger right there; protesting is one thing, but offering no reasons for protesting other than being a simple contrarian is not a compelling reason for people to support you. Your friends and rabid partisans will, but reasonable Canadians will not.


  1. Brave? "...risked her job"? The senate will rise in 3 weeks and she would be out of that job anyway. Not much risk, although I guess she can forget a the reference letter.

  2. Fair enough point, but still brave.

  3. Brigette gave plenty of reasons for why she did the protest in her press release:

    And of course she didn't have a chance to express her views on CBC. Evan Solomon performed a hatchet job on her. Interruptions, making points and not allowing her to respond. I thought I was watching Bill O'Reilly.

    The mainstream media hates young idealists and the purpose of the CBC interview was not to find out what her motivations were; it was to put her in her place and make an example out of her.

  4. Oh, and she mentioned expanding militarism and cuts to the public sector as reasons for her protest during the CBC interview. Try actually listening next time instead of hearing what you want to hear.

  5. I think it was a courageous move on her point. Whether or not her job was put at risk was irrelevant -- it wasn't a career job.

    But I did raise an eyebrow at the timing. Such a stunt would have looked a lot more dramatic if it came at a more incriminating time than a Throne Speech. I guess she figured this was the best opportunity she'd get.