Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[Jarnhamar]

(Putting on my Nomex coveralls here)

I'm personally in favour of the ABC campaign.

Fair enough. And like the majority of the ABC vets you're retired and not directly affected by changes to the Canadian Forces anymore.  Budget cuts, equipment shortfalls, shitty rules of engagement, not your problem.

I see people quite often come out with this "veteran groups speaking on behalf of all veterans" claim.  When you challenge them on it, and ask them to cite an instance where any of these types of groups have claimed to speak on behalf of all veterans, you always get silence in response.

Check their delivery. 

Help your Veterans.
Support your Veterans. 
Veterans against Harper.
During the Afghan war 178 Canadian Soldiers committed suicide compared to 158 soldiers killed in Combat (So Harper is now some how responsible for soldiers killing themselves from a number of reasons including bad relationships, including soldiers who killed themselves who didn't even deploy to Afghanistan. right)
We support our Veterans, Anyone But Conservatives.

These guys are a small minority of mostly retired members who are playing the Veteran card to try and sway voters.

Nobody is speaking on behalf of all veterans, including the Royal Canadian Legion - although they may be the biggest offenders when it comes to claiming they and they alone represent veterans.

No love from me for the Legion and I think they're guilty of the same thing but ABC is a lot louder and more direct.

I'm also quite certain that the author of the HuffPost article took some literary license when stating that veterans would be showing up in their uniforms.

We'll see at election time.

Vets know the rules and their "uniform" is a beret and medals with varying types of outfits, such as blazers, motorcycle vests, etc.

Now you're speaking on behalf of vets

I'm going to disagree and suggest there's a lot of vets out there who don't know the rules, just like I'm sure a lot of serving members don't.



Speaking of uniforms this looks ridiculous. I really hope this doesn't pass as a uniform.

The ABC - Veterans campaign is not telling anyone how to vote.  They're making it perfectly clear what you're going to get if nothing changes.

They ARE telling you (us) how to vote. They're saying don't vote for the conservatives. They may not be telling you a specific party TO vote for but they are still campaigning against one party, ergo trying to persuade your vote.
Especially so if they sit outside voting booths in some semblance of a uniform trying to use their Veteran Cards.

 

[Occam]

You are telling them DO NOT VOTE CONSERVATIVE. Kind of comes off like an order or at the very least, firm direction.

Illustrating what will happen if they do vote Conservative is kind of the point, no? 

No guns are being held to anyone's head.  If people don't like the message that's being conveyed, nobody is holding them hostage to being a member of the group.  The fact that there are over 11,000 members of the ABC-Veteran Facebook group says to me that the message is resounding with a lot of people.

 

[Occam]

Fair enough. And like the majority of the ABC vets you're retired and not directly affected by changes to the Canadian Forces anymore.  Budget cuts, equipment shortfalls, shitty rules of engagement, not your problem.

I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.  ;D

These guys are a small minority of mostly retired members who are playing the Veteran card to try and sway voters.

You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.

Now you're speaking on behalf of vets

No, I can assure you that anyone who showed up at an event in their former uniform would be ushered away.  If anything, retired members are more likely to think that they can't wear their former uniform when current regs actually permit it - such as Supp Res members on Remembrance Day, for example.

Speaking of uniforms this looks ridiculous. I really hope this doesn't pass as a uniform.

He's a veteran.  I agree the beret is askew, but is it really necessary for that to be the issue?  With all the other issues at hand, his beret is a topic of discussion?

 

[Jed]

I wouldn't be too sure of that.  I may be retired from the CF, but I can assure you that I'm more familiar with the first two issues you mentioned than I ever was in uniform, and that's all I can say about that.  ;D

You're certain of the demographic makeup of the group?  I'm in the group, and I can't even give you that.  The people speaking publicly on the issue are extremely familiar with veterans issues, and speaking to the topic of why veterans (and those who support veterans) should be unhappy with the level of performance of the current government.  I can tell you firsthand there's at least one member who previously voted blue (several times) and it's not happening again.  The campaigning would be going on regardless of which party was in power, if the quality of performance were the same.

No, I can assure you that anyone who showed up at an event in their former uniform would be ushered away.  If anything, retired members are more likely to think that they can't wear their former uniform when current regs actually permit it - such as Supp Res members on Remembrance Day, for example.

He's a veteran.  I agree the beret is askew, but is it really necessary for that to be the issue?  With all the other issues at hand, his beret is a topic of discussion?

His actions and deportment are opening up all veterans for mockery.  Read my original points about taking political stands and how that casts disparagement on all veterans.  I would feel the same way if ABC meant Anybody But Commies (NDP and lefty Liberals).

 

[Haggis]

Is political messaging (either protesting or campaigning) allowed at the polling stations on election day?

It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:

"166. (1) No person shall

(a) post or display in, or on the exterior surface of, a polling place any campaign literature or other material that could be taken as an indication of support for or opposition to a political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate or the election of a candidate;

(b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party; and

(c) in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate."

 

[R.KIRK99]

I have to agree with the majority, I dislike anyone saying they speak on my behalf, dislike whatever political party you want to, but do it under your name not all veterans...

 

[Occam]

His actions and deportment are opening up all veterans for mockery.  Read my original points about taking political stands and how that casts disparagement on all veterans.  I would feel the same way if ABC meant Anybody But Commies (NDP and lefty Liberals).

Which actions and deportment, exactly?  His beret?  You can't seriously believe that the 34.46 million Canadians who have no prior service in the military actually know the difference between a properly worn beret and what you see here?  The sign that he's carrying?  Lots of people carry signs.  His 3XL t-shirt?  He's on a cane, and I'll cut him some slack on his level of exercise, and point out that 1 in 4 Canadians are obese. 

John Q. Public doesn't care about any of that - they care that he's a veteran, period.

 

[Jed]

Which actions and deportment, exactly?  His beret?  You can't seriously believe that the 34.46 million Canadians who have no prior service in the military actually know the difference between a properly worn beret and what you see here?  The sign that he's carrying?  Lots of people carry signs.  His 3XL t-shirt?  He's on a cane, and I'll cut him some slack on his level of exercise, and point out that 1 in 4 Canadians are obese. 

John Q. Public doesn't care about any of that - they care that he's a veteran, period.

You just made my point crystal clear.  The public sees him as a veteran. Myself as a veteran, do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention. I think there are many veterans out there that feel the same way.

 

[Occam]

You just made my point crystal clear.  The public sees him as a veteran. Myself as a veteran, do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention. I think there are many veterans out there that feel the same way.

I'm puzzled.  You said "{I} do not want to be seen in the same light. I never want anyone to view me as a sign waiving, slovenly appareled, protester begging for attention".

I said the public is looking beyond the appearance and seeing a veteran.

If it's not the public seeing him in that light, which group of people are you being concerned about who may see you in the same group as he?

(As an aside, this photo garnered lots of positive comments in the ABC group...and only one reference to his beret)

 

[Acorn]

Veterans' issues should be election issues, IMO, and the current government has some issues that they ought to be called out on. I'm with Occam on this one.

Jed, when you are retired or released you'll be in the same group as that guy, whether you like it or not - a veteran. Don't worry, you get used to it. You even get used to the young guy who served his three years and got out without ever doing a tour being called a veteran - because he is.

 

[Jed]

Acorn, I can buy the sentiment that Veteran's issues should be election issues.

Because I am a Baby Boomer, that does not make me a long haired, pussy eyed, dope smokin' hippie.  I don't like seeing any of this protest crap from anyone. People can be constructive and actually do something positive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Let's be clear: so long as they don't break any laws, these veterans have the same rights as any other special interest group that opposes the government, normally because of one specific policy, or advocates for some specific policy or programme ~ and there are, literally, thousands of such groups. These veterans, those in ABC and those in groups (there's more than one) specifically against ABC are nothing special; most special interest groups, large and small, claim to speak for the masees; most special interest groups are full our outrage; few have any impact on any political discussion.

I agree that some veterans have a legitimate grievance. Ten or so years ago, when the government of the day (a Liberal government led by Paul Martin) introduced the New Veterans' Charter (NVC) they could have, and in my opinion should have added a "grandfather" clause because the NVC changed some implicit terms of service and, usually, when that's done ~ to pensions, for example ~ members serving on the day before the legislation is made law are offered a choice: old system or new system. That wasn't done in 2005/06; it wasn't done by the Liberals when they passed the legislation and it wasn't done by the Conservatives when they took power, before the NVC came into force. That was, in my considered opinion, immoral because we had troops in contact with the enemy, being killed and wounded when the system was changed. Members of the CF who were serving before the NVC was passed should have been offered a choice: old system or new. But it wasn't done ... it could still be done, if it became a real issue, but:  :dunno:

My guess is that neither ABC nor the vets against ABC are going to have any significant impact on any result in any of the 338 ridings: it, your pensions, is not something about which 98% of Canadians care.

There was, as I have explained before, a consensus in official Ottawa, back circa 2005 that veterans benefits were too generous ~ the benefits which had been voted to HUGE numbers of Canadians in the 1920s and 1940s reflected wars that are pretty much forgotten and societies without much in the way of social or medical support for anyone but the really rich. It is understandable that Canadians, in the 1920s and 1940s, voted for generous benefits for the 1 in 10 or 12 of them, their family, friends and neighbours in most cases, who went to war. Times have changed: Canadians in the 21st century don't see you (us, I'm a veteran, too, if it comes to that) in the same light; they are not inclined to be that generous anymore. The Liberal government passed the NVC with both CPC and NDP support: while the Liberals, now, and the NDP, may attack the CPC for being niggardly to veterans they are not going to change much, if anything at all.

So protest away, one way or the other; it's your right in a free and democratic society ~ just don't kid yourselves into believing that anyone is listening.

 

[George Wallace]

It is, under the Canada Elections Act, S.166(1)c:

"166. (1) No person shall

(a) post or display in, or on the exterior surface of, a polling place any campaign literature or other material that could be taken as an indication of support for or opposition to a political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate or the election of a candidate;

(b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party; and

(c) in a polling station or in any place where voting at an election is taking place, influence electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate."

So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.

 

[Old Sweat]

So it would be an offence to walk into a polling station with any campaign button on your person.

In previous elections the local staff of Elections Canada have interpreted this section "b) while in a polling station, wear any emblem, flag, banner or other thing that indicates that the person supports or opposes any candidate or political party that is listed on the ballot under the name of a candidate, or the political or other opinions entertained, or supposed to be entertained, by the candidate or party;" to include coloured file folders, e.g. blue, red or orange.

 

[George Wallace]

You can vote Lib.
You can vote NDP.
You can vote Green.
You can vote Independent.
You can vote Rhinoceros.
You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc.

How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?

I can't believe you just posted that.  Seriously.  "How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?"  Well, for starters, ABC does not stand for "You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc."; but vote for "Anyone But Conservative".  That means that they are INDEED TELLING US where NOT TO PUT AN "X".  That is telling us how to vote.

 

[Acorn]

I can't believe you just posted that.  Seriously.  "How is that telling someone where exactly to put the X on their ballot?"  Well, for starters, ABC does not stand for "You can vote Conservative...and here's what you're going to get...etc."; but vote for "Anyone But Conservative".  That means that they are INDEED TELLING US where NOT TO PUT AN "X".  That is telling us how to vote.

Everyone with an axe to grind in this election is telling you how to vote George. So what? They aren't at the polling place plying you with booze or threats as was not uncommon in elections long past (and if they do that, they'll be arrested, as it should be). If they try to disenfranchise you by underhanded means (robocalls, rides to the wrong polling place) they should be taken to task (or if they form a party, get elected, and try to disenfranchise you by passing laws - see what I did there?), but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.

I sympathize with the "they don't speak for me" sentiment. I felt that way years ago about the RCL.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . . . but otherwise they're just another voice in the chorus.

And while there are many chorusing in the background adding to the noise of this election, at least these "clowns" are abiding by the law and are registered as third parties.

http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=42ge&document=index&lang=e

Registered third parties – 42nd general election – October 19, 2015

Updated on August 20, 2015
Total: 32 . . .

Canadian Veterans ABC Campaign 2015 . . .

 

[PuckChaser]

I think the real sad part is, most of these guys served in the 90s getting shafted by the Liberals on a daily basis. Now they'd like to see them in power.

Morons.  :facepalm:

 

[Occam]

I think the real sad part is, most of these guys served in the 90s getting shafted by the Liberals on a daily basis. Now they'd like to see them in power.

Morons.  :facepalm:

Can't speak for anyone else, but I served in the 80's, 90's, and into 2011 - and I remember the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, and the Conservative Party of Canada quite well.  I try not to predict future performance from past performance, but for many of us "morons", at the present time, change > status quo. 

I'm sure somewhere on the site, you'll likely find me posting about how great it will be for the CPC to get a majority.  I make mistakes, but I try not to make the same ones twice. 

 

[ModlrMike]

My problem is not with their ABC stance; they're entitled to whatever position they choose to adopt. My problem is their contention that this is being done on my behalf. It's not. Very early on this specific veteran's group was co-opted by PSAC and the NDP and used for purely partisan purposes; you could all but see the marionette strings. I sense the same manipulation at work now.