Liberals say two more teens with Liberal ties tossed from Conservative event in Vancouver
EDMONTON—The Liberals say two more teens with Liberal ties were thrown out of a Conservative rally in Vancouver.
"This is just becoming more and more grotesque," Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Saturday.
He was referring to university students in London and Guelph who were abruptly shown the door, even though they were properly registered.
These incidents help stoke Ignatieff's argument that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is obsessed with control and is anti-democratic.
Ignatieff said there were Tory supporters at his rally earlier in Sudbury "who said 'I might just vote Liberals this time.' "
"This is about democracy ... and he has just got to stop doing this," he told reporters.
Ignatieff bristled at the Conservatives' explanation that it was a private meeting and can toss who they like.
"Excuse me, there is no such thing as a private meeting in a federal election. These are public meetings. Come one come all," he said.
A spokesperson for the Conservtives acknowledged that even though they were identified as Liberal supporters the teens were told they could stay if they didn't disrupt the rally.
"They declined," he said.
At the Edmonton Liberal rally a man was allowed in despite the fact he was holding a sign that said: "Ignatieff, going back to Harvard soon?"

Do the Liberals have nothing better to do than continue to try and dig up dirt against the Conservatives?? Come on Iggy... Give it a rest. Your political antics only reinforce why I would NEVER vote Liberal.
Posted by: Bonnie | 04/16/2011 at 10:44 PM
It's their Party and they can do what they want, but who exactly are they expecting to vote for them?
Posted by: Robert | 04/16/2011 at 10:58 PM
Liberals Rise Up
Taxes
Ipod levy
Unemployment
Interest rates
Rise Up these things with Liberals
Posted by: Wade Enns: Liberals Rise Up Taxes & Unemployment | 04/16/2011 at 11:22 PM
Are we or are we not a democratic society????
Mr Harper promised transparency. If this is transparency my definition of such is not cosistent with Mr Harpers
I voted conservative in the last election and if i do this time ill have to hold pinch my nose
Posted by: Allan MacKay | 04/17/2011 at 12:06 AM
Even the Nuremberg rallies were considered public meetings...
Posted by: Peter Pan | 04/17/2011 at 02:02 AM
Is Harper gone yet?
Posted by: Thoughts Become Things | 04/17/2011 at 06:18 AM
If true, then Ignatieff, Layton and May are not doing anywhere near enough vocalizing on this issue!
Private Rally indeed! How else can voters best see, hear, and determine who to vote for if not by attending multiple candidates' events?
Slowly but surely under the newly coined 'Harper Government' we are going away from becoming 'The Government of Canada' to a 'closed circle of elite only'.
Posted by: Canadian George | 04/17/2011 at 07:57 AM
I requested a lawn sign from my local (no longer progressive)conservative. They must have checked my facebook page first cause I didn't get one. Her office informed me that she wouldn't attend the all candidates meeting because in past elections they became a conservative bash fest: undemocratic and unacceptable. Face the people! Let the citizens use their voices where ever, whenever! That's democracy!
Posted by: Harryleslie | 04/17/2011 at 08:47 AM
There needs to be a middle class revolution. Canadains are an apathetic bunch by nature. Wake up and smell the roses middle class. Until that happens nothing will change and Harper will reign as your King.
Posted by: RD | 04/17/2011 at 08:58 AM
Strange. I always thought the campaign trail was about having Canadians hear what the politicians were promising (lying about) so we could decide who we wanted to vote for. Harper only wants to have his supporters hear the "message". Could that be the reason he keeps getting minority governments, or could it be he's got the wrong message? Maybe it's because his message isn't worth hearing. ABH
Posted by: Len Wilgosh | 04/17/2011 at 09:16 AM
What is becoming grotesque is the Liberals tactic this election to say nothing about policy and just verbally attack without integrity or believability. It reeks of desperation.
Posted by: Lin | 04/17/2011 at 09:21 AM
The P.M. says that there were 4 elections in the last 7 years...true,,but he was opposition leader in the first 2 years and P.M. in the next 5 years..He is the thread in this repeated argument. ? Exit Stephen Harper. and no more repetition of(needless elections)..Go Canadians go.
Posted by: Horace Alexis | 04/17/2011 at 09:33 AM
I am a non-affiliated voter who is extremely concerned about Mr. Harper's diminution of our democracy. Ultimately, I have decided to vote strategically for the candidate in my riding most likely to be able to defeat our Conservative incumbent. It happens to be a Liberal, but in the next riding over, I'd be voting NDP. I have been researching all the parties, but this blog on the internet hardened my resolve. It is clearly biased, but well researched and sources are cited, and it BLEW ME AWAY. It is written by a grandmother who has taken the time to accumulate the information, and should be read by every voter before they cast their ballot.
http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-new-years-top-ten-list-of.html
Posted by: Old Fred | 04/17/2011 at 09:33 AM
This doesn't surprise me at all. It is indeed grotesque that the conservatives are behaving this way but, certainly not unexpected.
Posted by: Pamela Becking | 04/17/2011 at 10:20 AM
The Government of Harper
Anti Democratic, Fiscally Dishonest, Morally Bankrupt!
Posted by: RedEnsign | 04/17/2011 at 10:43 AM
The headline and body of the piece don't appear to be compatable. The students were supposedly told they could stay if they didn't cause disruption so they left of their own accord. How is this being tossed? What was their intention?
Posted by: jabez41 | 04/17/2011 at 11:02 AM
This is just another example of Harpers win at all cost attitude, and the h--- with democracy.
Posted by: Al Dean | 04/17/2011 at 12:05 PM
What is Harper afraid of? Election meetings are always public meetings. At any public meeting, attendees are expected to be respectful and to be respected. It is an automatic assumption; the hosts are not supposed to prejudge.
Posted by: Yvonne Wackernagel | 04/17/2011 at 12:24 PM
To the guy with the sign: You do realize that Ignatieff has now been here LONGER THAN HE WAS AT HARVARD right? Try saying "will you be going back to England" and see how well that sells. Also, I doubt he would pass up a job in the US for even a second if it was that prestigious. How pathetic.
Posted by: Jez | 04/17/2011 at 01:11 PM
If two Liberal students were not allowed to the Conservative meeting in Vancouver they might have been guilty but is this any different from the negative ads that the Tories used against Ignatieff? Canadians expect better from their politicians.
Posted by: Al Cameron | 04/17/2011 at 02:20 PM
Sounds like the KGB in action.
Posted by: Rose | 04/17/2011 at 02:37 PM
To describe Stephen Harper's campaign and why he either says (or doesn't say) what he does, it comes from the campaign of fear tactic.
The Conservative Party is simply the Elmer Fudd Party.
"BE AFRAID. BE VERY VERY AFRAID".
Yes, with a new Prime Minister and new gov't, The Elmer Fudd party SHOULD be "AFRAID. BE VERY VERY AFRAID".
Canadians aren't that stupid to believe Harper's propaganda, UNLESS they are "Afraid. Very, very afraid".
Posted by: Deanna Such | 04/17/2011 at 02:38 PM
Why are Liberals so obsessed with attending Conservative rallies?
Posted by: MF | 04/17/2011 at 02:41 PM
Mr.Harper is getting more dictorial with every passing day
If he every managed to get amajority we in Canada would
be next to a communist country in no time, even now with
a minority its coming close under Harper., be very careful Canada
and think long and hard before you cast your vote
Posted by: P Lanktree | 04/17/2011 at 03:28 PM
Not sure where my comment went, but I raised the same point that jabez41 brought up - if the individuals involved were welcomed to the rally on the condition that they not cause any disruptions, and they subsequently decided to leave/not attend on their own - how does one conclude that they were "tossed"? A wee bit of spin going on here, you think?
Posted by: norm | 04/17/2011 at 05:08 PM