Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Member A Quirk of ArtFemale/Canada Group :iconclassycupcakes: ClassyCupcakes
Recent Activity
Deviant for 11 Years
Needs Premium Membership
Statistics 1,664 Deviations 35,208 Comments 91,264 Pageviews

Newest Deviations

Favourites

Activity


If you're a Canadian who pays attention to what's going on in your country, you've probably heard about Bill C-51.  That's the Government-Is-Allowed-To-Spy-On-Us bill.  The petition against it is here. stopc51.ca/

I'm also going to share these:
:bulletred: stopc51.ca/about-c51
:bulletred: www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/vie…
:bulletred: www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/02/to…
...because they help explain what this bill is all about and why it will be a huge problem if it's passed into law.

Now here's my take on it.  Please note that I am not a lawyer and I've never worked in government.  I'm just someone who reads up on this stuff as best I can. 

The main problem with this bill is that it's vague as hell.  CSIS (which is Canada's equivalent to the CIA) is allowed to crack down on anyone who they think is going to do something dangerous.  What does dangerous mean?  It doesn't exactly say.  Who in CSIS gets to decide this?  It doesn't say.  Is this going to be done out in the open where the media can report on it, people can see what's going on, and the accused gets to defend themselves?  Doesn't look like it.  Not very Canadian, if you ask me.

So, the first problem is that the bill isn't clear.  A law NEEDS to be clear so that people know what's gong on.  Laws are for maintaining peace, not leaving loopholes for authorities to basically do whatever they want.  The bill SAYS it's for preventing terrorism, but it's really shady how they define it.  Basically, this law could target anyone who the government thinks is going to do something wrong.  Not just someone who has already done the thing (like an actual terrorist).  Not just someone who was intercepted on their way to do the thing and/or admitted that they totally meant to do the thing (like those guys who plotted to derail a VIA Rail train).  This law attacks anyone who kinda sorta maybe looks a little terroristy.  I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem.

(And, on an inappropriately placed lighter note, I find it funny that my spell check doesn't recognize "CSIS" but it does recognize "terroristy," which is a word I thought I made up).

Anyway, here are the other things about this bill that don't make sense (at least, I couldn't make sense of them):

:bulletred: The bill targets people who "threaten stability in other countries."  Technically, Canada did that with its own army when we went into Afghanistan.  Let's all just think about that for a moment.

:bulletred: The bill targets people/activities that are "detrimental to the interests of Canada."  What interests of Canada?  Who in Canada?  Are we talking about the Canadian government?  Most likely, yes, it's the government, which represents Canada in the legal sense but doesn't necessarily represent us all in the statistic "what we want" sense.  A lot of Canadians don't like what this government is doing, so that's not "representing our interests" in the same way that your MP "represents" your riding.  Same word, different meaning.  You could also look at it in terms of demographic representation.  Yes, there is some diversity amongst MPs, but it's out of proportion.  Looking only at the House of Commons, you'd think Canada is composed primarily of older, wealthy, white men.  Don't get me started on the Senate.  So "representation" can mean a bunch of things, and in this case it does not mean what they want you to think it means.

Besides, "Canada" is not just the government.  It is communities, businesses, natural resources, etc etc etc.  I find it so weird that there is even an idea of what "Canada" (as in, the people of Canada) wants.  I lean to the left on most issues.  My next door neighbour leans sharply to the right.  The space between our houses is less than three metres, so if LITERALLY next door neighbours want different things, how can there be a singular answer for What Canada Wants?  That can't begin to account for regional disparities and cultural differences.  It's a big country.  35 Million people.  Six times zones.  One of the most multicultural nations in the world.  How do you summarize that?

:bulletred: The bill takes issue with what it calls "foreign-influenced activities."  Um... sorry, that's not specific enough.  My last almost-job was on a Hollywood production that was being shot in Toronto.  That's an American-influenced activity in Canada.  Is that against the law?  Because with our lower dollar, the Americans are going to keep coming here and filming stuff, and I kinda want in on that.  Hey, are co-pro's going to be against the law too?  Better arrest everyone who works in TV or movies in this country.

:bulletred: I'm a writer.  That means I research stuff.  Some of that stuff might be considered incriminating.  Not kidding; I had an idea for a spy thriller about a secret agent who foils a terrorist plot.  I ditched the idea because I don't want the research from that in my browser history (and, yes, I clear my history, but who knows who's tracking what?  That's kind of the point; we don't know).  So, I know that's probably me being way too cautious, succumbing to anxious thinking, but the root of that fear stood out to me.  I am not afraid of foreign terrorists, but I am concerned about my own government.  After 9/11, I was afraid to fly, not because I thought someone would hijack the plane, but because I was afraid of the jacked up security.  Maybe that says something about the world and not just about my own mental issues.

:bulletred: If you do something “unlawful,” like protest without a permit, the government can keep and divulge information about your "conduct."  So, do that mean, “so-and-so went to a protest” or does it also say they were at a protest that involved violence - regardless if the violence was caused by that person or not?  Take, for example, my friend who protested a few years ago at the G-20 Summit - he is a peaceful person who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but there were a lot of rabble rabble window smashers at the protest as well.  Does my friend get grouped in with them? 

And, even if he’s not associated with that violence, it still says he was at a protest.  Which, in a democracy, you've got a right to do.  THAT is Freedom of Speech.  You know how, all these years, I've been saying "I support Freedom of Speech but..." and it's always been in a situation where someone is committing hate crimes or making threats or spreading lies and they SAY it's Freedom of Speech but it's really not, so I clarify... THIS.  This is a Freedom of Speech issue. 

So, not only would this bill allow the government to shut down protests, it can tell other entities that ___(your name here)___ was at said protest.  I’ve been at protests too (albeit never one that turned violent, thankfully).  There are some people who are scared off by that idea entirely.  Like, if I apply for a job, is my prospective employer going to know?  Once again, the wording in the bill is rather fuzzy.  That is not okay.

:bulletred: Harper’s excuse for why he thinks Bill C-51 is okay is “most Canadians agree with it.”  <--- saw that on the news; I believe it was CTV news, March 14; they were reporting on the protests against the bill.

So, here’s what’s wrong with that.  First of all, the stats say otherwise.  There was a poll that said only 29% of Canadians believe we should give more power to police and spy agencies at the expense of personal privacy (cdn.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/up…).  Have a look at that graph.  The number of those who are okay with it has dropped.  The number of those who disagree has risen.  They crossed in 2008, so it's been seven years since "most Canadians" agreed with what Harper says on this matter.  Also check out those spikes in 2013-2014.

So the trend says, no, we're not okay with it.  Let's say you wanted to take the percentage of people who definitely said no to Bill C-51 (40%).  Even if the "yes" answers, "meh" answers, and blank non-answers add up to 60%, that's still not "most."  It's more, but not most.  The "yes" and "no" sides are too similar in number to say there is a clear strong opinion from the population, according to that poll.

The other issue with Harper’s assertion is... “most Canadians?”  This never went to an actual referendum, so there is no definitive way to say that because, you know, no one ever asked all of us (or, at least, all of the potential voting population).  We don't know how many people were polled in that poll.  Harper's statement sounds to me more like a high school argument; “yeah, well, most people think you’re wrong.”  It’s a sad day when the Prime Minister has to call in the Imaginary Most People to make his point.  Anyway, the link to the petition is here.  Please read through the info and sign it if you’re concerned. stopc51.ca/
If you're a Canadian who pays attention to what's going on in your country, you've probably heard about Bill C-51.  That's the Government-Is-Allowed-To-Spy-On-Us bill.  The petition against it is here. stopc51.ca/

I'm also going to share these:
:bulletred: stopc51.ca/about-c51
:bulletred: www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/vie…
:bulletred: www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/02/to…
...because they help explain what this bill is all about and why it will be a huge problem if it's passed into law.

Now here's my take on it.  Please note that I am not a lawyer and I've never worked in government.  I'm just someone who reads up on this stuff as best I can. 

The main problem with this bill is that it's vague as hell.  CSIS (which is Canada's equivalent to the CIA) is allowed to crack down on anyone who they think is going to do something dangerous.  What does dangerous mean?  It doesn't exactly say.  Who in CSIS gets to decide this?  It doesn't say.  Is this going to be done out in the open where the media can report on it, people can see what's going on, and the accused gets to defend themselves?  Doesn't look like it.  Not very Canadian, if you ask me.

So, the first problem is that the bill isn't clear.  A law NEEDS to be clear so that people know what's gong on.  Laws are for maintaining peace, not leaving loopholes for authorities to basically do whatever they want.  The bill SAYS it's for preventing terrorism, but it's really shady how they define it.  Basically, this law could target anyone who the government thinks is going to do something wrong.  Not just someone who has already done the thing (like an actual terrorist).  Not just someone who was intercepted on their way to do the thing and/or admitted that they totally meant to do the thing (like those guys who plotted to derail a VIA Rail train).  This law attacks anyone who kinda sorta maybe looks a little terroristy.  I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem.

(And, on an inappropriately placed lighter note, I find it funny that my spell check doesn't recognize "CSIS" but it does recognize "terroristy," which is a word I thought I made up).

Anyway, here are the other things about this bill that don't make sense (at least, I couldn't make sense of them):

:bulletred: The bill targets people who "threaten stability in other countries."  Technically, Canada did that with its own army when we went into Afghanistan.  Let's all just think about that for a moment.

:bulletred: The bill targets people/activities that are "detrimental to the interests of Canada."  What interests of Canada?  Who in Canada?  Are we talking about the Canadian government?  Most likely, yes, it's the government, which represents Canada in the legal sense but doesn't necessarily represent us all in the statistic "what we want" sense.  A lot of Canadians don't like what this government is doing, so that's not "representing our interests" in the same way than your MP "represents" your riding.  Same word, different meaning.  You could also look at it in terms of demographic representation.  Yes, there is some diversity amongst MPs, but it's out of proportion.  Looking only at the House of Commons, you'd think Canada is composed primarily of older, wealthy, white men.  Don't get me started on the Senate.  So "representation" can mean a bunch of things, and in this case it does not mean what they want you to think it means.

Besides, "Canada" is not just the government.  It is communities, businesses, natural resources, etc etc etc.  I find it so weird that there is even an idea of what "Canada" (as in, the people of Canada) wants.  I lean to the left on most issues.  My next door neighbour leans sharply to the right.  The space between our houses is less than three metres, so if LITERALLY next door neighbours want different things, how can there be a singular answer for What Canada Wants?  It's a big country.  35 Million people.  Six time zones.  One of the most multicultural nations in the world.  How do you summarize that?

:bulletred: The bill takes issue with what it calls "foreign-influenced activities."  Um... sorry, that's not specific enough.  My last almost-job was on a Hollywood production that was being shot in Toronto.  That's an American-influenced activity in Canada.  Is that against the law?  Because with our lower dollar, the Americans are going to keep coming here and filming stuff, and I kinda want in on that.  Hey, are co-pro's going to be against the law too?  Better arrest everyone who works in TV or movies in this country.

:bulletred: The bill takes issue with what it calls "foreign-influenced activities."  Um... sorry, that's not specific enough.  My last almost-job was on a Hollywood production that was being shot in Toronto.  That's an American-influenced activity in Canada.  Is that against the law?  Because with our lower dollar, the Americans are going to keep coming here and filming stuff, and I kinda want in on that.  Hey, are co-pro's going to be against the law too?  Better arrest everyone who works in TV or movies in this country.

:bulletred: I'm a writer.  That means I research stuff.  Some of that stuff might be considered incriminating.  Not kidding; I had an idea for a spy thriller about a secret agent who foils a terrorist plot.  I ditched the idea because I don't want that in my browser history (and, yes, I clear my history, but who knows who's tracking what?  That's kind of the point; we don't know).  So, I know that's probably me being way too cautious, succumbing to anxious thinking, but it stood out to me.  I am not afraid of foreign terrorists, but I am more concerned about my own government.  After 9/11, I was afraid to fly, not because I thought someone would hijack the plane, but because I was afraid of the jacked up security.  Maybe that says something about the world and not just about my own mental issues.

:bulletred: If you do something “unlawful,” like protest without a permit, the government can keep and divulge information about your "conduct."  So, do that mean, “so-and-so went to a protest” or does it also say they were at a protest that involved violence - regardless if the violence was caused by that person or not?  Take, for example, my friend who protested a few years ago at the G-20 Summit - he is a peaceful person who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but there WERE a lot of rabble rabble window smashers at the protest as well.  Does my friend get grouped in with them?  And, even if he’s not associated with that violence, it still says he was at a protest.  Which, in a democracy, you've got a right to do.  THAT is Freedom of Speech.  You know how, all these years, I've been saying "I support Freedom of Speech but..." and it's always been in a situation where someone is committing hate crimes or making threats or spreading lies and they SAY it's Freedom of Speech but it's really not, so I clarify... THIS.  This is a Freedom of Speech issue. 

So, not only would this bill allow the government to shut down protests, it can tell other entities that ___(your name here)___ was at said protest.  I’ve been at protests too (albeit never one that turned violent, thankfully).  There are some people who are scared off by that idea entirely.  Like, if I apply for a job, is my prospective employer going to know?  Once again, the wording in the bill is rather fuzzy.  That is not okay.

:bulletred: Harper’s excuse for why he thinks C-51 is okay is “most Canadians agree with it.”  <--- saw that on the news; I believe it was CTV news.  March 14; they were reporting on the protests against the bill.

So, here’s what’s wrong with that.  First of all, the stats say otherwise.  There was a poll that said only 29% of Canadians believe we should give more power to police and spy agencies at the risk of personal privacy (cdn.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/up…).  Have a look at that graph.  The number of those who are okay with it have dropped.  The number of those who disagree has risen.  They crossed in 2008, so it's been seven years since "most Canadians" agreed with what Harper says on this matter.  Also check out those spikes in 2013-2014.

So the trend says, no, we're not okay with it.  Let's say you wanted to take the percentage of people who definitely said no to Bill C-51 (40%).  Even if the "yes" answers, "meh" answers, and blank non-answers add up to 60%, that's still not "most."  The "yes" and "no" sides are too similar in number to say there is a clear strong opinion from the population, according to that poll.

The other issue with Harper’s assertion is... “most Canadians?”  This never went to an actual referendum, so there is no definitive way to say that because, you know, no one ever asked all of us (or, at least, all of the potential voting population).  We don't know how many people were polled in that poll.  Harper's statement sounds to me more like a high school argument; “yeah, well, most people think you’re wrong.”  It’s a sad day when the Prime Minister has to call in the Imaginary Most People to make his point.  Anyway, the link to the petition is here.  Please read through the info and sign it if you’re concerned. stopc51.ca/
The next World Meeting was only two days away. China was so busy that he didn’t notice Russia wandering into his office. It wasn’t until China became aware of an eerie presence that he finally looked up from his computer screen.

“Ah! It’s Russia, aru!”

Russia met China’s gaze with an unblinking stare. He held up the small box he’d brought in with him.

“I made these for you,” he said with a grin.

Reluctantly, China accepted the gift. The box’s contents were lightweight and rattled slightly as China set the box down on his desk. The plainness of the cardboard box was offset by a shiny red ribbon that was tied in a lopsided bow.

“It’s very... um...”

“Fortune cookies,” Russia said. “In case you wanted a taste of home.”

China showed Russia his most gracious smile.

“Thank you, aru,” he said. “Although...”

China trailed off, wondering if it was a good idea to continue. Russia didn’t like to be corrected, although it was one of China’s pet peeves when people misunderstood his culture.

“What is it?” Russia asked. His smile was frosty. That tone of voice did not give the option of leaving the question unanswered.

“Fortune cookies are not really Chinese, aru.” China picked up the box and cradled it to show that he appreciated the gift regardless. Russia blinked, taken aback.

“But America showed me how to make what he said were Chinese cookies.” As Russia spoke, his expression changed into one of menace.  “I should go over there right now and smash his face.”

“No need,” said China, waving his hands. “It’s not a problem, really, aru.”

Russia’s menacing grin widened.

“I didn’t say it was a problem,” Russia replied. “I just thought I should smash his shiny face.”

China shuddered. That’s when he realized Russia was still staring at him. The hulking nation did not so much as blink.

“Try them,” Russia urged. China panicked. What if they were poisonous? Would there be an even worse fate if he refused?

There came a sound from the hallway. Latvia and Estonia walked by, excitedly discussing some new computer software. Upon hearing them, Russia’s expression brightened. He wandered toward the door.

“Excuse me, China,” Russia said. “I need to give my friends a hug.” And with that, he plodded off. China heard footsteps, then brief screaming, then silence. His computer screen beckoned. It was better to get back to work than to worry about things he could never change. And yet...

The box of fortune cookies sat on his desk, almost staring back at him. Curiosity tugged at his sleeve.

The ribbon slipped off easily, although the thick cardboard was hard for even China’s nimble fingers to pull apart. He presumed that Russia had closed the box by smashing the lid inside. At last, the lid popped out from where it had been wedged. Inside the box was a pile of fortune cookies.

The dough had been rolled too thickly and the edges were folded over in an uneven fashion. Clearly made by hand. Still, they had been baked to a lovely golden brown and they smelled nice.

China picked one from the top of the pile and cracked it open. A strip of paper came fluttering out. In Russia’s chunky, blocky handwriting were the words, “I LOVE YOU.”
Fortune Cookies (Hetalia One-shot)
I wrote this a while ago but never posted it here.  Somewhat RoChu.
Hetalia (c) Hidekaz Himaruya.
Loading...
Monsterville Back Cover by CaptainQuirk
Monsterville Back Cover
Not sure if this is the final iteration of this one either.  It's either going to be this, or I'll add a full moon in the top-left corner and move all the text lower.  I'd only do that if the "breaks" in the text make sense.  I wanted to say they "help her adapt" but it only fits by saying "help her / adapt."  Is that a hard end to the line?  And what about that empty space on the left side under the text?  Does that look weird?

Also, the carved pumpkin - should it be bumpier?
Loading...
If you're a Canadian who pays attention to what's going on in your country, you've probably heard about Bill C-51.  That's the Government-Is-Allowed-To-Spy-On-Us bill.  The petition against it is here. stopc51.ca/

I'm also going to share these:
:bulletred: stopc51.ca/about-c51
:bulletred: www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/vie…
:bulletred: www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/02/to…
...because they help explain what this bill is all about and why it will be a huge problem if it's passed into law.

Now here's my take on it.  Please note that I am not a lawyer and I've never worked in government.  I'm just someone who reads up on this stuff as best I can. 

The main problem with this bill is that it's vague as hell.  CSIS (which is Canada's equivalent to the CIA) is allowed to crack down on anyone who they think is going to do something dangerous.  What does dangerous mean?  It doesn't exactly say.  Who in CSIS gets to decide this?  It doesn't say.  Is this going to be done out in the open where the media can report on it, people can see what's going on, and the accused gets to defend themselves?  Doesn't look like it.  Not very Canadian, if you ask me.

So, the first problem is that the bill isn't clear.  A law NEEDS to be clear so that people know what's gong on.  Laws are for maintaining peace, not leaving loopholes for authorities to basically do whatever they want.  The bill SAYS it's for preventing terrorism, but it's really shady how they define it.  Basically, this law could target anyone who the government thinks is going to do something wrong.  Not just someone who has already done the thing (like an actual terrorist).  Not just someone who was intercepted on their way to do the thing and/or admitted that they totally meant to do the thing (like those guys who plotted to derail a VIA Rail train).  This law attacks anyone who kinda sorta maybe looks a little terroristy.  I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem.

(And, on an inappropriately placed lighter note, I find it funny that my spell check doesn't recognize "CSIS" but it does recognize "terroristy," which is a word I thought I made up).

Anyway, here are the other things about this bill that don't make sense (at least, I couldn't make sense of them):

:bulletred: The bill targets people who "threaten stability in other countries."  Technically, Canada did that with its own army when we went into Afghanistan.  Let's all just think about that for a moment.

:bulletred: The bill targets people/activities that are "detrimental to the interests of Canada."  What interests of Canada?  Who in Canada?  Are we talking about the Canadian government?  Most likely, yes, it's the government, which represents Canada in the legal sense but doesn't necessarily represent us all in the statistic "what we want" sense.  A lot of Canadians don't like what this government is doing, so that's not "representing our interests" in the same way that your MP "represents" your riding.  Same word, different meaning.  You could also look at it in terms of demographic representation.  Yes, there is some diversity amongst MPs, but it's out of proportion.  Looking only at the House of Commons, you'd think Canada is composed primarily of older, wealthy, white men.  Don't get me started on the Senate.  So "representation" can mean a bunch of things, and in this case it does not mean what they want you to think it means.

Besides, "Canada" is not just the government.  It is communities, businesses, natural resources, etc etc etc.  I find it so weird that there is even an idea of what "Canada" (as in, the people of Canada) wants.  I lean to the left on most issues.  My next door neighbour leans sharply to the right.  The space between our houses is less than three metres, so if LITERALLY next door neighbours want different things, how can there be a singular answer for What Canada Wants?  That can't begin to account for regional disparities and cultural differences.  It's a big country.  35 Million people.  Six times zones.  One of the most multicultural nations in the world.  How do you summarize that?

:bulletred: The bill takes issue with what it calls "foreign-influenced activities."  Um... sorry, that's not specific enough.  My last almost-job was on a Hollywood production that was being shot in Toronto.  That's an American-influenced activity in Canada.  Is that against the law?  Because with our lower dollar, the Americans are going to keep coming here and filming stuff, and I kinda want in on that.  Hey, are co-pro's going to be against the law too?  Better arrest everyone who works in TV or movies in this country.

:bulletred: I'm a writer.  That means I research stuff.  Some of that stuff might be considered incriminating.  Not kidding; I had an idea for a spy thriller about a secret agent who foils a terrorist plot.  I ditched the idea because I don't want the research from that in my browser history (and, yes, I clear my history, but who knows who's tracking what?  That's kind of the point; we don't know).  So, I know that's probably me being way too cautious, succumbing to anxious thinking, but the root of that fear stood out to me.  I am not afraid of foreign terrorists, but I am concerned about my own government.  After 9/11, I was afraid to fly, not because I thought someone would hijack the plane, but because I was afraid of the jacked up security.  Maybe that says something about the world and not just about my own mental issues.

:bulletred: If you do something “unlawful,” like protest without a permit, the government can keep and divulge information about your "conduct."  So, do that mean, “so-and-so went to a protest” or does it also say they were at a protest that involved violence - regardless if the violence was caused by that person or not?  Take, for example, my friend who protested a few years ago at the G-20 Summit - he is a peaceful person who wouldn’t hurt a fly, but there were a lot of rabble rabble window smashers at the protest as well.  Does my friend get grouped in with them? 

And, even if he’s not associated with that violence, it still says he was at a protest.  Which, in a democracy, you've got a right to do.  THAT is Freedom of Speech.  You know how, all these years, I've been saying "I support Freedom of Speech but..." and it's always been in a situation where someone is committing hate crimes or making threats or spreading lies and they SAY it's Freedom of Speech but it's really not, so I clarify... THIS.  This is a Freedom of Speech issue. 

So, not only would this bill allow the government to shut down protests, it can tell other entities that ___(your name here)___ was at said protest.  I’ve been at protests too (albeit never one that turned violent, thankfully).  There are some people who are scared off by that idea entirely.  Like, if I apply for a job, is my prospective employer going to know?  Once again, the wording in the bill is rather fuzzy.  That is not okay.

:bulletred: Harper’s excuse for why he thinks Bill C-51 is okay is “most Canadians agree with it.”  <--- saw that on the news; I believe it was CTV news, March 14; they were reporting on the protests against the bill.

So, here’s what’s wrong with that.  First of all, the stats say otherwise.  There was a poll that said only 29% of Canadians believe we should give more power to police and spy agencies at the expense of personal privacy (cdn.ipolitics.ca/wp-content/up…).  Have a look at that graph.  The number of those who are okay with it has dropped.  The number of those who disagree has risen.  They crossed in 2008, so it's been seven years since "most Canadians" agreed with what Harper says on this matter.  Also check out those spikes in 2013-2014.

So the trend says, no, we're not okay with it.  Let's say you wanted to take the percentage of people who definitely said no to Bill C-51 (40%).  Even if the "yes" answers, "meh" answers, and blank non-answers add up to 60%, that's still not "most."  It's more, but not most.  The "yes" and "no" sides are too similar in number to say there is a clear strong opinion from the population, according to that poll.

The other issue with Harper’s assertion is... “most Canadians?”  This never went to an actual referendum, so there is no definitive way to say that because, you know, no one ever asked all of us (or, at least, all of the potential voting population).  We don't know how many people were polled in that poll.  Harper's statement sounds to me more like a high school argument; “yeah, well, most people think you’re wrong.”  It’s a sad day when the Prime Minister has to call in the Imaginary Most People to make his point.  Anyway, the link to the petition is here.  Please read through the info and sign it if you’re concerned. stopc51.ca/

deviantID

CaptainQuirk
A Quirk of Art
Canada
Hey, how's it going?
Interests

AdCast - Ads from the Community

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconrainbow-acey:
Rainbow-Acey Featured By Owner 17 hours ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
no subfolder in your gallery for Monsterville stuff?
How am I supposed to collect stuff to make fanart?
Reply
:iconvodka-and-maple:
Vodka-And-Maple Featured By Owner Feb 24, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
//Thanks for the llama!
Reply
:iconsakatakin:
SakataKin Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2015
Thank you for the llama!
Reply
:iconprincessdarkangel61:
princessdarkangel61 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks for the llama!on my birth day too!
Reply
:iconcaptainquirk:
CaptainQuirk Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015
OMG, it was just my birthday also!  Happy birthday!
Reply
:iconprincessdarkangel61:
princessdarkangel61 Featured By Owner Feb 5, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Yay!
Reply
:iconrainbow-acey:
Rainbow-Acey Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
*casually walks by and just sets a large delicious billion-tier cake right here* 8-)
Reply
:iconcaptainquirk:
CaptainQuirk Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2015
Why, thank you! :excited: :D :lol:
Reply
:iconaruhane:
Aruhane Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2015
This is a bit late I know but thanks a lot for the llama! :D (Big Grin)
Reply
:iconrainbow-acey:
Rainbow-Acey Featured By Owner Dec 30, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
so the other day I was vegetating in my living room watching tv with a parent and a commercial came on amidst the sports about fantasy football.
It had a theme song that sounded really really familiar but I couldn't pinpoint it.
Turns out I swear it's just like the Monsterville theme song. >.>
the commercial was for Fanduel. Have you heard the song? ...just curious if you might've and noticed the similarities.
Reply
Add a Comment: