NationStates Jolt Archive

So, any Canucks on this forum who took the time to watch this?

It's quite a different sight to watch four opposition leaders sit around an oval table and bash the prime minister when the political alternative of the night was to watch Palin and Biden slug it out in the one-on-one traditional podium match. Frankly, I find the multi-party dynamics more interesting, even if they always tend to turn into PM bashing sessions.

If you watched, did you come out of it with a new perspective come election day, or did it just cement your already formed opinion?

From what I can gather, The real winners of the english language debate, were Jack Layton for creating the impression of an obvious force of opposition to Stephen Harper (the 'where's your platform? Under your sweater?' remark was pretty nice) and to a lesser extent, the Green Party for showing that they are definitely more than a one-issue party.

However, that being said I don't think all of the attacks on the Conservative Party really cracked through Harper's armour. He did admit that his earlier wish to join the 'coalition of the willing' was a mistake. But I think this would have just given him a more human side to those who are waffling on whether or not to vote Conservative. Even though you could tell that there were times he was really holding back his temper (he has a cynical smile thing he does when he's holding it back), he most definitely defended his positions in the face of multiple opponents.

I don't think Stephane Dion did enough to cement his leadership qualities to the Canadian people in the English language debate. I found that Elizabeth May did a much better job of explaining the Green Tax Shift (which is only natural, since the Liberal plan is the diet version of the Green Party's plan), and he didn't come across as stronger than Layton. I don't think you'll see a massive switch of NDP voters to the Liberals like you have in past elections. Combine that with the strong showing of the Green Party, and I think you will have an opposition that is too diffused to survive our First-Past-the-Post electoral system. Harper will walk away with at least a minority.

(I for one don't think there are enough 'red tory' voters who will take their votes from the Conservatives and plant it in the Green party to make a difference, but it's a nice thought.)

Gilles Duceppe came across the way he usually does in the english language debate - slightly frothing and focused on his Quebec agenda, which really just reinforces his voter base in Quebec.

Overall, I think that watching this may just reinforce your already held opinion. I was already leaning Green, so watching May give a solid performance cemented my decision.

Conservative majority. That's my prediction.

Layton was a bulldog, which though amusing with his 'You're a liar!' attacks, might be offputting to many Canukistanis since you know, we just don't find that very dignified.

May came across as capable and knowledgable...she was awesome and I'm very glad she was included in the debates. She had the facts and figures rolling off her tongue with ease, even when the questions were directed at Layton and not her.

Duceppe...well I liked his comment about knowing he wasn't going to be PM, and that three others there wouldn't be either, and that they knew it but just weren't saying it. He was clear about the Bloc position as the national badger...I liked his manufacturing/labour agenda and the way he went after Harper about that, and I'm interested to see what the Bloc is going to do with the recognition of Quebec as a nation within Canada.

Dion...jesus he's lame. I mean, the content of his messages wasn't bad, but he makes everything unexciting and pathetic.

I'm voting Green...I always debate with myself whether I should go NDP because they have a higher chance of getting in, but I always end up voting Green (when I can) anyway. May rocked hardest, imo.

I thought Layton's best line was directed at Dion: "If you didn't do your job as Opposition Leader, how can you expect to be the Prime Minister?"

I have to admit, Elizabeth May had a better performance than I expected, and did a lot to shake my own belief that the Greens are a one issue party. I give her credit for being the only politician (or commentator, as far as I can tell) to mention Dutch disease in the context of the Canadian economy. I don't think she has a very firm grasp of the cure, though.

I think Harper gave exactly the performance that a front-runner, and an incumbent Prime Minister, has to. He fended off most of the attacks and didn't get rattled by four opponents who are united in their dislike of his policies and beliefs. He shrugged off rather than commented on most of the mentions of his extremist past, and the calculated admission that he was wrong on Iraq will reinforce his messaging that he's moved to the centre. At the end of the day, he knows all he had to do was survive this debate and let his opponents split their votes four ways.

I already knew I was voting NDP, and the debate changed nothing for me. If this is a race for second place now, I'd much rather see Layton as Opposition Leader than Dion.

I would agree with what Veblenia said.

I laughed out loud when Layton said that to Dion.

I really liked May. She was awesome. More people like her in Canadian government, please!

Though I will still vote NDP, but that,s more due to regional issues. If I was just going to go by the debate, May would have earned my vote.

I like how all of them except Harper made some disparaging comment about Bush...and how they all want to see Harper sink with Bush's ship o' shite.

That was obviously just a ploy to associate the one with the other. I didn't think it was necessary. Harper is a big enough problem that he can be shown to fail all by himself.

That was obviously just a ploy to associate the one with the other. I didn't think it was necessary. Harper is a big enough problem that he can be shown to fail all by himself.

I think it was necessary in that it must have felt really good to gloat about how unpopular Bush is, and how Harper fellated him his entire term in office. From a political standpoint, it was useless but personally, I'm sure it was very satisfying.

I think it was necessary in that it must have felt really good to gloat about how unpopular Bush is, and how Harper fellated him his entire term in office. From a political standpoint, it was useless but personally, I'm sure it was very satisfying.

I think that you just described how Layton likes to spend his time.

I think that you just described how Layton likes to spend his time.

*fapfapfapfapfap* Oh fuck you Bush! And fuck you Harper for supporting him! *fapfapfapfapfap* Yeah Bush you going DOWN, and UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG IIIIIII'MMMMMMMMM GOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG TOOOOOOO BEEEEEEE PRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIMMMMMMEEEEEMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNISSTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's hawt.

*fapfapfapfapfap* Oh fuck you Bush! And fuck you Harper for supporting him! *fapfapfapfapfap* Yeah Bush you going DOWN, and UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG IIIIIII'MMMMMMMMM GOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG TOOOOOOO BEEEEEEE PRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIMMMMMMEEEEEMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNISSTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like it. Goes well with the mustache.

That's hawt.

In Harper's eye.

It was a good watch though most of it didn't sink in. I blame the weed.

That aside, I wish they had brought up the same question that had been in the French language debate, which was to say something nice about the person to their left.

Didn't watch the debate.

Voting Liberal.

Certainly don't want a Harper majority!!!!

Didn't watch the debate.

Voting Liberal.

Certainly don't want a Harper majority!!!!

Fuck you, you're not even Canadian.

DENIED.

It was a good watch though most of it didn't sink in. I blame the weed.

That aside, I wish they had brought up the same question that had been in the French language debate, which was to say something nice about the person to their left.

That was too cheeseball for my tastes. I felt pretty bad for May having to come up with something nice to say about Harper. Talk about putting someone on the spot!

Fuck you, you're not even Canadian.

DENIED.

CanuckHeaven isn't Canadian? I'm missing something here...

Fuck you, you're not even Canadian.

DENIED.
Someone got your knickers in a twist? :eek:

I was playing Battle For Middle Earth so I couldn't pay attention.

CanuckHeaven isn't Canadian? I'm missing something here...

Someone that completely obsessed with USian politics shouldn't be ALLOWED to keep Canadian citizenship.

'Sides, he's so generally full of shit, there's no reason to believe he's a fellow Canuk.

I was playing Battle For Middle Earth so I couldn't pay attention.

Sauron probably gets a majority. Demand proportional representation for Middle-Earth!

That was too cheeseball for my tastes. I felt pretty bad for May having to come up with something nice to say about Harper. Talk about putting someone on the spot!

Yeah they should have just sang Kumbaya and had group sex.

Srsly. No need for that sort of silliness.

Someone that completely obsessed with USian politics shouldn't be ALLOWED to keep Canadian citizenship.

'Sides, he's so generally full of shit, there's no reason to believe he's a fellow Canuk.

Okay. Figured I'd been outta the loop so long that maybe he was revealed as a North Korean spy or something.

Okay. Figured I'd been outta the loop so long that maybe he was revealed as a North Korean spy or something.

No, that would actually make him pretty cool.

How's babs?

Yeah they should have just sang Kumbaya and had group sex.

Srsly. No need for that sort of silliness.

I'd do Elizabeth May. She'd be frisky. (And that gummy smile is so hot right now!)

I'd do Elizabeth May. She'd be frisky. (And that gummy smile is so hot right now!)

She'd be on top, that's for sure.

No, that would actually make him pretty cool.

How's babs?

Awesome. Generally quiet, (for a baby) and looking more and more like Daddy every day. This staying home with him stuff is awesome.

Awesome. Generally quiet, (for a baby) and looking more and more like Daddy every day. This staying home with him stuff is awesome.

Power to you...I couldn't wait to get back to work :D

Personally, I hate Harper. Having a conservative majority will be horrible for canada. I'm not sure how many people live in Ontario, but when Mike Harris was the premier, let's just say that the Conservatives are yet to win that again.

I was also put off from the conservatives when Dion became the liberal leader. Instantly they sent out attack ads.... like what was the point of it? an election hadnt even been called and one wouldnt be called for the next few months.

Anyways, I'm hoping that the liberals do horrible in this election so that they can get a new party leader again. That is why I'm voting green :D

Someone that completely obsessed with USian politics shouldn't be ALLOWED to keep Canadian citizenship.

'Sides, he's so generally full of shit, there's no reason to believe he's a fellow Canuk.
I know that you are sick and not feeling well. I will keep you in my prayers. :)

Didn't watch the debate.

Voting Liberal.

Certainly don't want a Harper majority!!!!

Harper will win. Never mind any evidence you have to the contrary. Harper will win, just like Hillary Clinton was going to win.

Im suprised your voting Liberal. Is the liberal candidate a woman? Otherwise theyre clearly sexist and backwards.

Harper will win. Never mind any evidence you have to the contrary.
No doubt that Harper will win. I just hope that he doesn't get a majority.

Harper will win, just like Hillary Clinton was going to win.
That makes absolutely no sense.

Im suprised your voting Liberal.
Why?

Is the liberal candidate a woman?
Nope.

Otherwise theyre clearly sexist and backwards.
Because a party doesn't have a woman leader, then they are sexist and backwards?

Because a party doesn't have a woman leader, then they are sexist and backwards?

Well, I guess youve changed your mind then.

Well, I guess youve changed your mind then.
Well you guessed wrong.

Well you guessed wrong.

So you do believe that a ticket without a vagina is backwards and sexist?


Thus, my point stands.

So you do believe that a ticket without a vagina is backwards and sexist?
I have never taken that position. Ever.

Thus, my point stands.
Perhaps you need new glasses? Your point has been refuted.

Canada has leaders? What does he do? Pick who has to shovel the snow and whos going to guard the beer?

That aside, I wish they had brought up the same question that had been in the French language debate, which was to say something nice about the person to their left.
That was my favourite part of the French debates.

But yeah, the English debates just cemented in my mind what a douchebag Harper is. He just lied his ass off most of the time.
I thought that May did a surprisingly good job, especially for someone who wasn't going to be at the debates to begin with (although she did less well in the French debates, but I don't think the Greens had a chance in Quebec anyways).
I'm hoping that the French debate did enough damage to the Conservatives that they don't get the majority (cutting arts because they're "radical" and "liberal" apparently flies less well in Quebec than everywhere else). Other than that, it would be nice to see Layton as opposition leader. And this is me being an optimist.

I had a dream last night about you, Dakini! You were the appellate level of mod review...if a mod appeal was raised, you'd settle the matter. It was interesting...you had an avy with black robes and a powdered wig just for appeal matters.

Yes, I'm disturbed.

Canada has leaders? What does he do? Pick who has to shovel the snow and whos going to guard the beer?

HEY!

We each proudly gaurd our own beer, or with a trusted drinking buddy. Or possibly someone we want to sleep with.

No Beer for you!

I had a dream last night about you, Dakini! You were the appellate level of mod review...if a mod appeal was raised, you'd settle the matter. It was interesting...you had an avy with black robes and a powdered wig just for appeal matters.

Yes, I'm disturbed.
Weird. I don't think anyone has ever had a dream about me being any sort of authority figure before... :S

Perhaps it is time to merge the Liberals and NDP. They would score a massive majority.

Perhaps it is time to merge the Liberals and NDP. They would score a massive majority.

It won't happen. But that's essentially what the Reform Party had to do to gain power. The Liberal Party isn't left enough to 'unite the left'. And besides, the Liberal brand name is still okay, they just need to go back to the shop and pick a new leader. (Gerrard Kennedy would have been my pick last time around.)

The one thing I'm wondering is, how tight things are financially for the Liberal Party. Would a serious drubbing break the party apart? Probably not. Again, the brand name is too good.

Perhaps it is time to merge the Liberals and NDP. They would score a massive majority.
Why would anyone want that? I like the NDP, I like their policies. I wouldn't necessarily vote for a merged Liberal/NDP party because they might end up too conservative for my liking.

Perhaps it is time to merge the Liberals and NDP. They would score a massive majority.

While they're at it, why don't the NDPers just sell their children's organs, and prostitute themselves on the side? Joining the Grits would be the moral fucking equivalent anyway.

I watched the English debate, before that I was in between liberals and NDP, but now I've pretty much decided on NDP, but I was very impressed by Mrs. May. But does anyone know where I can find the french debates?

There any links to a recording of this debate?

I know very little about Canadian politics, but I think it would be worthwhile to watch this.

There any links to a recording of this debate?

I know very little about Canadian politics, but I think it would be worthwhile to watch this.

Gilles Duceppe was cut out in this version but it's in chronological order and I divided it up by subject:
On the economy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buv3LTSNLH0&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_141654
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN9d-ZbZXhw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiF0SoexdIA&feature=related
Environment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfH_jU0fsuc&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_466605
Health Care
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCBrtKL1jFg&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_398584
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCBrtKL1jFg&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_398584
Art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvOtZmCegDo&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_627784
Crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvOtZmCegDo&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_627784
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It8KH3iPEYI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_941373
Afghanistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It8KH3iPEYI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_941373
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Y5_ZVI9fo&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_314148
their top priority
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqkyVeFDFx0&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_541990
Trust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_10-wmIS5I&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_206721

Thank you.

I missed the actual debate, but I've watched some clips. I'm still voting NDP, the guy in my riding is a very steady, incumbent NDP MP, and I've spoken to him personally and think he's a great guy.

As for the Liberal/NDP merger.. I'm a moderate NDP supporter. If the Liberals could put forward a leader like Trudeau, I might consider switching to the Liberal ticket.

But as it stands right now, I would never vote for a Liberal/NDP merger. And I'm one of the sane, moderate ones. Good luck.

While they're at it, why don't the NDPers just sell their children's organs, and prostitute themselves on the side? Joining the Grits would be the moral fucking equivalent anyway.
Give your head a shake. Even Jack Layton has suggested a "coalition" between the two parties.

Over the years, I have supported both Liberal and NDP candidates, and most of the progressive legislation has come from the Liberal party. Trudeau kicked it off by kicking the government out of the bedroom.

So your emotive appeal is denied!! :tongue:

Give your head a shake. Even Jack Layton has suggested a "coalition" between the two parties.

Over the years, I have supported both Liberal and NDP candidates, and most of the progressive legislation has come from the Liberal party. Trudeau kicked it off by kicking the government out of the bedroom.

So your emotive appeal is denied!! :tongue:

There's a difference between a 'coalition' and a merger. He was implying that in a minority government situation, if Harper's government were to fail an immediate confidence vote, the governer general should extend the opportunity to the opposition to form a coalition government, i.e. a combined NDP and Liberal government (and possibly some greens or bloc). This doesn't mean that the parties would combine, they would have to agree to compromise on some issues, in the interest of running the nation.

While this is theoretically sound, and not uncommon in other Parliamentary democracies, Harper has already denounced any sort of 'coalition government' as unconstitutional. Whether or not that's true, it hasn't happened in Canada before (that I can think of) and it would create a constitutional crisis if the Conservatives opposed it.

But don't think for an instant that the NDP and Liberals would merge parties. The Liberals are too proud, and the NDP too left of centre for half of the Liberal party.

There's a difference between a 'coalition' and a merger. He was implying that in a minority government situation, if Harper's government were to fail an immediate confidence vote, the governer general should extend the opportunity to the opposition to form a coalition government, i.e. a combined NDP and Liberal government (and possibly some greens or bloc). This doesn't mean that the parties would combine, they would have to agree to compromise on some issues, in the interest of running the nation.
I am well aware of the difference between coalition and merger. Many times the NDP has propped up a Liberal government without a formal coalition being established. However, a formal coalition is possible.

This isn't the first time this idea has been visited, and was bandied about 4 years ago:

Liberal-NDP coalition most popular, but least likely (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040626.wxelecpoll26/BNStory/specialDecision2004/)

While this is theoretically sound, and not uncommon in other Parliamentary democracies, Harper has already denounced any sort of 'coalition government' as unconstitutional. Whether or not that's true, it hasn't happened in Canada before (that I can think of) and it would create a constitutional crisis if the Conservatives opposed it.
I am not a Constitutional expert, but I do believe that Harper's ass is sucking wind on this issue (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0812-e.htm#forming2):

2. If there is no clear majority, which party is entitled to be asked to form a government first – the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or the incumbent party?

If there is no clear majority, the incumbent Prime Minister is given the choice of resigning or meeting the House to see if his or her party has the confidence of the House.(18)

3. If there is no clear majority and the government resigns, how is the Prime Minister determined?

Should the incumbent Prime Minister and Cabinet resign in the event there is no clear majority, the Governor General would probably ask the leader of the opposition party most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House to form a government. The confidence of the House might be evidenced through an informal agreement or a coalition between parties.

In almost every case, the Governor General has chosen as the Prime Minister the leader of the party that has received the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, even if it is not the majority.(19)

But don't think for an instant that the NDP and Liberals would merge parties. The Liberals are too proud, and the NDP too left of centre for half of the Liberal party.
If the Liberals and NDP did merge, there obviously be some dropouts from both parties, but there would still be a formidable foundation left.

While this is theoretically sound, and not uncommon in other Parliamentary democracies, Harper has already denounced any sort of 'coalition government' as unconstitutional. Whether or not that's true, it hasn't happened in Canada before (that I can think of) and it would create a constitutional crisis if the Conservatives opposed it.
I'm not a Canadian, but I know enough about the Canadian constitution and system of government to know that Harper is speaking right out of his arse.

EDIT:Zing!
The 1st Canadian Parliament was in session from November 6, 1867 until July 8, 1872. The membership was set by the 1867 federal election from August 7 to September 20, 1867, and it changed only somewhat due to resignations and by-elections until it was prorogued prior to the 1872 election.

It was controlled by a majority coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal-Conservative Party under Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald and the 1st Canadian Ministry. The Official Opposition was the Liberal Party, led by Edward Blake from 1869 to 1871, followed by a vacancy in the Liberal leadership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Canadian_Parliament

...most of the progressive legislation has come from the Liberal party. Trudeau kicked it off by kicking the government out of the bedroom.....

All that progressive legislation that the Liberals enacted originally came from the NDP. Trudeau did not kick the government out of the bedroom, and this is obvious from the fact that same sex marriage wasn't put forth as part of the Liberal platform until Martin was in danger of losing the PM position less than a decade ago.

Meanwhile the NDP have actually had a platform for equal rights for other sexual orientations since the Trudeau era.

Many NDP supporters wouldn't vote for a Liberal-NDP coalition party unless the Liberal party grew a pair and became as progressive as the NDP is now.

All that progressive legislation that the Liberals enacted originally came from the NDP. Trudeau did not kick the government out of the bedroom, and this is obvious from the fact that same sex marriage wasn't put forth as part of the Liberal platform until Martin was in danger of losing the PM position less than a decade ago.

Meanwhile the NDP have actually had a platform for equal rights for other sexual orientations since the Trudeau era.

Many NDP supporters wouldn't vote for a Liberal-NDP coalition party unless the Liberal party grew a pair and became as progressive as the NDP is now.
Despite your protestations, your rhetoric does not support the facts. You don't want to give credit where credit is due, but lets stick with the facts:

On 26 August 1969, the Canadian Criminal Law Amendment Act came into effect, changing forever how much the Canadian state would involve itself in affairs in the bedroom. It decriminalised homosexuality, the contraceptive pill, and abortion. So great an impact did it have that, when passing through the House of Commons, it was known as the ‘Omnibus Bill’, although still bearing the more dour name of Bill C-150.

The bill was proposed by Pierre Trudeau in 1967. Trudeau was then the Justice Minister, and responsible for sweeping away all the outdated and outmoded laws of state. In this capacity, he made it quite clear that laws that impinged upon sexual rights would be first to go, declaring, “There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” As it happens, Trudeau was elected leader of the Liberal Party, and therefore Prime Minister, at the marathon 1968 party convention, allowing him to get his bill passed and to dominate Canadian politics for the next two decades.
Trudeau opened the door. You are welcome. :D

I'm not a Canadian, but I know enough about the Canadian constitution and system of government to know that Harper is speaking right out of his arse.

EDIT:Zing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Canadian_Parliament

I think the difference in this case, is that while there have been coalition governments in the past, they have always been held together by the Prime Minister, i.e. the leader of the party with the most seats. If a vote of non-confidence ousted the Conservatives, asking the leader of the opposition to form a government would be a first in Canada (that I am aware of.) I think that is what Harper is taking issue with. By standard Canadian convention, another election would have to be called.

If the Liberals and NDP did merge, there obviously be some dropouts from both parties, but there would still be a formidable foundation left.

The problem is that you are talking about two very different parties with different power bases and their own storied histories. In the case of the Reform and Progressive Conservative party mergers, you're essentially talking about the reformation of the shattered Progressive Conservative party (minus the Quebec wing, which is now the Bloc Quebecois.)

The NDP and Liberals don't share a common origin party. The NDP are used to being a voice of opposition, the Liberals are used to being in power. The NDP are largely a union-funded and very left of centre party, while the Liberals are too invested in the status quo and big business. Don't let their similar stand on moral issues confuse the issue that they are far too different and too proud to want to merge.

(And I specifically took issue with your term 'coalition' because you were using it do defend your idea of a merged NDP and Liberal party.)

I think the difference in this case, is that while there have been coalition governments in the past, they have always been held together by the Prime Minister, i.e. the leader of the party with the most seats. If a vote of non-confidence ousted the Conservatives, asking the leader of the opposition to form a government would be a first in Canada (that I am aware of.) I think that is what Harper is taking issue with. By standard Canadian convention, another election would have to be called.
I don't believe that is the case, as per what I posted earlier.

Despite your protestations, your rhetoric does not support the facts. You don't want to give credit where credit is due, but lets stick with the facts:

Trudeau opened the door. You are welcome. :D

Funny how Morgentaler was still fighting legal battles long after that. And how Liberals were trying to keep same sex couples from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples as late as 2004 (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc180504.htm). Or the way the Liberal government was still making it difficult for for women to access the 'morning after' pill as late as 2004 (http://dawn.thot.net/cwhn.html).

If Trudeau opened the door, then his followers tried to close it. Since 1967, the Liberals have only championed causes of social justice when they they needed to buy votes from a segment of the population. And when they do, they just adopt whatever the NDP have already been saying for years.

Funny how Morgentaler was still fighting legal battles long after that. And how Liberals were trying to keep same sex couples from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples as late as 2004 (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc180504.htm). Or the way the Liberal government was still making it difficult for for women to access the 'morning after' pill as late as 2004 (http://dawn.thot.net/cwhn.html).

If Trudeau opened the door, then his followers tried to close it. Since 1967, the Liberals have only championed causes of social justice when they they needed to buy votes from a segment of the population. And when they do, they just adopt whatever the NDP have already been saying for years.
Sorry to be blunt, but you offer nothing but bullshit. Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to recognize same-sex marriage. That was done by a Liberal majority government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada). The NDP had a majority government in Ontario from 1990 to 1995. Did they pass the same-sex legislation? Ummm no.

Which party re-patriated the Canadian Constitution in 1982? It was a Liberal majority government led by Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Guess what was included with that new Constitution? That is correct, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms).

The British Parliament formally enacted the Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada in 1982, the result of the efforts of the Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. However, the Charter granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power.
Thank you Mr. Trudeau.

As far as abortions are concerned, they were legal in Canada. Morgentaler was charged with working outside of the legal framework. It was that same Charter of Rights instilled in the Canada Act by that Liberal majority government that allowed Morgentaler to succeed in his fight with the law of the land.

Don't get me wrong, the NDP have brought forth many great ideas, especially universal health care, but let's not forget to give credit where credit is due?

BTW, I have worked for the election of Liberals and NDPers. I have been a union activist all my adult life and I have fought for and won issues concerning civil rights.

I don't believe that is the case, as per what I posted earlier.

Take another look at the source you linked, at #2 where it states "At the federal level in Canada, there have been no coalition governments as a result of a minority situation. Neither have there been formal agreements on cooperation between parties."

So, for the governor general (appointed by a previous Liberal administration I believe) to make a choice to appoint the leader of a party that doesn't have the most seats in the house of commons is unprecedented (at the federal level.) Plus, since she was appointed by the Liberal party, to appoint the Liberals as the new government (supported by the NDP) raises serious issues of democratic fairness.

Is Harper talking out of his ass? Probably. But not without the force of precedence on his side, and if the Conservatives made a big enough stink about it, we would probably have a big problem at the federal level.


I think it's a bit of a moot point anyway, because if it could have been done, they could have done it the moment Harper resigned in the first place. Fact is, both the Liberals and the NDP are too preoccupied with their own agendas to care about any sort of co-operative venture.

Funny how Morgentaler was still fighting legal battles long after that. And how Liberals were trying to keep same sex couples from enjoying the same rights as heterosexual couples as late as 2004 (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc180504.htm). Or the way the Liberal government was still making it difficult for for women to access the 'morning after' pill as late as 2004 (http://dawn.thot.net/cwhn.html).

If Trudeau opened the door, then his followers tried to close it. Since 1967, the Liberals have only championed causes of social justice when they they needed to buy votes from a segment of the population. And when they do, they just adopt whatever the NDP have already been saying for years.

Well, that's because the Liberals don't really stand for anything other than whatever it takes to get them in power. (My own obvious bias and observation.) The recent grab of the Green Shift from the Green Party is a time-honoured Liberal tactic.

Sorry to be blunt, but you offer nothing but bullshit. Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to recognize same-sex marriage. That was done by a Liberal majority government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada). The NDP had a majority government in Ontario from 1990 to 1995. Did they pass the same-sex legislation? Ummm no.

That was due to a judicial decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halpern_v._Canada) by the Ontario Supreme Court. There were several SSMs performed in 2001 that had their legality questioned by the governments of the time. This was long after the NDP were out of power. If you want to give credit for legalising SSM in Ontario, thank Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Eileen Gillese and James MacPherson.

Which party re-patriated the Canadian Constitution in 1982? It was a Liberal majority government led by Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Guess what was included with that new Constitution? That is correct, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms).
Thank you Mr. Trudeau.

Trudeau probably got the idea from someone like Eugene Forsey who was with the NDP at the time, and was a passionate advocate of 'bringing the Constitution to Canada'. Besides, the Constitution was a mutliparty effort that also involved all the premiers. To give all the credit to one man is foolish.

As far as abortions are concerned, they were legal in Canada. Morgentaler was charged with working outside of the legal framework. It was that same Charter of Rights instilled in the Canada Act by that Liberal majority government that allowed Morgentaler to succeed in his fight with the law of the land.

Despite a Liberal government that did everything it could to keep barriers between women and abortion. Paul Steckle was a Liberal MP when he introduced Bill C-338, which would have criminalised abortion (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html). In 2006. That's right. Two years ago, the Liberals were still trying to make it harder for women to get abortions.

BTW, I have worked for the election of Liberals and NDPers. I have been a union activist all my adult life and I have fought for and won issues concerning civil rights.

I don't believe you.

That was due to a judicial decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halpern_v._Canada) by the Ontario Supreme Court. There were several SSMs performed in 2001 that had their legality questioned by the governments of the time. This was long after the NDP were out of power. If you want to give credit for legalising SSM in Ontario, thank Chief Justice Roy McMurtry, Eileen Gillese and James MacPherson.
Shall I keep burying you or do you give up?

The panel of esteemed judges (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/scc_stay_ontario.htm)that heard the appeal included the Chief Justice of Ontario, Roy McMurtry, who in addition to being a former Attorney General of the province, was also one of the authors of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Eileen E. Gillese (http://www.trudeaufoundation.ca/community.igloo?r0=community&r0_script=/scripts/folder/view.script&r0_pathinfo=/{3ebb02c1-4f13-4da9-9ccb-60a9e360ab3c}/about/network/members&r0_l=en&r0_ui=profile&r0_output=xml&r0_id={2B4227D3-8817-42B3-9192-DED162898F95}) is a member of what Foundation......ahhh the Trudeau Foundation.

What is this (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/nation_builder2003.htm)?

Former Canadian Justice Minister, and Attorney General, Martin Cauchon will receive an honour from the Philadelphia-based Equality Forum next year, for his role in support of equal marriage.
So who is this guy Martin Cauchon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cauchon)?

Cauchon was appointed Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development - Quebec by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1996. He became a full cabinet minister in 1999 when he was given the position of Minister of National Revenue. On January 12, 2002, he became Minister of Justice and Minister with political responsibility for Quebec. As justice minister, Cauchon argued in cabinet in favour of same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana (indeed, when asked whether he had used marijuana in the past, he responded "Yes, of course" [1]).

Cauchon was a Chrétien loyalist
Geez....another damn Liberal in a Liberal majority government. And what significant appointment did he make (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ja-nj/2002/doc_29781.html)?

OTTAWA, January 28, 2002 -- The Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointments:

The Honourable Eileen Gillese of the Superior Court of Justice is appointed a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal.
And what about this James C. MacPherson guy (http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/BenchersDigest/bv12i3.htm)?

The Honorable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada announced on May 26, 1999, that Mr. Justice James C. MacPherson, Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) Judge, has been appointed Judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Another judical appointment by the majority Liberals.

Roy McMurtry was also appointed by a Liberal majority government, and all 3 were during the Chretien Liberal era. Go figure?

Also, this woman's group (http://www.realwomenca.com/page/pubanalys7.html) seem to want to blame the Liberals for SSM. Kinda flies in the face of what you are suggesting.

I don't believe you.
It matters not what you believe, as I have told the truth, and that is all that matters to me. :)

Despite a Liberal government that did everything it could to keep barriers between women and abortion.
Not true.

Paul Steckle was a Liberal MP when he introduced Bill C-338, which would have criminalised abortion (http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html).
It is not quite the way you have stated it. First of all, it was a private members bill (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2494993&file=4), which any politician can bring forward. Also it wouldn't have "criminalised abortion", only after the 20th week of gestation, and only if the mother's health was not going to be adversely affected.

In 2006. That's right. Two years ago, the Liberals were still trying to make it harder for women to get abortions.
First reading was October 16, 2007, and there have been no recorded votes (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=15&Type=0&Scope=I&query=5136&List=stat). And get your facts straight....it is a private member's bill, not a Liberal party bill.

Shall I keep burying you or do you give up?

:rolleyes:

Eileen E. Gillese (http://www.trudeaufoundation.ca/community.igloo?r0=community&r0_script=/scripts/folder/view.script&r0_pathinfo=/{3ebb02c1-4f13-4da9-9ccb-60a9e360ab3c}/about/network/members&r0_l=en&r0_ui=profile&r0_output=xml&r0_id={2B4227D3-8817-42B3-9192-DED162898F95}) is a member of what Foundation......ahhh the Trudeau Foundation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Liberal Party supporting a progressive stance that the NDP did not already support. Try again.

What is this (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/nation_builder2003.htm)?

It's a small excerpt from a longer article that explicitly mentions that the judges won an award for their judicial decision.

So who is this guy Martin Cauchon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Cauchon)?

Geez....another damn Liberal in a Liberal majority government.

And the award from the USians is undeserved, as he was one of the Liberals who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 1999. You can read his name here on the list of Yeas.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=240&parl=36&ses=1&language=E#DIV548

Yeah. That same majority Liberal government that explicitly voted against same sex marriage in 1999.

And what significant appointment did he make (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/ja-nj/2002/doc_29781.html)?

And what about this James C. MacPherson guy (http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/BenchersDigest/bv12i3.htm)?

Another judical appointment by the majority Liberals.

Roy McMurtry was also appointed by a Liberal majority government, and all 3 were during the Chretien Liberal era. Go figure?

Yes, the Liberals were part of the process for appointing the judges and for providing the legal framework for the judicial decisions made by these judges. But if you are going to argue that they deserve more credit than the NDP for this, you might want to show some evidence that the NDP would not have done the same thing or appointed even more progressive judges and passed more progressive legislation had they been in power.

Also, this woman's group (http://www.realwomenca.com/page/pubanalys7.html) seem to want to blame the Liberals for SSM. Kinda flies in the face of what you are suggesting.

Realwomen is one of those weird anti-feminist women's groups. They probably support Palin, just to give you an example of their bias. And their article on SSM in Canada is factually wrong. For example, it characterised the vote to which I linked above as one that supports rather than condemns SSM. But since I linked to the officiall transcript of the motion, I have no doubt as to which is more true. So if it seems to fly in the face of what I said, it's because it's wrong.

Not true.....it is a private member's bill, not a Liberal party bill.

Passed by a Liberal.

Morgentaler was performing illegal, criminal abortions for 15 years (1973-1988) across Canada. Why didn't Trudeau just legalise it right away? Why did he keep it as part of the Criminal Code? And when Brian Mulroney almost got his Bill C-43 passed in 1990, which would have criminalised abortion, it passed the House of Commons and almost passed the Senate with Liberal help.

Passed by a Liberal.

Morgentaler was performing illegal, criminal abortions for 15 years (1973-1988) across Canada. Why didn't Trudeau just legalise it right away?
Why should Trudeau have legalized the criminal activities of Morgentaler? He was clearly in violation of the intent and spirit of the abortion laws that were already in effect.

Why did he keep it as part of the Criminal Code?
Because abortions are serious business that involves human lives, and you can't have people making their own rules? Perhaps you have a better answer....it is too late to ask Trudeau.

And when Brian Mulroney almost got his Bill C-43 passed in 1990, which would have criminalised abortion, it passed the House of Commons and almost passed the Senate with Liberal help.
Mulroney had a majority government and didn't need any help getting his bill past the H of C. The fact remains, and perhaps one that you should recognize is that the Mulroney's bill was defeated at the Senate level by the Liberal majority that BTW was beholding to no one!!!!

Edit: new added in bold.

Why should Trudeau have legalized the criminal activities of Morgentaler? He was clearly in violation of the intent and spirit of the law.

Because abortions are serious business that involves human lives, and you can't have people making their own rules? Perhaps you have a better answer....it is too late to ask Trudeau.

Trudeau should have legalised the actions of Morgentaler because the laws that Morgentaler were breaking were unconstitutional. That's why they were overturned and Canada doesn't have any laws concerning abortion. Trudeau's law was in violation of the intent and spirit of the supreme law of the land.

Abortions are serious business that involve human lives. That's why Canada chooses to let the woman involved 'make her own rules', as you put it. I don't need to find a better answer than Trudeau's, because Canada has already found a better answer with our current legal situation.

Mulroney had a majority government and didn't need any help getting his bill past the H of C. The fact remains, and perhaps one that you should recognize is that the Mulroney's bill was defeated at the Senate level by the Liberal majority that BTW was beholding to no one!!!!

I'm not talking about whether or not he needed help. I'm telling you he got it. Tell you what. You seem so keen on claiming that the Liberals are the progressive one, here's your chance: show me a source that shows that most of the Liberals voted against Bill C-43 in the HofC and Senate. Or that the NDP supported Bill C-43 more than the Liberals did.

I won't hold my breath.

Trudeau's law was in violation of the intent and spirit of the supreme law of the land.
That is hogwash and you know it. Without Trudeau's law, there would have been ZERO legal abortions!!

Abortions are serious business that involve human lives. That's why Canada chooses to let the woman involved 'make her own rules', as you put it. I don't need to find a better answer than Trudeau's, because Canada has already found a better answer with our current legal situation.

I'm not talking about whether or not he needed help. I'm telling you he got it. Tell you what. You seem so keen on claiming that the Liberals are the progressive one, here's your chance: show me a source that shows that most of the Liberals voted against Bill C-43 in the HofC and Senate. Or that the NDP supported Bill C-43 more than the Liberals did.

I won't hold my breath.
If anyone needs to shoulder the burden of proof, that would be you. I have thrown out all kinds of Liberals names, and let's face facts, it was through their legislation that most of these "liberal" laws came into being. You have suggested that the NDP are the progressive ones and yet the only name that you have offered is Eugene Forsey.

From our friend Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Forsey):

Shortly after the formation of the New Democratic Party from the alliance of the CLC with the CCF, Forsey resigned from the party because of its constitutional policy which viewed Quebec as a nation within Canada. Later in the 1960s, he was attracted to the views of Pierre Trudeau on the Canadian constitution, and joined the Liberal Party of Canada upon being appointed to the Senate in 1970. He retired from the Upper House on reaching the age of 75 in 1979,
When we in Canada, talk about health care, we inevitably evoke Tommy Douglas' name as being the forefather. Can we do the same when it comes to same sex marriage? Don't think so.

BTW, in regards to your claim that "Brian Mulroney almost got his Bill C-43 passed in 1990, which would have criminalised abortion", I offer you this excerpt from a pro-life web site (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06080801.html):

The 1989 Conservative justice minister, Kim Campbell, with the input of the government’s minister of health, Jake Epp, introduced a replacement abortion law, Bill C-43.

Canada’s pro-life leaders quickly saw that the legislation was vastly more liberal than required by the Supreme Court decision. It had so many exceptions and loopholes as to render it useless in preventing any abortions. In fact, it was calculated to prevent no abortions, according to abortionist Henry Morgentaler and a 12-page memo from Campbell to physicians. C-43 made a mockery of respect for human life. The justice minister assured physicians that the legislation was intended to protect doctors who committed abortions.

Also, C-43 widened the criteria for those who could commit abortions to the point where authorized nurses and other non-physicians could be permitted to take part in the killing, not only in hospitals but also in doctors’ offices.
I guess it is all a matter of prespective?

Getting back to the SSM situation, as I claimed before, Ontario's Liberal majority government was the first in North America to recognize SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Ontario_decision).

Right behind Ontario, it was the Liberal majority government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#British_Columbia_decision)of BC that legalized the marriages.

How come it took over a year for the Manitoba NDP majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Manitoba_decision)to follow suit?

What happened in Sasakatchewan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Saskatchewan_decision)

Even though Saskatchewan had an NDP majority government, it was a judges ruling that brought same-sex marriage to Saskatchewan.

It would appear that the NDP were tag alongs on this issue?

Polls show that Harper's empty pitch is causing a slide!! YaY!!! :)

That is hogwash and you know it. Without Trudeau's law, there would have been ZERO legal abortions!!

When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the laws on abortion as unconstitutional, they were talking about Trudeau's laws. This is a matter of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

I am not stating my opinion as to whether or not they were unconstitutional. I am telling you that the SC ruled Trudeau's laws as such.

If anyone needs to shoulder the burden of proof, that would be you. I have thrown out all kinds of Liberals names, and let's face facts, it was through their legislation that most of these "liberal" laws came into being. You have suggested that the NDP are the progressive ones and yet the only name that you have offered is Eugene Forsey.

From our friend Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Forsey):

So, you have no evidence that shows that the Liberals didn't help Mulroney pass his bill through the HofC. As long as we're clear on that.

When we in Canada, talk about health care, we inevitably evoke Tommy Douglas' name as being the forefather. Can we do the same when it comes to same sex marriage? Don't think so.

You're right. Tommy Douglas does not deserve credit for SSM. Neither does the Liberal party.

BTW, in regards to your claim that "Brian Mulroney almost got his Bill C-43 passed in 1990, which would have criminalised abortion", I offer you this excerpt from a pro-life web site (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/aug/06080801.html):


I guess it is all a matter of prespective?

That depends. The last pro-life website you quoted was factually wrong. I am hesitant to believe this one. Why don't you provide Morgentaler's words, or the memo mentioned?

Getting back to the SSM situation, as I claimed before, Ontario's Liberal majority government was the first in North America to recognize SSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Ontario_decision).

We already talked about this. it was a judicial decision. Not a legislative one.

Right behind Ontario, it was the Liberal majority government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#British_Columbia_decision)of BC that legalized the marriages.

Again, a judicial one rather than a legislative one. And I already posted a link showing how the BC Liberals were trying to deprive same-sex couples some of the rights that hetero couples get.

How come it took over a year for the Manitoba NDP majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Manitoba_decision)to follow suit?

You should ask the judiciary that as the Manitoba legislature had already made it clear that they would not oppose gay marriage.

What happened in Sasakatchewan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada#Saskatchewan_decision)

Even though Saskatchewan had an NDP majority government, it was a judges ruling that brought same-sex marriage to Saskatchewan.

It would appear that the NDP were tag alongs on this issue?

Again, the same thing. By the time the legal process was underway, the legislature had already made clear that they would not oppose the process.

Polls show that Harper's empty pitch is causing a slide!! YaY!!! :)

Perhaps there is hope for us yet. If he does a couple of stupid things before the 14, we might even get lucky and grab a minority Liberal government propped up by the NDP and Bloc, instead of another few years of crazy disregard for our environment, tax cuts for the wealthy businesses, increased military spending and lower social spending.

Perhaps there is hope for us yet. If he does a couple of stupid things before the 14, we might even get lucky and grab a minority Liberal government propped up by the NDP and Bloc, instead of another few years of crazy disregard for our environment, tax cuts for the wealthy businesses, increased military spending and lower social spending.
I like your recipe. He might not have to do anymore stupid things....he has already done enough. :)

When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the laws on abortion as unconstitutional, they were talking about Trudeau's laws. This is a matter of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

I am not stating my opinion as to whether or not they were unconstitutional. I am telling you that the SC ruled Trudeau's laws as such.
The fact remains that before Trudeau's laws on abortion, abortion was totally illegal, and women had zero rights in this regard. Because abortion was illegal, many women were inducing abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion)through a variety of methods including the use of coat hangers. There were also many backroom abortionists with dubious qualifications literally causing death or disfigurement.

IF Trudeau hadn't included the Charter of Rights in the repatriated Constitution, then it would have been extremely difficult for Dr. Morgentaler to have won a successful challenge to the law.

Perhaps you would have preferred that Trudeau didn't enact abortion laws?

So, you have no evidence that shows that the Liberals didn't help Mulroney pass his bill through the HofC. As long as we're clear on that.
Irrelevant. You have no proof that Mulroney's law would have "criminalized abortion".

You're right. Tommy Douglas does not deserve credit for SSM. Neither does the Liberal party.
Trudeau's laws decriminalized homosexuality. Perhaps you wish it wasn't so? Again, because of the Charter of Rights, homosexuals now have the right to get married in Canada.

Perhaps you don't understand the significance of Trudeau's move to repatriate the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter) is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political and civil rights of people in Canada from the policies and actions of all levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights.

The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, it was limited in scope, was easily amendable by Parliament, and it had no application to provincial laws. The Supreme Court of Canada also narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights and the Court was reluctant to declare laws inoperative.[1] The relative ineffectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights motivated many to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2] The British Parliament formally enacted the Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada in 1982, the result of the efforts of the Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. However, the Charter granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate and criticisms by opponents of increased judicial power. The Charter only applies to government laws and actions (including the laws and actions of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and public school boards), and sometimes to the common law, not to private activity.
I could continue to go on and demonstrate the futility of your argument, especially regarding your lack of evidence, but enough is enough?

The fact remains that before Trudeau's laws on abortion, abortion was totally illegal, and women had zero rights in this regard. Because abortion was illegal, many women were inducing abortions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion)through a variety of methods including the use of coat hangers. There were also many backroom abortionists with dubious qualifications literally causing death or disfigurement.

IF Trudeau hadn't included the Charter of Rights in the repatriated Constitution, then it would have been extremely difficult for Dr. Morgentaler to have won a successful challenge to the law.

Perhaps you would have preferred that Trudeau didn't enact abortion laws?

Wow. Trudeau was partly responsible for one part of a legal frame work that other people then used to guarantee the rights os women. Big deal. You claim that he kicked the government out of the bedroom but women still had to get the approval of three doctors and get them to say that her abortion would be for therapeutic purposes only. Guess how often this took longer than three months.

Often enough that the Supreme Court of Canada found Trudeau's laws unconstitutional.

Irrelevant. You have no proof that Mulroney's law would have "criminalized abortion".

I don't know how to respond to this. Mulroney's Bill C-43 would have made abortions illegal in certain cases. This is a matter of public record. If you really want more information, look up Pat Carney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Carney), the Conservative BC Senator who opposed her own party and cast the defeating vote for Bill C-43.

Trudeau's laws decriminalized homosexuality. Perhaps you wish it wasn't so? Again, because of the Charter of Rights, homosexuals now have the right to get married in Canada.

Perhaps you don't understand the significance of Trudeau's move to repatriate the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms)?

I already pointed out that the Liberals voted against same sex marriage in 1999.

Yes, Trudeau partially helped provide part of a legal framework that formed part of the struggle of SSM. And he was a Liberal. But a little bit of help from someone who was a member of a group does not imply that the group itself was instrumental in the respective struggle.

Especially when that group (the Liberal party) explicitly voted against legalising same sex marriage in 1999.

I could continue to go on and demonstrate the futility of your argument, especially regarding your lack of evidence, but enough is enough?

You sound like Corneliu when you pretend that you're debating well.

Over the years, I have supported both Liberal and NDP candidates, and most of the progressive legislation has come from the Liberal party. Trudeau kicked it off by kicking the government out of the bedroom.

All that progressive legislation that the Liberals enacted originally came from the NDP.
STILL waiting for your proof!!!

Trudeau did not kick the government out of the bedroom,
I leave you with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau):

Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect. They salute his political acumen in preserving national unity and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.
And this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau#Justice_minister_and_leadership_candidate):

As Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau was responsible for introducing the landmark Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, an omnibus bill whose provisions included, among other things, the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults, the legalization of contraception, abortion and lotteries, new gun ownership restrictions as well as the authorization of breathalyzer tests on suspected drunk drivers. Trudeau famously defended the bill by telling reporters that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", adding that "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".[10] Trudeau also liberalized divorce laws, and clashed with Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Sr. during constitutional negotiations.
Perhaps you are too young to understand this stuff?

Keep in mind that before Trudeau's law in 1969, ALL abortions in Canada were illegal. How many have been legally performed since?

CANADIAN ABORTION STATISTICS (http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml)

Answer: over 2,792,355.

You sound like Corneliu when you pretend that you're debating well.
Low blow, and undeserved.

STILL waiting for your proof!!!

I have pointed out how every piece of progressive legislation that you have attributed to the Liberlas did not stem from them. This, coupled with the fact that the NDP held all these positions before the Liberals proposed them, implies that the Liberals simply adopted the NDP's progressive stances when it best served their purposes.

I leave you with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau):

And this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau#Justice_minister_and_leadership_candidate):

Perhaps you are too young to understand this stuff?

Why do you keep going on about Trudeau? He is just one member of the Liberal party, and besides his omnibus bill, which has been shown to be unconstitutional, had done nothing for SSM or abortion. But I bet you'll just ignore this and repost something about Trudeau and his omnibus bill.

Keep in mind that before Trudeau's law in 1969, ALL abortions in Canada were illegal. How many have been legally performed since?

CANADIAN ABORTION STATISTICS (http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml)

Answer: over 2,792,355.

This doesn't help your argument about the Liberals at all. Why are you mentioning it?

Unless you're going to somehow suggest that the NDP would have kept abortion illegal if they had been in power.

Low blow, and undeserved.

If the shoe fits.......

Low blow, and undeserved.Yes to the first; no to the second

I have pointed out how every piece of progressive legislation that you have attributed to the Liberlas did not stem from them. This, coupled with the fact that the NDP held all these positions before the Liberals proposed them, implies that the Liberals simply adopted the NDP's progressive stances when it best served their purposes.

Why do you keep going on about Trudeau? He is just one member of the Liberal party, and besides his omnibus bill, which has been shown to be unconstitutional, had done nothing for SSM or abortion. But I bet you'll just ignore this and repost something about Trudeau and his omnibus bill.

This doesn't help your argument about the Liberals at all. Why are you mentioning it?

Unless you're going to somehow suggest that the NDP would have kept abortion illegal if they had been in power.

If the shoe fits.......
I grow weary of your NON-argument. When you provide proof to support your claims, then we can resume the debate.

I grow weary of your NON-argument. When you provide proof to support your claims, then we can resume the debate.

Let's look at SSM again.

We know for a fact that in 1999, the Liberal party voted to keep it illegal. That is a matter of parliamentary record that I have already linked to. If you compare that list to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/36th_Canadian_Parliament
you will note that the vast majority of NDP MPs voted in favour of legalising same sex marriage.

To me, that is clear evidence that the NDP supported a specific progressive stance before the Liberals supported that exact same stance.

As for abortion, let,s look at how the different parties react to pro-life members of the party:

The NDP had Joe Borowski, who was out the party by 1972 because of his pro-life views

Borowski was known for his social conservatism on subjects such as pornography and abortion, and frequently expressed his views on these subjects in public debate. He was dropped from cabinet on September 8, 1971 after making several intemperate remarks on the subject of abortion, which included mocking a group of protesters who had arrived on the legislative grounds to support abortion services. As a backbencher, he tried to prevent public funds from being spent on hospitals which provided out-of-province abortion referrals.

Borowski finally left the NDP caucus on June 25, 1972, arguing that the Schreyer government's new film censorship board would not adequately prevent pornographic movies from entering the province. He initially sat as an "independent New Democrat", and later left the NDP entirely.

The Liberals also have pro-lifers in their midst, and much more than just one. They currently have twenty sitting MPs (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/discouraging-victory.shtml) who have publicly made anti-choice comments. If the Liberal party was so much more progressive than the NDP, or even as progressive as the NDP, they would have kicked them out of the party in 1972, like the NDP did.

Now, can you provide even one example of the Liberals advocating a progressive stance before the NDP did?

As for abortion, let,s look at how the different parties react to pro-life members of the party:

The NDP had Joe Borowski, who was out the party by 1972 because of his pro-life views
According to your article, Borowski left the party of his own free will. He wasn't "kicked out" of the party as you claim later. And was he removed from cabinet because he did not support abortion, or was he removed because of his "intemperate remarks on the subject of abortion, which included mocking a group of protesters".

The Liberals also have pro-lifers in their midst, and much more than just one. They currently have twenty sitting MPs (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/discouraging-victory.shtml) who have publicly made anti-choice comments.
So, to be a Liberal one must be pro-choice? The Liberals can't be progressive if they have pro-choice members? The very fact that most Liberals are "pro choice" should give you a clue, as to their progressive nature?

If the Liberal party was so much more progressive than the NDP, or even as progressive as the NDP, they would have kicked them out of the party in 1972, like the NDP did.
As stated before, Borowski was not "kicked out of the party". Kicking people out of parties because they have dissenting views is not necessarily the best solution?

Perhaps you are too young to remember The Waffle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle)?

The group formed in 1969, a product of campus radicalism, feminism, Canadian nationalism and left-wing nationalism in general. Its leaders were university professors Mel Watkins, James Laxer and Robert Laxer. It issued a Manifesto for an Independent Socialist Canada and with support in the NDP caucus and membership worked to try to push the party leftward. The Waffle supported the nationalization of Canadian industries to take them out of the hands of American interests. The group was endorsed by the New Democratic Youth.
What happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle#1971-1973_NDP_internal_battleground)?

The 1971 campaign for leader of the NDP pitted David Lewis against Laxer. Through the strong support of the labour unions Lewis succeeded in defeating Laxer. The next year Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis (David's son) accused the Waffle of being a party within a party and the party's Provincial Council passed a resolution ordering the Waffle to either disband or leave the NDP.
And the consequences?

The dispute over the Waffle led to the disbanding of the Ontario NDP's youth wing, which was not revived until 1988. The federal NDP also disbanded the New Brunswick NDP for a period in late 1971 after a local Waffle group gained control of it. Mel Watkins and even Elie Martel have argued that the NDP lost a generation of volunteers and members due to the way the Waffle were handled.
Not so progressive?

Now, can you provide even one example of the Liberals advocating a progressive stance before the NDP did?
I have done so, over and over and yet, you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence:

Before Trudeau's Omnibus Bill:

Jailed for homosexuality (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/clips/12538/)

Note the words..."dangerous sexual offender".

Homosexuality an "illness" (http://ms.radio-canada.ca/archives_new/2002/en/wmv/omnibus19690202et1.wmv)

After:

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/topics/538/)."

There is much, much more regarding the progressive nature of Liberals, and the fact that they passed the same sex marriage laws is proof enough.

According to your article, Borowski left the party of his own free will. He wasn't "kicked out" of the party as you claim later. And was he removed from cabinet because he did not support abortion, or was he removed because of his "intemperate remarks on the subject of abortion, which included mocking a group of protesters".

So, to be a Liberal one must be pro-choice? The Liberals can't be progressive if they have pro-choice members? The very fact that most Liberals are "pro choice" should give you a clue, as to their progressive nature?

As stated before, Borowski was not "kicked out of the party". Kicking people out of parties because they have dissenting views is not necessarily the best solution?

Borowski left the NDP because he was the only pro-life person in that team, and he felt isolated. Liberals with the same pro-life position don't feel that way. In other words, pro-life people feel at home in the Liberal party. Why is that? The obvious reason must be because the NDP is far more progressive and hard-line about abortion policy.

Perhaps you are too young to remember The Waffle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle)?

What happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle#1971-1973_NDP_internal_battleground)?

And the consequences?

Not so progressive?

This has nothing to do with how progressive the NDP is in comparison to the Liberals. At worst, it shows that the NDP are just as susceptible to infighting as any other party. Besides, even the least progressive faction in that particular struggle was far more progressive than the Liberals. Try not to cloud the issue with irrelevancies.

I have done so, over and over and yet, you choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence:

Trudeau's Omnibus Bill

I knew it. I even called it. I said that you would just ignore what I wrote and repost something about the Omnibus bill. You are so predictable. I already discussed the Omnibus bill, even though you claim i ignored it.

Wow. Trudeau was partly responsible for one part of a legal frame work that other people then used to guarantee the rights os women. ...
Yes, Trudeau partially helped provide part of a legal framework that formed part of the struggle of SSM. And he was a Liberal. But a little bit of help from someone who was a member of a group does not imply that the group itself was instrumental in the respective struggle....


...and I showed those very same laws that Trudeay passed in his Omnibus bill were later found to be unconstitutional:

When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the laws on abortion as unconstitutional, they were talking about Trudeau's laws. This is a matter of fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

I am not stating my opinion as to whether or not they were unconstitutional. I am telling you that the SC ruled Trudeau's laws as such.

So when you say I'm ignoring your evidence, you're lying.

Borowski left the NDP because he was the only pro-life person in that team, and he felt isolated. Liberals with the same pro-life position don't feel that way. In other words, pro-life people feel at home in the Liberal party. Why is that? The obvious reason must be because the NDP is far more progressive and hard-line about abortion policy.

This has nothing to do with how progressive the NDP is in comparison to the Liberals. At worst, it shows that the NDP are just as susceptible to infighting as any other party. Besides, even the least progressive faction in that particular struggle was far more progressive than the Liberals. Try not to cloud the issue with irrelevancies.

I knew it. I even called it. I said that you would just ignore what I wrote and repost something about the Omnibus bill. You are so predictable. I already discussed the Omnibus bill, even though you claim i ignored it.

...and I showed those very same laws that Trudeay passed in his Omnibus bill were later found to be unconstitutional:

So when you say I'm ignoring your evidence, you're lying.
I think you are being diliberately obtuse. No matter how progressive the NDP might be, they have never been in a position to:

1. Re-patriate the Constitution, as the Liberals did.
2. Include a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in stated re-patriated Constitution, as the Liberals did.
3. Enact laws regarding the decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion, as the Liberals did.

Before the Constitution was re-patriated, abortion and homosexuality were illegal, and the Bill of Rights had no teeth when challenging those laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms).

The Charter was preceded by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1960. However, the Bill of Rights was only a federal statute, rather than a constitutional document. As a federal statute, it was limited in scope, was easily amendable by Parliament, and it had no application to provincial laws. The Supreme Court of Canada also narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights and the Court was reluctant to declare laws inoperative.[1] The relative ineffectiveness of the Canadian Bill of Rights motivated many to improve rights protections in Canada. The movement for human rights and freedoms that emerged after World War II also wanted to entrench the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2] The British Parliament formally enacted the Charter as a part of the Canada Act 1982 at the request of the Parliament of Canada in 1982, the result of the efforts of the Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

One of the most notable effects of the adoption of the Charter was to greatly expand the scope of judicial review, because the Charter is more explicit with respect to the guarantee of rights and the role of judges in enforcing them than was the Bill of Rights. The courts, when confronted with violations of Charter rights, have struck down unconstitutional federal and provincial statutes and regulations or parts of statutes and regulations, as they did when Canadian case law was primarily concerned with resolving issues of federalism. However, the Charter granted new powers to the courts to enforce remedies that are more creative and to exclude more evidence in trials. These powers are greater than what was typical under the common law and under a system of government that, influenced by Canada's mother country the United Kingdom, was based upon Parliamentary supremacy. As a result, the Charter has attracted both broad support from a majority of the Canadian electorate
Homosexuality is no longer a crime, gays can now legally marry, and women no longer have to fish fetuses out of their ovaries using coat hangers, and all of that is due to Liberals enacting progressive laws.

I live in Nova Scotia, and to be honest, I've always seen the New Democrats as the way to go. I don't know though. People seem to bash Dion for his english and making things boring, which he does, and then there is his new Carbon Tax. The thing is, people don't want the Carbon Tax, and the other leaders are trying to use that against him, but what people don't realize is that we NEED that Carbon Tax if we want the world to still be here in another 150 years. I dunno though.

To be honest, NDP seems to be a bit communist to me. Well, of course they arent really communists but I mean worker class this worker class that rhetoric.

And I was thinking about voting for Greens but then I learned that May was a devout christian. So I guess that means she has certain opinions on topics like premarital sex, homosexuality etc...I mean I would prolly not vote for an atheist candidate either, I'd prefer someone spiritual but someone who is a "devout" christian kinda scares me.

I'm not even gonna talk about Harper.

So, liberals...

To be honest, NDP seems to be a bit communist to me. Well, of course they arent really communists but I mean worker class this worker class that rhetoric.

And I was thinking about voting for Greens but then I learned that May was a devout christian. So I guess that means she has certain opinions on topics like premarital sex, homosexuality etc...I mean I would prolly not vote for an atheist candidate either, I'd prefer someone spiritual but someone who is a "devout" christian kinda scares me.

I'm not even gonna talk about Harper.

So, liberals...

Trudeau was a devout man, he didn't let his Catholicism enter into his politics.

Yeah, I see Dion or May as the best choices for this particular election, but Dion more so than May in my opinion.

Trudeau was a devout man, he didn't let his Catholicism enter into his politics.

Well, I'm 20. It's been 30 years since Trudeau. So as I said, devout Christians are a bit scary to me altho I hate to generalize...She is also studying theology at Saint Paul University, so she's serious about it.

Altho, I kinda like May too, like her environmentalist credentials and she seems *gasp* honest, for some reason, especially for a politician.

Among all candidates tho, I guess Dion is the most qualified with a Phd from one of the most prestigious universities in France.

Well, I'm 20. It's been 30 years since Trudeau. So as I said, devout Christians are a bit scary to me altho I hate to generalize...She is also studying theology at Saint Paul University, so she's serious about it.

Altho, I kinda like May too, like her environmentalist credentials and she seems *gasp* honest, for some reason, especially for a politician.

Among all candidates tho, I guess Dion is the most qualified with a Phd from one of the most prestigious universities in France.

He also has enormous government experience, being a key member of the Chretien era. But being a loyal Chretien lapdog doesn't necessarily make you the best choice for leader.

Harper, the guy who mandated 4 year terms before an election to be called...

Harper, the guy that pulled the plug before that 4 year mandate was up....

Harper, the guy that thought he would win a majority....

NOW claims that "don't expect minority government to last (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081010%2felection2008_campaign_sunday_081012)".

This guy does not deserve to get back into the Prime Minister's chair.

Stephen Harper says he doesn't expect Parliament to last a full four-year-term if Tuesday's election leads to another minority government, and that the other parties may try to form a coalition.
Harper went on to claim:

"Yes, there is a considerable risk," he said. "There is no risk that these other parties, all of whom favour high taxes and high spending, will gang up with me. But there certainly is a risk they could gang up with the other guy, and I think that would be disastrous."
Yup, it would be disastrous alright.....for Stephen Harper and his dolittle Tories. Perhaps he will sulk and quit if he can't be the BMOC (big man overshadowing Commons).

Basically, he claims that if all the other parties, who ought to represent roughly 65% of the Canadian electorate, present a government of coalition, it's a bad thing?

As opposed to letting his own, 35% of support from voters government run the show?

So a government supported by one-third of the voters is better than a government representing two-thirds of the voters now?

Democracy ain't what it used to be.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting my hopes up too much about any sort of coalition happening, but it's still pretty stupid of him to claim it would be a bad thing. Because, face it Stephen; if most Canadians agreed with how you've been running our country for the last 2 years, you'd be getting a majority. The fact that you're not getting one says everything there is to say.)

Vote Neorhino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorhino.ca).

Basically, he claims that if all the other parties, who ought to represent roughly 65% of the Canadian electorate, present a government of coalition, it's a bad thing?

As opposed to letting his own, 35% of support from voters government run the show?

So a government supported by one-third of the voters is better than a government representing two-thirds of the voters now?

Democracy ain't what it used to be.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting my hopes up too much about any sort of coalition happening, but it's still pretty stupid of him to claim it would be a bad thing. Because, face it Stephen; if most Canadians agreed with how you've been running our country for the last 2 years, you'd be getting a majority. The fact that you're not getting one says everything there is to say.)
Who does he think he is? NDP & Liberal working together under minority situations have done a lot of good in Canada. The last federal majority Conservative government was giving us $39 Billion dollar deficits.

Canadian Deficits and Debt (http://www.thedeficits.com/canada.htm)

Harper had a surplus last year that was a residual of good Liberal stewardship. But this year, he is already running a deficit:

Federal government runs $517M deficit in April, May (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/25/fedfinance.html)

And yet, Harper is still promising corporate and personal tax cuts. Amazing!!!

Vote ABC!!!!!!

I think you are being diliberately obtuse. No matter how progressive the NDP might be, they have never been in a position to:

1. Re-patriate the Constitution, as the Liberals did.
2. Include a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in stated re-patriated Constitution, as the Liberals did.
3. Enact laws regarding the decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion, as the Liberals did.

That is true. The NDP have never been in power.

Too bad that that has nothing to do with whether the Liberals or the NDP are more progressive.

Homosexuality is no longer a crime, gays can now legally marry, and women no longer have to fish fetuses out of their ovaries using coat hangers, and all of that is due to Liberals enacting progressive laws.

I have provided evidence in the form of parliamentary records and court cases that Liberals have sometimes made it more difficult for non-hetero couples to get the same rights as heteros, and for women seeking abortions.

So the bolded part of your post above is simply wrong.

To be honest, NDP seems to be a bit communist to me. Well, of course they arent really communists but I mean worker class this worker class that rhetoric.

And I was thinking about voting for Greens but then I learned that May was a devout christian. So I guess that means she has certain opinions on topics like premarital sex, homosexuality etc...I mean I would prolly not vote for an atheist candidate either, I'd prefer someone spiritual but someone who is a "devout" christian kinda scares me.

I'm not even gonna talk about Harper.

So, liberals...

While May has gone on record as saying that she would never have an abortion and has questioned Canda's current stance of having no abortion laws at all, she has always explicitly affirmed the right of a woman to choose, for the woman's health if nothing else. but she also believes in expanding the dialogue.

By the way, she is studying to be an Anglican minister, which is one of the most progressive churches in terms of homosexuality, evolution, stem cell research, social justice issues and other concerns. They're almost as 'Christian hippie' as the United Church.

Anyways, I hope all the Canuckistanis vote today, if you haven't already.

http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/

This website gives each of us a clear, fact-based analysis of whether we live in one of the ridings that will decide this election, and if so, which candidate can best defeat the Conservative. Take just 20 seconds to visit the site, type your postal code in, and find out how to vote strategically and stop Harper.

For all of those who will be voting ABC this round.

vote liberal!!!


:d

Another Conservative minority government. BOO!!!

Another Conservative minority government. BOO!!!

I can't imagine that you're surprised...

I can't imagine that you're surprised...

Perhaps he imagined that Trudeau would rise from the grave to lead the Liberals to victory.

Because of his Omnibus Bill, you know. It was that awesome.

Perhaps he imagined that Trudeau would rise from the grave to lead the Liberals to victory.

Because of his Omnibus Bill, you know. It was that awesome.
It was that awesome!! Trudeau's law preceded Roe vs. Wade. And Canada is light years ahead of the US in the SSM department. Canada is more progressive and Trudeau kicked it off. You either dislike Trudeau or you have ZERO gratitude.

BTW, Trudeau was ressurected and his name is Justin. He won in Papineau last night!! :)

I can't imagine that you're surprised...
I am not surprised by a Harper win....what I am surprised about is that he increased his mandate. He ran an American style election campaign, and it was ugly.

I guess we can expect a repeat in less than a year?

It was that awesome!! Trudeau's law preceded Roe vs. Wade. And Canada is light years ahead of the US in the SSM department. Canada is more progressive and Trudeau kicked it off. You either dislike Trudeau or you have ZERO gratitude.

BTW, Trudeau was ressurected and his name is Justin. He won in Papineau last night!! :)

Yes. Trudeau's bill was so awesome that it can bring the dead back. And wasn't found unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

You just keep believing that.

*pats head*

Yes. Trudeau's bill was so awesome that it can bring the dead back. And wasn't found unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

You just keep believing that.

*pats head*
Please get off the merry-go-round you are getting me dizzy. Your non argument fails, as I have noted before. Perhaps the Liberals shouldn't have put forward such progressive laws in the first place? Perhaps you believe that women should be arrested for attempting to abort their fetuses? Perhaps you believe that homosexuals should still be arrested for being gay?

You are truly amazing, and totally naiive to believe your twaddle.

BTW, who was responsible for bringing forward and passing a law to abolish capital punishment? Yeah, that's right....Trudeau and the Liberal government.

Please get off the merry-go-round you are getting me dizzy. Your non argument fails, as I have noted before.

Yes. You did note that before. When you were acting like Corneliu.

Perhaps the Liberals shouldn't have put forward such progressive laws in the first place? Perhaps you believe that women should be arrested for attempting to abort their fetuses? Perhaps you believe that homosexuals should still be arrested for being gay?

I think the Liberals should have put forth laws that were constitutionally sound and that guaranteed these rights to same sex couples and pregnant women without needing judicial prodding. You seem to have a different opinion.

You are truly amazing, and totally naiive to believe your twaddle.

You spelt naive wrong.

BTW, who was responsible for bringing forward and passing a law to abolish capital punishment? Yeah, that's right....Trudeau and the Liberal government.

As soon as you find a source to back that up, I'll find a source that proves the NDP already had it as part of their platform before that.

Yes. You did note that before. When you were acting like Corneliu.

I think the Liberals should have put forth laws that were constitutionally sound and that guaranteed these rights to same sex couples and pregnant women without needing judicial prodding. You seem to have a different opinion.

You spelt naive wrong.

As soon as you find a source to back that up, I'll find a source that proves the NDP already had it as part of their platform before that.
You just keeping bringing leftovers, because the main course (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2043/is_/ai_n28826622)eludes you:

When I came to see him, Trudeau was sitting at his octagonal table-desk in his oak-paneled formal office, an old-fashioned room with a fireplace and Gothic windows, on the third floor of the Parliament buildings. "Do you have a vision for Canada?" I asked.

"I dream. I dream all the time," Trudeau replied.

"I've always dreamt of a society where each person should be able to fulfill himself to the extent of his capabilities as a human being, a society where inhibitions to equality would be eradicated. This means providing individual freedoms, and equality of opportunity, health, and education, and I conceive of politics as a series of decisions to create this society."
If only some of that vision could wash over you?

More:

He believed that the nation must be strong enough to withstand the overwhelming economic and cultural pressures from its giant neighbor, the United States, and he believed in a "Just Society," one of his favorite phrases that held many meanings for him.

The concept of a Just Society was never merely a convenient phrase; it was the inspiration for Trudeau's deepest feelings. He believed that the ever-widening gulf between rich and poor at home and in underdeveloped countries should be reduced. He thought it was the government's responsibility to provide equal status, equal opportunity, and fair treat-merit for all. As justice minister he introduced legislation that broadened grounds for divorce and abortions and abolished penalties for homosexual acts between consenting adults, with the famous remark, "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
And yet more:

Trudeau also "brought home" the Canadian constitution with the Constitution Act of 1982, rectifying an anomaly from the previous century that required the amending process to be approved by the British Parliament. He incorporated a Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Constitution, which enshrined French and English education rights across the country; created PetroCanada, Canada's own oil company; instituted the controversial National Energy Program, which extended federal government control of the gas and oil industry; appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court of Canada and the first female governor-general; and introduced new employment and educational opportunities for the young.
IF you have any cards, I certainly would like to see them.

I feel very uncomfortable in this thread. Like walking in on someone masturbating in his mother's bed to a picture of his parents at their wedding.

Why is Trudeau's picture above the bed?

If only some of that vision could wash over you?

I don't want to tell you what sort of mental image that inspires.

IF you have any cards, I certainly would like to see them.

This link shows that the majority of Liberal MPs voted to define marriage as 'between a man and a woman' in 1999, while a majority of NDP MPs did not: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=240&parl=36&ses=1&language=E#DIV548

Here's a link showing the Liberals trying to deny equal rights to same sex couples, and the NDP defending the rights of same sex couples: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/bc180504.htm

Feel free to ignore them again.

I am not surprised by a Harper win....what I am surprised about is that he increased his mandate. He ran an American style election campaign, and it was ugly.

I guess we can expect a repeat in less than a year?

Vote-splitting, and a lame duck Liberal leader gave Harper his 'increased mandate'.

And I don't think we'll see another election for two to three years. I think we'd have a voter turnout of 12%, while the remaining 88% go on a rampaging orgy of destruction.

Vote-splitting, and a lame duck Liberal leader gave Harper his 'increased mandate'.

And I don't think we'll see another election for two to three years. I think we'd have a voter turnout of 12%, while the remaining 88% go on a rampaging orgy of destruction.

Quite honestly, I think Harper played this well. He's not a stupid man. Rather than have an election triggered by a non-confidence vote, he called it himself. I think voter turnout tells us a lot about how thrilled Canadians were to be back at the polls. With Dion being...well, Dion, it was pretty obvious that the Liberals weren't going to unseat the Tories anyway, so it wasn't a particularly dangerous move.

However...if someone were to trigger an election now with a non-confidence vote...voter backlash would be severe. The Liberals for one simply couldn't afford it...in terms of support or financially. As it is, they're barely keeping their head above water, and we're very likely going to be seeing a leadership ruckus as the sharks feed on Dion's cooling corpse. That alone is going to stretch Liberal financial resources to the breaking point...an election after that would kill them.

Harper engaged in a little pre-emptive electioneering, and it means he's pretty much guaranteed his party a few more years of breathing space before any other party can possibly challenge them again.

Quite honestly, I think Harper played this well. He's not a stupid man. Rather than have an election triggered by a non-confidence vote, he called it himself. I think voter turnout tells us a lot about how thrilled Canadians were to be back at the polls. With Dion being...well, Dion, it was pretty obvious that the Liberals weren't going to unseat the Tories anyway, so it wasn't a particularly dangerous move.

However...if someone were to trigger an election now with a non-confidence vote...voter backlash would be severe. The Liberals for one simply couldn't afford it...in terms of support or financially. As it is, they're barely keeping their head above water, and we're very likely going to be seeing a leadership ruckus as the sharks feed on Dion's cooling corpse. That alone is going to stretch Liberal financial resources to the breaking point...an election after that would kill them.

Harper engaged in a little pre-emptive electioneering, and it means he's pretty much guaranteed his party a few more years of breathing space before any other party can possibly challenge them again.

Why does such an asshole have to be so good at politicking?



And why must Canadians fall for it?

Why does such an asshole have to be so good at politicking? Because although I like assholes (just not this one in particular), people in general tend not to. Therefore, an asshole must be twice as politically clever as a non-asshole just to survive.



And why must Canadians fall for it?
Because we're so busy indulging in necrophiliac fantasies about Trudeau, that we don't bother paying attention to what current, living leaders are doing.

And why must Canadians fall for it?

Because Canadian minds work in strange ways, my friend. *nod*:tongue:

I feel very uncomfortable in this thread. Like walking in on someone masturbating in his mother's bed to a picture of his parents at their wedding.
Why should you feel uncomfortable? It would appear that the above image that you concocted, you do have a very vivid imagination, would pale in comparision to the usual array of sludge that you drool over at your other blog of ill repute.

Perhaps if you really wanted to come to GoG's rescue, you could have brought forward some decent evidence to back up his claims, rather than resorting to peurile reflections? :tongue:

Why does such an asshole have to be so good at politicking?
He is not?

And why must Canadians fall for it?
Only 38% fell for it. The other 62% wanted change.

Vote-splitting, and a lame duck Liberal leader gave Harper his 'increased mandate'.

And I don't think we'll see another election for two to three years. I think we'd have a voter turnout of 12%, while the remaining 88% go on a rampaging orgy of destruction.
The Liberals will probably select a new leader in the near future, and Harper won't want that leader to get too comfortable before pulling the plug. Also, if anyone is a "lame duck" post election, then that would be Harper because he won't be able to manage the economy the way he would like to, given the current economic climate.

Why should you feel uncomfortable? It would appear that the above image that you concocted, you do have a very vivid imagination, would pale in comparision to the usual array of sludge that you drool over at your other blog of ill repute. I think it's absolutely hilarious how you lurk on UMP like a peeping Tom, too scared to log in, furiously fondling your...stuffed Trudeau doll while you pretend to be disgusted and morally outraged by what we do there.

Perhaps if you really wanted to come to GoG's rescue, you could have brought forward some decent evidence to back up his claims, rather than resorting to peurile reflections? :tongue:
GoG's a big boy. And he's doing just fine all on his own.

He is not?


Only 38% fell for it. The other 62% wanted change.

Are you talking about the percentage breakdown of those who actually voted? You know, in the worst turnout of any federal election in the history of Canada?

I think it's absolutely hilarious how you lurk on UMP like a peeping Tom, too scared to log in, furiously fondling your...stuffed Trudeau doll while you pretend to be disgusted and morally outraged by what we do there.
Too funny. If you only knew the truth, which I am not about to share at this moment, you would understand where I am coming from. Until then, I will keep you in my prayers. :)

GoG's a big boy. And he's doing just fine all on his own.
No, I really don't think so.

Too funny. If you only knew the truth, which I am not about to share at this moment, you would understand where I am coming from. Until then, I will keep you in my prayers. :)Spoken like a true zealot.

Also, are you denying you lurk?

I'll be sure to post your IP over there next time.


No, I really don't think so.

Ahhahahaahahaha.

Yes, I know.

That's what makes you so funny!

No, I really don't think so.

If the Liberals were so staunchly progressive, why have they refused to align New Brunswick abortion law with the Supreme Court ruling, even though they've already been in power for two years?

And you're still ignoring my posts about how the NDPs had to defend SSM from the Liberals.

The Liberals will probably select a new leader in the near future, and Harper won't want that leader to get too comfortable before pulling the plug. Also, if anyone is a "lame duck" post election, then that would be Harper because he won't be able to manage the economy the way he would like to, given the current economic climate.

The Conservatives aren't going to risk the ire of the electorate by triggering yet another election. At best, they'll try to force the Liberals into a non-confidence situation with something morally conservative. But I doubt it will be Harper leading the Tories in the next election. Probably Mackay or Flaherty.

But at least you're acknowledging that the knives will be out for Duck Dion.

Quite honestly, I think Harper played this well. He's not a stupid man. Rather than have an election triggered by a non-confidence vote, he called it himself. I think voter turnout tells us a lot about how thrilled Canadians were to be back at the polls. With Dion being...well, Dion, it was pretty obvious that the Liberals weren't going to unseat the Tories anyway, so it wasn't a particularly dangerous move.

However...if someone were to trigger an election now with a non-confidence vote...voter backlash would be severe. The Liberals for one simply couldn't afford it...in terms of support or financially. As it is, they're barely keeping their head above water, and we're very likely going to be seeing a leadership ruckus as the sharks feed on Dion's cooling corpse. That alone is going to stretch Liberal financial resources to the breaking point...an election after that would kill them.

Harper engaged in a little pre-emptive electioneering, and it means he's pretty much guaranteed his party a few more years of breathing space before any other party can possibly challenge them again.

It was a risky move, at least as far as 'breaking his own law' is concerned, but it turns out he has the Canadian public pegged. They weren't all that outraged at Adscam, they weren't all that outraged about this. So the worst case scenario was that the Liberals would have a minority government, and the Cons have the money to fight another round if they had to. Of course, that wasn't going to happen with Dion at the helm.

Harper bought his party more time, so you can hand that much to him for sure.

If the Liberals were so staunchly progressive, why have they refused to align New Brunswick abortion law with the Supreme Court ruling, even though they've already been in power for two years?
Don't know anything about it. Got any sources?

And you're still ignoring my posts about how the NDPs had to defend SSM from the Liberals.
The FACT remains that SSM was passed due to the efforts of Paul Martin's Liberal government.

What you have told me so far is that IF I want to be an NDP, I HAVE to support abortion, that I HAVE to support homosexuality, and that I HAVE to support SSM. I think that giving up personal liberties to support a cause that I cannot morally justify is anything but progressive. I call that fascism.

Yes. Trudeau's bill was so awesome that it can bring the dead back.
I thought a revisit to this was appropriate after reading the following (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm):

Rights should never be subject to a free vote in the party that gave us Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why we wore Trudeau's trademark red rose in our wedding suit lapels, on January 14, 2001, when we married and set out to win legal recognition. We knew we had the commitment of Canada's Charter in hand. We still do.
I guess there is some respect in the gay community after all?

I thought a revisit to this was appropriate after reading the following (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm):


I guess there is some respect in the gay community after all?

You're hilarious!!!!

Here, here, let me try (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=11bac4bf-e162-4caf-8f6b-6b4de8823cc5&k=72914)!

Still, if some of Trudeau's accomplishments suggest an ideology of inclusion, there are other aspects that bring it into question. Some would argue that Trudeau's pursuit of a more inclusive Canada lacked something - inclusiveness. His gestures and statements occasionally seemed to suggest contempt for anyone who questioned his approach.

Any biographical description of Trudeau, whether a precis or a lengthy volume, will include the word "arrogant," and refer to Salmon Arm, 1982, when he gave the finger to demonstrators (there are countless other similar incidents) or his apparent disdain for and lack of co-operation with provincial premiers. A good number of Quebecers and Western Canadians, who tend not to agree about much, share a strong dislike for Trudeau. Trudeau didn't seem to care: Democracy can be a hassle when you already know what's best for the country.

OMG! I guess some people thought he was a real douchebag!

No wait, this (http://kirbyscott.blogspot.com/2007/07/pierre-trudeau-named-worst-canadian.html) is more akin to what you just did:

The people have spoken... and Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the father of our flawless constitution and wonderful National Energy Program, has been voted the Worst Canadian. Wow! I love this!

Yes I know, my boy Harper is on the list, as is Mulroney. Big deal, they aren't number one!

While I find this quite amusing, I don't necessary agree with it either.

I don't think its fair to say that Paul Bernardo and Carla Homolka were better people than Trudeau. As much as Trudeau was arrogant, wrong, elitist, etc I do believe he always had the best intentions, and he did what he thought he was right. The same cannot be said about the other two.

He was just horribly wrong, and Canada paid the price.

But its always nice to see him or anything Liberal get some bad press.




Oddly enough, whether you're deep in the clutches of "Trudeaumania" or not, you've yet to refute any of the points GoG has brought up. You haven't even tried. You just gush. (ewww)

You're hilarious!!!!

Here, here, let me try (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=11bac4bf-e162-4caf-8f6b-6b4de8823cc5&k=72914)!
Did you read the whole article? Perhaps you cherry pick what you want to portray. You missed these words from the same article:

The theory behind Trudeau's bilingualism policy was brilliantly simple: Canadians would surely understand each other culturally if they literally understood what the other was saying. If everyone knew everyone else's language, the very idea of an "other" would no longer exist. This same politics of inclusion is central to some of Trudeau's other major legacies. As justice minister, he persuaded government officials to stop hanging out in Canadians' bedrooms, clearing the Criminal Code of laws against homosexuality and legalizing abortion in some cases. His final years as prime minister established the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a kid, and one prodigiously talented at spending time in my own world, I was clueless about the significance of these moves, and probably about the very existence of them. But later on, I marvelled at Trudeau's pursuit of social change.

Homosexuality remains a tricky political issue in Canada, and illegal in many countries otherwise considered "developed," but Trudeau - a Roman Catholic from Quebec - took it on 40 years ago. Would I have attended Pride parades in Montreal with gay friends otherwise? Would gay marriage still be a distant dream?
I would say that the good outweighs the bad. I see that others are also "clueless about the significance of these moves". :D

Perhaps you should slink back to the party that your having for me in absentia?

OMG! I guess some people thought he was a real douchebag!
Some did of course, but those with any sense should be able to appreciate his significant contyribution.....but then you were just sucking on a soother back in those days, and hence your realization may be greatly reduced as a result.

No wait, this (http://kirbyscott.blogspot.com/2007/07/pierre-trudeau-named-worst-canadian.html) is more akin to what you just did:
The Beaver? What is that.....they are polling beavers now? How about a heavyweight instead?

Trudeau was voted 3rd on the list of "The Greatest Canadian (http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/standings/)".

I win :)

Did you read the whole article? Perhaps you cherry pick what you want to portray. You missed these words from the same article: Yeah you see...when you take people's OPINIONS and present them to back up an argument that requires FACT, it's pretty farcical. Cherry picking makes it only slightly more so. You miss the point entirely apparently.

Perhaps you should slink back to the party that your having for me in absentia?Hardly in absentia when you're following it with baited breath, no? Enjoying? Probably strokes your ego like crazy.

Are you picturing me with great tits and a sweet little ass...and a Pierre Trudeau face? I bet you are.




Some did of course, but those with any sense should be able to appreciate his significant contyribution.....but then you were just sucking on a soother back in those days, and hence your realization may be greatly reduced as a result. If you're referring to your advanced age in comparison to my tender 30 years on this planet then yes, I missed Trudeaumania. Then again, growing up in the West where Trudeau is absolutely reviled, pretty much unanimously, I laugh at your belief that Canadians as a whole think he was the best thing since extra large condoms.


The Beaver? What is that.....they are polling beavers now? How about a heavyweight instead? I know right! It's like, blogs aren't even legitimate sources! Or like....editorials! Or like, some random internet dude's rantings! CRAZY huh?

Trudeau was voted 3rd on the list of "The Greatest Canadian (http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/standings/)".

I win :)

You....win?

We were in a contest?

I was under the impression you didn't understand how to debate. Huh. Odd.

I thought a revisit to this was appropriate after reading the following (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/mot061206.htm):

Rights should never be subject to a free vote in the party that gave us Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why we wore Trudeau's trademark red rose in our wedding suit lapels, on January 14, 2001, when we married and set out to win legal recognition. We knew we had the commitment of Canada's Charter in hand. We still do.
I guess there is some respect in the gay community after all?
I am revisting this post again because I think you missed the point Neesika. Your suggestion that what I posted was from "some random internet dude's rantings" misses the mark by a wide margin. The tribute came from North America's first legally married "dudes" right here in Ontario.

It would appear that the "random rantings" are actually from some native Indian in Alberta. :tongue:

Don't know anything about it. Got any sources?

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/news_canadianabortion.html

New Brunswick Abortion Access

The New Brunswick government enforces a regulation that limits funded abortions to those performed in hospitals by a specialist with the written approval of two doctors. This regulation violates the Canada Health Act as well as the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler decision. The latter tossed Canada's abortion law because it set arbitrary obstacles to access that discriminated against women and violated women's "security of the person." The NB regulation does exactly the same thing.

Do you also need a source showing that the Liberals have been in power since 2006? Actually, you probably do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56th_New_Brunswick_general_election).

The FACT remains that SSM was passed due to the efforts of Paul Martin's Liberal government.

The facts are many. First, there is the fact that a previous Liberal government had explicitly voted against SSM a few years before. So, why the change of heart? We should look at the historical context (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarbsum.htm). The bill C-38 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act) was introduced by Irwin Cotler, who I believe I may have already mentioned as a Liberal who has always been a stauch defender of social justice issues. Your case would have been stronger if you had focused on him instead of Trudeau. Mr. Cotler did this in the summer of 2005, the last year of Martin's Liberal minority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38th_Canadian_Parliament) government. Paul Martin knew that he was going into an election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2006) facing a united right in the form of the new Conservative Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_Canada). He also knew that he was not going to get a lot of votes in Quebec because of the ongoing sponsorship scandal (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/). By this time, the Law Commission of Canada had already ruled (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/legal/law_commission.htm) that the 1999 Liberal law on SSM was discriminatory.

So what did Paul Martin do? In a blatant attempt to grab 10% of the Canadian vote in the upcoming fall election, he forces his cabinet to vote for a bill that says the exact opposite of their 1999 bill.

Those are the facts of the SSM bill passed by Martin's government. Prove me wrong.

What you have told me so far is that IF I want to be an NDP, I HAVE to support abortion, that I HAVE to support homosexuality, and that I HAVE to support SSM. I think that giving up personal liberties to support a cause that I cannot morally justify is anything but progressive. I call that fascism.

Actually, no, you don't have to support those things. But you do have to defend the rights of others to access these things as guaranteed by our charter of rights. You may wish to call this fascism, but I see it as my duty as a citizen of Canada. So does the NDP. The Liberals only do so when it is politically expedient, apparently.

I am revisting this post again because I think you missed the point Neesika. Your suggestion that what I posted was from "some random internet dude's rantings" misses the mark by a wide margin. The tribute came from North America's first legally married "dudes" right here in Ontario.

It would appear that the "random rantings" are actually from some native Indian in Alberta. :tongue:

I know about Trudeau, his omnibus bill, his constitutional work, and the part all those played in the struggles we are discussing. I have addressed it. You may look upthread for my responses. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.

Though I'm glad you found a couple buddies who also have some sort of thing for Trudeau. Enjoy.