August1991

Is Harper keen to use the notwithstanding clause? Heck, he's apparently keen to do every other possible nasty deed - why would he waste his time on this minor one? In fact, this was not one of Chantal Hebert's better efforts. It started with an unilluminating dog-owner story. I'm sure Harper understands that the Charter and many other laws intend to protect minorities, particularly the individual, against the power of the State. From what I can understand, Harper has made the point that in protecting one minority, we often hurt another minority. (Dog owners versus lovers of clean parks.) Harper's point seems to be that representatives chosen democratically should draw the line. They should not foist the problem off to some small council. To be practical, take the case of same-sex marriage. Gays have the right to sign a contract (civil union) just as a woman and man can do. Gays also want the right to have the right to refer to themselves as married which some other people object to. The argument of these other people? Granting this name-calling right to gays would presumably diminish the current name-calling right of straights. Where do we draw the line in this name-calling right? (To be named mayonnaise, it has to have whole eggs. Otherwise, it's called salad dressing.) It seems reasonable to me to let an elected Parliament decide. Of all things confronting Canada right now, this issue strikes me as among the more inane.

Something bothered me about the style of the Liberal ad. It's the rhetorical question at the end. The "And you know what?" question. It's superfluous, and it speaks down to the viewer. The ad works better if it were cut out. For such a risky ad, I would have thought the Liberals would have crafted it more carefully. Nonetheless, one has to admire the dissolving flag at the end. It is easy to imagine it turning into an American flag. The next Liberal attack ad will apparently get into the hypotheticals of a Harper cabinet.

This is a silly thread because it is based on the absurd assumption that NDP voters and Tory voters want to get rid of the Liberals at all costs. In the UK, with Labour and Lib-Dems, it made sense to join to get rid of the Conservatives. That's not the case here. Many NDP voters would prefer a Liberal victory to a Conservative victory. I don't know how many Tories would like to see a Liberal minority supported by the NDP.

This is the Liberal/Herle anti-Harper ad: Liberal ad (it's the top one) This is the NDP anti-Tory, anti-Liberal ad: NDP ad Note that both use a female narrator.

I agree but not because of justice or fairness. I'm thinking of the rich uncle and nephew who go to the Grand Canyon next week. If the judge lets the niece off, what is the nephew going to think? We impose sentences not by fairness but to deter others from committing a crime and causing greater harm. Deterrence is the critical factor in fixing sentences.

A minor point before I answer, the NDP is the one that primarily suffers from these Liberal attack ads. The ads frighten potential NDP voters into returning to the Liberal fold to ensure that scary-guy Harper doesn't turn Canada into Nazi Germany. There are three angles to Canadian politics. First, fiscal policy. Second, social policy. Third, federal policy. All Conservatives are fiscally conservative. They would prefer lower taxes and less government. Harper has taken a page out of the Liberal playback by presenting those budget numbers but the essence is there. The Conservatives harbour both social liberals and social conservatives. Harper has bridged this by allowing free votes. It effectively solves the problem as it should be solved. We will have the status quo unless a majority of Parliament decides otherwise. While few English Canadians Conservatives give much thought to federal policy, other than being in favour of a united Canada, Harper's position is very defendable. The 64,000$ question, cgarret. I think Harper could have gone for a stronger conservative mandate but he has chosen to play it safe - in the Bill Davis tradition. If he wins a minority, he will have enough on his plate with what he has announced. Bear in mind that if elected, Harper will be the first PM who has solved a differential equation. As opposed to all others (except King, Pearson, Clark and Campbell), Harper's not a lawyer. I hope he's not a micro-manager.

Why? BD, your links are just more links to press releases. Consider this: Hama Before and After Photos Of course, body counts are not the point. And the Muslim Brotherhood are hardly the Boy Scouts.

Getting back to the issue, the ads apparently play on the gender gap. (I wonder truly whether the gap exists. I suspect rather that women take more time in making the vote decision.) This is Herle's last chance. If the reaction is negative, he's history. It also raises the stakes for Martin in next week's debate. Lastly, why is Martin not campaigning now and spending all this time in debate preparation? Is he tired? Do his appearances lower his ratings? This is the G&M Article. Did you see the reference to the suit and tie?

Stoker, they don't care. Most don't know where Canada is (it's in the cold north) and many seem to think New Mexico is part of Mexico. Shown a map, few can point to Iraq. I simply mean that ordinary Americans get on with life and they respect the right of others to do the same.

Read the US Bill of Rights. Sit in a Krispy Kreme in Alabama. Say that you are a Canadian and you disagree with this Iraqi war. Listen to the following discussion.

Root cause nonsense. That was the logic used by all Central European governments to Hitler. If we manage to hide, he'll ignore us.

I can't speak for others, but I always read your posts, PlayFull, carefully. But I often disagree.

Trudeau flew to Havana and shared a podium with Castro. The content? We Canadians share a continent with Americans. But we do what we want because that's how Americans are. The whole world knows that America's neighbour disagrees. And America accepts this. The good cop/bad cop routine is a product of the Enlightenment. It's not image. You asked the question and I hope my response is clear. If not, I'll try again. The United States is a country that accepts and encourages opposite opinions. Americans appreciate us when we disagree. Many Canadians too feel better when we thumb our nose at supposed "official truth". IMV, it is Canadian nature to find politely our own way.

Mulroney's going - or so he said on CBC. He even said he spoke to Nancy shortly before Reagan "passed away". English Canadian leaders must never appear to "faire la courbette devant les Américains". Trudeau must have written that and then translated it himself as "kowtow to Americans". (That's Chinese!) It's not merely imagery (perception), there's content too.

He can't send Trudeau.

Who led the NDP then? Draw your own conclusion.

I concur.

Old Testament Bible, not New. And arguably a good approach to justice several thousand years ago. Another poster here has the line "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or some such. To open debate, I'll ask a different moral question here, perfectly in line IMV with the question of hate crimes. A rich widow with no children prepares a will leaving all to her beloved niece. While visiting the Grand Canyon, the aunt falls to her death. Captured on video providing a shove, the niece defends herself by saying that she is no threat to society (she only had one aunt and she'll clearly never kill again) and will now not get any of the aunt's money anyway. What "sentence" does the niece "deserve"? Is the "eye for eye" fair in this case?

Oatmeal, everything you pasted appears to be in the link. I want to know what you think. What do you think about this? IOW, don't copy/paste. Short pertinent quote, provide link. And most important, your comment.

Quebec nationalism, from 1837 to Mercier and Duplessis, is not new. But Canada has only faced a genuine, organized separatist movement since Levesque left the provincial Liberal party in 1968. In retrospect, it is not surprising at all that it would take 40 years or so to germinate. The declaration of the Confederate States of America took almost 40 years in the making. But Canada seems to have had a lucky star. This is the kitty that won't drown. I always thought the bizarre collapse of Clark's government was one indication. Trudeau came back in Feb 1980 (a more critical election than this, IMV) to face the PQ in the May 1980 referendum. Trudeau promised to put his seat on the line. What would have happened if Clark's government had not fallen? When I saw the early returns in 1995, I thought that Parizeau had finally done it. Lobster and all. Then I watched the Oui numbers drop, the Non numbers rise, and I couldn't believe it. WTF? Martin's shift to Lapierre, I figured, will certainly change the Canada we know. If Mulroney couldn't get a Meech deal through, Lapierre certainly will. And that's the Holy Grail Martin was seeking. And anyway, if Martin doesn't win, provincial-rights Harper will make the few small steps to what used to be called "special status". (It exists practically as the CPP/QPP and is now known as "asymmetrical federalism".) Either way, Canada would finally, for Gawdsakes, change. (I have always thought that what we change to matters less than the way we change. Canada will not change à la libanaise.) But then, I hadn't considered the way this Martin-Lapierre-débâcle would unroll. Herle and his Anglo gang have ensured that the next Liberal leader will be Stéphane Dion. The Liberals will unite behind him. Canada will have two bright leaders in Parliament: An Anglophone defending provincial rights and a Francophone defending a federal state. This kitten will not drown. Canada as we know it will go on and on. Last point. Anti-Americanism is tiresome in English Canada. It's typically now a Left/NDP approach but it used to be the Tory approach. Imagine for a moment that every single political discussion in English Canada became a discussion seen through a prism of anti/pro America. Quebec politics for the past 30 years have been that. The prism is Quebec independance. Absolutely every political question is filtered through that prism. There is no longer any intelligent political debate about, for example, the State and what it should do. Quebecers are beyond exhaustion. The federalists best line now is that the souverainistes have not been able to deliver the goods. I don't know what Quebec separatists, or other Canadians, would do with a PM Harper and an Opposition Leader Dion. Canada's Gladstone and Disraeli. Canada must have some kind of lucky star. Welcome to the future.

In the Liberal mind, any reference to spondorship funds and so on would be considered a smear. The word "smear" like the words "extremist" ("mainstream", if you prefer) and "terrorist" ("freedom fighter", if you prefer) have elastic meanings. I suppose we can all agree that the sky is blue on sunny days.

They are. The crimes directed specifically at women are treated more harshly. How do you define "the sentences they deserve"? That is the crux of the matter.

He should send a senior representative, which I suspect he has done. Anyone know who went? (In the US, that's what the VP does.)

Mark Twain. Only a true believer can find good news in placing third. Clearly the NDP poll numbers are bouncing around a true number of about 18%. This returns the NDP to its 1980s, pre-politically correct leaders. The NDP will likely get around 35 seats and probably won't have the balance of power alone. As to the main Lib vs CPC argument, I suspect this poll reflects the situation several days ago. The rolling SES poll is smaller but more accurate as voters decide.

It appears that Chretien and Martin are still arguing in public by using interposed agents. Given the stakes, this has got to be the weirdest thing going. Or are they just two old stags fighting it out? Toronto Star on Pelletier From the same article: La Presse gave good coverage to Copps today campaigning witha Liberal candidate in Quebec. Copps made it plain that she was just helping some friends in their ridings.