Progressive Tory Posted January 2, 2009 Author Report Posted January 2, 2009 What government is preaching? The Reform/Alliance wing of the Conservative Government, by pushing an Evangelical agenda. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Boydfish Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 I don't see the western alienation people talk about because I don't look for problems around every corner. I see the positive in things, you should try it some time. We live in a beautiful, prosperous, and fair country and it time that the people that complain all of the time start to recognize it. I will go as far as to say that we live in the best country on earth. Alberta and the rest of the west are part of it. They have their voice. There is no alienation. Stop thinking so provincial. So the gist of what you're saying is because you like something, anybody who disagrees is just whining? Well, truth is, its not perfect. but its the best we've got. Given that, I respect OUR democratic system, all of it. I support the constitution, all of it. That's why I support the legitimacy of the coalition. I come at it from a different perspective I suppose. The first thing they teach you in law school is that you are not to blindly accept what somebody wrote on a piece of paper, even if it says "Constitution" at the top. The reason our system of government has flourished through the centuries is because we have no sacred cows and we have the right to say that something might be right on paper, but it doesn't make it right in reality. If you read the constitution and study it indepth, you'll find that the last thing that the people that wrote wanted was for people to blindly support it and treat it like Scallia's "dead tree". The easiest way to see that is to look at s.1 of the Charter, the limitations clause that makes it clear that rights under the charter are not absolute. This section is interpreted under the Oakes test. Now that we have that in mind, if you stop and realize that s.1 applies to the WHOLE charter, unlike the notwithstanding issues of s.33, which only applies to ss.2, 7-15. This means that the anti-torture provisions of s.12 are also subject to limitation. In other words, read literally and with the case law applied, the charter and by extention the constitution says that there are possible circumstances where it would be permissible for the government to use torture on people. My point here is obvious: We cannot ever blindly follow the constitution. We have to challenge it, tug it, bend it and when it stops being relevant or becomes dangerous, get rid of the offending portion. I suggest you read the clarity act. Even if the act was not applied to a vote, most of what is in the act would apply defacto. Well, gee, thanks for the advice! Considering it arose from the Reference on Quebec Succession, it contains some interesting provisions, but is not an absolute prohibition on a province withdrawing from confederation. All it does is require a province to submit the question for ratification on clarity to the House of Commons. You'll also find that the reference case makes it clear that if a province opts to leave, they can do so and the other provinces and federal government must negotiate in good faith to do so. Quote
Smallc Posted January 2, 2009 Report Posted January 2, 2009 All it does is require a province to submit the question for ratification on clarity to the House of Commons. Umm, no. The rest of your post is somewhat correct, but it shows a rather blatant disregard for the laws of this land. Quote
Wild Bill Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Umm, no. The rest of your post is somewhat correct, but it shows a rather blatant disregard for the laws of this land. You just don't seem to want to face the issue squarely so I will ask it of you as plainly as I can. What would you expect would happen if a majority of the people of a province voted passionately to separate and refused to obey a federal order denying them that ability? Would you expect the federal government to use force to stop them? Do you really believe we HAVE the military resources or the political will to stop them and force them to stay within confederation? You passionately state how you believe "the way things OUGHT to be!" but I don't see how that squares with the real world. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Smallc Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 What would you expect would happen if a majority of the people of a province voted passionately to separate Do you expect that to happen? Do you expect there to be a vote with an actual majority of voters (not voters casting their ballot, but all eligible voters) would agree to leave? I don't, but if the case were to happen, I don't see what the province that was attempting to separate could do. They couldn't legally leave, they couldn't really go by force, so I'm really not sure what they would do. Canada has many legal avenues to power. I would hope it wouldn't come to military action, but, as the clarity act is based in international and Canadian law, Canada would have every right to proceed. Given the existence of the SPP and the mutual assistance agreement between the US and Canada, they have a huge force at their disposal in order to secure land that would rightfully belong to Canada. I never want to see such a thing happen, and I'm not sure that it ever would. I doubt that any province will ever vote to leave, but in the extent that they do make such a decision, it would have to be under terms that were agreed to by Canada and every other jurisdiction in Canada. It would also have to be agreed to by the first nations within the province. It is not a simple matter to split up a country, especially one as diverse and complicated as this one. Quote
Boydfish Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Umm, no. Sorry sunshine, but that's it. It doesn't make it even remotely impossible for a province to withdrawn from confederation. I'd rebt your argument at this point, but you appear to have neglected to make one. The rest of your post is somewhat correct, but it shows a rather blatant disregard for the laws of this land. Actually, you've got it backwards. I'm the one suggesting that we follow the constitutional principles from which those laws flow. We're not some backwater failed colony where because some fop in the 16th century wrote something down, we blindly do it. We're a Westminster democracy with a constitutional tradition of democracy, federalism, rule of law and constitutionalism. That means that when the government changes, we do with an election, not a dance of lawyers. You're trying to introduce an element of absolute adherence to the letter of the law that even a legal positivist stance would find extremist in nature. We don't follow the law to absurd conclusions. Quote
Smallc Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Sorry sunshine, but that's it. No, its not. The act makes clear everything that must be done in order to succeed, whether or not the act applies. Its not just about the clarity of question, its about the clarity of the process. Edited January 3, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) . Edited January 3, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Jack Weber Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Maybe he's socially conservative. Sure he is,and understandably so.However,voting for a party that would surely try to hinder the power of organized labour if they were to ever get the chance seems a bit odd for a union man.He,or may not,get the evangelical paradise he so obviously craves in that situation.He may find his rights in the workplace have been equally curtailed at the same time. Still waiting on the RTW thoughts,Halton Hills. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Everybody stuffed intoi a little stereotypical pigeonhole in your tiny proscribed universe.... does it get claustrophobic in there?I am touched by the faith in the Clarity Act here...... just wondering, but how much credence do you think that the separating state - not a province, but New Soverign State- will ascribe to an Act of some other government that they are no longer a part of? "Hello, this is Canada and I insist we negotiate on the terms of the Clarity Act!" "Right, call back when you change your tone of voice. We are busy" I can't speak for what happens in Quebec in the future...I suspect very little. As for the crybaby Albertans,this proud Eastern Bastard prescribes this: 1.A forced march of the traitors into the mountians. 2.A steady diet of mountian goat hide and moss for said traitors. 3.Gentrification of said traitors homes by proud Eastern Bastards. 4.Albertan kooks left literally out in the cold. Or they could try to temper their seemingly collective "Our way or the highway" attitude towrds the rest of the country,stop with the "Western Alienation" crybaby routine,and,try to work within the federation. As for your pigeonholing comment... Do you find it odd that someone who ostensibly agrees with most of the positions of organized labour,voting for a party that if they were given the chance,they would surely try to severely limit the power organized labour would have?Moral quandries aside,of course... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 However the hypocrisy thing stands only because Harper says he would NEVER make a deal with 'separatists' and 'socialists', but the signed letter proves otherwise. Both attempts at a 'coup' were right or both attempts at a 'coup' were wrong. Iggy's the only leader who's 'Coupless' because he didn't support it. Actually, he did support it and signed his name to a letter stating that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 The list of Conservative scandals is growing faster than the mold under my sink. Maybe the Coalition should take power immediately if it's scandals you're worried about. Maybe you should uhm, clean your house now and then. There are no scandals I'm aware of, not that qualify as scandals. There are promises not kept, but that's hardly a scandal in today's world. A scandal is like, oh, say, Paul Martin eliminating the ports police - and Canada's ports being taken over by organized crime groups and one of Martin's ships being caught smuggling cocaine into Canada. Or Martin eliminating the overseas tax havens for corporations - except the one his corporation was using. Or Chretien forcing the Business Development Bank to loan a quarter of a million dollars to Chretien's business partner so the man - who had a criminal record, never paid the government back, and was later arrested for arson - could pay him the money he owed him. Or Chretien sicking the RCMP on the president of the BDC and trying to have him put in prison for publicly criticizing him. Or Liberals granting huge contracts for no work to advertising agencies in exchange for kickbacks. Or Liberals offering up judgeships to Quebec lawyers willing to give them free legal services. What do you have that compares to that from the Tories? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 I have great respect for Mr. Dion Uhm, why? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 I agree. This is especially true because most of the spirit of the act applies whether it itself is applied or not. Are you talking about the Clarity act the Reform Party insisted on, for which they were termed "UnCanadian" by the Liberals? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 A right wing union man is a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.The political right generally hates organized labour because it is a hinderance to their free marketeering dogma.They look at union members as undeserving ingrate subversives and union leaders as corrupt sleazy thugs. Like much else, your view of such things is black and white, and very quaintly cliche'd. Unions are, unfortunately, very politically active, not because the actual membership wants it that way, but because of the type of people who, in general, make up union leadership. Union political activism tends to be very left of centre, very politically correct, and so, of course, opposed to everything the right wing likes and wants. Needless to say, that means they oppose Conservatives, and Conservatives, in turn, do nothing to help unions. However, the actual union membership is completely on the sidelines here. They rarely even know who their leaders are, and their political views run the gamut. During the start of the coallition, our union actually had some people out front handing out fliers supporting the coalliton and calling on members to go down to Parliament Hill to demonstrate in support. That ticked off a lot of people. No one I knew was happy about it, and according to our local VP a lot of people scrunched up the fliers and threw them back at the people who had handed them to them. Union membership only rarely have much support for the same political beliefs as union leadership. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Again with the "traitorous coalition?" Sorry, but Political Science professors all agree that it is the best safeguard against tyranny. LOLOLOLOL! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 The Reform/Alliance wing of the Conservative Government, by pushing an Evangelical agenda. Listen, I realize reality is something you've never actually had much acquaintance with, but let me give you a bit of a clue. Most of the leaders and much of the membership of the Reform Party had previously been members of your precious Progressive Conservative Party. When they abandoned the PCs, the party collapsed into a tiny rump wing of "progressives" who had little political support and no membership to speak of. To avoid bankruptcy, they eventually merged back with the Reform Party. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 He's a brilliant man but has too much integrity to be a politician; or at least head of his Party. In what way is he brilliant? Examples, please. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
madmax Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Talking about tired and out of ideas.. when was the last time the opposition had any kind of idea on anything other than gaining power? You want to be in power for the sake of being in power, but have no ideas on what to do if you were in power: no polices, no platform, no thoughts on economic, political or social reform, on how to fix medicare or anything else. Who is "YOU"? I am not in government.... I am a poster on Maple Leaf Web. I would love to represent the madmax party and implement many of my valueable ideas to this great country. Quote
madmax Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Sure there is. The current bailout of the auto sector highlights that in extremely exquisite detail. Go tell the forestry workers in BC how they feel about the bailout of the auto workers. You have things confused. The forestry has received a great gift from the Harper Government. Tell them that. The BC forestry workers have received the same gift as forestry workers across Canada. Northern Ontario is reaping the harvest of the Harper Forestry Policy. The fact that the Harper Government is rather ignorant and incompetent is expected by anyone following industrial policy over the last 20 years. Their hasn't been one, other then move to a post industrial society. The bailout is not for the "workers" in case you missed it. It is for the companies, North American Auto Companies, so that they can have a harmonious closure of Canadian/Ontario Operations. The elimination of North American production has been in full swing since 2005, and part of the problems are that the companies are heavily invested in building New operations in Mexico and CHina, and with the financial meltdown in the US, the available capital to continue to downsize and relocate disappeared, concurrently with a recession in where Auto Sales of "ALL" manufacturers have been hit hard as happens in every boom and bust cycle. The workers may or may not know this, but this "bailout" which are secured loans are not for the workers but for the companies to help eliminate their jobs permanently. The Harper Government like the Ontario Government is going to play a role to continue this process. Giving money to banks was not to save the jobs of the banking employees either.. If BC forestry workers have a problem, they can Dial up "Dictator Steve" and ask him to fix it. Quote
madmax Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 Here in Ontario people still spit at the mention of Mulroney's name! The only politician more hated would be Bob Rae, which is why the Tories would have loved nothing better than Rae winning the Liberal leadership! I doubt Mulroney could win an Seat Anywhere in Ontario. Something Rae accomplished by simply running as a Liberal in a Liberal stronghold. But it ends there. Quote
madmax Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 The fact is that westerners see Harper as their Prime Minister as a result of the last two elections. Not all of them, of course, but the fact is that if Ontario and Quebec do not demand that the coalition face the electorate prior to taking office, the effects will likely be fatal to confederation. It may be fatal to the LPC or the NDP but not to Confederation. Why do you fear the reality of an elected government that can continue to govern without having to go to another unnecessary election, when the will of the majority of parliment can be attained. The CPC have the same options. To govern with the support of the majority of parliment. That is a no brainer. Coalitions and Accords are a safe way to govern. They are superior to fly by the seat of your pants minority governments in jeapardy of sneezing the wrong way for fear of being defeated. They have clear guidelines and cannot be held ransom like some minority parliments. Nice try with the fear factor..... it is wearing off in my region as people realize that the Harper CPC government are enjoying their winter vacations in sunny warm places without a care about us. Quote
madmax Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 But 3 months ago he was akin to the second coming and a much better leader then Harper...hrm ok.. 3 Months ago, Harper went against the weakest most pathetic leader the LPC had ever produced, and couldn't even grab a Majority against a flake. I doubt there were many who believed or felt that Dion was the 2nd coming of anything. His performance and platform were pathetic and delusional. The fact that Harper choose and early fight, and came up with a Pyrric victory is his own problem. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 I really hope that the Coalition goes into power. It only has 35% of public support with 65% of Canadians against it. It will be the last time the Liberals will ever be in power again. So I say lets let them govern for what? 6 weeks? Then the Tories will gain a massive majority. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Wild Bill Posted January 3, 2009 Report Posted January 3, 2009 I can't speak for what happens in Quebec in the future...I suspect very little.As for the crybaby Albertans,this proud Eastern Bastard prescribes this: 1.A forced march of the traitors into the mountians. 2.A steady diet of mountian goat hide and moss for said traitors. 3.Gentrification of said traitors homes by proud Eastern Bastards. 4.Albertan kooks left literally out in the cold. Or they could try to temper their seemingly collective "Our way or the highway" attitude towrds the rest of the country,stop with the "Western Alienation" crybaby routine,and,try to work within the federation. As for your pigeonholing comment... Do you find it odd that someone who ostensibly agrees with most of the positions of organized labour,voting for a party that if they were given the chance,they would surely try to severely limit the power organized labour would have?Moral quandries aside,of course... Your words smack of a Monty Python skit! "Those folks in Western Canada seem to feel that we've treated them badly and want to leave the party! What should we do" "Beat them! Beat them severely! That will teach them!" Man, you'd make a great salesman! Dale Carnegie must be spinning in his grave. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.