Ignatieff vaults Liberals into tie with Tories: poll

[Vancouver King]

Of course not...but there is more to Obama's meteoric rise to political stardom than just getting A's at Harvard.

Agreed, there was also the stench of a hated GOP administration lingering in the political air.

[blueblood]

... reaping the benefits if you're someone who just happens to respect fundamental human and political rights.

The benefits from Dief the Chief?? Or is the Bill of rights a figment of your imagination? Ol' Trudeau was playing catchup to Diefenbaker and put us in massive debt to boot. Then there was the BNA, if you read it you might find rights in there too.

[Barts]

The benefits from Dief the Chief?? Or is the Bill of rights a figment of your imagination? Ol' Trudeau was playing catchup to Diefenbaker and put us in massive debt to boot. Then there was the BNA, if you read it you might find rights in there too.

blueblood, the difference between Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights is covered in first year law school. Legally, the "Bill of Rights" was utterly ineffective. In fact, it was the uselessness of the Bill of Rights that made it necessary to put the Charter of Rights in the Constitution, both of which Trudeau championed, over the objections of conservatives.

If you're going to discuss this further, please do me the courtesy of reviewing the law and case history around the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights. It wouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes, the issues are that simple and fundamental.

[blueblood]

blueblood, the difference between Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights is covered in first year law school. Legally, the "Bill of Rights" was utterly ineffective. In fact, it was the uselessness of the Bill of Rights that made it necessary to put the Charter of Rights in the Constitution, both of which Trudeau championed, over the objections of conservatives.

If you're going to discuss this further, please do me the courtesy of reviewing the law and case history around the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights. It wouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes, the issues are that simple and fundamental.

Yet it was the tories who first thought to grant Rights to everyone in the first place. Effective or not it was done by them and Trudeau can't lay claim to that. Trudeau however turned our country's finances into a mess that we are still paying off today.

Funny how you didn't address the BNA, so were Canadians wild animals before Trudeau came along?

[bush_cheney2004]

The world doesn't give crap about anything that happens in Canada. Consequently your objection to my observation is, typically, specious. You never fail to disappoint b/c 2004.

That's my job....using political Americana to define Iggy just didn't work out this time, but that won't keep them from trying.

BTW, when Obama won the presidency I e-mailed the White House to thank George and Dick for making the Obama presidency possible. Had George and Dick run even a marginally successful administration, I doubt Obama would have won. But, of course, I digress from the topic.

Yes...kinda like "irrelevant".

[reasonoverpassion]

The Tories didn't think up the idea of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A bill passed by parliament affirming rights is not the same as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Affirming rights "in principle" within a legislation is meaningless. It can just overturned by another piece of legistlation.

What the Charter did was enshrine individual rights in a truly Canadian Constitution (not the British North America Act) This was Trudeau's genius and cannot be taken away from him. Now individual rights are protected, and judges not politicans, are the interpreters of the rights outlined in the document.

[gordiecanuk]

The Tories didn't think up the idea of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A bill passed by parliament affirming rights is not the same as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Affirming rights "in principle" within a legislation is meaningless. It can just overturned by another piece of legistlation.

What the Charter did was enshrine individual rights in a truly Canadian Constitution (not the British North America Act) This was Trudeau's genius and cannot be taken away from him. Now individual rights are protected, and judges not politicans, are the interpreters of the rights outlined in the document.

Well...they're protected provided you have the $$$ to fight for them. There used to be funding (about 5 million per year) for groups or individuals to fight to ensure their charter rights were protected, but Harper's Tories axed it....except for language rights that is, gotta keep hoping to get that soft separatist vote.

[August1991]

The poll suggests the Liberal resurgence was particularly pronounced in Quebec, where the party vaulted into the lead with 39 per cent support to 29 per cent for the Bloc Quebecois, 17 per cent for the Tories and 14 per cent for the NDP.

The more I get to know Iggy, the less I can tell the difference between him and Harper.

As I've said a couple of times, Harper would have to go way out on a limb and act like a horse's ass to bring down his government.

Dobbin, you don't get it. And that's what i dislike about Liberals despite what leader you choose.

Absolutely astonishing numbers. The same gamble of demonizing the Bloc in the course of saving his govt from certain parliamentary defeat has, as predicted here, blown up in Harper's face with an incredible Liberal surge in Quebec.

Wrong.

Harper didn't lose the next election by his references to a Dion BQ coalition. He lost the next election in the federal 2008 election when he bungled his references in Quebec. Until then, Harper sounded like a genuine, trustworthy Anglo. Then, Harper let Fortier try to do a Quebec deal.

When it comes to Quebec, Harper should be simply an honest, straight, fair play WASP - who can speak French. In the last federal election, people in Quebec saw that Harper was tone deaf. The Tories won Social Credit seats, but that's all.

====

IMV, now, it is too late. As Eddie Murphy said to Orlando Bloom, the position of third rate animal has been taken. The federal Liberals are the preferred foreigners of Quebecers.

Harper is history in French Canada, unless he has nuance - and his only chance in Canada is to defend English Canada, and power. Let's see how this plays out. Sad.

Edited January 11, 2009 by August1991

[Barts]

That's my job....using political Americana to define Iggy just didn't work out this time, but that won't keep them from trying.

Yes...kinda like "irrelevant".

You really lack a sense of irony, don't you?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you don't get it. And that's what i dislike about Liberals despite what leader you choose.

It is a little hard to accept someone saying "you just don't get it" from someone who was has said that Harper's Protestantism means anything to anyone in this country in a meaningful way.

Harper thought his best chance for an election majority win was against Dion before May's leadership. He was hoping that the Liberals would roll over on his political financing gambit and then he was going to pull the plug himself a few months later.

Now, he has to make a decision about somehow goading the Liberals into an election before their support coalesces or risk losing a non-confidence vote in the middle of a painful recession.

Harper didn't lose the next election by his references to a Dion BQ coalition. He lost the next election in the federal 2008 election when he bungled his references in Quebec. Until then, Harper sounded like a genuine, trustworthy Anglo.

The WASP angle is what I dislike about some Conservatives despite some of their other noteworthy remarks.

Edited January 11, 2009 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer blamed both GST cuts and spending.

For a Tory government you might be right.

The Liberals would probably have had a large budget surplus cushion.

So even after ADScam you would have rather had the Liberals remain in power LOL. You want to live in a dictatorship with the Liberals always in power forever, no thanks.

PET and Chretien former Communist Party members.

Justin Trudeau wrote a book basically praising Castro as a great humanitarian, LOL. I don't support a p-arty that thinks Castro was a great and fair man.

Edited January 11, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

So even after ADScam you would have rather had the Liberals remain in power LOL. You want to live in a dictatorship with the Liberals always in power forever, no thanks.

And you want the Pope has leader of Canada.

PET and Chretien former Communist Party members.

And Harper was a former Liberal member. Horrors! That means he was a Communist!

Justin Trudeau wrote a book basically praising Castro as a great humanitarian, LOL. I don't support a p-arty that thinks Castro was a great and fair man.

Trudeau = party?

[Mr.Canada]

And you want the Pope has leader of Canada.

The Pope is to busy in the Holy See.

And Harper was a former Liberal member. Horrors! That means he was a Communist!

No it doesn't at all. PET and Chretien were card carrying Communist members I'm surprised you never knew this.

Trudeau = party?

Pretty much they all but kissed PET's arse the whole time he was alive and I've already seen more clamoring to kiss Justin's arse as well.

[jdobbin]

The Pope is to busy in the Holy See.

Nevertheless you want him or a Cardinal to run Canada.

No it doesn't at all. PET and Chretien were card carrying Communist members I'm surprised you never knew this.

Enlighten me with your citations on this.

Pretty much they all but kissed PET's arse the whole time he was alive and I've already seen more clamoring to kiss Justin's arse as well.

And you have been kissing the ring of the Pope. Conservative = Catholic party?

[Barts]

Funny how you didn't address the BNA, so were Canadians wild animals before Trudeau came along?

Perhaps, blueblood, you could reference those sections of "The British North America Act, 1867" that pertain to individual rights, of the sort found in the Charter of Rights and Freedom or even the irrelevant Bill of Rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps, blueblood, you could reference those sections of "The British North America Act, 1867" that pertain to individual rights, of the sort found in the Charter of Rights and Freedom or even the irrelevant Bill of Rights.

Ever heard of "language rights"?

[Barts]

Ever heard of "language rights"?

That's it? That's your entire concept of rights, Section 133 of the BNA Act? A section that only applied to the courts and the federal legislature but not to the use in any other venue?

133. Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those Languages may be used by any Person or in any Pleading or Process in or issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act, and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec.

The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those Languages.

You are really stretching. Is it painful yet?

[blueblood]

Ever heard of "language rights"?

Or the rights of British Subjects at that time...

[Barts]

Or the rights of British Subjects at that time...

You clearly have a poor understanding of the legal concept of "rights", particularly as it applied to British common law.

[normanchateau]

I think until Iggy has put himself out there and show his, (Lib) ways and not the Tories ways, voters will set on the fence to make up their minds about him and watch and wait. The negative side is, his view on Iraq and his closeness to the US as Harper has.

While I'm disappointed that Ignatieff supported the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, it differed from Harper's actions. Harper actually went on US television and condemned the government of Canada for not invading Iraq. Ignatieff supported the US invasion but readily acknowledged that "...Chretien acted in the interest of the Canadian people..." by not joining the Anglo-American invasion. Stupid Harper even told Fox News that a majority of Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's it? That's your entire concept of rights, Section 133 of the BNA Act? A section that only applied to the courts and the federal legislature but not to the use in any other venue?

You are really stretching. Is it painful yet?

I only had to find one example to prove you wrong....that was fun...let's play again!

Edited January 11, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

I only had to find one example to prove you wrong....that was fun...let's play again!

A bit of time on your hands hugh? What happened to the brilliant and provocative statements that used to pour out of you? Getting old and tired are we?

[blueblood]

You clearly have a poor understanding of the legal concept of "rights", particularly as it applied to British common law.

I understand that before the Charter of Rights Canada was not in chaos and a banana republic as some leftists and Trudeau worshipers like to believe.

Here's another right pre-charter that British subjects enjoyed, Habeous corpus, and I think that is in the Magna Carta!

[Ontario Loyalist]

I understand that before the Charter of Rights Canada was not in chaos and a banana republic as some leftists and Trudeau worshipers like to believe.

one of the few times that I'll have to agree with a canola farmer...

[jdobbin]

I understand that before the Charter of Rights Canada was not in chaos and a banana republic as some leftists and Trudeau worshipers like to believe.

It isn't one now as some rightists and Harper worshipers like to believe now.

Here's another right pre-charter that British subjects enjoyed, Habeous corpus, and I think that is in the Magna Carta!

As early as 1944 the Canadian Bar Association pressed for an entrenched bill of rights. The problems of not having one meant that provinces could restrict things like freedom of the press (as they did in Alberta).

Habeas Corpus was suspended in 1946 by Parliament and there was no recourse to the courts.

So...habeas corpus was not always enjoyed by Canadians.