Ignatieff vaults Liberals into tie with Tories: poll

[Mr.Canada]

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

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.

Yes so instead we now have Barbra Hall and Richard Warman restricting Freedom of the Press but that's ok right dobbin?

Hypocrite.

[jdobbin]

Yes so instead we now have Barbra Hall and Richard Warman restricting Freedom of the Press but that's ok right dobbin?

I think you forget that it was the courts through the Charter has slapped down aspects of the overzealous nature of the Human Right Act. There was no court provision prior to 1982.

Hypocrite.

Liar.

[Mr.Canada]

I think you forget that it was the courts through the Charter has slapped down aspects of the overzealous nature of the Human Right Act. There was no court provision prior to 1982.

Liar.

The HR is out of control with hate speech and all this crap. We have no free speech in this country. Now, since Jan/09 the Ontario HRC can pull someone to a hearing if someone hurts anothers feelings, even if no law has been broken. This was told by Barbra Hall on the Agenda a couple weeks ago.

[jdobbin]

The HR is out of control with hate speech and all this crap. We have no free speech in this country. Now, since Jan/09 the Ontario HRC can pull someone to a hearing if someone hurts anothers feelings, even if no law has been broken. This was told by Barbra Hall on the Agenda a couple weeks ago.

And the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of freedom of speech and human rights which you should know already. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives people the opportunity to go to the courts which they didn't always have prior to 1982.

[Mr.Canada]

And the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of freedom of speech and human rights which you should know already. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives people the opportunity to go to the courts which they didn't always have prior to 1982.

It really is a step in the right direction but there shouldn't be any restrictions on what people can say. We should be able to say whatever we want no matter how much it hurts someones feelings. Or how outlandish it is.

[capricorn]

There was another poll released the same day as the Nanos poll refereed to in the OP and it resulted in vastly different results.

The Conservative party, which scored as high as 45 and 46 per cent in two polls in December after the opposition parties forged a coalition agreement, would capture 39 per cent of the vote if an election were held today, the poll said.

The Liberals, now led by Michael Ignatieff, would score 28 per cent, up two points from the last survey; the New Democrats would garner 15 per cent, up three points; the Green Party nine per cent, up two points; and the Bloc Quebecois eight per cent, up two points.

In Quebec, the Bloc had 35 per cent support and the Liberals 32 per cent. The Conservatives were a distant third at 19 per cent, followed by the NDP at seven per cent and the Greens at seven per cent.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Canada+m...0853/story.html

I guess the different numbers can be explained by the fact that Canwest and Global National are Conservative mouthpieces.

Edited January 12, 2009 by capricorn

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well folks, the Charter isn't going to be revoked anytime soon. I don't expect the second coming anytime soon either. My guess is that the Charter will be more enforced in the future than it is now, and that to a certain degree our freedoms with respect to speech will be somewhat more curtailed than we currently enjoy. You have the holocaust deniers and hate mongers out there to contend with, so the anti-hate laws currently on the books can be understood to be wholly related to the not soon to be revoked Charter.

[blueblood]

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

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.

My point was that there were rights previous to Trudeau. I didn't say anything about whether they got taken away or not.

[Smallc]

My point was that there were rights previous to Trudeau.

OF course there were. The difference is we now have comprehensive rights that are almost literally etched in stone (even if they sometimes are open to interpretation).

[bush_cheney2004]

OF course there were. The difference is we now have comprehensive rights that are almost literally etched in stone (even if they sometimes are open to interpretation).

Not quite...see notwithstanding clause.

[jdobbin]

My point was that there were rights previous to Trudeau. I didn't say anything about whether they got taken away or not.

Certainly there are rights. However, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court last year, those rights of freedom of speech are protected by the court because of the Charter.

Edited January 12, 2009 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

Not quite...see notwithstanding clause.

What other country has such a clause? How cute - a set of laws ....and then a clause that lets politicans break the law seeing - real rule of law can not with stand the not with standing clause - inserted to give the crooks some elbow room to operate? What is that anyway? Just like the American constitution....it gets trampled to death daily - as our charter of rights and freedoms is pretty much useless.

[bush_cheney2004]

What other country has such a clause? How cute - a set of laws ....and then a clause that lets politicans break the law seeing...

I guess it's like a game of Monopoly....with "Get Out of Jail Free" cards.

[jdobbin]

There was another poll released the same day as the Nanos poll refereed to in the OP and it resulted in vastly different results.

I guess the different numbers can be explained by the fact that Canwest and Global National are Conservative mouthpieces.

I have no issue with the poll results. The figures for Quebec are about the same. I think the polling information in Ontario is still fluid.

I think we won't know more till the budget. I do think it is clear that Harper takes a risk if he thinks he can call an election in late January.

[jdobbin]

It really is a step in the right direction but there shouldn't be any restrictions on what people can say. We should be able to say whatever we want no matter how much it hurts someones feelings. Or how outlandish it is.

The Court won't support shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. It will allow you to form an opinion and voice it but not if it results in inciting violence. So you should still take note before advocating violence or inciting a violent event.

[ToadBrother]

What other country has such a clause? How cute - a set of laws ....and then a clause that lets politicans break the law seeing - real rule of law can not with stand the not with standing clause - inserted to give the crooks some elbow room to operate? What is that anyway? Just like the American constitution....it gets trampled to death daily - as our charter of rights and freedoms is pretty much useless.

Except that in the American system the courts, even ones that presidents try to stack to make more liberal or more conservative, often decide in favor of liberties. In the US, there are also groups like the ACLU which has the express purpose to make sure the Constitution is upheld.

[blueblood]

I have no issue with the poll results. The figures for Quebec are about the same. I think the polling information in Ontario is still fluid.

I think we won't know more till the budget. I do think it is clear that Harper takes a risk if he thinks he can call an election in late January.

Harper is taking a risk no matter what he does. Harper has one election left in him and I'd be very surprised if he lasts for another.

[Barts]

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.

Exactly who believed this "that before the Charter of Rights Canada was ... in chaos and a banana republic"? Please tell us who the "leftists and Trudeau worshipers were.

BTW, habeas corpus is not in the BNA Act. It's a matter of common law which means it is subject to parliamentary intrusion. The purpose of the Charter of Rights was to delineate a set of rights that were beyond parliamentary intrusion except by constitutional amendment.

[madmax]

Harper is taking a risk no matter what he does. Harper has one election left in him and I'd be very surprised if he lasts for another.

Unless he wins a Majority that is....

[Mr.Canada]

Unless he wins a Majority that is....

If Harper gets defeated the Tories will march to an easy majority. The Tories need to kill the corrupt and morally bankrupt Liberal party now while the iron is hot. Bury them once and for all. The Tories need 4 years in majority to really turn this country around and save it from itself and its socialist ideals.

[Barts]

If Harper gets defeated the Tories will march to an easy majority. The Tories need to kill the corrupt and morally bankrupt Liberal party now while the iron is hot. Bury them once and for all. The Tories need 4 years in majority to really turn this country around and save it from itself and its socialist ideals.

In my view, you've made the cogent argument for Michael Ignatieff to vote non-confidence in Stephen Harper. After 2 1/2 to 3 years of a Liberal/NDP coalition, Harper will be gone and the Conservatives will be reduced to an extremist Reform rump.

To let Harper continue as Prime Minister will result in the political scenario you suggest. From a policy standpoint, 4 years of a Conservative majority would wreck Canada: modern conservatives have shown around the world, and in Canada, they are incapable of governing effectively.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Now there is a perceptional issue! The "hot iron" being carried by Harper! I think not, Steve the Wonder PM ran scared and screaming from the Commons all the way to the GG's office.

[Mr.Canada]

In my view, you've made the cogent argument for Michael Ignatieff to vote non-confidence in Stephen Harper. After 2 1/2 to 3 years of a Liberal/NDP coalition, Harper will be gone and the Conservatives will be reduced to an extremist Reform rump.

To let Harper continue as Prime Minister will result in the political scenario you suggest. From a policy standpoint, 4 years of a Conservative majority would wreck Canada: modern conservatives have shown around the world, and in Canada, they are incapable of governing effectively.

So in your world view, the Liberals should govern forever no matter how corrupt they become or already are. Liberals have had more practice at governing, the Tories need to more time to improve.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think his world view is that Conservative type governing bodies are dropping like flies around the world and more centred parties are taking democratic power everywhere.

[Barts]

So in your world view, the Liberals should govern forever no matter how corrupt they become or already are. Liberals have had more practice at governing, the Tories need to more time to improve.

The Tories need more time to improve? Given the economic issues facing Canada, and Harper's myopic response to them during the campaign, can Canada afford giving Harper and the Conservatives time to learn on the job? I for one don't think so. As for corruption, the Conservatives are not angels. The Liberals have served their sentence.