Ignatieff Supports Harper's Crime Bill (C15)

[punked]

And yet we don't have one mention of the the NDP's involvement in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the federal level.

Ohhhhhhh yeah and the Liberals came up with and put into action health care too. Sorry your party hasn't done anything to change this country. Health care was started by the NDP and taken up federally by the PC's, the Bill of Rights started with the NDP and was taken up by the PC's. Your party just goes with the status quo.

In 1950 at the federal-provincial conference in Quebec City in January, 1950 guess what Tommy Douglas called for? A constitutional bill of rights, not one person their supported him, not the Liberals, not the PC's. You don't get credit for an idea that isn't yours Dobbin sorry. Douglas has been pushing the idea 32 years before your guys finally got on board.

[jdobbin]

Ohhhhhhh yeah and the Liberals came up with and put into action health care too. Sorry your party hasn't done anything to change this country. Health care was started by the NDP and taken up federally by the PC's, the Bill of Rights started with the NDP and was taken up by the PC's. Your party just goes with the status quo.

Afraid you are incorrect. It started with the Implied Bill of Rights in 1938 which was Liberal and Conservative appointed judges in the Supreme Court.

In 1950 at the federal-provincial conference in Quebec City in January, 1950 guess what Tommy Douglas called for? A constitutional bill of rights, not one person their supported him, not the Liberals, not the PC's. You don't get credit for an idea that isn't yours Dobbin sorry. Douglas has been pushing the idea 32 years before your guys finally got on board.

Douglas was also calling for eugenics. They didn't support him then either.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

Afraid you are incorrect. It started with the Implied Bill of Rights in 1938 which was Liberal and Conservative appointed judges in the Supreme Court.

You are seriously reaching. Judges? This is who you look too to make law? They interpret law and until Tommy came to town did people not have rights? No they had rights but no had the balls to say "these are the areas of your life where the government, your employer, or anyone can effect your life." Those had to Implied things which would be settled at the top ranks of the courts.

Tommy said in 1950 "Canada as a whole needs to say these are peoples rights and we wont touch them." What the Liberals says to him at the time. No way. Sorry it was an NDP idea. They had the balls to do it. The PC's had the balls to say this is a good idea, and I will give it to the Liberals they had the balls to open the Constitution 32 years after Tommy asked them too and say we need to make so no can change these things.

[jdobbin]

You are seriously reaching. Judges? This is who you look too to make law? They interpret law and until Tommy came to town did people not have rights? No they had rights but no had the balls to say "these are the areas of your life where the government, your employer, or anyone can effect your life." Those had to Implied things which would be settled at the top ranks of the courts.

I'm afraid that the Implied Bill of Rights is not reaching. Perhaps you should read about it because it was a huge influence on the legislative side both nationally and internationally.

Tommy said in 1950 "Canada as a whole needs to say these are peoples rights and we wont touch them." What the Liberals says to him at the time. No way. Sorry it was an NDP idea. They had the balls to do it. The PC's had the balls to say this is a good idea, and I will give it to the Liberals they had the balls to open the Constitution 32 years after Tommy asked them too and say we need to make so no can change these things.

Too bad Tommy Douglas wasn't as a big an advocate for the mentally handicapped with his theories on eugenics.

Edited June 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

Douglas was also calling for eugenics. They didn't support him then either.

What and underhanded smear. Yah Tommy as most people at that time had ideas of eugenics in the early 30's. After his experiences of encountering the poor in Chicago and after a trip to Nazi Germany in 1938 and saw what these really meant he dropped those ideas and expanded a Bill of Rights so no one would could put eugenics into effect. I don't run from my parties history like some but you are just reaching becuase you know you are wrong.

It might be noted here though in the 1930's the Liberal government in BC passed a eugenics law though. Douglas however who had huge majorities never did becuase while in his youth he may have thought the criminally insane should not reproduce, he realized that people, all people have certain rights. I will also point out here Dobbins Liberal Court judges Implied rights did not stop the Liberals of BC from practising eugenics.

Parties that live in glass houses should live on their record.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

What and underhanded smear. Yah Tommy as most people at that time had ideas of eugenics in the early 30's. After his experiences of encountering the poor in Chicago and after a trip to Nazi Germany in 1938 and saw what these really meant he dropped those ideas and expanded a Bill of Rights so no one would could put eugenics into effect. I don't run from my parties history like some but you are just reaching becuase you know you are wrong.

It isn't a smear. It is the truth and an ugly one at that. He never did renounce his academic theory.

You are wrong on the Implied Bill of Rights but can't admit. It was there long before Douglas put the legislation through in Saskatchewan.

It might be noted here though in the 1930's the Liberal government in BC passed a eugenics law though. Douglas however who had huge majorities never did becuase while in his youth he may have thought the criminally insane should not reproduce, he realized that people, all people have certain rights. I will also point out here Dobbins Liberal Court judges Implies rights did not stop the Liberals of BC from practising eugenics.

Douglas never renounced eugenics ever. He certainly didn't criticize his provincial counterparts for their policies.

The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights nor the Implied Bill of Rights would have had little impact on a eugenics policy.

[punked]

It isn't a smear. It is the truth and an ugly one at that. He never did renounce his academic theory.

The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights nor the Implied Bill of Rights would have had little impact on a eugenics policy.

Funny it seems to me if you write a paper on how the government can solves it's problems with the mentally ill by sterilization, then you get into government with a majority, and become a popular premier and have the power to do it you would. However Douglas instead rejected the legislation and instead focused on improving health care, and mental health facilities. It does not get more of a renouncement of an academic theory then that. He had the chance to do it and instead he did what was right and what was moral.

Unlike BC liberals. That is why it is a an underhanded smear. Ohhh the act was repealed by the way because it violated human rights.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Funny it seems to me if you write a paper on how the government can solves it's problems with the mentally ill by sterilization, then you get into government with a majority, and become a popular premier and have the power to do it you would. However Douglas instead rejected the legislation and instead focused on improving health care, and mental health facilities. It does not get more of a renouncement of an academic theory then that. He had the chance to do it and instead he did what was right and what was moral.

I'm sorry. The hero of the NDP doesn't get a free ride from repugnant views of the worst kind that he never renounced. Ever.

[punked]

I'm sorry. The hero of the NDP doesn't get a free ride from repugnant views of the worst kind that he never renounced. Ever.

Funny as Health Care minster he rejected it twice, once when put forward by the opposition Liberals, another a recommendation from his own government. He gets a free ride for making the right decisions that is why he gets one unlike the Liberals who put the law into effect in BC.

[jdobbin]

Funny as Health Care minster he rejected it twice, once when put forward by the opposition Liberals, another a recommendation from his own government. He gets a free ride for making the right decisions that is why he gets one unlike the Liberals who put the law into effect in BC.

The NDP continued those policies from 1972 to 1975 in B.C.

Douglas never renounced his thesis. He may have been embarrassed by it but he never renounced it.

[punked]

The NDP continued those policies from 1972 to 1975 in B.C.

Douglas never renounced his thesis. He may have been embarrassed by it but he never renounced it.

No see unlike the Liberal Racist William Lyon Mackenzie King who locked up Japanese Canadians, Douglas rejected eugenics as Health minster when the Liberals brought it up, and when the CCF brought it up. That is the largest rejection of eugenics I see. Actions speak louder then words.

[jdobbin]

No see unlike the Liberal Racist William Lyon Mackenzie King who locked up Japanese Canadians, Douglas rejected eugenics as Health minster when the Liberals brought it up, and when the CCF brought it up. That is the largest rejection of eugenics I see. Actions speak louder then words.

Barret from the NDP is B.C. let sterilization happen. The NDP has blood on their hands. The theories of Douglas went beyond his province.

[punked]

Douglas was also calling for eugenics. They didn't support him then either.

Let's bring this back the original idea when you started your smear session. In 1950 when Tommy stood up in Quebec at a meeting of provincial and federal leaders to all for a Charter of rights in the Constitution and the Liberals and PC's across the country laughed at him he was not advocating eugenics. That was a lie on your part. However when I said that was an NDP you asked me to prove it and I did. So you started smearing Tommy to change the subject from your party being old hat.

In fact he had rejected eugenics from the Liberals in his province as Health Care minster, and while the Liberals in BC were actually the ones to call for it and put into law, Douglas was the one rejecting it in Saskatchewan. See how you asserted he called for eugenics at that meeting? See you pretended he advocated for it anytime after saw the hurt from the Nazis? He didn't though, he rejected it in legislation and recommendation time and time again. Find me a quote outside of his paper after 1935 where he talks about it as an option. Do it.

[punked]

Barret from the NDP is B.C. let sterilization happen. The NDP has blood on their hands. The theories of Douglas went beyond his province.

Now Douglas came up with the theory of eugenics? Seriously you look crazy, you are now asserting eugenics is Tommy's theory? You are telling me a paper he wrote and published in 1934 influenced the BC liberals to pass a eugenics law in 1933? He jumped into his time machine to make sure the Liberals would pass that by making them read his paper? That is what you are telling me?

Then he went on to never pass a law and whole heartedly reject those laws in his province? Instead he chose to treat the mentally ill with respect investing in health care and mental health? All for what reason to make the Liberals look bad for passing a Eugenics law while himself a man who did write a paper on the subject then became a changed man after seeing the terribleness it brought on in Nazi Germany would make his party look good? I like my Tommy Douglas a man who governed well with compassion. I might not like pre 1935 Douglas who though eugenics was a good thing but we all make mistakes his was correct before harming anyone.

Get over it you started out in an attempt to smear my party, and in the end we learn it is your party who passed the laws you are talking about.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Now Douglas came up with the theory of eugenics? Seriously you look crazy, you are now asserting eugenics is Tommy's theory? You are telling me a paper he wrote and published in 1934 influenced the BC liberals to pass a eugenics law in 1933? He jumped into his time machine to make sure the Liberals would pass that by making them read his paper? That is what you are telling me?

Didn't say anything of the sort. I said Douglas's theory of eugenics.

Then he went on to never pass a law and whole heartedly reject those laws in his province? Instead he chose to treat the mentally ill with respect investing in health care and mental health? All for what reason to make the Liberals look bad for passing a Eugenics law while himself a man who did write a paper on the subject then became a changed man after seeing the terribleness it brought on in Nazi Germany would make his party look good? I like my Tommy Douglas a man who governed well with compassion. I might not like pre 1935 Douglas who though eugenics was a good thing but we all make mistakes his was correct before harming anyone.

Afraid the lack of any renouncement of his master's theory remains a black mark on Canadian history. Some hero.

Get over it you started out in an attempt to smear my party, and in the end we learn it is your party who passed the laws you are talking about.

The NDP oversaw eugenics in B.C. The NDP were affiliated with the federal party. Shame. They must have supported the law.

[punked]

Didn't say anything of the sort. I said Douglas's theory of eugenics.

You said his theories went beyond his province ignoring the fact the laws in Canada were passed before he wrote his paper.

Afraid the lack of any renouncement of his master's theory remains a black mark on Canadian history. Some hero.

His renouncement was whole hearted rejecting what was called for during his time as Health Minster. Think of it this way if Iggy gets into power and does not start torturing people, or imprisoning them with out trail with indefinite detention. I will assume that when he wrote that was a fine thing to do but he had come to see the error of his ways.

"indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/magazine...agewanted=print

The NDP oversaw eugenics in B.C. The NDP were affiliated with the federal party. Shame. They must have supported the law.

Yah and guess what it was terrible when the NDP was in power too. See how I do that. My party was wrong. Tommy however wasn't wrong when he rejected the idea from the Liberals as health care minster and instead invested in taking care of the mentally ill.

[benny]

His renouncement was whole hearted rejecting what was called for during his time as Health Minster. Think of it this way if Iggy gets into power and does not start torturing people, or imprisoning them with out trail with indefinite detention. I will assume that when he wrote that was a fine thing to do but he had come to see the error of his ways.

"indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/magazine...agewanted=print

The Lesser Evil approach implies that one can show that the greater evil will happen if one is not performing the lesser evil.

[punked]

The Lesser Evil approach implies that one can show that the greater evil will happen if one is not performing the lesser evil.

No the lesser evil approach says that one can preform evil if they suspect a greater evil to happen. I read his book. He does not tackle the moral problem in it, nor does he talk about the fact their will always be innocents caught in the cross fire when you start dabbling in evil, or the line which needs to be draw in the sand.

[benny]

No the lesser evil approach says that one can preform evil if they suspect a greater evil to happen. I read his book. He does not tackle the moral problem in it, nor does he talk about the fact their will always be innocents caught in the cross fire when you start dabbling in evil, or the line which needs to be draw in the sand.

This is why I am thinking that Ignatieff has only endeavored to excuse paranoiac rulers.

[punked]

This is why I am thinking that Ignatieff has only endeavored to excuse paranoiac rulers.

I think we agree?

[benny]

I think we agree?

One fundamental belief of neo-conservatives is that a nation needs an enemy to stay united. If there is not real enemy or evil out there, a fake one will have to be imagined. I think that Ignatieff, to get his positions in American Universities has developed a version of this core belief.

[punked]

One fundamental belief of neo-conservatives is that a nation needs an enemy to stay united. If there is not real enemy or evil out there, a fake one will have to be imagined. I think that Ignatieff, to get his positions in American Universities has developed a version of this core belief.

I don't know why he holds that belief I do know however that the belief is wrong. People have rights which don't just disappear becuase they "may" hold some information you want. Especially when their are better and more useful ways to get that info.

Edited June 26, 2009 by punked

[benny]

I don't know why he holds that belief I do know however that the belief is wrong. People have unsentimental human rights which don't just disappear becuase they "may" hold some information you want. Especially when their are better and more useful ways to get that info.

For a Conservative, a President is not there to uphold laws but to decide when to declare a state of emergency where laws will be put on hold.

[jdobbin]

You said his theories went beyond his province ignoring the fact the laws in Canada were passed before he wrote his paper.

His theory seemed to have an impact on his own political party in B.C. which did nothing to change the law.

His renouncement was whole hearted rejecting what was called for during his time as Health Minster. Think of it this way if Iggy gets into power and does not start torturing people, or imprisoning them with out trail with indefinite detention. I will assume that when he wrote that was a fine thing to do but he had come to see the error of his ways.

I'm sorry. Cop out. He never renounced his own words on the subject.

"indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process. They can be justified only because they prevent the greater evil."

As for your Ignatieff quote, let's no forget Douglas's support for World War II even though Canada was not attacked.

Yah and guess what it was terrible when the NDP was in power too. See how I do that. My party was wrong. Tommy however wasn't wrong when he rejected the idea from the Liberals as health care minster and instead invested in taking care of the mentally ill.

He should have renounced his writings as well. Repugnant.

[punked]

His theory seemed to have an impact on his own political party in B.C. which did nothing to change the law.

Or the Liberal idea passed through the population to such an extent that no political party at the time had the political will to tackle the subject. Considering no in the party at the time really had read his paper and as Health Care minster he denounced laws for it time and time again I would say it was this.

I'm sorry. Cop out. He never renounced his own words on the subject.

Yah actually doing something is a cop out. Spoken like a true Liberal what you do with power doesn't matter what matters is the lofty ideas you may or may not have at some point in time.

As for your Ignatieff quote, let's no forget Douglas's support for World War II even though Canada was not attacked.

Yah I know Douglas he tried to fight in WW2 is Iggy going to do the Torture himself? I am not for men who are ready to send other people's kids to war at least Tommy had the balls to stand and say "I support this war and I will fight in it." Correct me if I am wrong but Iggy is not fighting in Iraq right now is he?

He should have renounced his writings as well. Repugnant.

He did several times. When the Liberals proposed it Tommy told them to take a hike. I don't see how you aren't getting this.