Trudeau Jnr adopts Wedge Politics

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure how to Keep It Simpler for you. It says right in your un-cited quote: candidates must agree to vote. It doesn't say people with particular beliefs need not apply. It says they must vote in accordance with people's established rights.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry - that's not what he said. He used the Charter argument after the fact - to try and once again, extract his foot from his mouth........

He has absolutely no need to take his foot from his mouth. All he has said is if you want to play on my team you must respect the rights of women as has already been concluded by the highest court in the land. That's the one Harper keeps stubbing his toe on.

[Keepitsimple]

He has absolutely no need to take his foot from his mouth. All he has said is if you want to play on my team you must respect the rights of women as has already been concluded by the highest court in the land. That's the one Harper keeps stubbing his toe on.

You're over-reaching as has already been dealt with in the topic on abortion. You are referring to section 7 of the Charter and the security of the person. I'd encourage you to keep an open mind on the subject - as almost all Western countries have done....but more to the point - we'll be seeing how "smart" Trudeau was when we see how the polls go and most importantly, how the next election goes:

In R. v. Levkovic, 2013 SCC 25, however, the Supreme Court found that "security of the person" could not be used to justify a mother's failure to report a stillbirth. This strongly suggests that at some point during pregnancy, the rights of an unborn fetus can eclipse the mother's right to security of the person

.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

[Big Guy]

I believe that it might be a mistake to assume that every politician will “compromise” his/her principles to gain power. Most politicians are decent people who decide to get involved in politics for (what they believe) is to make things better for Canadians. Some will stick to their principles at the cost of forming a government.

Both David Lewis and Ed Broudbent were very well respected parliamentarians. Each could have gained power if they moved their party closer to the centre but they stuck by their socialistic principles and were able to make significant gains in opposition for those who agreed with their policies.

I am not sure of the motives of Trudeau but I respect anyone who stands by their principles even if it may cost them votes. I disagree with many of Harpers policies and the way he manages his government but we knew what we were getting and got who we voted for - even with just a plurality of votes.

I think Andrea Horwath in Ontario is a good example of what happens when you compromise your basic principles in an attempt to gain power.

Maybe Trudeau knew that his position would be a negative in votes but decided to stick by his principles. If that was the reason then good for him!

[Keepitsimple]

Maybe Trudeau knew that his position would be a negative in votes but decided to stick by his principles. If that was the reason then good for him!

I agree - if that's his reasoning......but it's a big "maybe".

[On Guard for Thee]

You're over-reaching as has already been dealt with in the topic on abortion. You are referring to section 7 of the Charter and the security of the person. I'd encourage you to keep an open mind on the subject - as almost all Western countries have done....but more to the point - we'll be seeing how "smart" Trudeau was when we see how the polls go and most importantly, how the next election goes:

.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Actually I was referring to the SCC decision in '88 when they concluded that abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor and tore the page out of the criminal code that perviously dealt with the subject.

[Shady]

Canadians have already responded to Justin's new edict. And by a vast, vast majority, they're against it. But obviously people are free to spin away the so-called nuances of the intolerant and non-inclusive new policy.

[Shady]

My mom is a life long Liberal voter. But who is also mostly pro-life, except in certain circumstances. She's now left wondering exactly why her party has given her such a cold shoulder, and why her personal views have been so disrespected. Good job Justin!

[On Guard for Thee]

My mom is a life long Liberal voter. But who is also mostly pro-life, except in certain circumstances. She's now left wondering exactly why her party has given her such a cold shoulder, and why her personal views have been so disrespected. Good job Justin!

Why is adopting a policy which will continue to ensure a womans freedom of choice giving anyone the cold shoulder? It doesn't force anyone to have an abortion.

[monty16]

I believe that it might be a mistake to assume that every politician will “compromise” his/her principles to gain power. Most politicians are decent people who decide to get involved in politics for (what they believe) is to make things better for Canadians. Some will stick to their principles at the cost of forming a government.

Both David Lewis and Ed Broudbent were very well respected parliamentarians. Each could have gained power if they moved their party closer to the centre but they stuck by their socialistic principles and were able to make significant gains in opposition for those who agreed with their policies.

I am not sure of the motives of Trudeau but I respect anyone who stands by their principles even if it may cost them votes. I disagree with many of Harpers policies and the way he manages his government but we knew what we were getting and got who we voted for - even with just a plurality of votes.

I think Andrea Horwath in Ontario is a good example of what happens when you compromise your basic principles in an attempt to gain power.

Maybe Trudeau knew that his position would be a negative in votes but decided to stick by his principles. If that was the reason then good for him!

How could David Lewis or Ed Broadbent move their party closer to the center? What could either of them have done that would have gained more support from the middle without losing support from their base? I would suggest that they both took the position that they thought would give them the most support.

[Argus]

Really - and you know that - how ?

I believe he's in constant communication with his toaster, which confides all the secrets of the world to him.

[Argus]

I'm not sure how to Keep It Simpler for you. It says right in your un-cited quote: candidates must agree to vote. It doesn't say people with particular beliefs need not apply. It says they must vote in accordance with people's established rights.

What is an established right?

[Argus]

Actually I was referring to the SCC decision in '88 when they concluded that abortion is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor and tore the page out of the criminal code that perviously dealt with the subject.

That is not what they said at the time.

[On Guard for Thee]

That is not what they said at the time.

Those particular words were of course not in the actual finding. What they said was the 1969 law was unconstitutional, which then put the decision of abortion between a woman and her doctor.

[Argus]

Those particular words were of course not in the actual finding. What they said was the 1969 law was unconstitutional, which then put the decision of abortion between a woman and her doctor.

What they actually said was that the existing system was inefficient, varied widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the delays put womens health at risk. They also specifically left the door open to a replacement bill.

[On Guard for Thee]

What they actually said was that the existing system was inefficient, varied widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the delays put womens health at risk. They also specifically left the door open to a replacement bill.

And was "unconstitutional" That's the kicker.

[Argus]

And was "unconstitutional" That's the kicker.

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear to you. They basically said regulating abortion was perfectly fine so long as it was done evenly across the country, and in a timely manner and invited the government to come up with a new system which would do so.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear to you. They basically said regulating abortion was perfectly fine so long as it was done evenly across the country, and in a timely manner and invited the government to come up with a new system which would do so.

It's quite clear to me. The law was struck down because it violeated sect. 7 of the Charter, which made the law unconstitutional.

[On Guard for Thee]

What is an established right?

Perhaps one that is spelled out in the charter of RIGHTS and freedoms.