Jump to content

Former PM Pierre Trudeau started his "just society" for Canada


Recommended Posts

Does Canada have a "just society"?  Former PM Pierre Trudeau brought in his concept of the just society with the Charter of Rights and repatriation of the Constitution it is said.  Although Canada already had a Constitution.  

The result of the new Charter of Rights has been many Supreme Court ruling that have been questioned by many Canadians.

One subject which is currently coming into the spotlight is the repatriation of Canadians who went overseas to fight for ISIS.  The problem with this is the Canadian authorities do not have the evidence to lay many serious charges in connection with their involvement with ISIS.  It has been said on the news, they are likely to get off very lightly. 

Another related issue which is an outcome of Trudeau's "just society" Charter of Rights and the Supreme Court interpretation of it is the continual release of violent offenders on bail after their arrest.   Still another related issue is now the liberal government's aim of releasing aboriginal offenders on parole or transferring them to some kind of aboriginal justice system, maybe healing lodges.

There are other questionable rulings that have come down such as the payment of ten million dollars compensation to people who have gone overseas to fight for a terrorist organization.

Then there is the ruling from a Quebec judge that says assisted suicide must be offered to people with mental illness.

I could go on.  When PM Justin Trudeau now uses the words "just transition", it should make one wonder because that is very similar to his father's term "just society" which helped wreak havoc in many areas of Canadian life.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

One subject which is currently coming into the spotlight is the repatriation of Canadians who went overseas to fight for ISIS.  The problem with this is the Canadian authorities do not have the evidence to lay many serious charges in connection with their involvement with ISIS.  It has been said on the news, they are likely to get off very lightly. 

What would be your solution?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we have is a country that at times seems to reward evil doers and terrorists but despises those that are good.  Trudeau says a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian no matter what they have done or the circumstances.  The federal and Supreme court has also taken the same position at times.

"2 Timothy 3:3 KJV

without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good."

Those in Parliament who have stood up for good or right have often been attacked by the radical left and progressives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How have they been attacked?  And for what?

I am talking about defenders of what is right being attacked with words, false arguments, and discriminatory decisions.  It goes on all the time.

Also it goes on institutions, academia, bureaucracy, etc.

"Unfortunately, Christians in this country find themselves under attack," McVety said at a news conference on Parliament Hill.

Doctors fight for their right to refuse care over religious beliefs

Law society in Nova Scotia appealing ruling in favour of Trinity Western

B.C. advanced education minister revokes approval for Trinity Western law school

"This is a violation, and we are calling on the Canadian government to stop this type of violation across this country."

British Columbia last December revoked approval for Trinity Western's proposed law school, which was planned to launch in 2016. Law societies in B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia have voted to deny accreditation to future graduates. 

But the Nova Scotia Supreme Court overturned the provincial law society's decision, which the Nova Scotia Barristers Society said yesterday it would appeal.

Trinity Western is also fighting the rejection of the Law Society of British Columbia and has said it will fight the rejection in Ontario too."

Christian leaders say faith under attack in Canada by governments, regulators | CBC News

 

Edited by blackbird
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You do know that we’re a country of laws that treats everyone equally, right?  Your solution is unrealistic and could never happen.  
 

Do you want to try at an answer that could actually happen in the real world?

 Treat ISIS terrorists "equally".  Really?  What kind reality do you live in?

They have been left there for several years now.  Britain revoked the citizenship of one of them which means he can't go back to Britain. 

 In 2015 the Conservative government passed a law that allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of a terrorist or anyone it deems a threat to Canada.   Trudeau repealed that law in 2017.   Trudeau said a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You do know that we’re a country of laws that treats everyone equally, right?  Your solution is unrealistic and could never happen.  

The government actually tried to leave them there but the courts didn't allow it.

 

You're basically arguing with someone who doesn't know how the system works.

 

They would likely disapprove of the court's power AND be against giving the PM unchecked power.

I advise you to use the IGNORE LIST.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The government actually tried to leave them there but the courts didn't allow it.

 

You're basically arguing with someone who doesn't know how the system works.

 

They would likely disapprove of the court's power AND be against giving the PM unchecked power.

I advise you to use the IGNORE LIST.

Your moral cowardice is getting worse and worse.

The important point that blackbird is making is that legislatures and courts in Canada routinely violate constitutional rights such as religious freedom.  Where this has landed us is in a state where children can’t be protected from transition surgeries that they may regret a few years later; assisted suicide is touted for people who aren’t of sound mind or who are poor or deemed burdensome, which is eugenic murder; and severe restrictions are imposed on freedom of movement, employment, medical discretion, and other constitutional rights whenever the state decides we are in a crisis.

At the same time as basic constitutional and human rights are subverted in Canada, people who are clearly threats to Canada such as volunteer fighters for ISIS are given a light touch by the courts in some twisted notion of equity.

In fact we now see more racist discrimination in Canada than in the past half century as “racialized-only” job postings appear to which whites need not apply.  I have co-workers who are quietly saying that they will lie and say they are gay in order to get a job.

Pierre Trudeau’s dismantling of the military and push towards official multiculturalism sounded progressive at the time but has ultimately stripped us of our ability to have foreign and domestic policies based on common values, including the foundational Judeo-Christian values upon which our system was built.  We’re seeing the results in a lost generation with confused identities and ethics.

What’s the value of a Charter that’s constantly undermined and a system that gives a pass or preference to certain permanently-designated victim groups?  I won’t even get into the ruination of Canada’s esteem under Justin’s overreaching, endlessly shaming, overspending government.

Pierre’s “just society” now sounds ironic.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

What we have is a country that at times seems to reward evil doers and terrorists but despises those that are good.  Trudeau says a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian no matter what they have done or the circumstances.  The federal and Supreme court has also taken the same position at times.

Romans 12:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Romans 12:19-21 King James Version (KJV)

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

You reject the Bible and pull a verse out of context and twist it to support your own liberal ideology of soft-on-crime agenda.

"“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”  Romans 13:4 King James Version

Governments have not only a right but a responsibility to protect society from evil doers.  Ever heard of law and order?  That is perfectly in keeping with the Bible.  

Just to clarify the verse you quoted, it is referring to revenge.  Christians are not to seek revenge.  That is not referring to government's responsibility to maintain law and order in society.  It is not referring to the justice system or punishment for crime.  That is totally different than an individual seeking revenge for some offence against him.  Jesus forbids that.

If we went by your reasoning, then we might as well abolish the police, abolish the justice system, abolish prisons, and let terrorists do what they wish.  But I don't think you mean that.  Perhaps you just being contrary or being a liberal with the soft-on-crime thing.  Let the terrorists who cut off people's heads come home to Canada right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Mathew 7: 1-5

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I think I already explained the meaning of that verse.  That does not apply to government's responsibility on matters of crime and protecting society from dangerous offenders.   Certainly if someone goes overseas to join a terrorist organization, cuts off innocent people's heads, and commits other terrorist acts and then expects to come back to Canada, everyone should be concerned and oppose that sort of thing.   

The judge not verse would not apply if you were one of the terrorists yourself.  Then it would be hypocritical.  One cannot judge others sins if he is doing the same thing himself.  That's hypocrisy.   It is not a blanket prohibition against judging evil in any way.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Governments have not only a right but a responsibility to protect society from evil doers.  Ever heard of law and order?  That is perfectly in keeping with the Bible.

There is also the legal imperative that everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. 

 

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The important point that blackbird is making is that legislatures and courts in Canada routinely violate constitutional rights such as religious freedom.  Where this has landed us is in a state where children can’t be protected from transition surgeries that they may regret a few years later; assisted suicide is touted for people who aren’t of sound mind or who are poor or deemed burdensome, which is eugenic murder; and severe restrictions are imposed on freedom of movement, employment, medical discretion, and other constitutional rights whenever the state decides we are in a crisis.

The Crown has a constitutional duty to protect. So do employers. Who's freedom of religion was violated since the charter?

My understanding of transition surgeries relates to the Menard clinic. The patient must be of the age of majority. The patient must have referrals from a psychiatrist. When a patient arrives at the clinic, they are required to under go further psychological assessment for thirty days before surgery, to allow the patient and the medical professionals time to ensure the SRS is the best course for the patient.

MAiD also requires serious assessment. The proceedure is offered only to those who apply and meet strict criteria. Being a burden is not part of the criteria. If someone wants to commit suicide, MAiD is a better alternative than sticking a shotgun in their mouth or hanging themselves. I have had to attend DYI suicides and the scene for the love one, be it a spouse, parent or child, is a life sentence for them. Then there are the ones who are not successful. A friend of my parents shot himself in the head and it took him years to learn how to walk, talk or look after himself.

The last bit of the last quote I presume deals with the deadly pandemic we are experiencing. The actions of the governments were constitutional and possibly saved 50,000 lives in Canada. It would have beem 60 thousand, but the governments found they could not continue with the restrictions and took them off too soon. What could the governments have done differently to save lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

There is also the legal imperative that everyone is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court. 

 

The Crown has a constitutional duty to protect. So do employers. Who's freedom of religion was violated since the charter?

My understanding of transition surgeries relates to the Menard clinic. The patient must be of the age of majority. The patient must have referrals from a psychiatrist. When a patient arrives at the clinic, they are required to under go further psychological assessment for thirty days before surgery, to allow the patient and the medical professionals time to ensure the SRS is the best course for the patient.

MAiD also requires serious assessment. The proceedure is offered only to those who apply and meet strict criteria. Being a burden is not part of the criteria. If someone wants to commit suicide, MAiD is a better alternative than sticking a shotgun in their mouth or hanging themselves. I have had to attend DYI suicides and the scene for the love one, be it a spouse, parent or child, is a life sentence for them. Then there are the ones who are not successful. A friend of my parents shot himself in the head and it took him years to learn how to walk, talk or look after himself.

The last bit of the last quote I presume deals with the deadly pandemic we are experiencing. The actions of the governments were constitutional and possibly saved 50,000 lives in Canada. It would have beem 60 thousand, but the governments found they could not continue with the restrictions and took them off too soon. What could the governments have done differently to save lives?

What about hormone blockers for kids?  No they aren’t reversible.  Britain had to curtail surgeries because so many people regretted altering their bodies   

MAID is being applied quietly, under the radar.  “Well soldier, I didn’t tell you this but you can end that pain with assisted-suicide and I know a doctor who signs off without a hitch.”  “Mom, don’t you think it’s time?  You know we could really use the money.  I’ve heard the procedure is very painless.  Aren’t you sick of going to hospitals?”  “Unfortunately you can’t afford to move out of the mouldy apartment that’s making you sick.  You know how much rents have gone up.  At least yours is rent-controlled.  I know you’ve been depressed and ill.  I can’t think of any other options but…”

50,000 saved from Covid through mandates and restrictions, huh?   How do you explain the rise in all cause deaths?  I wonder if the deprivations of not being able to see loved ones or the delayed diagnostics, or increased assisted suicide due to depression had any impact.  People lost jobs because of their beliefs. I wonder how many people died due to Covid policies.

I understood some restrictions early on, but once we saw a rise in immunity and weaker dominant variants, there was no excuse for the privations that have seriously harmed and set back populations.  You have ample vaccines and treatments and the choice to withdraw yourself from society without imposing controls on others and stripping away their rights.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, RedDog said:

TrootOWE destroyed a nation. It’s now a multinational train wreck.

So, why did Alberta UPC vote for Premier Danielle Smith. If ever there is a catastrophic government, the current government of Alberta is it. It is not that she makes more stupid mistakes than Glenn Clark, though she is just getting started, so give her time, it is that  her stupidity is on a whole higher dimension than anyone has ever conceived in this country. Glenn Clark set the bar for stupid First Ministers very high, but Premier Smith is sailing over it like she has rocket propulsion. As an Albertan, I would think you would be embarassed to be pointing fingers at any other politicians. At least, all the silly talk about "Alberta wants out" is over. With Premier Smith at the controls, Alberta will need all the help it can get from the rest of Canada.

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...