Debate, what Debate

[Leafless]

If the French televised politcal leaders debate you think constituted the definiton of preaching, your RIGHT.

It seems all leaders agreed to this utterly boring format and indicates with Harper taking sides agreeing to this is reducing his chances of forming the next government by not with plenty of ammo nailing especially Paul Martin's past and present performance concerning leadership, the democratic deficit and scandals.

Why would Harper agree to such a debate?

And why earlier this week did Stephen Harper side with Paul Martin concerning warnings from U.S. American abassador David Wilkins to lay of the U.S. for repeatedly critizing the U.S. on election hustings. This was aimed at Paul Martin and further Mr. Wilkins said "Canada never has to tear down the U.S. to build itself up."

Mr. Martin said he would not be "dictated to" by the American envoy and Mr. Harper said the ambassadors remarks were "inappropiate".

http//www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/election_debate_051215/20051215?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

[kimmy]

Why would the parties agree to this format? Because pretty much everybody came out of last years' debates looking bad.

The frequent interruptions and Jack Layton constantly attempting to blather over everyone's statements really added nothing to the debate, except made it look like squabbling children.

-k

[Leafless]

Well that's fine Kimmy.

But why call it a debate?

This is just an extension of plain electioneering and serves no purpose on national televison as knockout punches are now it seems censored.

Typically Canadian and an insult to what constitutes a real debate at a time when oppositon parties have a chance to break the political Liberal stranglehold.

[August1991]

It seems all leaders agreed to this utterly boring format and indicates with Harper taking sides agreeing to this is reducing his chances of forming the next government by not with plenty of ammo nailing especially Paul Martin's past and present performance concerning leadership, the democratic deficit and scandals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you choose how to buy a new car by watching four car dealers get into a shouting match? Or would you prefer to listen to them explain the features of their cars, and point out their shortcomings?

If you want theatrics, go to a hockey game or go see King Kong.

[Guest eureka]

For once, August, you make an analogy that makes complete sense.

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote- " If you want theatrics go to a hockey game or go see King Kong."

If I want theatrics all I have to do is watch Paul Martin.

Car dealers explaining the features of their cars and point out their shortcomings does not really constitute a debate which is suppose to be to discuss or dispute about issue's in a formal manner and this could be accomplished by a competent moderator who could not let situations get out of hand.

The so called debates were superficial and were like what you like about salesmanship and not about the mechanics (what I like).

This is what turns me off with Canadian politics, some Canadains are bought off with showmanship rather than show a little intelligence and demand substance and common sense rather than allow politicians off the hook with a continual line of B.S. and repeat the same act time and time again.

[kimmy]

What makes you think other formats would produce more substance? Letting the leaders interact with each other more won't generate substantive debate, it'll generate even more theatrics as they try to find the right soundbite, impress the viewer with their stage-presence, or try to misrepresent each others' positions. Do you think that would be informative? I think it would be a huge waste of time. I think, if you want to hear one party try to spin another party's policies into a bad light, you can find sections like that on their websites.

-k

[Leafless]

Kimmy

You wrote- " What makes you think other formats would produce more substance."

The main cause for a debate to get out of control is the failure to admit mistakes and recognize poor judgement on important issues and the inability to dicuss the item without flying off the deep end.

For instance the SSM issue was raised with points raised that Mr. Harper cannot leagalize this without the use of the NWC.

But nothing was focused (due to lack of dialogue) on the undemocratic way SSM was implemented initially.

A lot of Canadians for instance have reservations or concern over the fact that parliament in whole did not vote on this issue and that the issue was decided basically by Liberals and Liberal stacked court judges.

Better still dialogue is necessary to raise the possibility that perhaps this SSM issue should have been presented to Canadians to decide as this is a constitutional issue as this country belongs to Canadians not the Liberals.

The sad thing about Canada is that this country was fought over and the constitution that ruled the country was the BNA ACT with protection concerning discrimination etc. a provincial responsibility initially.

The implementation of the Charter itself was undemocratic (ratified by premiers only) in nature as the Liberals never won any war to create a new country with a new constitution and now the Liberals lean on this Charter to run the country as a republic.

If politicians voices are stiffled in what is suppose to be a debate and important issue's decided without the input of Canadians, what kind of country do you think Canada currently is?

[normanchateau]

If politicians voices are stiffled in what is suppose to be a debate and important issue's decided without the input of Canadians, what kind of country do you think Canada currently is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're a democratic country which votes for local MPs who most represent our views. In the 2004 election, I had a choice between three candidates who favoured SSM and one who opposed it.

And what's wrong with a debate format which vaguely resembled that of the debates between Bush and Kerry?

[southerncomfort]

Kimmy

You wrote- " What makes you think other formats would produce more substance."

The main cause for a debate to get out of control is the failure to admit mistakes and recognize poor judgement on important issues and the inability to dicuss the item without flying off the deep end.

For instance the SSM issue was raised with points raised that Mr. Harper cannot leagalize this without the use of the NWC.

But nothing was focused (due to lack of dialogue) on the undemocratic way SSM was implemented initially.

A lot of Canadians for instance have reservations or concern over the fact that parliament in whole did not vote on this issue and that the issue was decided basically by Liberals and Liberal stacked court judges.

Better still dialogue is necessary to raise the possibility that perhaps this SSM issue should have been presented to Canadians to decide as this is a constitutional issue as this country belongs to Canadians not the Liberals.

The sad thing about Canada is that this country was fought over and the constitution that ruled the country was the BNA ACT with protection concerning discrimination etc. a provincial responsibility initially.

The implementation of the Charter itself was undemocratic (ratified by premiers only) in nature as the Liberals never won any war to create a new country with a new constitution and now the Liberals lean on this Charter to run the country as a republic.

If politicians voices are stiffled in what is suppose to be a debate and important issue's decided without the input of Canadians, what kind of country do you think Canada currently is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points, I agree with you on this.

[Leafless]

normanchateau

You wrote- " We're a democratic country which votes for local MP's that most represent our views."

"And what's wrong with a debate format which vaguley resembled that of the debates between Bush and Kerry."

The area of concern is that a democratic defecit exist in this country as with the the case of SSM.

SSM is described by Mr. Martin as a constitutional issue and yet a single government rammed this controversial legislation through citing the Charter in a way that does not properly represent parliament nor the citizen's of Canada.

Your comparison linking the Bush, Kerry debate to Canada's version does not even come close.

In fact to compare the two the debate would be between only Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper with an independent moderator who has written up important questions concerning for instance SSM and unity.

But even at that it really does not compare because with the U.S. being a super power the debate consisted between foreign policy and homeland security and not like in Canada's case the participation of other party leaders that have no impact concerning our current government and the official opposition and thus took the emphasis off important concerns that should have been debated only between Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper thus trivilizing the debate.

[Guest eureka]

Leafless, there will always be a huge democratic deficit in this country if there are many like you who cannot get some very basic realities into their memories.

We do not have a new Constitution: the BNA Act governs the country still.

The Charter does not rule the country and it has no relation to Repiblicanism in either of the two most significant senses of the term.

The Charter is, as I am tired of repeating, no more than a codification of the existing state of Rights in Canada with a couple of minor changes.

The most glaring of the very few amendments to the BNA was the incorporation of the "Notwithstanding Clause." And that clause came at Provincial insistence and not as a wish of the federal government.

And, discrimination was never simply a Provincial jurisdiction: thank God or we really would be in a mess.

And, there is not even the tiniest reason for voting on these matters or having referendums. There is no moment in any of this.

[Leafless]

eureka

You wrote- " And discrimination was never was never a provincial jurisdiction: thank God or we would really be in a mess."

" And there is not even the tiniest reason for voting on these matters or having referendums."

" We do not have a new Constitution: the BNA Act governs the country still."

Provinces have a direct hand with discrimination and with the case of Ontario it did since 1961.

Thats why we call it the Ontario Human Rights Commission, all provinces have one.

Then you have the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The inclusion of the Constituion Act, 1982 changed dramatically the existing BNA Act in which the Liberals used this powerfull piece of legislation to overide Canadian democratic concerns to the degree of creating a democratic deficit as seen especially with Quebec and SSM thus allowed the Liberals to rule Canada in a dictatorial manner than to ALLOW democratic Canadian input to rule matters affecting constitutional issue's affecting all Canadians.

You cannot allow minorities to rule the majority without some form of democratic input from Canadians to allow this initially.

Yes, the Liberals have created this democratic deficit and parliament must be more accountable for major changes affecting all Canadians than to allow a single party namely the Liberals to create major changes without allowing Canadian democratic input to steer the direction of allowable changes.

Quite frankly, the Liberals have created a mess with the Charter.

[Guest eureka]

The BNA was NOT "dramatically changed:" it was hardly changed at all. That is why it was a patriation of the Constitution not a new Constitution. There were some minor alterations that all Provinces , incliding Quebec agreed to. An example is in Sec.25 which recognized Aboriginal Rights.

The Charter does nothng that did not exist before.

[speaker]

The point is that this does not constitute a debate, the politicians, the media, and we the people seem to have accepted the world wrestling federations rules of procedural debate. In order to get away from the embarrassing aspects of this we've gone to a simple question and response format that allows carefully scripted responses and attacks.

I only prefer the old format because it shows the gaping holes in our politicians ability to have an intelligent debate. Why don't we try a debate in which the rules of debate are adhered to and points are deducted for breaches of the rules.

Perhaps then the politicians would respect the format if not each other.

[Leafless]

eureka

With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in our Constitution making it federal law and can be interpreted many different ways by a government and even abused for politcal benefit by granting EXAGGERATED RIGHTS to topple and exceed the legitimate rights of the majority for especially political self interest.

Areas of the Charter prone to abuse are- Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, Equal Rights, Official Languages of Canada, Minority Language Educational Rights and Enforcement.

In fact I think all you need is provincial protection governing rights as Charter Rights are flawed especially with Quebec and in fact the Charter should be SCRAPPED as it is destroying democratic initiatives necessary to maintain confidence and democratic stability as it is not the Liberals who are paying for it.

I said the Costitution was changed in 1982 with the incluson of what equates to a constitution in itself with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not reflecting major changes in the BNA Act.

[August1991]

Car dealers explaining the features of their cars and point out their shortcomings does not really constitute a debate which is suppose to be to discuss or dispute about issue's in a formal manner and this could be accomplished by a competent moderator who could not let situations get out of hand.

The so called debates were superficial and were like what you like about salesmanship and not about the mechanics (what I like).

This is what turns me off with Canadian politics, some Canadains are bought off with showmanship rather than show a little intelligence and demand substance and common sense rather than allow politicians off the hook with a continual line of B.S. and repeat the same act time and time again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't shoot the messenger because he brings bad news. For a variety of reasons, many Canadians are going to vote Liberal in the next election. Changing the debate format will not change that fact.

I thought the English debate was informative and controversial. Layton on numerous occasions pointed his finger at Martin and Martin, in turn, pointed his finger at both Duceppe and Harper.

The BNA was NOT "dramatically changed:" it was hardly changed at all. That is why it was a patriation of the Constitution not a new Constitution. There were some minor alterations that all Provinces , incliding Quebec agreed to. An example is in Sec.25 which recognized Aboriginal Rights.

The Charter does nothng that did not exist before.

That's disingenuous, eureka.

The 1982 Act primarily brought in a Charter of Rights and provided a messy amendment formula.

While rights were guaranteed before 1982, the process was quite different. The Charter gives more power to the Supreme Court.

If I take the example of same sex marriage, this could have been possible without the Charter but it would have taken longer to happen. IMV, the common law approach is slower and more tentative whereas the Civil Code approach is faster but prone to error.

----

All parties in Quebec's National Assembly, including the federalist Quebec Liberal Party under Claude Ryan, voted against the 1982 patriation scheme. This has been the major political problem in Canada for over 20 years. You cannot pretend it away by saying it doesn't exist.

[Guest eureka]

Leafless, can you not get it through that the Charter amended nothing? The Common Law and the Civil Code is the Constitution, too. The Charter did nothing to change that.

[normanchateau]

SSM is described by Mr. Martin as a constitutional issue and yet a single government rammed this controversial legislation through citing the Charter in a way that does not properly represent parliament nor the citizen's of Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A single government, yes, but the Liberals, NDP and BQ all supported this legislation. Only the CPC, a party supported by about 30% of the population, opposed the legislation.

The Christian Heritage Party also opposed the legislation but that party doesn't seem to be much of a vote getter. It does however appear to have some influence with Stephen Harper. When Stephen Harper, as leader of the Alliance Party, failed to show up on second reading to vote against C-250, he was condemned by the Christian Heritage Party. C-250, the legislation which added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation, passed second reading without a dissenting vote from the Alliance Party. Subsequent to the condemnation, Harper and the Alliance Party pleased their Christian Heritage Party friends by dutifully voting against it on the third and final reading.

Source:

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHPSpeaksOut/ReHarpe...ingMarriage.htm

[Guest eureka]

August, An amendment formula was provided and it was not a messy one. If anything, it was tooo tidy and inflexible because the provinces were adamant about retaining their power to prevent change: particularly Quebec which cried its absurdity about its conventional veto.

The Charter does not give any additional power to the SCC. How could it? That Court has only the duty to examine and interpret Law. That has not changed and the perception that it has is that now many actions are referenced to Charter sections rather than precedent.

The Parties of the Quebec legislature may have voted against patriation, but why did they do so? They did it purely from political motives AFTER the Government of Quebec had agreed along with all the other provinces to patriation and to an amending formula.

The vote was playing to the Provincial audience in Quebec: nothing more. It was an extension of the propaganda and the mythology of victimisation. Ryan could not have avoided "going along" with it even though he was on record as supporting the patriation - as was Levesque. The stone throwers in the gallery were too steeped in the PQ rhetoric.