Martin has spoken

[Leafless]

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern.

I kind of thought you would say that!

www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/17/martin051217.html

[canuckcat]

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister...

We were/are lucky to have him... I trust his judgement on this matter.

Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions.

[normanchateau]

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister...

We were/are lucky to have him...  I trust his judgement on this matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To a large extent, I agree. Before the adscam story, more than 50% of Canadians were going to vote for Martin and were thrilled that Martin ousted Chretien. Martin's subsequent drop in popularity had nothing to do with his actions or abilities but rather wanting to punish someone even if he wasn't the one responsible for adscam.

[The Honest Politician]

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern.

I kind of thought you would say that!

www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/17/martin051217.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would suggest you reread what Martin actually said.

It is Martins View That: "If you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Nowhere does he say "Disagreeing with (my) view makes a person unfit to govern."

Please make sure you understand what you are posting about.

[Leafless]

canukcat

You wrote- " Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions."

Well since you believe in traditons Merry Christmas and I presume you are a happily married heterosexual or plan to be.

I think Martin is showing contempt for the country and democracy by trying to build utilizing the federal Charter of rights and Freedoms allies for political gain as with the case of SSM and aspects concerning Quebec and immigration.

The rights implemented by the Liberals are exaggerated rights not reflective of democracy and traditon in general.

Rights are not to be given away like candy. Ask Canadians first before acting stupid and irresponsible.

This country was fought for and won and given a Constitution by Britain not destructive Liberal legislation that destroys the face of the country.

I think Mr. Harper is on the right track to hopefully to normalize politcs in Canada and to steer away from a system that never worked in the entire world.

[BubberMiley]

Harper admitted in the debate he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause. That means, Leafless, that no matter how much you hate to mind your own business, homosexuals will be free and equal to participate in this society like you are. No matter what a free vote in the House of cCommons decides. It's a done deal. Unless you want to use SSM as a basis on which to dump the charter, it doesn't make any difference what people think about it or who gets elected.

[August1991]

I would suggest you reread what Martin actually said.

It is Martins View That: "If you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is tantamount to saying, "If you won't protect the Liberal Party, you have no business trying to be PM."

Is Martin aware of how arrogant he sounds to many non-Liberal Canadians?

Similar to his declaration that Harper is unfit to be PM, Martin chose himself to make this federal election a "referendum" in Quebec. Well, what will he say on 24 January if the BQ gets 53% of the vote in Quebec?

Martin and the Liberals may well win this election with their 38% of the vote but they are doing it in a way that, as they say, the operation was a success but the patient died.

[The Honest Politician]

I would suggest you reread what Martin actually said.

It is Martins View That: "If you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is tantamount to saying, "If you won't protect the Liberal Party, you have no business trying to be PM."

Is Martin aware of how arrogant he sounds to many non-Liberal Canadians?

Similar to his declaration that Harper is unfit to be PM, Martin chose himself to make this federal election a "referendum" in Quebec. Well, what will he say on 24 January if the BQ gets 53% of the vote in Quebec?

Martin and the Liberals may well win this election with their 38% of the vote but they are doing it in a way that, as they say, the operation was a success but the patient died.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How the hell do you come to that conclusion?

How does defending the charter make you a Liberal?

What does defending the Liberal Party have to do with up holding what the charter stands for?

This is some strange thinking you have going on here.

If you think this is the first election to be a referendum in Quebec you need to wake up. Every federal election is a referendum in Quebec. They use the numbers of BQ members elected to show their displeasure with the federal govt.

[Leafless]

The Honest Politcian

You wrote- " Nowhere does he say " Disagreeing with (my) view makes a person unfit to govern."

I clearly identified what Mr. Martin said with a quote.

It was Mr. Harper who interpreted that remark as disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern and was only intended as an opening remark to the actual story.

And I agree that is what Mr. Martin implied as this is not the first time he has made this type of un-Canadian allegation against Mr. Harper.

[sharkman]

That is tantamount to saying, "If you won't protect the Liberal Party, you have no business trying to be PM."

Is Martin aware of how arrogant he sounds to many non-Liberal Canadians?

Similar to his declaration that Harper is unfit to be PM, Martin chose himself to make this federal election a "referendum" in Quebec.  Well, what will he say on 24 January if the BQ gets 53% of the vote in Quebec?

Martin and the Liberals may well win this election with their 38% of the vote but they are doing it in a way that, as they say, the operation was a success but the patient died.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Martin has no patent on what a PM is, that is up to us Canadians, something he ignores at his peril.

[The Honest Politician]

The Honest Politcian

You wrote- " Nowhere does he say " Disagreeing with (my) view makes a person unfit to govern."

I clearly identified what Mr. Martin said with a quote.

It was Mr. Harper who interpreted that remark as disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern and was only intended as an opening remark to the actual story.

And I agree that is what Mr. Martin implied as this is not the first time he has made this type of un-Canadian allegation against Mr. Harper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh so now you are the Liberal Gibberish to English Translator for everybody.

Disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern.

That was your post. Tell me where in Martin's outburst did he say anything like that. This is very sad when all people can do is twist a politicians words.

So you came to the conclusion all by yourself that someone who does not defend the Charter of Rights and Fredoms is Un-Canadian. Or am I misinterpreting your last post.

And I agree that is what Mr. Martin implied as this is not the first time he has made this type of un-Canadian allegation against Mr. Harper.

Since Martin's allegation was that Harper was not defending the Charter, and you have determined that it was an un-Canadian allegation. That would make not defending the Charter, un-Canadian. Right?

So if Harper isn't defending the Charter, that must mean.... well, you can figure it out.

[scribblet]

The Honest Politcian

You wrote- " Nowhere does he say " Disagreeing with (my) view makes a person unfit to govern."

I clearly identified what Mr. Martin said with a quote.

It was Mr. Harper who interpreted that remark as disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern and was only intended as an opening remark to the actual story.

And I agree that is what Mr. Martin implied as this is not the first time he has made this type of un-Canadian allegation against Mr. Harper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They cannot paint Harper as scary or immoderate anymore so they paint him as 'un

Canadian'.

But Mr. Harper said such declarations ring hollow.

"It's a very emotional declaration," he said. "Mr. Martin and the Liberals are always … good at wrapping themselves in the flag. But the reality is that Liberal corruption has resurrected support for sovereignty in Quebec. And we know that Mr. Martin doesn't have the same attitude towards our flag in his own company."

The Martin family's privately held company, Canada Steamship Lines, has sparked controversy in the past for the practice of flying so-called flags of convenience, for commercial and tax reasons.

As for passion, Mr. Harper said, "I'm not there to sing and dance and act for the cameras. I'm there to communicate a direction for the country and give serious, intelligent answers to the serious, intelligent questions that people pose."

Considering Martin was the one who wrote the legislation loopholes and all which he could take advantage of, I think Harper is right on this one.

[kimmy]

I have a question... can anybody explain for me what "defend the Charter" actually means?

I mean, Paul Martin and the Liberals have used this phrase so often that it sounds meaningful. But what are they actually talking about? Does defending the Charter require, like, any action or some sort of activity? I just don't get it. What does that mean?

-k

[BubberMiley]

Not use the notwithstanding clause.

[Argus]

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister...

We were/are lucky to have him... I trust his judgement on this matter.

Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you have contempt for the intelligence of people on this site if you think anyone's going to read that pap and not snicker at you.

[Argus]

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister...

We were/are lucky to have him...  I trust his judgement on this matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To a large extent, I agree. Before the adscam story, more than 50% of Canadians were going to vote for Martin and were thrilled that Martin ousted Chretien. Martin's subsequent drop in popularity had nothing to do with his actions or abilities but rather wanting to punish someone even if he wasn't the one responsible for adscam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact he was a huge disappointment as Prime Minister to almost everyone in the country seems to have escaped you. We got nothing we were promised. We were promised a strong, stern, honest, open PM who would change the way things were done. Instead we got a dithering, dishonest incompetent clod who had no idea what to do as PM.

[Argus]

I would suggest you reread what Martin actually said.

It is Martins View That: "If you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know it will confuse you to find out, but the notwithstanding clause is a part of the charter, designed and placed there by those who wrote the Charter. The idea that using a part of the charter somehow goes against the charter is preposterous drivel.

[Argus]

Personally, I think a man who has been proven time and time again to be incompetent and dishonest has no business being prime minister. I doubt, though, that Martin would ever apply that kind of standard as it would rule him out for office.

[pharmer]

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada."

Paul Martin certainly has shown incredible excellence in his time as Finance Minister and now as Prime Minister...

We were/are lucky to have him... I trust his judgement on this matter.

Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you have contempt for the intelligence of people on this site if you think anyone's going to read that pap and not snicker at you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The entire argument of SSM is a moot point. It has already been voted on by the house and the fact that Mr Harper won't accept this reality is, quite frankly, scary.

Although Mr Martin could be less arrogant when he argues this point, ultimately he is maintaining that Mr Harper cannot change a right which has already been written into the charter.

For Mr Harper to even propose the elimination of a charter right demonstrates his arrogance. Why is this even an issue?

This is the definition of arrogance.

[Argus]

The entire argument of SSM is a moot point. It has already been voted on by the house and the fact that Mr Harper won't accept this reality is, quite frankly, scary.

I find the fact you are so utterly unacquainted with how a democracy works to be scary. Especially since you are likely permitted to vote, despite that.

This legislation barely scraped through committe, and only by the Liberals replacing two of their anti-SSM members at the last minute. Half or more than half the country thinks it should be debated in a free vote. And yet your position is that this is somehow "scary".

Although Mr Martin could be less arrogant when he argues this point, ultimately he is maintaining that Mr Harper cannot change a right which has already been written into the charter.

And again, in addition to knowing nothing about how democracies work you know nothing about the Charter. SSM was never written into the Charter. Gay rights were never written into the Charter. They were "read into" the Charter by judges appointed by the Liberals due to their political leanings. In any event, no one has actually established that it is against the Charter to offer up "civil unions" in place of "marriage" to homosexuals.

As for Martin's arrogance, he certainly could stand to be less arrogant given he voted against it only a few years ago, along with most of his party, and that he refused to come out and support it even two years ago. Suddenly same sex marriage is the most important litmus test for leadership in Canada and so sacred a practice the entire country must bow before it and enshrine those who gave it to us in office forevermore.

What galls me most about it is that Martin clearly does not really care about same sex marriage one way or another. His grand passion is nothing more than rehearsed posturing based on poll numbers and political strategy. If the polls said same sex marriage was a dead loser in the polls we never would have had it. Because Martin certainly would never have even considered implimenting it.

For Mr Harper to even propose the elimination of a charter right demonstrates his arrogance. Why is this even an issue?

This is the definition of arrogance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently your complete ignorance of the Charter extends to the fact that section 33, the so-called Notwithstanding Clause is a part of the Charter. The Charter is so sacred and infallible and perfect that we must worship it, but uh, not the parts we don't like, eh?

[Leafless]

Pharmer

You wrote- " Mr. Harper cannot change a right which has already been written into the Charter."

Quebec never did sign the Constitution should have made it null and void nevertheless received Charter benefits and implemented the NWC.

Did it ever occur to you their are aspects concerning the Charter that are flawed like it being a weapon in the hands of a government looking for eternal power?

[BubberMiley]

Actually, sexual oritentation is clearly written into the charter.

[Bro]

Mr. Harper said he would allow a free vote ,for all MP's,if the issue was presented,a far more democratic procedure than was used by the liberal and ndp parties,who told their members to support it,even if they did not,or face back bench status,or even give up their post.Where is the representation of voters in a case such as this?Another example of the liberal and ndp party not allowing their elected members to vote on an issue with their own ideals or that of their constituents.

[scribblet]

Actually, sexual oritentation is clearly written into the charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you provide the section etc. please and if that is so, then it would also protect polygamy and incest, after all sexual orientation can mean ...what ?

Speaking about Martin, this is cute: http://www.electionblog.ctv.ca/default.asp?item=119920

Wheel falls off Liberal campaign - literally

My colleague Lisa Laflamme , who is covering the Liberal campaign today, writes to say that, in Regina, Paul Martin and the Liberal campaign thought they had the perfect Christmas election campaign photo opportunity lined up today.

Though it was -27 C in Regina, Martin was to take the reins of a horse-drawn sleigh for a little ride for the cameras. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the back wheel on Martin's sleigh blew a flat tire that no one could miss.

"Finance Minister Ralph Goodale and Mrs. Martin were also on board. All were singing Jingle Bells at the unfortunate moment.

"Not even the Liberal 'spinners' could alter this image," Lisa writes.

If you can tune into to CTV Newsnet today, you're sure to see the footage.The other big event of the day was another photo op. Here's Lisa:

Watching a video of Martin Q & A in Saskatchewan, on CTV site, really, Martin seems to be losing it. The pressure seems to be getting to him he's almost apoplectic these days.

[wellandboy]

Actually, sexual oritentation is clearly written into the charter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where in the Charter?