|
Political Debate jan 9 (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Matt |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
And Layton sounds like a desperate looser, seriously. Reconsider your vote dude. |
If anyone sounded like a desperate "looser" tonight, it was Martin. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
I am giving my support to the NDP this election. Quite simply, I do not support Harper's views, and I do not trust Harper's promises. |
If you don't support his views then of course you shouldn't vote for him. I commend you for supporting the party you actually believe in (which is what the democratic process is *supposed* to be about) as opposed to voting for the corrupt Liberals simply to keep the Conservatives out of power. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
So martin wants the courts to hold absolute power over the laws of the land?
So here is my question to paul martin. Why dont we just do away with parliament altogether and just let unelected judges decide everything for us? Instead of bringing parliamentary democracy reform, what martin has just suggested would bring us one step closer to a dictatorship.
That scares the crap out of me.
Not to mention that wouldnt this need approval of the majority of provinces if not all of them including quebec? Meaning that this is a hallow promise to begin with.
Martin looked like a floundering fish all night. It was fun to watch. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Wow?
Some of my thoughts on the leaders:
Duceppe:
Even though we all know his agenda is to represent Quebec first...I love this guy! He's an execellant check against the Liberals. He's like that blunt, dry-humoured friend who will hit you over the head with the velvet hammer.
I obviously wouldn't vote for him (why should a province get separate representation??) but he sure made some great remarks.
Layton:
Why did I feel like I was at a used car shop?? Wait, let me guess...seniors....childcare... and immigrants were all he could talk about. Oh! and vote NDP because that puts more NDP in parliment! :wtf:
He seemed to somehow transmutate questions into 30 sec., "Vote for NDP" ad campaigns...
Oh, and what does women in politics have to do with, "Mr. Martin... evading taxes because his ships with C.S.L. were running under Liberian flags instead of Canadian flags."??
Stay on topic man!!
Martin:
Stummering, stammering, and has some gaul to be telling us about Canadian values when his own CSL company flies "convenience" (thanks Duceppe!) flags. In fact, he didn't even address the question. He went on some tirade about personal attacks, totally deflecting the question away and then muttered about Canadians competing globally (but he should probably set an example by registering his own damn ships in CANADA.)
He may have not enjoyed the attacks regarding Gormery but you know what?? It's a huge issue and the jury is still out on TWO OTHER issues as well. How the hell did he think it wasn't going to come up??
Oh, and I love he kept mentioning how they're going to throw money at this and that; the great Liberal fix, throw money at it.
It's interesting that in 12 years of power and billions of dollars of surplus they only now have the money during an election campaign?
After years of staggering taxes, him offering money is like taking his hands off my throat. Am I supposed to be grateful of that??
The constant, "PCs are Republicans" is such an OLD scare tactic too...
OMFG!!1! The PCs actually talked to Americans....wow....:rolleyes:
I do however like his little utopian talk about Canada's future in the world.
Harper:
I'll (and he) will admit he's not all about "passion or spin"; he's a straight talker.
His flatness kind of rubs people the wrong way but at least he's sincere.
I'm not voting so much for the man as much as the policies he's representing.
At least they're about accountability...
Some quotable quotes:
Gilles Duceppe: "When Paul Martin is talking about the democratic deficit, I think he's a living democratic deficit."
Harper: "This government's best proposals are the ones that never actually took place." |
|
|
| Matt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Harper:
I'll (and he) will admit he's not all about "passion or spin"; he's a straight talker.
His flatness kind of rubs people the wrong way but at least he's sincere.
I'm not voting so much for the man as much as the policies he's representing.
At least they're about accountability...
|
I think it's only fair to criticize Harper's conduct as you did the other leaders. Maybe I was the only one to notice his foot shuffling, and the tension at the side of his mouth? He came across as sneaky and scheming. 'Sincere' is the last thing I would call it his conduct. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
I think it's only fair to criticize Harper's conduct as you did the other leaders. Maybe I was the only one to notice his foot shuffling, and the tension at the side of his mouth? He came across as sneaky and scheming. 'Sincere' is the last thing I would call it his conduct. |
What was there to be sneaky about?
I never understood this arguement and have yet to hear one valid arguement regarding this.
Maybe you can clue us all in? :conf: |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]...
How arrogant and utterly ridiculous. To this woman, judges should be entitled to base their judgments on parts of the constitution that don't actually exist - in other words, they should pull judgments out of their asses without any regard for what the law really is.
A... |
"pull decisions out of their asses" is a bit much...
don't they uphold unwritten constitutional norms all the time? No where in the Charter are gay rights explicitly mentioned...but judges have repeatedly extended that provision which provides for equality under the law to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Hostile public opinion should rarely, if ever, be relevant in a legal matter, IMHO. I find it dangerous to subject the law to the moral flavour of the month.
Look at the swinger's club decision..."public opinion" would likely deem such a place to be distasteful, immoral, etc. and few would shead a tear if the judge forced it to close...hell, if put to a majority vote, they would likely be made illegal, just as would every strip club, after hours club (that's right EDM fans) and many other establishments that fall outside of what the average person "likes". We live in a rather selfish society where many, if not most, people don't really care much about that which doesn't affect or outright benefit themselves. Relying on public opinion or this "majority rules" bull that Harper seems to favour for every rights issue is not my idea of justice or fairness. I shudder to think what would have happened if every minority rights case in history was put to a "free vote" in parliament or decided in the sphere of public opinion.
As for her second statement...it's *written into the Charter itself* that it's text is not exhaustive, no? In the section dealing with equality under the law, it's explicitly written "in particular" in reference to the list of criteria upon which discrimination is prohibited. As mentioned, sexual orientation is not recited, but courts have repeatedly seen fit to extend Charter rights where it is concerned, as a reasonable extention of the spirit of that Charter provision). This occured not because some forward thinking gov't or compassionate society proactively enacted a law prohibting discrimination, but because someone or some marginalized group had to challenge the status quo *through the courts*, where some judge(s) in turn forced the gov't to formally address the issue by amending the law, enacting new law, or at least setting a court precedent to address future cases.
Would you disagree that the fathers of Confederation and the draftees of the Declaration of Independence in the U.S. could not possibly have possessed the foresight to account for every possible future application of the document they were drafting? Of course not...and an ever-changing Parliament, representing fickle public opinion can't be solely relied upon to address this obvious limitation.
I agree that it does not follow that judges ought to be the sole determinents of filling in those gaps of the law...but to deny them the power to extend and apply it is to deny them any power at all to decide novel cases. Our legal system would grind to a halt and Parliament would have to sit 24/7 to get thorugh a *fraction* of the required amending legislation, no? Maybe I place too much faith in our judges...but I think that many people place far too little.
As for your earlier point that the on personal morality of a PM is not really an issue in the day to day running of the gov't...I disagree. To suggest it is not is to imply that the PM is 100% objective on all issues and that it doesn't matter, from a character standpoint, who we elect as PM because it won't factor into how they do their job.
One question...how can one defend Harper stating that "many Canadians were disappointed with...(the court's decision)"? SO WHAT? Many were probably happy with it too. Many more probably didn't care. WTF is he trying to say? That he even made that type of comment irks me. He appears to either be catering to public opinion on a legal matter and that is inappropriate, IMHO, or it was simply HE that wasn't happy with it.
I couldn't care less what HE thinks, just as I couldn't care less what "many Canadians" (or most Canadians) think. I DO care that a qualified, experienced judge examined the merits of the case, determined that there was no significant harm done to individuals or to society by allowing this establishment to exist, and made a decision that was presumably and apparently independent of personal morality and public opinion (unless they happened to be a swinger too, but I really have no evidence to support that, lol).
For all these people here who *claim* to have a laissez-faire attitude...and who *claim* to want the gov't to stay out of people's lives...you appear to be arguing for the exact opposite by taking power away from liberal (small "l" judges) and putting it into the hands of politicians, no? Who do you think is going to strike down the inevitable "you can't smoke in your own home" law that gets passed by gov't, due to public pressure? that's right...those awful liberal judges who "pull decisions out of their asses" ;) |
|
|
| simms327 |
| quote: | Originally posted by milos
i enjoy watching harper's half-assed smiles, at all the wrong moments too :toothless |
no kidding, whats up with that? he looks like a messed up version of chretien... one side of his mouth is always up.
edit: I'm new to canada, and have a passport, citizenship and all, and have never vote before. I have not recieved my voting card? what do i do? A lady from elections canada came by my house and asked for a piece of ID, should i just keep waiting? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
Looking back on the debates I have to say that the victor (victory being very relative in a leaders debate as all leaders have differing objectives) was Mr. Harper. His objective, being the current front runner, was simply to not screw up.... don't shoot your mouth off about a majority like last time and don't say anything to scare the Ontarians. I think that he managed to satisfy these criteria and thus he succeeded in his objective.
Unfortunately for me the debate actually made my decision more difficult. I have been pretty quiet until now with regard to how I will vote but for some reason feel compelled to discuss my thinking herein.
More then anything else I feel that a Conservative minority would be the best government for this country at this time. Canada needs a change in the governing party in order to allow the Liberals to purge themselves of the old, stagnated, and overly-comfortable (to put it mildly) top level members and leadership (not just the MPs/ministers but the internal party structure as well). We also need a period of time with the Conservatives in power so that Canadians can see how they govern and what direction they take (not what they say but what they actually do.... not suggesting a hidden agenda but we all know that the plan and execution of political parties often differs) so that we will be able to judge them based on their own actions rather then our beliefs regarding their intentions. I hope for a Conservative minority so that both of these may happen in an environment with a ready and immediate check on the actions of government. Once both of these have taken place then Canada will finally have some stability in it's federal political arena as both of the plausable governing parties will be known palatable to Canadians. This seems the only way to create an environment in Ottawa that will force responsible government via two strong, opposing, national parties.
I truely wanted to vote Conservative this time arround due to my thinking laid out above. After last night I'm not so sure that I can do so with a clear mind. My problem is my belief in the rule of law. Mr. Harper could have solidified my support last night by stateing simply and clearly that he would not invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. In stead he stated that there must be a balance between the courts and parliament. While I agree I disagree on how this balance is struck. Mr. Harper has indicated that he would consider use of s.33 to strike this balance, whereas I believe the way this balance is to be attained is via legislation..... if the court strikes down a law parliament should draft a new bill that will be in keeping with what the constitution allows as opposed to invoking s.33 thereby stating that they do not recognize the legitamacy of the constitution. This is dangerous ground. Our society is built on the rule of law, disregarding the constitution is tantamount to rejecting the rule of law, therefore rejecting the very value upon which our society is based. While I recognize that The Notwithstanding Clause can be a valuable tool for provincial leaders to buy time for their residents to become accustom to a new law or to maintain order while they draft legislation in fitting with the constitution I DO NOT feel it is appropriate for the federal government to do the same. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to uphold the constitution, not circumvent it. Despite my desire for a Conservative minority I cannot support someone who is not opposed to the invokation of s.33.
Due to the above I am at a loss as to which party I wish to support. Subsequently, I have decided to base my decision on my local candidates. To date I have met 3/4 of my locals (have not met the green party candidate). The rideing debate is set for Wednesday night in my area. My intent is to attend the debate and make my decision based on who I believe will best represent my rideing.
Now if any of you have read the above I apologise for it's length and for the fact that it largely has little to do with anything other then my thinking aloud. Sorry. |
|
|
| ShAwZy |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
And Layton sounds like a desperate looser, seriously. Reconsider your vote dude. |
Wow, you're right. I'm now voting Green, thanks Malek ;)
Just joking dude. |
|
|
| Tordan |
| I agree with Gil Duceppe when he said something along the lines that people are evolving and the laws should evolve as well. Invoking the notwithstanding clause to circumvent constitutional changes set forth by the courts is something I'm not a big fan of. |
|
|
|
|
