• Justin Trudeau officially announces Liberal Party leadership bid
    18 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Globe and Mail]Justin Trudeau is launching his Liberal leadership bid by making it clear that he has no quick fix for the party's current political funk and needs time and outside help to achieve his dreams for the country. Frequently derided by his opponents as an intellectual lightweight, Mr. Trudeau is pointing to his values, entrenched in his pan-Canadian experience, as a key to understanding where he wants to take the country. "I do not present myself as a man with all the answers. In fact, I think we’ve had quite enough of that kind of politics," he said in the speech that was prepared for his campaign launch on Tuesday. "But I do know I have a strong sense of this country. Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we want to go. And I believe I can bring new forces to bear on old problems. I can convince a new generation of Canadians that their country needs them." Introduced by his wife, Sophie Grégoire, Mr. Trudeau said that he wants to lead a party focused on the future instead of a formation engulfed in nostalgia. The son of former Liberal leader and prime minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau spoke glowingly of his father's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while promising modern solutions to today's environmental, economic and social challenges. Mr. Trudeau made a number of references to Canada's multiethnic heritage, as well as a direct appeal to the country's middle class that has migrated to other parties. He said that he wants to offer a clear alternative to the NDP and the Conservative Party, presenting the Liberal Party as a middle-ground between its two main opponents. "The key to growth, to opportunity, to progress, is a thriving middle class, people with good jobs, families who are able to cope with modern life’s challenges," he said. "A thriving middle class provides realistic hope and a ladder of opportunity for the less fortunate, a robust market for our businesses, and a sense of common interest for all." Mr. Trudeau's advisers promised a speech that would explain exactly why he is running now. However, he remained vague on key policy proposals in his planned address. "I am running because I believe this country wants and needs new leadership, a vision for Canada’s future grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust, one that understands, despite all the blessings beneath our feet, that our greatest strength is above ground, in our people," he said. Mr. Trudeau set out to remind party's supporters that they do not have an inherent right to govern Canada and can no longer lay claim to past Liberal accomplishments such as Medicare and balanced budgets. "I’ve too often heard it said in Liberal circles that the Liberal Party created Canada. This, my friends, is wrong," Mr. Trudeau said. "The Liberal Party did not create Canada. Canada created the Liberal Party." The event is being held at a community centre in Mr. Trudeau's riding of Papineau. The building is located in a multiethnic part of Montreal, with children of all origins at the daycare and public library, as well as a variety of restaurants and food shops in the surrounding area. [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/theres-no-easy-way-out-of-liberal-funk-trudeau-says-in-launching-leadership-bid/article4583283/[/URL] And the best quote of his speech? [QUOTE=Justin Trudeau] [B]the only ideology that must guide us is evidence. Hard, scientific facts and data. It may seem revolutionary in today’s Ottawa, but instead of inventing the facts to justify the policies, we will create policy based on facts. Solutions can come from the left or the right, all that matters is that they work.[/B][/QUOTE] (Full text is here: [URL]http://justin.ca/why-am-i-running/[/URL])
[thumb]http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/justin-trudeau-boxing-patrick-brazeau1.jpg[/thumb] [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] (i hope he makes it, the last trudeau canada had was awesome and this one doesn't look like he's going to be much different)
New Liberal leader confirmed. He instantly makes the party relevant again. EDIT: As a young Canadian who's been leaning NDP over the past few years, I'll need to take a good long look at the Liberal & NDP policies at the next election (Assuming Trudeau does indeed become leader). I've got a hell of a lot of respect for Justin from what I've seen from him and I've got a hell of a lot of respect for what his father did as PM. Trudeau is exactly what the Liberals need to jump right back in the race, a young, charismatic, attractive (as many of my female friends have told me) leader with a name that most Canadians recognize. He's easily the most recognizable MP who isn't a federal leader.
If Justin's anything like his dad, he can turn the Liberal party from shiteating brown-nosers to actually do something amazing. If he's like his dad, Harper's days are numbered.
this is exciting news. but is it too late? harper's shifting the government more to the right then ever before. not to mention the conservative gov't is in majority. trudeau will have a much bigger opponent to fight in the coming years, but if his ideology is true, i am thrilled
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;37890196]New Liberal leader confirmed. He instantly makes the party relevant again.[/QUOTE] Conservatives evaporate, Liberals and NDP form unity coalition. Rainbows fall across the land as Alberta becomes a volcano.
I'd prefer the Liberals over the Conversatives, so that would be a good thing.
The only thing I'm worried about is vote splitting between the Libs and the NDP, really. Unless a coalition forms, it's looking like Harper's gonna have another 4 years to turn Canada upside down
[QUOTE=Triumph Forks;37890440]The only thing I'm worried about is vote splitting between the Libs and the NDP, really. Unless a coalition forms, it's looking like Harper's gonna have another 4 years to turn Canada upside down[/QUOTE] Still a lot of time till the next election. It's gonna be a long few years.
[quote=Trudeau]the only ideology that must guide us is evidence. Hard, scientific facts and data. It may seem revolutionary in today’s Ottawa, but instead of inventing the facts to justify the policies, we will create policy based on facts. Solutions can come from the left or the right, all that matters is that they work.[/quote] If he actually lives up to this quote I'll be fucking amazed, policy is almost always based on emotion and personal motivation, never on fact. Even his father made policy on emotion. I'm no fan of his father, so if he's anything like daddy dearest (and I'm sure the party will try and make him exactly like his father) I'll be no fan of him. I honestly think he'll get in to leadership just based off his name, but he won't be his father, he never was and never wanted to be his father. He won't bring the Liberals to a majority at this point, the best they can hope for in the coming election would be to reduce the Tories to a minority, even with him at the helm, and I think that Canadians will quickly realize he's not his father, in an even worse way than his father was his father, and after the "Trudeaumania" shock factor wears off during the next election, I think the best the Grits can ever hope for with him at the helm is a minority. To my understanding of Thatcher, Pierre Trudeau was a lot like her in the sense that people either loved him or hated him. I hate him for a number of reasons, one being he turned the military on its own people during the FLQ crisis, and that's atrociously oppressive and undemocratic. He's also the one who banned handgun hunting in Canada, and laid the framework for much of the current, broken gun laws, and his Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while useful, is horribly broken in many respects, such as Section 15(2), [quote=Section 15 of the Charter]15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Marginal note:Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[/quote] allowing discrimination so long as it is a minority doing the discriminating for the benefit of the minority, and Section 33, [quote=Section 33 of the Charter] 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. Marginal note:Operation of exception (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. Marginal note:Five year limitation (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. Marginal note:Re-enactment (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). Marginal note:Five year limitation (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).[/quote] the Notwithstanding Clause, allowing a government to enact a law that ignores sections 2 and sections 7-15 of the charter, essentially meaning the Charter is not an absolute guarantee, and laws can still be made in circumvention of the Charter that are discriminatory and oppressive, and their right to exist is guaranteed in the very same Charter they defy. He also sewed the seeds for one of the Separatists' largest arguments in Quebec, they never signed the Constitution, partly because he left them out of the negotiations because whoever was Premier at the time was being "unreasonable" or something. One of the good things about him is he has personality, and that's something both Harper and Mulcair lack. I feel that I'm now going to be buried in boxes simply for having a different opinion on a politician than the rest of FP, that unfortunately usually tends to happen.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37890668]I feel that I'm now going to be buried in boxes simply for having a different opinion on a politician than the rest of FP, that unfortunately usually tends to happen.[/QUOTE] "Disagreement, what's that? Must be a bandwagon, obviously."
[QUOTE=Megafan;37890705]"Disagreement, what's that? Must be a bandwagon, obviously."[/QUOTE] Case in point, I observe a trend against support for Conservative politics in SH, one that often results in simple insults due to the opposing political stance rather than discussion on the differing political opinions and respect for the other's opinion, often from both sides eventually during the posting, and a moderator decides to make a snide, bordering on insulting, remark. I've seen people on this forum call for the death of all the old, generally conservative people in Canada so that an NDP government could be elected, I've seen people who support Mitt Romney or other Republicans swamped in dumbs and insulted, and I've personally been insulted and compared to a fascist for voicing my support for Steven Harper. Disagreement I'm fine with, I just don't like being insulted because of my disagreement, because I don't insult others for having a differing opinion to myself.
Harper shall burn in the depths of hell for eternity.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37890889]Case in point, I observe a trend against support for Conservative politics in SH, one that often results in simple insults due to the opposing political stance rather than discussion on the differing political opinions and respect for the other's opinion, often from both sides eventually during the posting, and a moderator decides to make a snide, bordering on insulting, remark. I've seen people on this forum call for the death of all the old, generally conservative people in Canada so that an NDP government could be elected, I've seen people who support Mitt Romney or other Republicans swamped in dumbs and insulted, and I've personally been insulted and compared to a fascist for voicing my support for Steven Harper. Disagreement I'm fine with, I just don't like being insulted because of my disagreement, because I don't insult others for having a differing opinion to myself.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to insult you, it's not like I'm going to ban you just for being a Conservative, but it certainly makes you look bad to go on like everyone's conspiring against you and others like you [I]for no reason,[/I] rather than just disagree with you. I'm not acting like unnecessarily harsh Liberals and others don't exist, but I'm telling you that just as you're entitled to your Conservative opinion, they're entitled to their opinion.
DaCommie, I took a Canadian Law course in High School, as well as two university polisci classes. I disagree with you on your handgun points, and your thoughts about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That bit of section 15 is there so that people who are disadvantaged can help each other out. We have plenty of those sorts of people in Canada. This was made, for example, for people who are blind to be easily hired into something like CLIB, instead of someone who might have more credentials for that job who is not blind. Contrary to popular belief, minorities still have it tough in Canada. The nonwithstanding clause is actually really good. It allows the provinces to change the Charter, which normally they could never do. This gives us the flexibility of the US system, but the tradition of the British system. It also only be changed for a legal right, a fundamental right (Section 2), or a section 15 right. All other ones are still protected. It makes it so that it has to be renewed every 5 years, so that if it's seen to be as bad, the other provinces will not vote, removing the amendment. It's an important tool to have.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;37890889] I've seen people on this forum call for the death of all the old, generally conservative people in Canada so that an NDP government could be elected, [/QUOTE] those people usually get dumbed too as if ratings mean anything
[QUOTE=Megafan;37891064]I'm not trying to insult you, it's not like I'm going to ban you just for being a Conservative, but it certainly makes you look bad to go on like everyone's conspiring against you and others like you [I]for no reason,[/I] rather than just disagree with you. I'm not acting like unnecessarily harsh Liberals and others don't exist, but I'm telling you that just as you're entitled to your Conservative opinion, they're entitled to their opinion.[/QUOTE] I accept that, I'm not telling them not to have their opinion, I often encourage people to have a differing opinion because I enjoy listening to their arguments, as it helps me broaden my understanding of various issues, what I'm saying is I don't want such disagreement to be directed in an insulting manner, which is something I've noticed happening towards largely unpopular opinions in Sensationalist Headlines. I want to hear where and why they disagree with me, not simply have them call me retarded for having a differing opinion. I posted about the boxes because for largely unpopular opinions they're substituted in place of disagrees. I don't care if I get 200 disagrees on that post, but it's the implicit insult with a dumb rating I was posting about, because while a disagree says, "I don't have the same opinion as you," a dumb says, "I don't like your opinion and you are stupid for having it." I realize now that I'm making much ado about nothing, justifying my post by defining an image on a web forum that appears under it, and taking it far too seriously. [editline]2nd October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;37891177]DaCommie, I took a Canadian Law course in High School, as well as two university polisci classes. I disagree with you on your handgun points, and your thoughts about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That bit of section 15 is there so that people who are disadvantaged can help each other out. We have plenty of those sorts of people in Canada. This was made, for example, for people who are blind to be easily hired into something like CLIB, instead of someone who might have more credentials for that job who is not blind. Contrary to popular belief, minorities still have it tough in Canada. The nonwithstanding clause is actually really good. It allows the provinces to change the Charter, which normally they could never do. This gives us the flexibility of the US system, but the tradition of the British system. It also only be changed for a legal right, a fundamental right (Section 2), or a section 15 right. All other ones are still protected. It makes it so that it has to be renewed every 5 years, so that if it's seen to be as bad, the other provinces will not vote, removing the amendment. It's an important tool to have.[/QUOTE] Section 15(1) is what I see as protecting the rights of the disadvantaged, but section 15(2) has been used to actually employ discriminatory hiring practices. Sun (whatever opinion you may have on them), has received reports from people that as they are applying for a job with the Federal Government, it makes them fill out an online survey during which point it asks them about such things as race and gender. There was one case they reported where when a woman identified as white, the application process terminated. I can't truly, as a white male, claim to fully understand the struggles of the minorities in Canada, but their rights should be protected under 15(1), it's the ability for discrimination that 15(2) allows for that I disagree with, as we are the only nation to have "affirmative action" in our constitution, which is what 15(2) is, allowing discrimination against the majority as long as it benefits the minority, or even discrimination against one minority so long as it benefits another. That potential there is the real issue with it. As for the Notwithstanding Clause, it's never been employed at the Federal level, but has seen most of its use in Quebec, notably to uphold Bill 101 after the introduction of the Charter, as Bill 101 is fairly blatantly against section 2. And I don't feel a fundamental right (Section 2), is an "only" kind of right that can so easily be disregarded, nor with all our legal rights covered under sections 7 to 14, such as the right to Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person, and the right against unreasonable search or seizure. Section 33 doesn't just allow the invalidation of 2 and 15, it allows the invalidation of 2 AND [B]7 through 15[/B], and when you look at all the legal rights that can be thrown under the bus thanks to the notwithstanding clause, it literally would allow the government to make a law, notwithstanding the Charter, that will allow them to kill anyone who opposes the view of the government, suppressing section 2 of the charter, and defying sections 7 through 14. The Notwithstanding Clause can be applied so overbroadly to the Charter it's actually scary what rights and freedoms we enjoy can be suppressed by the wrong government. The government literally could make Separatism punishable by death, they could ban the use of the word "waffles," they could enact an anti-terror law that allows the indefinite detention of someone on suspicion of committing a terrorist act and allow them to be executed by order for parliament without a fair trial, [B]and as such law is declared notwithstanding the Charter, the Supreme Court couldn't stop it.[/B] That's the scariest part of the notwithstanding clause, because the law is said to be ignoring the Charter, the Supreme court can't shoot it down as unconstitutional, it's been made and allowed to defy the constitution. I feel it's important to always look at politics in a pessimistic, critical light, and to think of the absolute worst way a law can be applied to decide if it's a good law. If the law can literally allow the government to legally kill half of Canada because they wore purple on a Tuesday, it's a bad law. As much as that's a negative extreme of Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause, it's still a potential outcome, and allowing the government to have that kind of power over people is not just concerning, it's downright scary. As well, it's not a matter of allowing other provinces to vote on it, if it's enacted at a provincial level, only that province's legislature can vote on whether to extend the notwithstanding law, the other provinces have no say. If it's enacted at a federal level, which it never has been, then only the federal legislature can decide if that notwithstanding law will continue to exist after 5 years.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.