Trudeau’s pro-choice decree is democratic, not dictatorial
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
If anything, the contrast between the two makes perfect sense and there is nothing undemocratic about choosing a party principle well before an election.
Good news.
I wonder where he'll go.
You support hairdo as you are pro choice. What happens when there is another vote on an issue that is based upon ethics, and he runs the party opposite to your view.
All Trudeau did was cause confusion, You are aware that Trudeau will not answer, will he Whip the vote if it came to Parliament? Or are you.
I agree.
I found this one a bit better.
Regarding process, of course we should demand more accountability, transparency and internal democratic practice from political parties and leaders, especially given the centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office over the last decades. There is, however, a world of difference between a prime minister gaming the Supreme Court appointment process and a party leader declaring that what was previously considered a “free vote” issue would now be subject to party discipline. The former profoundly erodes the norms and traditions crucial to the functioning of our Westminster system. The latter is a reflection of them.
TheStar
Telling someone how to vote, in a democracy, is not democratic.
Please remember, if you can, that the Catholic Church is not a democracy and has never said that they operated as a democracy. The Liberal Party of Canada on the other hand............ or are you suggesting that democracy is not a good thing?
I'm perfectly fine with him whipping the vote on prolifers.
Women's rights are that important.
I could be wrong and have been before .....but it seems to me that at this time last year that Gerryh was defending Justin......seems to me that something made him do an about face.....
It's possible that there are many more rethinking their support for the shiny pony ........now.
It's possible that there are many more rethinking their support for the shiny pony ........now.
There's nothing wrong with whipping a vote on something people knew about well before an election.
If people don't like it, they can vote for someone else.
Democracy.
How then do you explain that Trudeau will not answer?
Oh yeah, the other points you must have missed.
It looks like you are going to be on the losing end of this issue until you die.
Find me another policy you think I would disagree with.
I'm sure the vain and self interested will win out for now. At least until the "me generation" has had their go around. As has already been pointed out, the newer generation coming up is of the same mind set as us "old geezers".
Maybe.
But by then we will probably be able to transport a fetus into someone who wants it.
Biotech can be a miracle worker.
Did they teach you anything about taking a politician at his word in Poli Sci 1000?
Yeah.
You can take them at their word when they promise NOT to tackle an issue because they haven't got the balls.
I guess I'll have to post this again.
Regarding process, of course we should demand more accountability, transparency and internal democratic practice from political parties and leaders, especially given the centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office over the last decades. There is, however, a world of difference between a prime minister gaming the Supreme Court appointment process and a party leader declaring that what was previously considered a “free vote” issue would now be subject to party discipline. The former profoundly erodes the norms and traditions crucial to the functioning of our Westminster system. The latter is a reflection of them.
Critics of Trudeau's abortion stance are missing the point
That isn't true at all. You must not be following politics too closely. If you are trying to gain support, nobody is going to vote for you if they have nothing to vote for. These wedge issues are classic tools to motivate people to get out and vote.
Harper tries to avoid it because he knows that it will hurt him. Canadians don't want to revisit issues like abortion or gay marriage. If the conservatives allow their socially conservative members to put these views center stage, it will scare a decent number of people away and mobilize people against them.
No, you and the others that have their head firmly planted up JT's a$$ are missing the point. It was JT's decision and his decision alone to change the party policy of not whipping votes of conscience. This is FAR from democratic.
This is a completely nonsense phrase.
A conscience vote simply means a vote that is not whipped. You claim they had a policy to not whip votes that are not whipped?
It has never been expected that a party platform is voted on democratically within a party. They often give members the opportunity to vote on certain things, but in the end the platform comes from the top.
You guys are just making up rules so you can complain about it.