The Legacy of Pierre Trudeau


Kreskin
#1
What did you like or dislike about Trudeau?

Has Canada changed for better or worse as a result of him?

What would Canada be like today if he wasn't PM?

Interested to see the discussion.
 
L Gilbert
#2
I liked his intelligence and his abilities to lead, but I disliked his arrogance.

Canada has changed somewhat for the better in some aspects, but not others. For instance, he fought the idea of legislating morality, fulfilled his intent to reduce unemployment and get the economy growing, was against Canada's leaning so heavily on relations with the US (all eggs in one basket, so to speak), made us independent from GB, brought in the metric system (even if it was for the wrong reason), appointed women to traditionally men's positions, but on the other hand, the rapid increase in economic growth spurred inflation and didn't continue growing, he carried on with the alienation of the western provinces, introduced the Charter of Rights n Freedoms which led to an impressive array of legal loopholes for criminals.

I have no idea what Canada would be like today if he had been a plumber or something instead of a politician. And I don't want to even try going there.
 
Nuggler
#3
enforced bilingualism country wide: almost impossible to obtain a higer position in the government unless your mother tongue if French.
enforced "multiculturalism", would prefer a melting pot with assimilation
had the balls to take on the FLQ, bring in the war measures act, and see it through
bit of an arrogant twit, but, no worse than Mulroo or Harpo..........At least Trudeau was intelligent
NEP shut down the west and a liberal is hard to find out there.
Lots more, but who cares.............
 
scratch
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

enforced bilingualism country wide: almost impossible to obtain a higer position in the government unless your mother tongue if French.
enforced "multiculturalism", would prefer a melting pot with assimilation
had the balls to take on the FLQ, bring in the war measures act, and see it through
bit of an arrogant twit, but, no worse than Mulroo or Harpo..........At least Trudeau was intelligent
NEP shut down the west and a liberal is hard to find out there.
Lots more, but who cares.............



But has there been a better P.M. since?
 
scratch
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

What did you like or dislike about Trudeau?

Has Canada changed for better or worse as a result of him?

What would Canada be like today if he wasn't PM?

Interested to see the discussion.


I hate answering a question with a question.
If he had been P.M. for the last 2.5 years, how would we be doing?
 
talloola
#6
I liked him because he 'winged' it, wasn't afraid to speak frankly, and gave the
fuddle duddle attitude, instead of some rehersed nonsense.

He definitely was different to what we were accustomed to, caught our attention,
so that can't be all bad.

It was kind of nice to see the 'regular person on the street' get a little excited for a
change over politics, and perk up, and take notice.

We have been such a 'dull' bunch over the years, lots of whining but no passion, he
created passion.
 
dj03
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

What did you like or dislike about Trudeau?

Has Canada changed for better or worse as a result of him?

What would Canada be like today if he wasn't PM?

Interested to see the discussion.

As PM he was the face of the country on the international level and is irreverent attitude and shrewd intellect made us all look good....at least in my opinion. Repatriating the Constitution and bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will impact the country, I believe for the better, for as long as Canada exists.

On the bad side, he alienated the west, stoked the fires of separatism and we still feel the effects of those through the reconstituted Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois. While I don't mind the Conservatives so much, the Bloc is really annoying.

He also wracked up huge deficits that have resulted in a debt we will be paying off for a long time, assuming we continue to pay it off and not incur more large deficits down the road.
 
Tonington
#8
I don't think irreverent is generally something most people find appealing.
 
scratch
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

As PM he was the face of the country on the international level and is irreverent attitude and shrewd intellect made us all look good....at least in my opinion. Repatriating the Constitution and bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will impact the country, I believe for the better, for as long as Canada exists.

On the bad side, he alienated the west, stoked the fires of separatism and we still feel the effects of those through the reconstituted Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois. While I don't mind the Conservatives so much, the Bloc is really annoying.

He also wracked up huge deficits that have resulted in a debt we will be paying off for a long time, assuming we continue to pay it off and not incur more large deficits down the road.


Deficits....Mulro territory!
 
Kreskin
#10
He did some good media scrums. This one the FLQ crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7_a2wa2dd4
 
coldstream
#11
I used to be a admirer of PET. I admired his economic nationalism. He was really the last PM who had a strong vision of Canada as a sovereign, centralized nation rather than the fragmented parts run by provincial potentates, or by international financial interests, that it has degenerated into.

His legacy, of course, was primarily the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has proven to be the most divisive document ever put forward in the this country. It has made Parliament an impotent poodle at the beck and call of an unelected, intellectually inadequate judiciary (no better example of this it there than our utter mediocrity of a Chief Justice in Beverly McLachlin) who have bestowed on themselves the role of Lord High Protectors of Canadian social values.

It proves that those who predicted social upheaval and disassembly were prescient. A Charter like this in a Parliamentary system with out proper checks and balances on the judiciary will turn it into a wild beast, which will turn on its master.

All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 6th, 2008 at 07:54 AM..
 
Tonington
#12
The interpretation of legislation as legal documents is left to judges. The onus is on legislators to draft clear and concise legislation. When legislation needs updating, it's up to the elected officials to craft new legislation. That's how our democracy, and most others, works.

If Parliament is a bunch of impotent poodles, it's because we elect impotent poodles.

What do you think is divisive about the Charter, Coldstream?
 
dj03
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by scratch View Post

Deficits....Mulro territory!

To be fair, he inherited those and while he initially thought he could tackle them quickly it wouldn't work politically. Ultimately, he played the bad guy with the GST (which we shouldn't forget was sold to us as revenue neutral when it wasn't) and then Chretien played the bad guy buy slashing social transfers to the provinces (though the provinces ended up taking the blame because they were the ones who had to cut services).

Although we had a small debt before Trudeau, he is the one who let things get out of hand.

Quote:

All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.

I'm not sure if you are religious or not (it sounds like it) but the Charter and human rights commissions are already protecting you. Recently, a university students group tried to ban pro-life groups from being part of the students union, a human rights complaint was filed and now pro-life groups are allowed. A guy ran around with a bumper sticker on his truck quoting passages from the Old Testament which referred to executing homosexuals, a human rights commission found him guilty of promoting hate but an appeals court overturned that and told the commission to be more careful in how they handle "foundational religious texts".

Of course, the big freedom of religion case was the kirpan ruling which basically allows for Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers to school, if that isn't a win for religious freedom than I don't know what is.
 
coldstream
#14

What do you think is divisive about the Charter, Coldstream
?

Yes, you can't blame the judiciary alone. We have been run by incompetent Prime Ministers and their administrations, both Liberal and Conservative (really both neo liberals) since Trudeau left.

Trudeau was fixated on Quebec. He wanted to use the Constitution and Charter as a bulwark against what he viewed as an imminent threat by radical separatists who would legislate themselves out of Canada, and persecute the English minority in Quebec.

I doubt he foresaw that he would be succeeded by weaklings, who would never use the legitimate authority he gave them to override judicial activism, in the Not Withstanding Clause. So we are left with the sorry new age mess we are we have become. A 'country' with its social foundations in marriage, respect for life, social cohesion and traditions knocked out from under it.

A country that is disintegrating in the pall of radical individualism and relativism that masquerade as rights, but really imposes post-structural 'moral' orthodoxy on all. We are bound to be both far less cohesive, prosperous and free.. and it's weapons are in the Charter
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 12:51 AM..
 
Tonington
#15
The notwithstanding clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter. Maybe you can give an example of where you think it should be used.
 
Kreskin
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I used to be a admirer of PET. I admired his economic nationalism. He was really the last PM who had a strong vision of Canada as a sovereign, centralized nation rather than the fragmented parts run by provincial potentates, or by international financial interests, that it has degenerated into.

His legacy, of course, was to primarily the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has proved to be the most divisive document ever put forward in the this country. It has made Parliament an impotent poodle at the beck and call of an unelected, intellectually inadequate judiciary.(no better example of this it there than our utter mediocrity of a Chief Justice in Beverly McLachlin) who have bestowed on themselves the role of Lord High Protectors of Canadian social values.

It proves that those who predicted social upheaval and disassembly were prescient. A Charter like this in a Parliamentary system with out proper checks and balances on the judiciary will turn it into a wild beast, which will turn on its master.

All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.

I wouldn't blame him, I'd congratulate him on a masterpiece. Who the heck needs abortion legislation or outlawing homosexuality? That stuff went out in the stone age. And if it means putting personal rights and freedoms ahead of parliamentary goons creating laws based on which way the wind's blowing, the guy was a genius.
 
coldstream
#17
Maybe you can give an example of where you think it should be used

An example is Homosexual Marriage, In 1999 Parliament affirmed Marriage overwhelmingly as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all else. This reflected the large majority of the Canadian public opinion. What followed was a series of court challenges overturning a legitimate law as unconstitutional. Parliament, faced with an urgent threat that the Supreme Court would impose homosexual marriage on the country, capitulated without a fight.

Parliament had every right to get back in their face and say, we will govern by the will of the people, and will use the constitutional tools at our disposal. Many or most of the parliamentarians, though, cited the court ruling as authoritative in their decision, even though any circumspect inspection of those rulings would show them to be so filled with shallow sophistry and twisted logic as to be little more than gibberish. This ideal of an impartial, intellectually competent and wise judiciary is a complete fiction. The courts are filled with political hacks, intellectual mediocrities and new age acolytes (Bev McLachlin, our Chief Justice a prime example).

Most of the country still thinks homosexual marriage is a joke, if not an abomination, and an insidiously corrosive agent on Canadian society's structural integrity, But nothing is going to be done about it. Our Parliamentarians don't know up from down, right from wrong, male from female anymore. They have decided to let the wild shamans and priestesses of our courts, twirling with devilish delight under the full moon and before their graven idols, have unfettered sway over them.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 07:46 PM..
 
dj03
#18
Quote:

I doubt he forsaw that he would be succeeded by weaklings, who would never use the legitimate authority he gave them to override judicial activism, in the Not Withstanding Clause.

The notwithstanding clause was not put in by Trudeau to override judicial activism, it was a compromise put in to appease the provinces who were concerned that a federal court could override provincial jurisdictions (like the Quebec language law).

Trudeau didn't want it included, it was a last minute concession to the provinces.
 
Kreskin
#19
A constitution means nothing if a simple majority can take away the rights of a minority. Why have one, just pick and choose rights by referendum at every election. I don't want to debate same sex marriage. I'm not homosexual and I couldn't give a hoot who marries who, so long as they didn't deny me my rights. But if that's the way people want our constitution to operate then I'll actively promote the outlawing of religion, or at least certain religions. I think the majority of people are tired of religions promoting all the dumb stuff. 51%, then punt them out.
 
coldstream
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

The notwithstanding clause was not put in by Trudeau to override judicial activism, it was a compromise put in to appease the provinces who were concerned that a federal court could override provincial jurisdictions (like the Quebec language law).

Trudeau didn't want it included, it was a last minute concession to the provinces.

I know that, that's another knock against Trudeau. But essentially it means nothing anyway, if Parliament does not have the courage to use it. And it has never shown anything like the intestinal fortitude to do so.

The problem rests with the existence of the Charter itself, as anything but a statement of principles. Parliamentary systems are much different the constitutional republics like the U.S. They are designed, through the system of argument and speech, to develop consensus, subject to the oversight and approval of the electorate. Any law that is passed can be overturned by a subsequent government. It is that which gives the process its flexibility and responsiveness to the popular concerns.

Parliament needs to be sovereign in governance, subject only to the will of the people. The U.S. system is based on a highly contentious system of checks and balances, which was intended to produce a 'winner' rather than a consensus. It was intended to be inflexible and unresponsive, giving precedence to the original U.S. Constitution. It is deeply distrustful of all innovations, oversight, and of any unchecked privilege of any single branch of government.

What Canada has now is the worst of both worlds. Unbridled privilege for the judiciary, no electoral oversight over huge, crucial areas of public policy, and a cynical collusion of the executive and legislative branches without any dynamic balance between them.The party system, once much more consultative and responsible to individual members (and those they represent) than it is now, has now robbed these member of rights to oppose any specific legislation.

Their acquiescence has been purchased (bribed) with huge pensions, and the threat that their nomination papers will not be signed by the PM is they don't tow the line. The electorate has been increasingly marginalized.We have a government hobbled with crippling indecision and misdirection, interspersed with reckless and arbitrary actions.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 07:48 PM..
 
dj03
#21
Quote:

The notwithstanding clause only applies to certain sections of the Charter.

Yes, but it is the fundamental freedom sections that it overrides (freedom of speech, religion, the press, peaceful protest, etc...).

Quote:

An example is Homosexual Marriage, In 1999 Parliament affirmed Marriage overwhelmingly as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all else. This reflected the large majority of the Canadian public opinion. What followed was a series of court challenges overturning a legitimate law as unconstitutional. Parliament, faced with an urgent threat that the Supreme Court would impose homosexual marriage on the country, capitulated without a fight.

Yeah, but by the time the issue reached a place where the government had to decide whether or not to appeal this to the Supreme Court, public opinion had changed so that it was closer to half in favour and half opposed.

Look, the Liberals were no heroes on this as both Chretien and Martin tried to punt this issue off their desks by getting "Supreme Court references" on some statements, the goal being to put this off until Chretien was gone and Martin had a majority...it didn't quite work out that way.

In the end, it worked out surprisingly well because the court reference basically put an end to any potential litigation against religious groups by gay activists trying to force them into this...and we shouldn't kid ourselves about this, one of the gay activists who started this was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen shortly after gay marriage was legalized as saying religious groups who didn't perform SSMs should have their tax exemption revoked, constitutional experts (ie. Charter experts) said that violated freedom of religion and the issued died that very week.
 
dj03
#22
Quote:

I think the majority of people are tired of religions promoting all the dumb stuff.

You mean like the United Church of Canada (the largest protestant denomination in Canada) which was promoting gay rights back in the 70s when no one gave a crap? They advocated for putting sexual orientation in both the Human Rights Act and the Charter long before enlightened secularists cried with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.
 
coldstream
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

A constitution means nothing if a simple majority can take away the rights of a minority. Why have one, just pick and choose rights by referendum at every election. I don't want to debate same sex marriage. I'm not homosexual and I couldn't give a hoot who marries who, so long as they didn't deny me my rights. But if that's the way people want our constitution to operate then I'll actively promote the outlawing of religion, or at least certain religions. I think the majority of people are tired of religions promoting all the dumb stuff. 51%, then punt them out.

In fact an argument without basis. What we have now is the tyranny of minority over the legitimate rights of the majority and the integrity of the entire state, imposed on us by the judiciary. And we are coming very close to outlawing religion already, with curbs on free speech, or the way 'hate speech' is codified.. it is moving relentlessly to defining what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. This has already happened in instances in Europe. The dictatorship of the New Age, and homosexual validation has always been a symbolic cornerstone of that, along with abortion.. is already upon us. We have lost all sense of good and evil as anything but a relative point of view.. and that is a sign.. throughout history of a society in precipitous and terminal decline.
 
scratch
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

In fact an argument without basis. What we have now is the tyranny of minority over the legitimate rights of the majority and the integrity of the entire state, imposed on us by the judiciary. And we are coming very close to outlawing religion already, with curbs on free speech, or the way 'hate speech' is codified.. it is moving relentlessly to defining what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. This has already happened in instances in Europe. The dictatorship of the New Age, and homosexual validation has always been a symbolic cornerstone of that, along with abortion.. is already upon us. We have lost all sense of good and evil as anything but a relative point of view.. and that is a sign.. throughout history of a society in precipitous and terminal decline.



I will second that.
 
dj03
#25
Quote:

But essentially it has means nothing anyway, if Parliament does not have the courage to use it.

Look, there are clearly people in the country who would like to use the notwithstanding clause to override other people's rights...abortion, gay marriage....people's right to practice their religion.

Living in a democracy, the notwithstanding clause could be used on any of those issues at any time, the reason why governments won't use it (with the exception of Quebec...Alberta tried) is because the blowback from it would damage them politically.

There would have to be overwhelming public support before any government would dare use it. If we have to have this in the Charter it is nice to at least have one control on it use.

Personally, I think we should turf it. Paul Martin was right, but it was an election stunt meant to try to change the talking points of the election and make Stephen Harper scary, rather than a well thought out policy decision.

Quote:

Parliament needs to be sovereign in governance, subject only to the will of the people.

What if the people are wrong or the government doesn't care? Do you really want the atheists on this forum outlawing your religion because a sympathetic government is in power? Cause let me tell you, religion doesn't get much good press these days, the census shows non-religious people increasing and religious people decreasing and if that continues much longer you might find yourself in hostile political territory.
 
Kreskin
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

In fact an argument without basis. What we have now is the tyranny of minority over the legitimate rights of the majority and the integrity of the entire state, imposed on us by the judiciary. And we are coming very close to outlawing religion already, with curbs on free speech, or the way 'hate speech' is codified.. it is moving relentlessly to defining what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. This has already happened in instances in Europe. The dictatorship of the New Age, and homosexual validation has always been a symbolic cornerstone of that, along with abortion.. is already upon us. We have lost all sense of good and evil as anything but a relative point of view.. and that is a sign.. throughout history of a society in precipitous and terminal decline.

Tyranny of what, not being able to ban stuff done by the minority? Not banning them is tyranny? LOL. Boy that must be awful for those religous people when someone they don't know ,and never will know, gets married. It must be torture having the right to ban them trampled on.
 
dj03
#27
Quote:

And we are coming very close to outlawing religion already, with curbs on free speech, or the way 'hate speech' is codified..

The examples that I have come across on this issue are fairly extreme with people associating homosexuality with other acts which society still finds detestable and where there is no evidence that any significant part of the gay community participates in.

Legitimate religious expressions on the subject have not run afoul of either human rights commissions or hate speech laws to the extent that (and I believe I gave this example earlier) a guy with a bumper sticker quoting passages from the Old Testament that included killing homosexuals had a human rights commission's ruling overturned on appeal with the court lecturing the HRC to be more careful with their rulings when it comes to "foundational religious texts"

The Charter is only 25 years old and I think we are still sorting out the jurisprudence on many issues, but religious freedom has certainly been defended by the courts even when the ruling is immensely unpopular with the general public...again, I will reference the kirpan ruling a couple of years ago.
 
Kreskin
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

You mean like the United Church of Canada (the largest protestant denomination in Canada) which was promoting gay rights back in the 70s when no one gave a crap? They advocated for putting sexual orientation in both the Human Rights Act and the Charter long before enlightened secularists cried with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia.

I will take your word for it. I haven't seen a religion be first out of the gate to advocate gay rights, but there is always a first.

My point was primarily to show that without a constitution that includes fundamental rights we could easily outlaw just about anything. On Sept 12 2001 this country would've outlawed Islam in a nano-second if put to a vote.
 
jimmoyer
#29
will take your word for it. I haven't seen a religion be first out of the gate to advocate gay rights, but there is always a first.

My point was primarily to show that without a constitution that includes fundamental rights we could easily outlaw just about anything. On Sept 12 2001 this country would've outlawed Islam in a nano-second if put to a vote.
------------------------------------------------------Kreskin---------------------------------------

First of your points about religion. Slavery was first attacked not by secularists but by many religious denominations in the States, especially by scary old testament types that thought slavery was an abomination. All these abolitionists spoke from a relgious source not a secular source. You point out that some churches were for discrimination, but you will find out an equal and opposite truth, that all of the fiery abolitionists were religious and affiliated and used religious authority to attack slavery.

Your second point about a vote on natural rights is superb.
All "mature", "established" western democracies share a fear of the Tyranny of Majority.
This is one part of a long list of arguments that show that the vote is the last and least determining factor of true individual freedom.
 
coldstream
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

I will take your word for it. I haven't seen a religion be first out of the gate to advocate gay rights, but there is always a first.

My point was primarily to show that without a constitution that includes fundamental rights we could easily outlaw just about anything. On Sept 12 2001 this country would've outlawed Islam in a nano-second if put to a vote.

But that didn't happen anywhere. It didn't happen in Britain after 7/7 and they have a conventional Parliamentary system without a Charter of Rights. That allowed Britain however, with a huge Muslim population to take aggressive measures to ban known terrorist groups, detain known activists of jihad, based on non judicial intelligence and in order to prevent another attack. All of those things would have been hamstrung by constitutional challenges if they happened here.

In fact the will of majority is almost always fair, and consistent with long held traditions, especially those dealing with family, personal freedom and of people working within the law. Majorities in healthy societies tend to be fair and able to reconcile individual freedoms with essential limitations to those freedoms in the interest of the greatest good for the society at large. Something that minorities NEVER do.

The historical instances in the West of the will of the majority supposedly used to persecute a specific minority are hard to find, in the longer context of history. You can look at slavery in America or the fascist persecution of the Jews. But both these involved political cliques imposing their will, for economic gain, or megalomaniac world conquest, over a true majority. Both of those ending in flames and defeat for those cliques. None of those defeats were by actions of a constitution, which was more often used to block the fair minded will of the majority to the benefit of those cliques.

As to homosexuality.. religions, like it or not, are the founding inspirations of civilizations, including that of West, in Christianity. The problem with describing homosexuality in terms of fundamental rights is that it is proscribed in every major religion in the world. The legitimization, as opposed to the fact, of homosexuality throughout history has always been in the context of a society in deep distress, disarray and confusion. One that has lost its original civilizing impulse and now bows to idols of gratification and satiation. When you define rampaging political agendas as minorities your constitution stands self destruct the nation.

The homosexual lobby has managed to gain the control of the lexicon of the debate, equating their situation with the struggle for human rights and equality. The problem is that all those religions including that of the West defines homosexuality as something you do, not something you are. And marriage as a defined legal institution, regulated by the state for the common good and in concordance with its religious antecedents. The primary statutory goal of marriage is the rearing of children in a safe, stable and loving structure.. something, obviously, of which the homosexual agenda has little interest, but which to the nation defines its destiny.

And that's where we find ourselves. Those constructive civilizing impulses that remain have been left defenseless by a constitution that arms those who are intent on bringing down its most central tenets and institutions.That's Trudeau's legacy.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 07:51 PM..
 

Similar Threads

36
Pierre Eliot Trudeau School Proposed Name In Calgary
by dumpthemonarchy | Jul 16th, 2012
90
Two articles on Trudeau' real legacy.
by CDNBear | Mar 19th, 2010
64
Pierre Elliot Trudeau Love or Hated Him ?
by Francis2004 | Jan 20th, 2010
2
A new Pierre Trudeau is born
by m_levesque | Jan 4th, 2007