The Legacy of Pierre Trudeau


Colpy
#31
Let's see, Pierre Elliot Trudeau:

- set out to destroy the Canadian military

- invoked martial law, imprisoning hundreds of people without charge or trial.

- alienated the west

- made it accepted for gov't to ignore Parliament (extended use ofOrder in Council, treated backbencherrs as "nobodies)

- set us on a course to massive debt (yes, Juan, I know Mulrooney was worse)

- undercut our contribution to NATO, alienating our allies, lessening our influence in the world.

- brought home the constitution without Quebec........alienating the Province and promoting separatism

- introduced the idiocy of cross-Canada bilingualism

I personally think Trudeau was one of the worst PMs we ever had....he radically changed the nature of the nation....for the worse, IMHO.

I love the (small "l") liberals that worship at the feet of Trudeau, forgetting that he threw hundreds in jail for month after month without trial or charge.....with no reason....no deaths, just three kidnappings. The same people think G. W. Bush is Satan because of his actions......after almost 3000 of his people were murdered.

Huh?????

Personally, I still intend to make a pilgrimage to the site of Trudeau's statue.....just to piss on his leg.

The two dominant figures of Canadian Liberalism in the 20th century.....W. L. King (certifiable) and P.E. Trudeau......

Geezus!
 
earth_as_one
#32
Trudeau on Language Rights
Re:Equality or Independence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeSZy...eature=related

Trudeau on Unreconciled Provinces
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIwqlft4DdY

Trudeau had the brains to back up his arrogance. Stupid arrogant people are far more annoying.

I am grateful for most of the changes Trudeau made.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
  • freedom of expression
  • the right to a democratic government
  • the right to live and to seek employment anywhere in Canada
  • legal rights of persons accused of crimes
  • Aboriginal peoples' rights
  • the right to equality, including the equality of men and women
  • the right to use either of Canada's official languages
  • the right of French and English linguistic minorities to an education in their language
  • the protection of Canada's multicultural heritage.
Multiculturalism
http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/pr...licy/act_e.cfm

Multiculturalism policy
3. (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada's future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada's multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

But we still haven't paid off the deficit which really began under his leadership...
 
earth_as_one
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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.

Canada has a not withstanding clause which allows legislation to temporarily violate the constitution.

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 freedom in the interests of the greatest good for the society at large. Something that minorities NEVER do.

The will of the majority is almost always self serving and as a result tends to trample on the rights of minorities. If we blindly maintained traditions we would still be holding inquistions and burning witches. At one time those were long held traditions supported by the majority.

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.

Prejudice and discrimination is alive and well in Canada. Ask any visible minority or Muslim. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives them the ability to fight for the same rights as everyone else.

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 its lost 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.

Either we have equal rights or we don't. In a free society either consenting adults have the right to declare legally who they love or they don't. Homosexual equality with heterosexuals isn't just about sexual gratification. Its also child custody, survivor benefits, division of property, tax breaks...

Who gets custody of a Lesbian's child? Her life partner and the only other parent the child has ever known, or the biological grandparents who have never seen the child and disapprove of homosexuality.

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 which is the rearing of children in a safe, stable and loving structure.. something, obviously, of which the homosexual agenda has little interest.

Marriage defines us as a couple. Equal rights means that both heterosexual and homosexual couples have this right and all its benefits. Inequality would mean excluding people.

That means that when a gay man dies his pension goes back to the government rather than to his gay partner of 30 years. Even though the gay man contributed just as much to the pension plan as straight people, his partner doesn't get a survivor pension, because he is a homosexual.

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.

What we are talking about is the legality and equality of relationships between consenting adults. Their sexuality is none of our business.

Can you explain how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms threatens you? Specifically what rights have you lost and how have you suffered as a result?
Last edited by earth_as_one; Aug 4th, 2008 at 10:15 AM..
 
jimmoyer
#34
the rearing of children in a safe, stable and loving structure.. something, obviously, of which the homosexual agenda has little interest.
------------------------------------------Coldstream---------------------------------------------

That statement begs more study.

If you're talking lesbians, then you might be wrong. There's a Supreme court issue arising in my town between two gay women fighting for custody. One from another state and one in here in this town Winchester VA.

If just gay guys you might be right. Men, whether hetero or homo, are more predatory and more the temporary conquistadors. Men also dominate prison populations. You might be amazed at how lopsided the figures are.

But this is just tangential to your other points.
 
coldstream
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

Either we have equal rights or we don't. In a free society consenting adults have the right to choose who they love or don't. Homosexual equality with heterosexuals isn't just about sexual gratification. Its also child custody, survivor benefits, division of property, tax breaks...

Who gets custody of a Lesbian's child? Her life partner and the only other parent the child has ever known, or the biological grandparents who have never seen the child and disapprove of homosexuality.

Homosexuality by definition is SOLEY about sexual gratification.. it is only heterosexuality that has the purpose of producing children. Quite frankly, i'd be willing to define a 'homosexual' household as one that is fundamentally abusive and detrimental to the welfare of the child, on the basis that it is one governed completely by sensual gratification, without moral and spiritual attributes. The paper thin logic of constitutions would never accept that because it can't adjudicate beyond superficial rights to address fundamental moral imperatives that a society has to. Those are ones that acknowledge good and evil, words that never appear in constitutions, but which are absolutely central to religions, and to the wellbeing of civilizations they spawn. It's those words that will define the destiny of any society, even one as small as a family.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 07:54 PM..
 
jimmoyer
#36
Homosexuality by definition is SOLEY about sexual gratification.
----------------------------------coldstream-----------------------------------------------

According to psychiatry, sexuality is the least amenable to behavioral modification.
That's why pedophiles always have the desire. They may learn discipline, but they'll never lose the desire. That's why heteros and homos remain what they are.
Some exceptions are younger girls who do more cross-experimentation.

Your statement assumes people are NOT born homo or hetero.
Back in the day when everyone lived in a closet, I wonder why anyone would have wanted to persue homosexual desires especially since society subjects such to derisive ridicule and joking.

I believe this is one of the last bastions of civil rights for us to understand.
 
earth_as_one
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer View Post

the rearing of children in a safe, stable and loving structure.. something, obviously, of which the homosexual agenda has little interest.
------------------------------------------Coldstream---------------------------------------------

That statement begs more study.

If you're talking lesbians, then you might be wrong. There's a Supreme court issue arising in my town between two gay women fighting for custody. One from another state and one in here in this town Winchester VA.

If just gay guys you might be right. Men, whether hetero or homo, are more predatory and more the temporary conquistadors. Men also dominate prison populations. You might be amazed at how lopsided the figures are.

But this is just tangential to your other points.

Blacks are also well represented in the US prison system. In Canada its people from first nations. Do you believe these minorities shouldn't be allowed to get married or have children?

I'm sure many gay people have been excellent parents and some heterosexual parents have made terrible parents. I believe that we should judge people based on their actions, rather than skin color or sexual orientation and that in a free society people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 
jimmoyer
#38
I'm sure many gay people have been excellent parents and some heterosexual parents have made terrible parents. I believe that we should judge people based on their actions, rather than skin color or sexual orientation and that in a free society people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

--------------------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------

Good points.

However this rational and good point of view has gotten us into trouble with pedophiles.

We have discovered that 2nd and 3rd chances and "working" with them do little to eradicate a central tendency. This is too bad for them and it is too bad for us. We wish that everyone get a chance to right themselves.

But we are starting to understand that pedophiles are truly resistant to behavior modification. The laws are starting to reflect that.
 
earth_as_one
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

Homosexuality by definition is SOLEY about sexual gratification.. it is only heterosexuality that has the purpose of producing children. Quite frankly, i'd be willing to define a 'homosexual' household as one that is fundamentally abusive and detrimental to the welfare of the child, on the basis that it is one governed completely by sensual gratification, without moral and spiritual attributes. The paper thin logic of constitutions would never accept that because it can't adjudicate beyond superficial rights to address fundamental moral imperatives that a society has to. Those are ones that acknowledge good and evil, words that never appear in constitutions, but which are absolutely central to religions, and to the wellbeing of civilizations they spawn. It's those words that will define the destiny of any society, even one as small as a family.


.. but i could be wrong.

Are you telling me you've never had sex except specifically for the purposes of procreation? Not even once... just for fun?

I'm glad Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect law abiding Canadians from self righteous people like you who assume people are abusive or an environment is detrimental to children based on the parent's sexuality.

ACLU
Quote:

Research Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting 1
All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation. Other key findings include:

  • There is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents.
  • Home environments with lesbian and gay parents are as likely to successfully support a child's development as those with heterosexual parents.
  • Good parenting is not influenced by sexual orientation. Rather, it is influenced most profoundly by a parent's ability to create a loving and nurturing home -- an ability that does not depend on whether a parent is gay or straight.
  • There is no evidence to suggest that the children of lesbian and gay parents are less intelligent, suffer from more problems, are less popular, or have lower self-esteem than children of heterosexual parents.
  • The children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as happy, healthy and well-adjusted as the children of heterosexual parents.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/1...s19990406.html

Hopefully other people here recognize CS's opinions about homosexuals are based on myths and stereotypes, not objective research.

CS's posts are good examples of why minorities need the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
earth_as_one
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer View Post

I'm sure many gay people have been excellent parents and some heterosexual parents have made terrible parents. I believe that we should judge people based on their actions, rather than skin color or sexual orientation and that in a free society people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

--------------------------------------------earth_as_one------------------------------------------

Good points.

However this rational and good point of view has gotten us into trouble with pedophiles.

We have discovered that 2nd and 3rd chances and "working" with them do little to eradicate a central tendency. This is too bad for them and it is too bad for us. We wish that everyone get a chance to right themselves.

But we are starting to understand that pedophiles are truly resistant to behavior modification. The laws are starting to reflect that.

If someone is a pedophile and has a history of abusing children, they should loose custody of their children. But there is no evidence that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

University of California
Quote:

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

...The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes...

...In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (199 similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority. Indeed, a commentary that accompanied publication of the 1994 study by Jenny et al. in Pediatrics noted that debates about gay people as molesters "have little to do with everyday child abuse" and lamented that they distract lawmakers and the public from dealing with the real problem of children's sexual mistreatment (Krugman, 1994)...

...The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children...

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Pierre Trudeau Quotes:

Quote:

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.


Canada will be a strong country when Canadians of all provinces feel at home in all parts of the country, and when they feel that all Canada belongs to them.


I bear solemn witness to the fact that NATO heads of state and of government meet only to go through the tedious motions of reading speeches, drafted by others, with the principal objective of not rocking the boat.


Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.


Luck, that's when preparation and opportunity meet.


My life is one long curve, full of turning points.


The essential ingredient of politics is timing.


We wish nothing more, but we will accept nothing less. Masters in our own house we must be, but our house is the whole of Canada.

 
coldstream
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

Are you telling me you've never had sex except specifically for the purposes of procreation? Not even once... just for fun?

I'm glad Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect law abiding Canadians from self righteous people like you who assume people are abusive or an environment is detrimental to children based on the parent's sexuality.

ACLU


Hopefully other people here recognize CS's opinions about homosexuals are based on myths and stereotypes, not objective research.

CS's posts are good examples of why minorities need the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lots of people sew their wild oats.. that's life, even outside the context of marriage. But to state there is no difference between hetero and homo sexuality would be a sad ignorance of reality. This is homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey

They are different at their most fundamental impulse. Nothing, no political verbiage, no high sounding constitutional principles will change that core fact.

And Jim, i have no confidence in Psychiatric or Psychological Societies, which have gone in one generation from recognizing homosexuality as a psychological pathology, with profoundly negative implications to over all mental health, to saying it is the natural state of things. Leaving many who are deeply distressed by their homosexual compulsions with no where to turn even though there are proven treatments. They are told to get used to how they are.

Those associations have capitulated to the homosexual agenda which has developed into the most powerful political lobby in the West, moving into the vacuum that has been left by the abandonment of religion and an objective sense of good and evil as the basis for our society to one of a purely subjective notion 'individual rights' free from any responsibility to the wider community, and a wasteland of political sophistry to support it.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 4th, 2008 at 07:39 PM..
 
Kreskin
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer View Post

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.

Perhaps I'm just as out of sync on religious benefits and deeds as the many religious who are intolerant with certain minority groups and other personal rights issues. The document protects religion from people like me just as it protects others from less tolerant people like them.
 
earth_as_one
#43
Thankfully the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects homosexuals from people like CS who would deny them the same rights as everyone else. If people like CS had their way, homosexuals would loose custody of their children and be locked up indefinitely as dangerous offenders.

Quote:

1965:

Everett Klippert acknowledges to police that he is gay, has had sex with men over a 24-year period, and is unlikely to change. In 1967, Klippert is sent to prison indefinitely as a "dangerous sex offender," a sentence which was backed up by the Supreme Court of Canada that same year.
Dec. 22, 1967:


Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau proposes amendments to the Criminal Code which, among other things, would relax the laws against homosexuality. Discussing the amendments Trudeau says,

Pierre Trudeau
"It's certainly the most extensive revision of the Criminal Code since the 1950s and, in terms of the subject matter it deals with, I feel that it has knocked down a lot of totems and over-ridden a lot of taboos and I feel that in that sense it is new. It's bringing the laws of the land up to contemporary society I think. Take this thing on homosexuality. I think the view we take here is that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I think that what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public this is a different matter, or when it relates to minors this is a different matter."
1969:

Trudeau's amendments pass into the Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality in Canada.
July 20, 1971:

Everett Klippert is released.

....

1991:

Delwin Vriend, a lab instructor at King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta, is fired from his job because he is gay. The Alberta Human Rights Commission refuses to investigate the case because the Alberta Individual Rights Protection Act does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.

....

Feb. 23, 1993:

In the Mossop case, the Supreme Court of Canada rules that the denial of bereavement leave to a gay partner is not discrimination based on family status defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

...

May 1995:

The Supreme Court rules on the case involving Jim Egan and Jack Nesbit, two gay men who sued Ottawa for the right to claim a spousal pension under the Old Age Security Act. The Court rules against Egan and Nesbit. However, all nine judges agree that sexual orientation is a protected ground and that protection extends to partnerships of lesbians and gay men.
May 1995:

An Ontario Court judge finds that the Child and Family Services Act of Ontario infringes Section 15 of the Charter by not allowing same-sex couples to bring a joint application for adoption. He rules that four lesbians have the right to adopt their partners' children. Ontario becomes the first province to make it legal for same-sex couples to adopt.

....

May 1999:

The Supreme Court of Canada rules same-sex couples should have the same benefits and obligations as opposite-sex common-law couples and equal access to benefits from social programs to which they contribute.
The ruling centred on the "M v. H" case which involved two Toronto women who had lived together for more than a decade. When the couple broke up in 1992, "M" sued "H" for spousal support under Ontario's Family Law Act. The problem was that the act defined "spouse" as either a married couple or "a man and woman" who are unmarried and have lived together for no less than three years.

....

On April 11, 2000, Parliament passes Bill C-23, with a vote of 174 to 72. The legislation gives same-sex couples the same social and tax benefits as heterosexuals in common-law relationships.
In total, the bill affects 68 federal statutes relating to a wide range of issues such as pension benefits, old age security, income tax deductions, bankruptcy protection and the Criminal Code. The definitions of "marriage" and "spouse" are left untouched but the definition of "common-law relationship" is expanded to include same-sex couples.

...

May 10, 2002:

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert McKinnon rules that a gay student has the right to take his boyfriend to the prom.
Earlier, the Durham Catholic District School Board said student Marc Hall couldn't bring his 21-year-old boyfriend to the dance at Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic high school in Oshawa. Officials acknowledge that Hall has the right to be gay, but said permitting the date would send a message that the Church supports his "homosexual lifestyle." Hall went to the prom.

...

Sept. 9, 2003:

A gay and lesbian group goes to trial against the federal government in an attempt to force Ottawa to extend survivor benefits to excluded gays and lesbians. Gay and lesbian partners - pursuing Canadian Pension Plan benefits from their deceased partners - say the federal government is discriminating against them and have filed a $400-million class-action suit.

....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sa...ne_canada.html

The "homosexual agenda" is to have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

Personally I have a "Don't piss on my boots" philosophy. Do you what you like as long as it doesn't harm others. There is no evidence that homosexuals make worse parents than heterosexuals.
 
dj03
#44
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.

It was late and I was grumpy, to be fair there were other groups, like the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Bar Association (enlightened secularists...well, there were religious people in those groups as well) back in 1977 who were also pushing for gay rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act, but I am getting tired of people ignoring the positive impacts that religion has on this country. Many commentators have questioned where gay rights would be right now if the largest and most influential protestant denomination had not taken a leadership role on this issue early on.
 
jimmoyer
#45
And Jim, i have no confidence in Psychiatric or Psychological Societies, which have gone in one generation from recognizing homosexuality as a psychological pathology, with profoundly negative implications to over all mental health, to saying it is the natural state of things.

Leaving many who are deeply distressed by their homosexual compulsions with no where to turn even though there are proven treatments. They are told to get used to how they are.
----------------------------------------Coldstream-----------------------------------------------------

That first sentence is a fallacy of logic. Like sylogisms are a fallacy, so is the rationale that says if the same person was wrong before, how could they be right now ?

Most disciplines follow the prevailing zeitgeist. Psychology was wrong then. Not now.

Also I'd like to suggest you observe or think more on this matter. Might you not wonder you never had impulses or turned on by a member of the same sex? Can you automatically attribute that to upbringing? I've never had a sexual desire for the same gender. Is that because of my upbringing? There are studies of hetero parents whose first 3 sons were hetero but the 4th was homo. Is that because the last one receives the least attention?
Or what about the influence of the older brothers?

But even still you gotta wonder why people would willingly risk being the butt of a joke back in the recent past?

I don't think sexual desire is a logical choice.
 
talloola
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

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.

That's right, we do not want a political group putting handcuffs on all of us, because of
their personal choices, or, as you say, which way the wind is blowing.
 
coldstream
#47
earth as one

1965:


Everett Klippert acknowledges to police that he is gay, has had sex with men over a 24-year period, and is unlikely to change. In 1967, Klippert is sent to prison indefinitely as a "dangerous sex offender," a sentence which was backed up by the Supreme Court of Canada that same year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is a big difference between recognizing homosexuality a psychological and moral pathology, and criminalizing it (at least between consenting adults). In Islamic countries it can lead to execution, as can adultery. Homosexuality is a phenomenon that has always been with us. We should be concerned though if when lose sight of it as a condition that is fundamentally degrading to the human condition. That it is a willful choice to practice it, with profound implications for one's mental and physical health. That it is not 'natural' or genetic. It could well have psychological predispositions, as can violence or lawlessness, but that should in no way condone it. We should no more give 'rights' to someone afflicted with homosexuality, which comprise special rights by way of a predisposition to a BEHAVIOUR, than someone who is prone to violence or any form of lawlessness.
 
Colpy
#48
Personally, I think getting the State out of the bedrooms of the nation, and easing the penalties for possession and use of cannibis products were about the only worthwhile things Trudeau ever did.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

In PET's case twice in 16 years.
 
Kreskin
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

There is a big difference between recognizing homosexuality a psychological and moral pathology, and criminalizing it (at least between consenting adults). In Islamic countries it can lead to execution, as can adultery. Homosexuality is a phenomenon that has always been with us. We should be concerned though if when lose sight of it as a condition that is fundamentally degrading to the human condition. That it is a willful choice to practice it, with profound implications for one's mental and physical health. That it is not 'natural' or genetic. It could well have psychological predispositions, as can violence or lawlessness, but that should in no way condone it. We should no more give 'rights' to someone afflicted with homosexuality, which comprise special rights by way of a predisposition to a BEHAVIOUR, than someone who is prone to violence or any form of lawlessness.

I suspect you aren't an expert on sexuality. Everyone is naive, ignorant, and prejudicial about something, even things they have strong opinions of. I am , you are, we all are. I am completely ignorant about homosexuality, as you likely are too. But last I looked I've never had my rights taken away by homosexuals, and I'll bet my last dollar you haven't either, so why would you or I care if they want their own rights protected?
 
jimmoyer
#50
There is a big difference between recognizing homosexuality a psychological and moral pathology, and criminalizing it (at least between consenting adults). In Islamic countries it can lead to execution, as can adultery. Homosexuality is a phenomenon that has always been with us. We should be concerned though if when lose sight of it as a condition that is fundamentally degrading to the human condition. That it is a willful choice to practice it, with profound implications for one's mental and physical health. That it is not 'natural' or genetic. It could well have psychological predispositions, as can violence or lawlessness, but that should in no way condone it. We should no more give 'rights' to someone afflicted with homosexuality, which comprise special rights by way of a predisposition to a BEHAVIOUR, than someone who is prone to violence or any form of lawlessness
----------------------------------------Coldstream---------------------------------------------------------

You're on to something here. It might explain your tenacity of holding to your opinion.

But what you're on to here, is a behavior known as sexual addiction or sexual predatory behavior. This is a condition known to all genders and to all sexual proclivities.

It is sexual addiction or compulsion or sexual predatory behavior is really what you are describing. Great pain on the part of the perpertator and victims is what is going on.

That's why your concern on just homosexual behavior is selectively misplaced.

I can tell you stories.

But I'll bet you the women can really tell the stories.

The stats on women being pressured, raped, abused is a silent epidemic. I'll bet you that one out of 4 women will nod their heads with personal experience.
 
Tonington
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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.

It is unconstitutional. The Charter clearly states that all Canadians are:

Quote:

equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

Quote:

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.

They sure did.

Quote:

Many or most of the parliamentarians, though, cited the court ruling as authoritative in their decision,

It was. Parliament is bound by the Charter. They can't arbitrarily make laws that are in conflict with the Charter. Most democracies have some principle document that governs the governing politicians.

Quote:

This ideal of an impartial, intellectually competent and wise judiciary is a complete fiction.

Bull$hit. That's just your ideology talking.

So, how would you interpret this sentence?

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.

Where in there do you see anything that says it is acceptable to allow only marriages between men and women?
 
lone wolf
#52
I suppose with the changing times and the throw-away society, it was inevitable. All the same, it was Pierre the bachelor PM at the helm when the Divorce Act was changed so it got a lot easier to run away that it was to fix an ailing marriage. Now, look at all the mixed-up kids and the wounded adults we have piddling in one household after another. Isn't it ironic that his marriage with Crazy Maggie fell apart too....
Last edited by lone wolf; Aug 4th, 2008 at 10:36 PM..
 
scratch
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

I suppose with the changing times and the throw-away society, it was inevitable. All the same, it was Pierre the bachelor PM at the helm when the Divorce Act was changed so it got a lot easier to run away that in was to fix an ailing marriage. Now, look at all the mixed-up kids and the wounded adults we have piddling in one household after another. Isn't it ironic that his marriage with Crazy Maggie fell apart too....

It was a marriage of convenience and big bucks.
 
coldstream
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post


Where in there do you see anything that says it is acceptable to allow only marriages between men and women?

God said it, you just weren't listening, Tonnington, and this constitution, as applied, makes absolutely no allowance for God.. or natural law, which accepts Him as its Creator. Before marriage was a civil institution it was sacred one, and He doesn't want it turned into an absurdity. In that way the Charter, or at least the way it is being interpreted, is a document of amazing arrogance in its assertion that man's (okay humans', to be politically correct) powers of intellect in fact supersede those of that which created him.. as manifested in those beliefs that spawned and sustained the society we live in.

The Charter reflects the Deist bent of its model in the U.S. Constitution.. but has been applied in an even more aggressively anti theistic (atheistic) way. There's no equal justice before the law the way the Charter is being applied. Its application is blatantly biased towards new age, post structural, post Christian 'morality'. Something, that in the 2000 years of Western Civilization has only gotten real ascendancy in the last 30 years.

Parliament is actually not bound by the Judiciary's interpretation of Charter. It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, regardless of what the courts say, through the use of the NWC and the consultation of people of Canada. It is the courts that feel they are too august to be bound by any consultation with their 'inferiors'. The courts now reign from a world of self contained sophistry, beyond good and evil; far too proud to be constrained by responsibility to a 'figment of the primitive imagination' that the less enlightened call God. It is a franchise of absolute power they have been deeded by default of Parliament and paraphrasing Lord Acton, they have been corrupted, absolutely.

The sad sack lot of parliamentarians we have now, have not the wherewithal or gristle to do stand in their way. They allow themselves to be led the courts, who have, in many cases proven themselves to be complete dolts in recent years. We have moved into a realm of the total conceit of these courts.. and we are in a death spiral as a society because of it. The media, the educational establishment has unwaveringly proselytized this brave new world to the point where anyone who speaks against it is subject to ridicule, banishment, if not imprisonment... yet.

I frankly expect a civilizational collapse of the West at this rate, and a new Dark Age.. like, but much more catastrophic than that which followed the fall of the Pax Romana .. with massive depopulation, retreat of technology, incessant conflict, subsistence economies.. here, in North America and Europe.. spanning centuries.

I expect we'll be fully involved with that, within our lifetimes. We are seeing repeated shocks now that presage a series of mammoth destructive events in the economy, and in society in general.. it's all interrelated. The glue that has bonded us is dissolving.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 5th, 2008 at 09:30 AM..
 
Tonington
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

God said it, you just weren't listening, Tonnington, and this constitution makes absolutely no allowance for God.. or natural law, which accepts Him as its Creator.

Of course I wasn't because he's never talked to me before.

That has nothing to do with your tirade against the evil judges and inept MP's who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

My point stands I guess. You have nothing that says it's unconstitutional for the Judicial branch of our government to make rulings in the spirit of our legal document with the most primacy.

This is a secular country. Good luck trying to enforce your moral standards onto anyone else's personal life and business.

Not all Canadians accept Him as our creator.

If you're looking for a theocracy you should try the mid-east area. All the god filled laws a man like you could love...

Quote:

The Charter reflects the Deist bent of its model in the U.S. Constitution.. but has been applied in an even more aggressively anti theistic (atheistic) way. There's no equal justice before the law the way the Charter is being applied. Its application is blatantly biased towards new age, post structural, post Christian 'morality'. Something, that in the 2000 years of Western Civilization has only gotten real ascendancy in the last 30 years.

You sound like a cry baby. No body is forcing you to marry a man. Nobody is denying you your right to conscience and belief. Imagine how up in arms you'd be if that right were taken away from you by a larger group.

A Charter or Constitution exists for many reasons. One of them is to prevent the kind of mob rule and moral superiority that people like you would hoist on the rest of us

Quote:

Parliament is actually not bound by the Judiciary's interpretation of Charter.

Of course it is. The Judiciary interprets the laws they write. If the laws they write don't pass muster, they're shot down, as the Supreme Court has done on several occasions. That's why the notwithstanding clause requires an Act of Parliament to use. Our freedoms are entrenched otherwise, so the Government is bound by Judicial interpretation.

Quote:

It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, regardless of what the courts say, through the use of the NWC and the consultation of people of Canada.

I don't think you understand what our Charter says, or how the notwithstanding clause can be used. The NWC as you call it can only be used on certain sections of the Charter. That and your first staement I quoted. Makes no allowances for God? Have you even read it? Try the first line.

Your statement should read:

It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, that are satisfied by constitutional law.
 
dj03
#56
Quote:

Schedule B
Constitution Act, 1982 Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982

PART I
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms

This is the start of the Charter, note what it says just below PART I.

I'd hardly call that atheistic.
 
talloola
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

God said it, you just weren't listening, Tonnington, and this constitution makes absolutely no allowance for God.. or natural law, which accepts Him as its Creator. Before marriage was a civil institution it was sacred one, and He doesn't want it turned into an absurdity. In that way the Charter, or at least the way it is being interpreted, is a document of amazing arrogance in its assertion that man's (okay humans', to be politically correct) powers of intellect in fact supersede those of that which created him.. manifested in those beliefs that spawned and sustained the society we live in.

The Charter reflects the Deist bent of its model in the U.S. Constitution.. but has been applied in an even more aggressively anti theistic (atheistic) way. There's no equal justice before the law the way the Charter is being applied. Its application is blatantly biased towards new age, post structural, post Christian 'morality'. Something, that in the 2000 years of Western Civilization has only gotten real ascendancy in the last 30 years.

Parliament is actually not bound by the Judiciary's interpretation of Charter. It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, regardless of what the courts say, through the use of the NWC and the consultation of people of Canada. It is the courts that feel they are too august to be bound by any consultation with their 'inferiors'. The courts now reign from a world of self contained sophistry, beyond good and evil; far too proud to be constrained by responsibility to a 'figment of the primitive imagination' that the less enlightened call God. It is a franchise of absolute power they have been deeded by default of Parliament and paraphrasing Lord Acton, they have been corrupted, absolutely.

The sad sack lot of parliamentarians we have now, have not the wherewithal or gristle to do stand in their way. They allow themselves to be led the courts, who have, in many cases proven themselves to be complete dolts in recent years. We have moved into a realm of the total conceit of these courts.. and we are in a death spiral as a society because of it. The media, the educational establishment has unwaveringly proselytized this brave new world to the point where anyone who speaks against it is subject to ridicule, banishment, if not imprisonment... yet.

I frankly expect a civilizational collapse of the West at this rate, and a new Dark Age.. like, but much more catastrophic than that which followed the fall of the Pax Romana .. with massive depopulation, retreat of technology, incessant conflict, subsistence economies.. here, in North America and Europe.. spanning centuries.

I expect we'll be fully involved with that, within our lifetimes. We are seeing repeated shocks now that presage a series of mammoth destructive events in the economy, and in society in general.. it's all interrelated. It's a matter of time now before everything starts to fall apart, the glue that has bonded us is dissolving.

The religious should not try to 'push' their beliefs into our government, as their
position belongs to them, they are free to believe as they wish, and others are free
to 'not' believe, the government is for 'all' of the people, not 'just' the religious, and
the government should not be 'making' laws in their favour, or, in anyone else's either.
The people are 'free', to live as they wish inside of the laws of the land.
That word 'FREEDOM' is so very precious, just look around the world, especially in the islamic
countries, where the people cannot and are not allowed to 'think' for themselves, or be free
to live as they want.
We should 'cherish' our freedom, and not ever let it go.
 
coldstream
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

This is the start of the Charter, note what it says just below PART I

Schedule B
Constitution Act, 1982 Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982

PART I
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

I'd hardly call that atheistic.

I'm afraid the courts now deem God to be of the Cosmic Muffin variety, certainly not on a par with their own sublime wisdom. The result is that they rule as if there is no God.

From Tonnington

I don't think you understand what our Charter says, or how the notwithstanding clause can be used. The NWC as you call it can only be used on certain sections of the Charter

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NWC can be used on most sections of the Charter. It cannot be used on sections of the Constitution which define separation of powers between the provinces and federal government, realms of privileges, powers and limitations of powers of the branches of government defined in its structural clauses, mobility rights, voting rights, language rights. In theory, but not practice, Parliament can assert its sovereignty on all aspects of social institutions and conventions that have been discussed here.. such as marriage, that are within its realm of privilege.

and

A Charter or Constitution exists for many reasons. One of them is to prevent the kind of mob rule and moral superiority that people like you would hoist on the rest of us

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pot, kettle, black.. the courts are the ones who are in mob rule now, and cast mob 'justice' about now as they see fit. At least in my best case, the Parliament is ultimately responsible to the people of Canada to adjudge the iteration between 'theocracy' and chaos in the interests of good government, a stable society and individual freedom. None of those limitations apply to the courts, and their moral superiority is without any constraints.. and they have proven, that they are far too mediocre, in character and intellect, to resist the corrupting influence of that type of power.
Last edited by coldstream; Aug 5th, 2008 at 10:22 PM..Reason: refine sections of Charter applicable to NWC
 
Kreskin
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by dj03 View Post

This is the start of the Charter, note what it says just below PART I.

I'd hardly call that atheistic.

What does "principles that recognize the supremacy of God " mean?
 
scratch
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

What does "principles that recognize the supremacy of God " mean?


Actually the Charter is "really not legal" as there is a missing signee.
 

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