Grits' Leadership Forum Format Announced

[Jay]

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.

 

[FiveParadox]

Yes... that's the notwithstanding clause.

Care to mention why you've posted it?

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Grits' Leadership Forum Format Announced

I take it you must think the Charter is regressive then

I don't think that our Constitution Act, 1982 is "regressive" as you seem to suggest.

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.

Yes... that's the notwithstanding clause.

Care to mention why you've posted it?

I think it is as plain as day why I posted that.

 

[FiveParadox]

I'll think about it more once my head stops hurting.

In the meantime, a member need not be an ass to further their points.

 

[gc]

Re: RE: Grits' Leadership Forum Format Announced

I don't think the format is going to be that complex. The explanation above is rather simplistic; the entire forum should take no more than about two hours. I'm going to watch — I can give two hours of my time for something such as this. It is going to be interesting: It is going to be my first time watching a leadership debate for a party.

Is the debate going to be televised? I looked through my tv guide on that date and couldn't find anything. It would be interesting to watch.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: RE: Grits' Leadership Forum Format Announced

gc[/i]]Is the debate going to be televised? I looked through my tv guide on that date and couldn't find anything. It would be interesting to watch.

It is indeed.

On Saturday, between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. (CDT), on CPAC (and, on some cable news networks), the forum is to be broadcast live. I have noticed that CPAC has a tendency to submit outdated or incomplete program information to cable and satellite providers, so I would not be surprised if one cannot come across the correct time in their television guides or on-line guides.

:?: Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Liberal Party of Canada.

 

[Swifty]

Re: RE: Grits' Leadership Forum Format Announced

I doubt that Mr. Brison, for one, would return to a party that doesn't think he should have the right to marry — that would be quite an odd thing to do, indeed. It was due to their regressive stance on social policy that Mr. Brison decided to leave that party in the first place; and the people approved.

Gays already have the right to marry,the issue is about changing the definition(Wording).

You act as if all Conservative voters are all Hate mongers towards the Gay Community which is absolute nonsense.

The Honourable John Baird "President of the Treasury Board" is Gay,the party didn't seem to have a problem with electing him.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=48

What I get tired of is when some Gays always where there sexual orientation on there sleeve to suit some political agenda.
It's a sexual preference,who cares.

 

[FiveParadox]

Swifty, I don't care to mention my own "orientation" particularly often. However, on this matter, I do think that it is quite appropriate, so that perhaps the membership can understand where I am coming from. I am not trying to use the fact that I am gay to coherse anyone into accepting my opinion, as you would seem to suggest.

And this is an important issue: If the motion put forth by the Government of Canada is indeed adopted, then the Civil Marriage Act may be overturned — and in the event of that happening, then gays and lesbians would again be deemed to be less-than our heterosexual friends, in terms of the recognition of relationships for lawful purposes.

 

[Swifty]

Swifty, I don't care to mention my own "orientation" particularly often. However, on this matter, I do think that it is quite appropriate, so that perhaps the membership can understand where I am coming from. I am not trying to use the fact that I am gay to coherse anyone into accepting my opinion, as you would seem to suggest.

And this is an important issue: If the motion put forth by the Government of Canada is indeed adopted, then the Civil Marriage Act may be overturned — and in the event of that happening, then gays and lesbians would again be deemed to be less-than our heterosexual friends, in terms of the recognition of relationships for lawful purposes.

The Gay marriage is already recognized by law through the courts and the Government.
Should Gays be able to get married in a Christian or Jewish church if there denied it by the church or synagogue ?
What about a Gay couple getting married in a mosque (a place of worship for followers of the Islamic faith).

Does this change of the definition of marriage debate to appease a minority(3 %) in Canada, supercede all the rights of all these Religious institutions(Which make up millions of members) ?



Anyways were getting off topic.My problem with Scott Brison is he stood up day after day in the house and defended the sponsorship scandal for paul martin, and his libranos.And then to leak that info to bay street on Income Trusts, then deny it up until the end, paints a true picture of Scott Brison Imho.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is Gay.
BTW I helped campaign for John Baird last election.

 

[Jersay]

I don't care and most people in Canada don't care for these Liberal contenders because there is no one good pick in any of them. They are transitional leaders, even though Harper is a moron, he would be able to go through all of them if his propoganda machine was well oiled.

 

[Jay]

And this is an important issue: If the motion put forth by the Government of Canada is indeed adopted, then the Civil Marriage Act may be overturned — and in the event of that happening, then gays and lesbians would again be deemed to be less-than our heterosexual friends, in terms of the recognition of relationships for lawful purposes.

Unless we have "civil partnership laws" as requested by many Canadians...it is the lack of compromise that is the real issue.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Gay marriage is already recognized by law through the courts and the Government.
Should Gays be able to get married in a Christian or Jewish church if there denied it by the church or synagogue ?
What about a Gay couple getting married in a mosque (a place of worship for followers of the Islamic faith).

I don't understand the above arguments.

The Civil Marriage Act, through the provision of Section 3, provides that religious institutions are not to be required to perform or celebrate marriages that would be contrary to their beliefs. To that end, if a mosque, synagogue or church agrees to perform a same-sex marriage, then that is their prerogative — just as it would be their prerogative to refuse to do the same.

Civil Marriage Act[/i]]3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Click here to read the entire Act.
Cliquetez içi pour lire la loi entière.

Swifty[/i]]Anyways were getting off topic.My problem with Scott Brison is he stood up day after day in the house and defended the sponsorship scandal for paul martin, and his libranos.And then to leak that info to bay street on Income Trusts, then deny it up until the end, paints a true picture of Scott Brison Imho.

Unless I am mistaken, it was never proven that The Honourable Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., the Member for Kings—Hants, had leaked information with any degree of intent to do so. I don't take issue with that particular situation — if the Conservative Party of Canada cared as much about these sorts of issues as they would like to contend, then there would be a thorough investigation of the leak of the report from Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada — on which there has been no action from this Government.