The Legacy of Pierre Trudeau

[coldstream]

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.

 

[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.

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]

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.

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/samesexrights/timeline_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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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

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.

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.

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]

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....

 

[scratch]

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]

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.

 

[Tonington]

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...

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

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.

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]

Schedule B
Constitution Act, 1982 [SIZE=-2]Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]PART I[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Canadian charter of rights and freedoms[/SIZE]
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms​

[SIZE=-2]Rights and freedoms in Canada[/SIZE] 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]

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]

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

Schedule B
Constitution Act, 1982 [SIZE=-2]Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]PART I[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Canadian charter of rights and freedoms[/SIZE]
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.

 

[Kreskin]

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]

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

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