• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Someone needs to take the microphone away from the Cons

Sorry I have forgotten those.  Could you be so kind to give a quick refresh.
 
Ahhh,

Did you already forget Liberal MP Scott Reid's "beer & popcorn" remarks?? Not really racist, unless of course you're a low income earner in this country. Sure as hell offensive though.

Then again, how long has it been since that Liberal PM flipped the bird to the west ... ? Heck, I was just a kid , but I remember seeing good old PET and his mid-finger salute gracing the front page of Der Kanadier.

That's still got to take top spot for notoriety. Something to be proud of, of that I'm quite sure.  ::)
 
http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex20010327.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/11/daycare051211.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/02/27/parrish030227.html

Edited to add:

ArmyVern said:
Ahhh,

Did you already forget Liberal MP Scott Reid's "beer & popcorn" remarks?? Not really racist, unless of course you're a low income earner in this country. Sure as hell offensive though.
Click to expand...

Not racist, but definitely classist.
 
>The Liberal implemented f Charter or Rights and Freedoms promotes individual and human rights,

The Charter didn't really add meaningfully to individual rights in Canada which were already well enough protected, but it did enshrine excuses for infringing those rights.
 
The Charter didn't really add meaningfully to individual rights in Canada which were already well enough protected, but it did enshrine excuses for infringing those rights.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
Section 15(2) ring a bell?

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Click to expand...
 
Brad Sallows said:
The Charter didn't really add meaningfully to individual rights in Canada which were already well enough protected, but it did enshrine excuses for infringing those rights.
Click to expand...

Is that a personal or professional opinion?  There are a lot of people out there who would disagree with you...
 
Is that a personal or professional opinion?  There are a lot of people out there who would disagree with you...
Click to expand...

I fully concur.  More empirical evidence is needed. 

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Click to expand...

You forgot Section 15 (1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection 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.

What's wrong with this? I don't think discrimination on either of those are bad-but hey you are entitled to your opinion as guaranteed under the Charter?

Section 15 (2) means that if the CF for instance wants to recruit more Muslim women and places higher value on them than the plurality of white males when they recruit, that white males would be unable to take legal action as the CF would attempt to increase the representation of underrepresented groups.
 
Section 15 (1) would be better is it was amended as follows:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection 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.
 
digression :

I would have thought that they had put "sexual orientation" in the pot ...
 
Mr. Campbell-Works for me.  The later part is redundant.  But some lawyer probably got a ridiculous wage to 'write' it the way it is now. 

digression :

I would have thought that they had put "sexual orientation" in the pot ...
Click to expand...

The Supreme Canada 'read' sexual orientation in the Alberta Bill of Rights in Vriend- I am not sure about the federal precedents but sexual orientation may on occasion have been 'read' into Section 15 of Charter.
 
another digression :

Isn't the "equal before and under the law" untrue for mental disability, as parents of intellectual handicap children
can make decisions contrary to the person wishes (contraception or other) ? 
 
In those instance those poor folks are not considered mentally competent.  It happens for people who have gone crazy they can be committed against their will for the same reasons.  The state has coercive powers where the Charter has no effect.  For instance, if you commit a crime and go to jail that really hampers your mobility rights under the Charter, but you cannot sue the government for violating your Charter rights.
 
Then "equal before and under the law" IS untrue for mental disability . They should change the chart or the judgments ...
(almost kidding, it would be nightmarish)
 
Yrys said:
digression:  I would have thought that they had put "sexual orientation" in the pot ...
Click to expand...

I was informed by more learned persons on this subject that there wasnt enough political support at the time, but that could be just heresay.  Same sources said that the disability part was thrown in at the last minute...

 
Yrys said:
another digression :

Isn't the "equal before and under the law" untrue for mental disability, as parents of intellectual handicap children
can make decisions contrary to the person wishes (contraception or other) ? 
Click to expand...

What Stegner said, plus: that's one of the reasons we should have clear, concise language in our Charter of Rights. Our fundamental, natural rights must be unambiguous and equally applicable to all. The general statement at the beginning of the Charter that allows rights, even fundamental rights, to be limited by practices which are demonstrably justified in a "free and democratic" society takes care of the very few necessary exceptions.

Trudeau, Chrétien and the lawyers who drafted the Charter were guilt of two major errors:

1. The codified group rights, that are abominations in a liberal democracy; and

2. For partisan, domestic political reasons, they tried to pander to groups by singling them out in the Charter – apparently at the expense of others.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Trudeau, Chrétien and the lawyers who drafted the Charter were guilt of two major errors:

1. They codified group rights, that are abominations in a liberal democracy; and
Click to expand...
I just finished up my CF and Modern Society OPME.  Liberal Democracy, the study of, C1A1, was a main point in the course (Schwerpunkt, one may say).  GROUP rights have no place within a liberal democracy
For those who think that liberal democracy means voting for Stephane Dion, it basically states what is alluded to here.  The INDIVIDUAL has rights.  Even if the majority voted to suppress the rights of any person, the result of that vote would be nullified, given that rights of an INDIVIDUAL were suppressed.  "Majority Rules", but not at the expense of any individual's rights (I am NOT talking about privelages)
 
stegner said:
You forgot Section 15 (1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection 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.
Click to expand...
No I didn't  The Bill of Rights already in existance already prohibited discrimination based upon race, national origin, colour, religion or sex.  While the addition of age, mental or physical disabiilty prohibitions are nice they pale in comparison to the magnitude of the changes brought about by enshrining the ability to discriminate based upon race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability due to something as abstract as the "amelioration of disadvantaged individuals or groups".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top