Justin Trudeau

[peckinpahhombre]

No, it was part of the point. We do have balanced income redistribution through taxation. The key is that it is balanced - that is we balance income redistribution objectives (i.e. primarily government programs) with a level of taxation that is not so draconian as to stifle productivity and a growing economy. That is how we have done so well of late and why we have the weathiest middle class in the world, all under Harper's ten-year watch. So I have no issue with a reasonable level of progressive taxation. European countries redistribute wealth much more than we do and yet out middle class rules the world in prosperity. Why? Balance. The concept of balance will soon be leaving the equation though.
dress, by the way, I hope you realize that Canada does not have any concept of the separation of church and state enshrined in our constitution. In fact, our Head of State, the Queen, is also the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. Catholic and protestant education rights are also enshrined in the constitution.

 

[elbert]

Ah, my mistake. In any case I did find the article to be an interesting read.

 

[andrew]

Andy, that has got to be one of the most disturbing images I have seen. Where in the hell did you dig that up from?

Google image search.
Peck makes alot of good points in his posts in this thread. I never understood the anti-Harper crowd, I was one of those people who would be like "Okay tell me what is so bad about him?" And you'd hear regurgitation of extreme left wing idealogy blogging stories someone had read. You could never reason with them, Harper was bad. I think Peck is right that he didn't have charisma, but damn, I'm seriously worried right now, and I would be in the under 40k a year crowd that appreciated stuff like increased tfsa room and saw the benefits of it. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, but yeah I think alot of people voted for pot, plus alot of people strategically voted to get Harper out, not on the principles of a party that they agreed with, simply voted with the crowd because some website told them their best bet to out Harper would be the liberal vote. I thought the Conservatives had done a good job and would loved to of seen how low the dollar would have gone under another party at the same time.

 

[deathmetal]

we (as human beings) will never reach perfection in creating a safe society but we should always strive to.

I don't think that's a good idea to attempt. Utopia = dystopia.
The American method is that your middle class has less equality, but more buying power.

 

[northernneil]

Economically, Harper had it nailed. Unfortunately, when it came to the bigoted islamaphobia that he had been spinning, a person must ask when you have to draw the line.
There have been many comments about freedoms being lost with the Conservative government being taken out of power, but it was Harper who wanted to increase the ability of CSIS to "monitor" Canadians for threats of terrorism. To me, this is the actual threat to our freedom.

 

[andrew]

Liberals support bill C-51 as well.

 

[northernneil]

Oh I know! I should be clear, I don't necessarily support Trudeau or the Liberals.

 

[drezz01]

dress, by the way, I hope you realize that Canada does not have any concept of the separation of church and state ...

Yup this is true, not that I support it. We have a freedom of religion which encompasses a freedom from religion, but it's not the same. You're correct. Anecdotally, it seems to me the G word gets thrown around in american politics more than Canadian politics - with the exception of Mr Harper that is. This could be why it stood out to me. Of course this is anecdotal and of course our charter of rights and freedoms opens by announcing the supremacy of God. Again, don't agree with it, however.
Our politics may differ but I sure appreciate the strong points you have brought up and the care you've taken to present them!

 

[jackswilling]

"To me, this is the actual threat to our freedom."
Setting aside the jihad issue, "Canadian Freedom" seems to be a non-sequitur from my perspective. I would be more concerned about the thought police, aka The Canadian Human Rights Commission. I guess if you lack Constitutional "freedoms" aka God-given rights, then freedom takes the form of tyranny and you don't know any better.

 

[davet]

[/quote]Unfortunately, when it came to the bigoted islamaphobia that he had been spinning, a person must ask when you have to draw the line.

Your opinion and many may agree, but many would disagree. I'll leave it at that.

 

[fnord]

I'm truly grateful this topic is still running.
Compliments to every one of you guys for expressing your feelings and concerns in a civil manner - more akin to a group of individuals meeting at a watering hole and discussing the news.
Obviously, the mods are watching this thread and while opinions have run high, the overall tone has been civil and respectful. I do appreciate the insight and education.
Fnord

 

[beerandbaccy]

Yup this is true, not that I support it. We have a freedom of religion which encompasses a freedom from religion, but it's not the same. You're correct. Anecdotally, it seems to me the G word gets thrown around in american politics more than Canadian politics - with the exception of Mr Harper that is. This could be why it stood out to me. Of course this is anecdotal and of course our charter of rights and freedoms opens by announcing the supremacy of God. Again, don't agree with it, however.
Our politics may differ but I sure appreciate the strong points you have brought up and the care you've taken to present them!

I for one would be happy if God and religion were never mentioned in democratic politics. Any President or Prime Minister or candidate from any part of the political spectrum, that invokes religion to get elected is grasping at straws and is appealing to fear and superstition rather than firm policies that are grounded in the day to day lives of the country's citizens.
As for Canada (and the UK) the ceremonial Head of State (i.e. the Queen) has no actual power and as head of the Church of England (again only a ceremonial figurehead) does nominally connect church and state and I for one would be in favour of this role officially ceasing. It is a leftover King Henry the 8th's policy of breaking with Rome so he could marry and divorce whoever he wanted in the 16th Century!! Time to modernize!! :D

 

[carpart67]

I'd first like to say how awesome it is that this discussion has been kept civil. It's the only political discussion that I've seen in the last several months that didn't degrade into a name calling contest, and that includes the political debates by candidates.
Personally I'm both hopeful and scared to death. Hopeful because there are some parts of the liberal platform I agree with and will be pleased to see, if they happen. Scared because there are more parts I disagree with, and because Canadians have just picked someone with almost no political (or work) experience to run our country. The point has already been made it will likely be his advisers doing the leg work. I think a great deal of voters didn't so much vote for JT and his policies as they voted against Harper, without fully understanding everything they were supporting by doing so. Not the best way to choose a leader, but unfortunately it's the cards we were dealt. Justin has a tremendous opportunity to prove himself, as well as a tremendous opportunity to screw things up and infuriate a country full of people who are already becoming apathetic to our political system. Only time will tell which path he travels. I heard it best summed up by a post on social media actually. I'm not quoting word for word as I can't recall but it was something to this effect
"Voting today felt like visiting a fast food joint for lunch. I knew nothing on the menu was good for me but I had to make a choice. I did so and left with a sick feeling in stomach"

 

[perdurabo]

I'll piggy back that....Yes this piece has been very civilized. Canadian And US politics are Apples and Oranges as far as the system in which they work. But it's cool to get different opinions on all sides to see where people are coming from. Some of us have more passion than others, some of us let it roll off our backs, but in the end No Hard Feelings at all. We come here first to talk pipes and pipe tobacco, I think philosophy (political or any other) is part of what we do when we smoke a pipe, and we might as well share it.

 

[pruss]

I guess if you lack Constitutional "freedoms" aka God-given rights, then freedom takes the form of tyranny and you don't know any better.

Wow. That's a heckuva statement, Jack.
First, I may be over analyzing this, but if I'm not reading too closely it appears to me that American Constitutional "freedoms" aren't handed down from a divine, but were designed by and fought for by humans. I'd also like to posit that the the Constitution isn't absolute but dynamic and, as we've seen over time, able to be adjusted to the changing needs of the 'people'.
We do have a constitution here in Canada, it was first enacted in 1867 and then again in 1982 and it serves to lay out the fundamental rules and principles about how Canada is to be governed. Protected within the Constitution is Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So, much like the US, we do have specific rights and freedoms protected by and embedded in the Constitution of the country. In fact, the Constitution states specifically that the Charter takes precedence over all other legislation as it is part of the "supreme law of Canada." Interestingly, Section 1 of the charter also recognizes that even in a democracy rights and freedoms are not absolute. Simply put, freedoms do not give the individual the right to harm other individuals or society at large. This has allowed for legislation surrounding things like hate speech/propaganda, slander or participation in religious practices which cause harm to others.
In fact, the federal parliament or Provincial legislators can limit fundamental rights so long as they can prove that the limit enacted is set out in a law; and pursues an important goal which can be justified in a free and democratic society; and pursues that goal in a reasonable and proportionate manner.
With regards to the Charter, the interests of society must always be balanced against the interests of individuals to see if limits on individual rights can be justified. The Charter also affirms that Canada is a multicultural country and that the Charter must be interpreted consistently with this ideal.
Given the need for clarity and not my sieve like memory, I've paraphrased or pirated much of the above from here: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/06.html#ff
Thanks for the dialogue folks. Let's keep it coming and keep it civil.
-- Pat

 

[fordm60]

beerandbaccy, funny how close Canada and the US are geographically and yet so very different. You mentioned firearm control and that somehow being unarmed makes you safer. I agree that England has always loved to disarm the people as that makes them rather easy to control. Most of the colonies followed that English ideal. My country, the USA, decided to get rid of the English. Personally I feel that was a perfect decision. Once we kicked them out of our country, we decided that being armed was the second most important point (2nd amendment of the US Constitution). Why? Well as Ben put it: Ben Franklin Quotes. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
When your unarmed you have no say in what happens to you. Difference between a serf and a citizen is being armed. People scoff at that and say the government/modern military would go through the citizens like something through a goose. The citizens would have no chance. Well look at Nam, the USSR Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, etc, and to cut to the chase the current terrorist situation. Seems a highly motivated and armed populace even poorly trained can fight a technological military and do very well.
Always puzzled me how so many humans prefer to hope nothing bad ever happens. I agree I am a product of the American west, but when your only chance is to scream for help and hope it comes, that seems like you have no choice at all on what happens to you. Everyday worldwide thousand and thousands of bodybags get filled. I always wonder how safe they felt, right before the screaming started.
I agree many have different ideas, and maybe those ideas are valid for them. Last personal point. In Bosnia they at first liked to shoot at us quite a bit, and we were not allowed to engage them. Scared the heck out of me to be honest. But it felt dang good to have my M203, with it I have choices, right, wrong, or indifferent I control my destiny. Without it.....well you get the point.
Off my soapbox now!! May all have a great and safe day! Happy puffing!

 

[pruss]

When your unarmed you have no say in what happens to you. Difference between a serf and a citizen is being armed. People scoff at that and say the government/modern military would go through the citizens like something through a goose. The citizens would have no chance. Well look at Nam, the USSR Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, etc, and to cut to the chase the current terrorist situation. Seems a highly motivated and armed populace even poorly trained can fight a technological military and do very well.

Let's just suggest that this is one of the fundamental differences which make us (Canada and the US) distinctly different and respectful neighbours. Let's not spin out the conversation here into a 2nd Amendment debate; if for no other reason than there is no 2nd Amendment here in Canada, and this is a discussion about Canadian politics and governance.
Choosing to leave this topic behind might also keep the lights on in this thread a little longer.
-- Pat

 

[fordm60]

That works for me, I really was not trying to cause any grief only answer a post. I have really enjoyed the thread so far.
Thank you.

 

[deathmetal]

Economically, Harper had it nailed.

This is generally what conservatives do: preserve economy and some liberties.
The problem is that doing that alone is never enough.
What about the health of our society and civilization?
No one wants to address that.

 

[aldecaker]

Well, if a person is going to label themselves a "conservative", you'd think they'd be interested in conserving the health of our society and civilization. I'm in favor of conserving natural resources and wildlands, so I'm definitely a conservative.