Share
Email this to your friends.
Feedback
We'd love to hear your opinion. Your comments won't be posted on the website.
Read More
Hasty Conservative EI Changes Underline Need for Greater Clarity »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Liberal Human Resources & Skills Development and Labour critic Rodger Cuzner made the following [...]
spRED Tour: Mark Eyking in Southern Ontario »
May 24, 2012
Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking toured various communities in southern Ontario as part of Liberals’ spRED [...]
Liberals Call for Fair By-election in Etobicoke Centre »
May 24, 2012
OTTAWA— Former Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj today challenged Prime Minister Harper to call a by-election [...]
I am frusrated in reading the comments in both the “community and “en famille”.When is there going to be some serious comments on how to defeat the regime pesently destroying this country? How about some views on the NCC”and “Northern Foundation” I realize that presently the concern is mostly about about the national convention but at least the occasional comment on the aforementioned would be an interesting change..
I agree that is the most important issue going forward. However, I think this convention is the time to recover and rebuild from the devastating defeat.
Once that is done, then the focus needs to turn to a honest assessment of whether the Liberal Party of Canada can ever elect another government in the form it is now, while contesting a united right.
I think the answer is no, but there are still many in the party who either think differently, or it is in their interests not to address the issue.
Great convention. Sounds like a repositioning for the next election not the soul searching rebuilding that needs to take place.
Shiela Copps, John Nunziata, Brian Tobin are the very reason I STOPPED voting Liberal.
hello r
could you tell me why you would find Nunziata, Tobin and Copps offensive or disparaging to you.. Is it their attitude, style or beliefs.. perhaps we should be looking into that and see what would work better for liberals..
also.. I just looked at the logo in the Liberal sign on this site at least, and you’ll notice the maple leaf stem forms the accent aigu.. so it works in both languages.. cheers!
Can I ask if anyone knows if that is an accent aigu in the new liberal logo?
Moving forward, we need a slogan that captures Liberal Party values.
My offering is ‘It’s about the children’ which evokes; at least to me many images.
- A better future
- A sustainable environment
- Education
- Anti-Poverty
- Not just our children, but all the children of the world
60,000 heads are better than one, so let’s see what we can offer from the grass roots.
Chris: You will recall that the theme of our last Campaign was “Your Family, Your Future, Your Canada”. I thought it was pretty good. But throughout Stephen Harper talked about all the anti-family things like Economy, No Gun Registry, No Seat on the Security Council, Mega Prisons, Mega Oil, Child Care through the Mail and the F-35. And he got a majority.
I still think our achillies heel was the Economy. Michael Ignatieff could talk without notes about everything but the Economy. We see whats happening at Caterpillar in London, Ontario. We need a policy on keeping jobs in Canada.
I also believe that we have to include Low Carbon Energy (nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar).
I am not great at slogans, but the Economy and Green Energy have to part of our central story I think.
I winced when Michael Ignatieff took such
a strong stand for the ilegal immigrants. I agreed with his point but did he not know that the voters leave their political correct persona outside the door when they enter the voting booth? Harper was particularly good at reaching the voter’s gut level, arousing fear of crime and terrorists. We have to be aware that high sounding rhetoric does not sell well to a modern face book audience. Our best chances lie in separating ourselves from the other parties.Promising PP, going after the drug lord’s wallet, thus reducing crime, and selling it soon gives us years to get over the tories attacks on such moves and get the message to the public and on our side. Too bad we voted against the Royal issue– Canada First
Hi Martin, thanks for correcting my title error of Margaret Atwood’s book, and my apologies to Margaret Aywood! I did enjoy A Handmaid’s Tale. I will check out Cider House Rules.
My definition of fundamentalist religions are those that think that theirs is the only real religion, the only way into heaven and follow their religious laws to the exclusion of the evolution of time, technology and people. My feelings are extremely personal. My father was catholic and mother protostant. For 1 year I was sent to boarding school and it was a “born again” Christian school. Any students who weren’t “born again” didn’t have the same standing as those who were. I was told that I was going to he’ll unless I converted, also all my family in France was also going to hell simply because they drink wine. I will never forget being ostracized and treated like a lesser person due to my religion!
I am aware that the PMO’s office has been hiring interns directly out of these “born again Christian” schools and their aim is to fashion Canada along their beliefs. For those politicians who can separate their belief system from their leadership responsibilities, I applaud them and thank them. For those who hide their beliefs and work secretly to change Canada, I want them out!
The supreme court should protect us, unless a prime minister stocks it with judges that have similar religious beliefs. Please be clear, I have nothing against any religion as long as it doesn’t force it’s beliefs on me, or break our laws.
I do agree with you, Catherine. There is a shift taking place in Canada towards the religious right that is, and will continue to be, aided by the actions of PM Harper and his theo-con advisers. The conservative machine is very good at hiding their long term plans. There will be no radical shifting of laws by the conservatives, rather a slow tugging, a nip here and a tuck there…like the movement to recognize fetal rights…as they alter what Canada stands for. But then, every political party’s intention is to “fashion Canada along their own beliefs”. And this is the party that we elected.
The rest of us need to come together and take back control of our country. I believe we can and I believe we will. Because I believe that there are more of “us” than “them”. But many of “us” were fooled by the conservatives into thinking that they posed no real danger, that all they cared about was fixing the economy (even though most of the economic problems can be tracked back to the conservatives). And the rest of “us” split our votes between the other parties. I my opinion, we need a non-compete agreement in the next election between the NDP and the LPC, to take back control and then with that (temporary) coalition we need to legislate electoral reform and get away from first-past-the-post elections. Then we can start moving Canada forward based on what the majority of Canadians really want.
The Liberals need strong policies based on human rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on Canadian law. And we need to be diligent in identifying the “nips and tucks” being made by the conservative government and forcing Canadians to wake up and recognize what is happening – before it is too late.
All I am really saying about “religion” is, if we try fighting them as “too fundamentalist” or as “too cultist” – we are fighting them on their terms and, like it or not, it ends up looking like we are fighting religion and religious freedoms. We cannot win that battle and we should not go there. Keep our arguments about law, science, and fact and try to stay away from the emotionally charged arena of religion.
First there is a poll on the abortion issue at:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/01/question-of-the-day-504.html#
I cannot understand how we can still talk about a woman as if she consisted of compartments and I’m sure that reflects a lack of respect for women. The fetus is part of a woman and will remain so until she rejects it by birth or by abortion.Society has no place inside the body of a woman.
Through this abortion discussion I keep going back to Margaret Atwood’s A Bridesmaid’s Tale. To make clear, I have no concerns about organized religions per se, it’s the cultists and fundamentalists that concern me. The ones who view women as lesser beings or incapable.
What scares me is the number of people that believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Jesus existed at the same time as the dinosaurs. What additionally scares me is some of these people have political power. In Alberta there is the Big Valley Creation science Museum, in Ontario there is a traveling museum that promotes these creationist ideas. Take a poll and I’ll bet that these same people are also pro-life. Personally I see “little” men trying to be “fish”. I don’t care about a leader’s religion, unless they are a fundamentalist and want to force their beliefs on everyone. I don’t care if a leader is gay, lesbian, transexual, if they’re right for the job, so be it! I don’t even want to hear about any dalliances, it’s not my business and as long as the dalliance isn’t hearing the country’s secrets or receiving unwarranted favors.
Since Harper came to Ottawa there has been a proliferation of religion based groups, Manning is even involved in them. I definitely want to see religion separated from politics, and soon!
By the way, if an elected official can’t be impeached if proven that they intentionally mislead their constituency, at least let them be held responsible with a recall vote! I really want this!
Hi Catherine: Stockwell Day was one of those that believed that humans and dinosaurs roamed the world at the same time.
On the religion angle, The Conservatives have an unconditional support for Israel no matter how many UN Resolutions are stacked against them. And similarly, they had no hesitation to attack Afghanistan or Libya because of this same loyalty. If things heat up with Iran, we will see the same bias. Its a religious bias and its wrong.
(An aside: I think you mean Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”?)
For me, John Irving’s “The Cider House Rules” resonates. A struggle between laws, morals, and ‘doing the right thing’. It also deals with botched ‘back-room’ abortions.
Anyway…I’m not sure what you define as “fundamentalist” or “cultist”. To me this encompasses most religions including the Roman Catholic Church. And the RCs certainly don’t score well on women’s equality issues – women must be “lesser” or they would be allowed to become priests.
But, many great Liberal leaders have been devout Roman Catholics. Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and Pierre Trudeau jump to mind. And yet they were able to separate their personal beliefs from their actions and legislation in the public forum. They got into serious trouble with their churches, and some of their voters, for not supporting Catholic dogma, on the questions of divorce, gay rights, abortion, etc. but they all believed that personal beliefs should not influence the laws of Canada.
Freedom to believe whatever I want is a core freedom in Canada – and I will defend it forever. Whether you agree with another’s beliefs or not, is not of consequence. And, of course, you are free to debate with anyone the validity of their beliefs – outside the political realm. But we cannot say “you are wrong” or “you cannot be involved in politics”.
It would be virtually impossible to get elected as President of the United States without a stated and adhered to religion (and obviously that religion has to be one of the Christian ones). Similarly, I can’t think of a Canadian Prime Minister that has not publically stated their religion and, at least for appearance sake, attended church form time to time. It is being questioned in the U.S. whether Mitt Romney can win the republican nomination because he is Mormon – a religion considered non-Christian and cultish by many. Similarly I think, Stockwell Day seriously damaged his credibility and electability by stating his beliefs to the media. Most voters simply could not accept his beliefs.
My point is, It is not a good idea to attack your opposition based on their religious beliefs. That battle cannot be won. However, we don’t have to vote for them and if elected they cannot be allowed to influence policy or law based on those beliefs.
I strongly believe that our Supreme Court will protect us from that. I fully trust in the court to not allow our laws to be dictated by religious dogma, but I also expect the court to protect each Canadian’s right to believe in what they choose.
——–
I completely support the idea of recall legislation. It would be interesting to know the official Liberal position on it. Politicians, of any ilk, seem to be reluctant to enact legislation that may one day be used against them.
Perhaps we should use the term “Ideology” rather than religion here. Communism, as practiced in Russia is, to me, a religion. Ideologies are essentially overly simplistic formulas that assume that all people fit into one category.Thus pro-lifers insist that all people should obey their edicts no matter what that other person thinks.
Men who thinks this principle does not concern them should consider how they would feel if a group of devout Muslims could get a law passed that makes it a criminal offense to drink alcohol. Same principle–a small but dedicated group force the country to accede to their demands.
Now that Harper has a majority,, his evangelical MLA’s will demand he pay up for all their support–particularly financial– so I am quite certain that Harper will make incremental moves towards satisfying these people. He certainly would not want them to vote against the government on any issue that comes up.
Some party is going to take a strong stand on this issue, religion or not, so we as liberals cannot hide from this potential challenge.
Using the term ideology might be diplomatic though personally I no longer see religion as having that much clout any more.
Cheers
Andy Mulcahy
Hi Martin, your input was interesting and accurate from what I can tell. Thank you. The reason I brought up the abortion topic is because I saw that a Mr. Trost, the Tory MP wanted to make fetus’s existence a matter of human rights.
I was watching Power and Politics on CBC this evening and Mr. Trost was interviewed. He commented that most Canaians don’t realize that fetus’s aren’t covered by human rights!? Am I missing something? They are part of a mother’s body and are covered as such by the human rights of the mother. Talk about twisting the facts! Takes me back to one of my earlier comments that if an elected official intentionally misleads the public, they’re impeached! I’m sincerely tired of double-speak!
My fear is of back-room abortionists who end up killing women who are desperate for whatever reason not to have a baby. I refuse to quietly allow society to decline because of religious fundamentalists who feel that everyone must live by their rules and beliefs! Unfortunately, religious groups are already jumping in to support Mr. Trost so as much as we would like to avoid it, we won’t be able to unless PM Harper immediately stops Mr. Trost. I knew this was going to become an issue when Harper was leading in the polls before the last election. Now we can only watch and wait to see how far it goes.
Lastly Martin, you are obviously much more diplomatic than I, but after watching our human rights were trounced in Toronto during the G20, I’ve become a little more blunt. Yes, there’s still room for diplomacy, but you have to be able to trust your opposition to some degree.
Hi Catherine: Your argument that fetal human rights are covered by the human rights of the mother are interesting. This is actually the crux of the issue. You are correct that when outside forces threaten a fetus it would be protected by the rights of the mother. For example, obviously the fetus is protected against a third party forcing an abortion on the mother because of the rights of the mother.
The problems arise when the rights of the mother come into conflict with the rights of the fetus. When it is the mother herself that threatens the life or health of the fetus, who’s rights take precedence? Currently, as under Canadian law the fetus has no rights, the question is moot. But, if we provide human rights to the fetus, how do we make those decisions?
Let’s leave abortion alone for a moment…what about alcohol consumption? Nicotine or other drugs? What about diet and exercise? If we afford the fetus protections by granting human status, it could be argued that society has the right, even the obligation, to protect the future child by enforcing behaviour on the mother. A mother who refuses to stop consuming nicotine or alcohol could theoretically be incarcerated and forced into compliance for the health and welfare of the unborn child. Where does it stop? Do we end up forcing exercise regimens and special diets on pregnant women? The women’s right to free choice becomes secondary to the rights of an unborn child. Aren’t we then turning pregnant women into something less than humans – simple incubators – by superseding their rights with those of the fetus.
These are tricky legal questions. But again, I question the wisdom of fighting this issue by making it about religion. That will muddy the waters and add strength to the pro-life cause. If religiously inclined persons feel that this debate is about protecting their religious beliefs there will be no arguing with them – religion is a very strong motivator. But if we don’t fall into that trap, if we force the debate to be a strictly questions of law and of women’s rights, many will be forced to listen to the arguments of the pro-choice side.
Andy Mulcahy
Sorry, Martin,I can not see how we can discuss the motive behind the drive to
stop abortions without talking about religion. There is no question in my mind
that the drive behind the pro-life movement is religious in nature, though we
should be aware that most Christians as individuals do support a woman’s right
to choose.
Still, this small fundamentalist group are determined by any means to force
women into the role of breeder. Now I do not think they are actually concerned
about the fetus, per se. It has been shown that they in general oppose sex
education and the active promotion of contraceptives, though they must know full
well that the abortions they so object to are the result of unwanted
pregnancies.
The real reason for their adamant stand, as I see it, is to curb what they see
as irresponsible sexual activity.
Now though Harper has insisted that the abortion debate will not be raised, the
fact is that the Tory coffers have been mostly filled by the Focus on Family
organization and while he could put them off in the past, now that he has a
majority, his fundamentalists will demand he now support their agenda–hidden
these many years from public view– so we need to gear up the Liberal party to
play the role of protecting a woman’s right to be called a person, not a public
body.
Cheers
Andy Mulcahy
You’ll get no argument from me that the motivation behind pro-lifers is mostly religious. My point is that we cannot fight the movement by simply stating “but that’s motivated by religion”. Won’t work. Whenever religion enters into any debate, the debate simply cannot be won.
We must not allow that to happen. We must keep the debate focused where it should be – in the laws of our land and the rights of women. Do not allow the religious right to hijack the debate by acknowledging that religious motivation, simply ignore it and focus on law.
Right on Catherine, religion has no business being mixed with governmental issues. State and religion must remain separated and we should cease all accommodations immediately. Immigrants are welcome to this country, but we expect them to become full fledged canadians and not to impose their beliefs on society.