Justin Trudeau Campaign 2015

889 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Brachina wrote:

 I know some old men who are prochoice who are upset at the agist cheap shot. It becomes clearer that Justin has contempt for the older folks who are his greatest supporters.

[/quote]

I am not concerned about the old men with feelings part of the problem. I have been thinking about this for some time.

Some of the most strident anti-choice people I hear of late are much younger than me and I don't consider myself an old man (yet).

It is problematic to suggest that it is only older men who have this view becuase it feeds the idea that women's rights are becoming yesterdays's issue, something that does not have to be worried about for future as the older generation passes away. This is the real danger not just feelings.This is not a stretch as when we hear about "old-men's concerns" it is often with the subtext that these are passing away.

The difference between the generations is not as great as some seem to think. Young women report that sexism is very much alive in all generations.

Women have achieved a great deal of progress over the last century -- we always hear that -- as women in Canada were just struggling to get the vote 100 years ago (and did not in some places until the 1940s) but progress has not been steady. The women of this generation face a parliament that is still not representative, earnings gaps barely better than they were a generation ago, many of the same debates of a generation ago and little if any progress when it comes to violence. Many of the loudest anti-choice activists in and out of government are young including the behind-the-scenes-boys-in-short-pants we hear about in the CPC. And today we have people who wish on women a sense of compacency to shut them up so no gains are made and some already achieved can slip away. Access to abortions is slipping now that the "old man" Morgentaler has passed away.

Younger people do tend to be somewhat more progressive but the difference is not enough to risk making this about age. On many issues the gaps in progressive versus conservative opinion is no more than 10-20%. I believe that a generation ago that gap was greater than it is today. It may once have been more of an age issue than it is today.

So this is why I have trouble with the idea that this is a generational issue. It is a gender issue -- it is that some men (of every generation) want to decide what women do with their bodies. Now that is a harder tougher point to make, taking on a gender is bigger than a age group subset of a gender. But it comes with an understanding that this is not a battle that is going away and "women's issues" have not been won.

Let's not make this a partisan issue. I want to point this out but not as a critique of Trudeau. I have heard the exact comment from New Democrats (as has been pointed out) for 30+ years and still do. The risk of complacency in making this an age issue is more recent and increasingly dangerous. I make my suggestion as a opportunity to consider rather than a political football. I understand Trudeau's comments as well meant. Those comments have been voiced by many including myself -- but I am careful now because I see this being fought out in a generation younger than I am.

Any suggestion that inequality, anti-choice or any other gender issue is passing away with an older generation is counter productive for current and future generations -- in my opinion.

 

Pondering

Trudeau did not suggest only older men have this view. He was simply stating that in the past parliament was made up of old men who decided what women could or could not do. There may be people of all ages and walks of life who still oppose women's rights but they are not sitting in parliament making the rules. Those days are gone. Not even Harper dared allow his caucus to go there.

The criticism was coming from an old Liberal who quit caucus because the Liberals supported gay marriage. His complaint is that the Liberals will not allow the promotion of the anti-abortionist agenda.

In no way has Trudeau suggested or inferred that women's issues in general are in the past. 

Sean in Ottawa

Since that is not what I said and you clearly do not read and comprehend what I write accurately, I wish you would not read my posts or at least not interpret them.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights" The NDP has made this part of its Offical Party Platfrom since 1971, "Pondering". Where were the Libs for almost 45 years.

better late to the party than never

Being gay I don't want some old guy making a decision on who I should marry.

We should not be taking away rights ever.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Since that is not what I said and you clearly do not read and comprehend what I write accurately, I wish you would not read my posts or at least not interpret them.

And I wish you would stop writing off topic posts but I doubt I will get my way so I suppose we are both in for a disappointment.

How did your comments pertain to Trudeau's Campaign 2015?

bekayne

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights" The NDP has made this part of its Offical Party Platfrom since 1971, "Pondering". Where were the Libs for almost 45 years.

Though the NDP accepted ant-abortion candidates for a few more years.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19790410&id=PNAyAAAAIBAJ&...

 

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Since that is not what I said and you clearly do not read and comprehend what I write accurately, I wish you would not read my posts or at least not interpret them.

And I wish you would stop writing off topic posts but I doubt I will get my way so I suppose we are both in for a disappointment.

How did your comments pertain to Trudeau's Campaign 2015?


More baiting, how very trollish of you. Well played in 'your' Liberal thread. How do half you posts have anything to do with the tread titles when all you talk about is trudeau on ANY topic. Pot meet kettle.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Since that is not what I said and you clearly do not read and comprehend what I write accurately, I wish you would not read my posts or at least not interpret them.

And I wish you would stop writing off topic posts but I doubt I will get my way so I suppose we are both in for a disappointment.

How did your comments pertain to Trudeau's Campaign 2015?

More absolute trash from you. My post was entirely on topic. In fact 7 of the last 10 posts covered the same topic -- which was actually introduced by you. How hypocritical can you get? You have no shame and are clearly not interested in earning any respect.

I was responding to comments that were in the thread-- I actually had to delete yours in my reply to make sure I was not quoting or responding to you as I promised I would not when you do not reference me.

You are targetting and harassing me. Stop this if only because you are making an ass of yourself as well as derailing threads.

The only engagement we have now is the fights you keep picking. I avoid what you say and you keep instigating.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

bekayne wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights" The NDP has made this part of its Offical Party Platfrom since 1971, "Pondering". Where were the Libs for almost 45 years.

Though the NDP accepted ant-abortion candidates for a few more years.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19790410&id=PNAyAAAAIBAJ&...

 

So what. It seems that the Libs finally have a leader willing to bring Libs into the modern age. And somehow only the Libs speak for women?

Jacob Two-Two

Anyone who thinks Pondering gets a hard time around here only has to try having a conversation with her.

Pondering

Trudeau's comment in reply to the letter from seven former Liberal MPs is continuing to excite response. These are the men he was replying to. There are pictures of them at the following links. To be more specific he should have said old white men.

http://www.theinterim.com/politics/interview-with-former-liberal-mp-garn...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=36af9837-...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=9b8d1709-...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=04a32ebe-...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ea6b7b35-...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Janko-Peric%28571%29

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Tom-Wappel%28971%29

Quote:

Justin Trudeau, MP        ✔ @JustinTrudeau Follow

The days when old men get to decide what a woman does with her body are long gone. Times have changed for the better. #LPC defends rights.

Trudeau's comment was factual.

I find it fascinating from a campaign perspective. Trudeau just has this knack for effortlessly enraging his opponents. It backfires on his attackers every time.

This link was presented as some sort of condemnation of Trudeau's comment but reading the responses shows that people are firmly on his side, with the exception of anti-abortionists who are trying to drum up indignation or partisans looking for something to nit pick over.

Quote:
From the comments section:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/09/justin-trudeau-no-coun...

John RobertsWomen should decide all issues about their bodies. The old boys club is dead and almost gone.

cbc.caDavid Lambert Quite honestly, I'm impressed with Mr. Tredeau's stance. Having a party taking a firm stance on human rights issues is something that has been missing in Canadian politics for a long time. Well done.

Glen Josephgood boy ! no room for the old boys club anymore...anywhere !

cbc.ca LAUGHING101 thank you Justin.... glad you have the guts to stand up for women's rights... good bye "old men" and days of old...... your personal views should not be my personal choice!

Trying to paint this as agism comes across as ridiculous. Justin told a bunch of old white men that left the liberal party that the days when they had a say in what a women does with her body are over.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that succinctly represents mainstream and progressive sentiment. This is why he rates high on shared values.

Debater

This proves that there are vast differences between Justin Trudeau & Stephen Harper, particularly on social issues such as women's & gay rights.

This week Trudeau has re-affirmed his strong pro-choice position and is being attacked for it from the right-wing, like Tom Wappel & Pat O'Brien in their protest letter.  So it's totally false to claim that Trudeau is on the right like Harper.  Whether you like Trudeau or not, he's had the guts to take some bold positions that no other recent Liberal leader has -- even if it costs him some right-wing votes.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

This proves that there are vast differences between Justin Trudeau & Stephen Harper, particularly on social issues such as women's & gay rights.

This week Trudeau has re-affirmed his strong pro-choice position and is being attacked for it from the right-wing, like Tom Wappel & Pat O'Brien in their protest letter.  So it's totally false to claim that Trudeau is on the right like Harper.  Whether you like Trudeau or not, he's had the guts to take some bold positions that no other recent Liberal leader has -- even if it costs him some right-wing votes.


No it doesn't "prove" that there are vast differences. It is evidence that there is significant differences on some issues and other evidence indicates that there is some significant similarities between the two as well.

thorin_bane

NO it has more to do with social vs economic models. Unlike sean(see we disagree on the left) I do think the Libs and Tories are very much alike, at least on economics and the cons use backbenchers to introduce 'signal the base' legislation, then having a free vote to allow it to die, also showing how they don't whip the vote. But on fundamental economics 101, corporations more power and tax cuts/screw the little people.

Jacob Two-Two

It's just showboating. It's the only thing Justin's good at. None of this has any effect on policy or law. All that has been settled in the courts and the Cons haven't been able to change the law nor have the Liberals tried to improve it. They just trot the issue out when they need to appear progressive. They've never done a thing in all their years in power to actually help women access better and safer care in terminating pregnancies. But I agree that his comment wasn't ageism. He was talking about a specific bunch of people who were all old men. I might have said the same thing.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
It's just showboating. It's the only thing Justin's good at. None of this has any effect on policy or law. All that has been settled in the courts and the Cons haven't been able to change the law nor have the Liberals tried to improve it. They just trot the issue out when they need to appear progressive. They've never done a thing in all their years in power to actually help women access better and safer care in terminating pregnancies. But I agree that his comment wasn't ageism. He was talking about a specific bunch of people who were all old men. I might have said the same thing.

But he didn't trot the issue out. He responded to an open letter with a short twitter statement. Seems appropriate to me.

Does Mulcair have a plan to force the provinces on this issue given that healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
It's just showboating. It's the only thing Justin's good at. None of this has any effect on policy or law. All that has been settled in the courts and the Cons haven't been able to change the law nor have the Liberals tried to improve it. They just trot the issue out when they need to appear progressive. They've never done a thing in all their years in power to actually help women access better and safer care in terminating pregnancies. But I agree that his comment wasn't ageism. He was talking about a specific bunch of people who were all old men. I might have said the same thing.

But he didn't trot the issue out. He responded to an open letter with a short twitter statement. Seems appropriate to me.

Does Mulcair have a plan to force the provinces on this issue given that healthcare is a provincial jurisdiction?

Blah, blah, blah, Pondering, blah, blah, blah.

Jacob Two-Two

I'm talking about the move to disallow anti-abortionists itself, not the tweet. It's just theatre. The Liberal party has never done a thing to help women on this issue and I doubt they ever will. They will use it as a political tool with empty gestures. They've done that before, but exploiting an issue is not the same as addressing it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, what do you know:

 

Dias

 

Well, I guess this settles who the REAL progressive party is! Unless of course, Dias is a NDP shill. Right?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

clambake wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Another score for the Trudeau campaign. He is going to get tons of press on this. There is a lovely picture on the article page.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/16/ezra-levant-trudeau-photobomb_n_...

Not sure why you felt this was worth posting other than to ilustrate that you celebrate this type of vapid, empty type of politics. 

Of course not. I was astonished at the things he said. I am assuming he will be in trouble over it. This thread is about the campaign and the attacks so far have been back-firing badly and actually aiding Trudeau. That is the result I expect from this bizarre attack. Trudeau's enemies seem bound and determined to help him.

So now Trudeau is saying he won't engage with Sun news.

Seems to me that this may have been a mistake for SUN. They have handed Trudeau a very reasonable pretext to avoid wasting time talking to them. There is nothing to be gained by any non-conservative talking to SUN when you consider that it is the outfit where anything you say can and will be used against you if you are not a right wing extremist.

Who could argue with Trudeau saying he won't talk to them now? If I were him I wouldn't either. I don't think the SUN gained anything here at all. Even SUN readers might understand that if Rob Ford thinks he could justify ignoring the Star, Trudeau can tell the SUN to take a hike.

The NDP should tell the SUN the same thing. I don't think any political person should acknowledge so-called media that would go after any person's family in this way.

 

Debater

Ezra Levant is so vile.  He's one of the few people who can almost make Stephen Harper look good by comparison.  Calling Justin Trudeau's parents 'sluts' is disgraceful.

Sun News has accused Justin Trudeau of being a drug dealer to children, of hanging out with terrorists at mosques, and now this.

Btw, they've done attack pieces on Tom Mulcair in the past, too.  Levant & Charles Adler have done pieces on 'Angry Tom Mulcair' saying he has an out of control, volcanic temper.  You might be able to find some of them still in the Sun News video archive.

How can any network run by the PM's former Communications Director and full of other former PMO staff, be considered objective?

Debater

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I'm talking about the move to disallow anti-abortionists itself, not the tweet. It's just theatre. The Liberal party has never done a thing to help women on this issue and I doubt they ever will. They will use it as a political tool with empty gestures. They've done that before, but exploiting an issue is not the same as addressing it.

Talk about re-writing history.

It was Justin Trudeau's own father Pierre that decriminalized abortion (& homosexuality) in the first place.

Now Justin Trudeau has banned anti-abortion candidates from the Liberal Party.  That takes balls.  It isn't just 'showboating' either.  You don't like him.  That's your right.  But at least be objective once in a while like Sean is.

Trudeau has been attacked for this by the right-wing, so he's had the courage to take a political risk.  John Ivison, Chris Selley, Jonathan Kay & others have written angry pieces in the Post about Trudeau's abortion position.

Btw, New Brunswick Premier-elect Brian Gallant, a friend of Justin Trudeau's, spoke out in favour of abortion access in New Brunswick in the recent election.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I'm talking about the move to disallow anti-abortionists itself, not the tweet. It's just theatre. The Liberal party has never done a thing to help women on this issue and I doubt they ever will. They will use it as a political tool with empty gestures. They've done that before, but exploiting an issue is not the same as addressing it.

Talk about re-writing history.

It was Justin Trudeau's own father Pierre that decriminalized abortion (& homosexuality) in the first place.

Now Justin Trudeau has banned anti-abortion candidates from the Liberal Party.  That takes balls.  It isn't just 'showboating' either.  You don't like him.  That's your right.  But at least be objective once in a while like Sean is.

Trudeau has been attacked for this by the right-wing, so he's had the courage to take a political risk.  John Ivison, Chris Selley, Jonathan Kay & others have written angry pieces in the Post about Trudeau's abortion position.

Btw, New Brunswick Premier-elect Brian Gallant, a friend of Justin Trudeau's, spoke out in favour of abortion access in New Brunswick in the recent election.

That isn't the point, "Debater" (why do you use that handle anyway, you don't debate anything; you should change your handle, Wink). The Liberals are acting like they are the leaders on this and no other party did this before Trudeau did this. This has been NDP policy and part of the platform for the NDP since 1971. What took the Liberals so long? Nope, no kudos. All they did is move into the modern age and actually act in accordance with what women want. Talk about REWRITING, history, "Debater". Smile

Sean in Ottawa

I admit that I am confused about the expression "that takes balls" in an argument about women's human rights.

That said -- I know the NDP was there first but this is still an achievement for the leader of the Liberal party, which had a considerable anti-choice caucus led by Tom Wappel until very recently. I don't mind putting it into context by saying it came long after the NDP but I don't think this decision and direction is of no value or a non achievement.

Sorry Arthur I think he is debating-- and I don't just say this out of appreciation for acknowledging that I can be objective from time-to-time.

It is find to lay out some context by explaining that the Liberals are a whole generation late to the party and it is fair to ask what they will do about access especially in places like PEI where women have to leave the province to get this essential service. But this sure would not be one of the places I would criticize Trudeau even if I do point out that I was younger than my daughter is now when the NDP took this position.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sorry Sean, can't agree with you. Trudeau is tyring to shore up his Progressive flank. You know full damn well the Libs are trying to spin this like -they are taking the lead on this issue for the first time like its a new one. The NDP needs to point out that the LPC is Johnny-come-lately, on this.

Jacob Two-Two

Sorry Debater. Usually when I talk about the Liberal party I'm talking about things that happened within my lifetime, not fifty years ago. I should have been clearer. The modern Liberal party, despite the many years it has been in power over the past, say, four decades, has done nothing in all that time to improve the access of women to safe, reliable abortion. Trudeau's legislation made abortion legal as long as a "committee of three doctors felt the pregnancy endangered the mental, emotional or physical well-being of the mother." Ironically, in 1968 the committee would have certainly been a bunch of old men.

Abortion wasn't really legal for women to access on their own until the courts settled the matter in 1988. The Liberals stayed out of it, and have done nothing since. Nor is Justin offering anything to improve existing legislation. He prefers theatre and showboating to making real changes that help people.

Sean in Ottawa

I believe this should have context (which I strongly pointed out in my post). But It is a strong statement and in the context of the Liberal party's sorry record on this I have to see it as an improvement worthy of at least recognizing.

Rather than attack Trudeau for this  -- at a time access to abortion services are in peril -- I would prefer to add the context and ask Trudeau what he will do to improve access. The Federal government can undertake to improve access if it wants to.

There are some issues so important that you don't want to deny ANY progress. And now for the first time we have a Liberal leader saying that the condition of standing as a Liberal is support for a woman's right to choose.

Sure you can say that is shameful that it took until 2014 and this Liberal leader. But it is happening now and by this Liberal leader. I won't attack him for saying this.

Do you know why? I would want to be able to criticize him if he didn't.

It is a start and a good one. The right one I would say on this issue. It is not the whole way and we can say that.

So why not ask him to show us the money? Ask Trudeau -- will he create funding to make sure that these services are available at a reasonable distance to any woman in Canada who wants the service?

I have lots of things I could crap on Liberals for not doing or for doing wrong -- I won't scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a criticism when they do the right thing. It does not happen enough.

Other than saying it is about time or you have to do more than this -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with Trudeau saying this. And given the history of his party it seems he had to. I won't stand with Conservatives who would deny women access to abortions to criticize Trudeau on this point.

And not when this is going on -- http://www.abortionrightspei.com/

I am sorry to say when I was arguing about too much partisanship coming from Liberal posters on this board -- I see this criticism in the same way. If I am wrong -- convince me.

I would prefer to see the NDP issue a press release saying "Good call Justin, while we think your party is a bit late we are glad to see you are finally here. Now what can we do to improve access? Do you want to co-sponsor a bill to address this?"

Canadians might even find that refreshing.

ETA: I think that the Orange wave was about expecting the NDP to be able to respond like this as a force for good rather than just being a force. Being a force for good requires from time to time recognizing what your opponent is doing that is positive even while offering more and better. That is how you influence -- even when you are not in power. It is how you get things done.

scott16

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well, what do you know:

 

Dias

 

Well, I guess this settles who the REAL progressive party is! Unless of course, Dias is a NDP shill. Right?

who are Jerry Diaz and Tim Howlett?

Debater

The NDP is not quite so perfect on the issue itself.  It has allowed candidates to run in the past who have been anti-choice or anti-gay.

Des McGrath was an anti-choice candidate and he was allowed to run in Newfoundland under Layton's NDP in 2004.

And Monia Mazigh ran in Ottawa South for the NDP in 2004 and had pretty socially conservative views.  I remember her being against gay marriage.  And then there was the Bev Desjarlais situation...

And we could bring up Tommy Douglas's comments about homosexuality.

Each party has some warts in its background.  Why can't we just acknowledge that each party has had these things in its past rather than having to engage in these dirt-slinging matches?

Can Jacob and others here agree that the Liberals have done some positive things over the years?  If so, I can acknowledge some of the positive things about the NDP.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

The NDP is not quite so perfect on the issue itself.  It has allowed candidates to run in the past who have been anti-choice or anti-gay.

Des McGrath was an anti-choice candidate and he was allowed to run in Newfoundland under Layton's NDP in 2004.

And Monia Mazigh ran in Ottawa South for the NDP in 2004 and had pretty socially conservative views.  I remember her being against gay marriage.  And then there was the Bev Desjarlais situation...

And we could bring up Tommy Douglas's comments about homosexuality.

Each party has some warts in its background.  Why can't we just acknowledge that each party has had these things in its past rather than having to engage in these dirt-slinging matches?

Can Jacob and others here agree that the Liberals have done some positive things over the years?  If so, I can acknowledge some of the positive things about the NDP.

Your comment about Tommy was absurd. His stance on decriminalizing homosexuality and treating it may seem regressive but of course for the times he lived in was progressive. The other comments were fine but unfortunately you had to throw in that absurdity to undermine your whole argument.

Debater

Well at least you acknowledge my other comments were 'fine'.  That's something.

The point is that all political parties used to be much more socially conservative - including the NDP.   And so my point was that we can all play around with this subject by taking things out of the context or time in which they were made or highlighting contradictions.

My point was that the NDP is not 50 years ahead of the Liberals on this issue.  The Liberals actually did the most to get the ball rolling, and while the NDP has been involved, the latter cannot take credit for being the primary mover on this issue since the NDP has never been in power federally!

So when I read distortions here that claim the NDP is a perfect party with a perfect history whereas the Liberals are regressive and opportunistic, the record has to be corrected.

The other point is that both the Liberals and the NDP are very different from the Conservatives.  It is the Conservatives who are always the most regressive.

Justin Trudeau's position is not theatre & showboating.  It's a major change.  And the reforms that Pierre Trudeau made in 1968-1969 may have been small to Jacob, but Jacob doesn't realize how socially conservative the country was back then and that even those reforms were controversial.  Trudeau was called a 'homo lover' etc, by many Conservatives, and still is today.

It's also easy for the NDP and its supporters to claim how morally superior they are when they have never been in power and have never known what it is like to make these decisions.  The NDP has never enacted a single piece of federal legislation in its history, so it doesn't get to claim to be the leader in this area like the Liberals do.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

Well at least you acknowledge my other comments were 'fine'.  That's something.

The point is that all political parties used to be much more socially conservative - including the NDP.   And so my point was that we can all play around with this subject by taking things out of the context or time in which they were made or highlighting contradictions.

My point was that the NDP is not 50 years ahead of the Liberals on this issue.  The Liberals actually did the most to get the ball rolling, and while the NDP has been involved, the latter cannot take credit for being the primary mover on this issue since the NDP has never been in power federally!

So when I read distortions here that claim the NDP is a perfect party with a perfect history whereas the Liberals are regressive and opportunistic, the record has to be corrected.

The other point is that both the Liberals and the NDP are very different from the Conservatives.  It is the Conservatives who are always the most regressive.

Justin Trudeau's position is not theatre & showboating.  It's a major change.  And the reforms that Pierre Trudeau made in 1968-1969 may have been small to Jacob, but Jacob doesn't realize how socially conservative the country was back then and that even those reforms were controversial.  Trudeau was called a 'homo lover' etc, by many Conservatives, and still is today.

It's also easy for the NDP and its supporters to claim how morally superior they are when they have never been in power and have never known what it is like to make these decisions.  The NDP has never enacted a single piece of federal legislation in its history, so it doesn't get to claim to be the leader in this area like the Liberals do.


You don't have to be in power to get the "ball rolling". Indeed much of the progressive legislation was passed because either the courts or social movements ploughed the ground. And yes, the NDP is not perfect but it certainly has been ahead of the Liberal Party on same sex marriage, gay and abortion rights. How much ahead? I don't know but certainly ahead of the Liberal Party and the truth of the matter this is a pretty low standard. The Liberal Party isn't necessarily always regressive but it is always opportunistic and totally lacking any sort of principles and that's its greatest electoral strength.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
So why not ask him to show us the money? Ask Trudeau -- will he create funding to make sure that these services are available at a reasonable distance to any woman in Canada who wants the service?

Can you provide a link to where the NDP has offered what you are suggesting?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering did I claim that they had? No.

I approached this from a constructive point of view not as a party person as to where to take the discussion as next steps in discussing Trudeaus's statement. You approached it from a purely partisan point of view which is why I absolutely hate any exchange with you.

Certainly there are things I would like that I have not seen from the NDP -- is that not obvious or are you looking to make some kind of a point? But in this case the NDP has fought for access to choice and the laws to make that possible for over a generation. When  the NDP do that now it simply is not news.

wage zombie

http://nikiashton.ndp.ca/women-s-rights

Quote:

  • Guaranteeing that abortion is a fully funded, universally accessible medical procedure, and protecting the personal safety of physicians, personnel, and patients at abortion clinics.

It was also found in the NDP's 2011 Election Platform:

Quote:

We will re-affirm women’s rights to safe, accessible abortion services.

Sean in Ottawa

Debator I don't find that comment about McGrath accurate at all. He was not an anti-choice candidate. In fact the statement he made was in favour of legal choice and simply referred to a responsibility (as he saw it) to use the choice the way he wanted. McGrath was not a Tom Wappel.

"You people on the mainland seem to be more interested in that (abortion) than any other issue in Canada--and we got more serious issues right now," Father McGrath told the Globe and Mail newspaper (June 23). Ottawa should leave the abortion matter alone, he said, despite Conservative Party policy that would allow MPs to introduce legislation on it. "I don't believe in stirring up the pot and stirring up old ashes in this," he says, adding, it's up to women to make the right decision. "Responsibility goes with the rights that women have over their own bodies and hopefully the decision that they make would be for pro-life."

As a condition of her candidacy Monia Mazigh agreed not to vote against the party on a human rights issue and said if it were a religious conviction she would abstain.

I understand that Trudeau is requiring his candidates to agree not to vote to limit abortion as a condition of standing as candidates.

I don't find this very different than what was asked of these two people who ran for the NDP a decade ago.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I approached this from a constructive point of view not as a party person as to where to take the discussion as next steps in discussing Trudeaus's statement.

These are not constructive non-partisan comments:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So why not ask him to show us the money? Ask Trudeau -- will he create funding to make sure that these services are available at a reasonable distance to any woman in Canada who wants the service?

I have lots of things I could crap on Liberals for not doing or for doing wrong -- I won't scrape the bottom of the barrel to find a criticism when they do the right thing. It does not happen enough.

I think it is quite fair to ask you in response if this is something the NDP have in their platform because you are an NDP supporter, a member I think you said? You suggest that Trudeau should create funding specifically for abortion access, I think it's fair to ask if that is part of the federal NDP platform.

Delivery of health care services is a provincial jurisdiction. I care very much about women's rights and reproductive health but I could think of dozens of changes that should be made to health care accessibility for all sorts of treatment. Early intervention for treatment of autism for example. People dying on wait lists.

Trudeau's current support of a woman's right to choose meets expectations. The federal parties should be focusing on the big picture of health care accessibility and affordability.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

http://nikiashton.ndp.ca/women-s-rights

Quote:

  • Guaranteeing that abortion is a fully funded, universally accessible medical procedure, and protecting the personal safety of physicians, personnel, and patients at abortion clinics.

It was also found in the NDP's 2011 Election Platform:

Quote:

We will re-affirm women’s rights to safe, accessible abortion services.

Thank you WZ. I read the first link and appreciated the other things she said as well.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering you can't recognize constructive because the only thing you find constructive is picking your next fight.

I asked people not to attack Trudeau for doing the right thing. Then  I suggested next steps. You are clearly trolling here.

So when I defend Trudeau let's be clear it is not partisan becuase I am not a Liberal. Trudeau was being attacked I defend him and you want to fight with me. Obviously not because I defended him but because you just want to fight. You are clearly a piece of work in these threads now.

As for the NDP platform -- I know this is long time NDP policy. I simply said that rather than use the story to criticize Trudeau people should ask for next steps -- support to provide the service.

You demanded I produce a link -- but why? I was being asked to back up something that does exist but I had not said it did as it was not my point.

BTW: I have worked in health care comms for a good long while and also worked around law so
I actually do know this stuff.

Health care is a shared jurisdiction provincial yes but federal too because of the -- wait for it-- the spending power. Yes what I was saying is to fund the services. This provides the service through negotiation rather than going after withholding transfers which is the other way.

I am not the only person to call for this either. Many call for the federal government to simply withhold transfer payments as nonprovision of services is a Canada Health Act violation.

Please stop acting like you know more than you seem to actually know.

And maybe stop picking fights just to pick fights

Debater

Justin Trudeau & Tom Mulcair will be at a Planned Parenthood event called 'CHOICES GALA' on October 7, 2014:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByJe0B4IUAEj7wg.jpg:large

Jacob Two-Two

The difference is that it was Justin who put this issue front and centre with his edict. But as always, there's no substance behind it. If the NDP had made some big media stand over an issue, but didn't bother to back that up with legislation to improve things, I would make the same criticism of them.

Debater

Justin responded to the issue for several reasons - he didn't just put it 'front and centre' for no reason.

1.  Liberal delegates at the previous Convention had strongly voted in favour of the pro-choice position.

2.  Nominations were beginning and there were some anti-abortion candidates who wanted to run in new ridings to influence Parliament in the next election.

3.  Justin was asked about the subject the week that the anti-abortion faction were gathering on the lawn on Parliament Hill and he wanted to send them a message.

Btw, I'm not sure what 'legislation' you expect an opposition party to get passed by a Conservative Majority Parliament right now.

Debater

Getting back to the Sun News obsession with Justin Trudeau, and Ezra Levant in particular, I wonder how many Canadians know that Harper's former Director of Communications, Kory T., is the V.P. of Sun News?  And that a couple of other Harper staffers run the Network, too?

As Gerald Butts said this week, Sun News is basically an arm of the PMO, and it's long past time for them to be called out on it.

Here's a list someone made of some of the Harper staffers at Sun News:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByUvmHZIMAIljMj.png

Debater

And the Bride and Father of the Groom have spoken out against Ezra Levant's disgusting comments about their wedding photos with Justin.  They asked Justin to pose with them, and the Groom was there the whole time.  Levant's comments that Trudeau wanted to bed the bride show how sick the whole Sun 'News' Network is:

Bride And Father Of Groom Contradict Levant's Take On Trudeau Wedding Photo

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/24/ezra-levant-trudeau-wedding-phot...

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Sun News' viewership is tiny. It is a joke. Why anyone, including Justin Trudeau, pays any attention to these clowns, is a mystery. Justin should have laughed it off. He has built up Sun Media and made himself look a tad petulant.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

Sun News' viewership is tiny. It is a joke. Why anyone, including Justin Trudeau, pays any attention to these clowns, is a mystery. Justin should have laughed it off. He has built up Sun Media and made himself look a tad petulant.

Levant went too far. An apology is the least they should offer. He should be fired. He should have been fired for the Roma comments. Not giving them interviews is entirely appropriate. That will hurt them. They need to learn a lesson. If they want interviews they will have to treat him and his family with a modicum of respect. Talking about his mother's underwear or lack thereof and his father's sexual partners was way over the line.

Pondering

This is good news for all concerned:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/23/mulcair-harkens-back-to-ndps-soc...

The tone of the speech is a contrast to Mr. Mulcair’s vow during the NDP leadership race two years ago to move the party beyond “some of the 1950s boilerplate” language of social democracy in a bid to capture more centrist voters. At that time, he questioned why the party continually referred to “ordinary working-class Canadians, ordinary this, ordinary that,” calling it a recipe for restricting the NDP to a perpetual 17% of the vote.

His shift in approach may reflect lessons learned from last spring’s Ontario election or Monday’s New Brunswick election, where attempts to cast the NDP as more centrist backfired at the polls.

Mr. Mulcair may also be trying to shore up the NDP’s traditional base of supporters in the face of a reinvigorated Liberal party. Polls suggest the historic gains New Democrats made in the 2011 election have eroded steadily since Justin Trudeau took the helm of the Liberals 18 months ago.

I'm glad he seems to be shifting to the left. Good news all around. It will help clarify the choices for voters. It will solidify the bases and give swing voters a clear choice.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I somehow got onto a Liberal Party of Canada mailing list. I promise I didn't do it intentionally. I suspect that some other organization I gave my email address to shared it with the Liberals. Anyway, starting on July 29, I've been getting fund raising emails from the Liberals about once a week. The latest one offers a chance to have dinner with Justin and discuss the issues that matter to me. It seems to be a sort of raffle, and you buy a ticket by making a donation. Interestingly, they start very low, asking for only $3, about the price of a lottery ticket. This latest message also includes a very professionally made video of a dinner Justin held with supporters who won the lottery in Nova Scotia sometime in the summer. I thought it was pretty effective, even if totally devoid of content.

Debater

montrealer58 wrote:

Sun News' viewership is tiny. It is a joke. Why anyone, including Justin Trudeau, pays any attention to these clowns, is a mystery. Justin should have laughed it off. He has built up Sun Media and made himself look a tad petulant.

I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive about Justin Trudeau, so I'm not surprised you are critical here, too.

Trudeau doesn't normally pay attention to Sun News.  But when Levant basically accused him of sexually assaulting a woman on her wedding day, it's not something Gerald Butts & Justin Trudeau were willing to let go by.  You also forget that Levant & Sun News dragged the bride & groom and their families into this, too.  Their reputations were also smeared.  There had to be a response, which is why they've spoken out against Levant in that new interview above with Althia Raj.

The bride & her father say they contacted Ezra Levant, but that he wouldn't give them a proper response or correct the record.  They are private citizens and aren't used to this sort of thing.  Trudeau is used to being smeared, but they're not in politics and this was shock to them.

It's very easy for those who have never been slandered on national television to just say it's easy to laugh off.

Debater

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I somehow got onto a Liberal Party of Canada mailing list. I promise I didn't do it intentionally. I suspect that some other organization I gave my email address to shared it with the Liberals. Anyway, starting on July 29, I've been getting fund raising emails from the Liberals about once a week. The latest one offers a chance to have dinner with Justin and discuss the issues that matter to me. It seems to be a sort of raffle, and you buy a ticket by making a donation. Interestingly, they start very low, asking for only $3, about the price of a lottery ticket. This latest message also includes a very professionally made video of a dinner Justin held with supporters who won the lottery in Nova Scotia sometime in the summer. I thought it was pretty effective, even if totally devoid of content.

Yes, videos produced under the Trudeau Liberals are professionally shot.  The days of grainy, amateur camerawork like we saw from Stéphane Dion in his 'Coalition Speech' are over.  The Liberals are raising a lot more money under Justin Trudeau and Chief Revenue Officer Stephen Bronfman.

And they are fundraising videos.  So they're not meant to have a lot of content.  It's about setting up the opportunity to meet the leader as a reward for donating.  The idea actually comes from the Obama Campaign.  They did this sort of thing in the 2008 Election, and when some of Obama's campaign managers met with Justin Trudeau's advisers, they shared some ideas they had found productive in the Obama elections.

Pages

Topic locked