NDP Launch New Attack Ads - Justin Trudeau, he just lost my vote

Stockholm wrote:

The thing people forget about 2005 is that there was reason why Martin was so cavalier and dismissive of Laytons olive branch appeal to save public health care. The Liberals were ahead in the polls in November 2005 and the conventional wisdom at the time was that Harper was unelectable and that a new election would at worst mean another Liberal minority and at best that the Liberals could regain a majority.

You guys have really got to make up your minds. Either Layton did or did not have anything to bargain with. According to Sean, Layton had nothing to offer because he didn't have enough votes to bargain with. So what was he trying to do? Trick Martin?

Stockholm wrote:

The thing people forget about 2005 is that there was reason why Martin was so cavalier and dismissive of Laytons olive branch appeal to save public health care. The Liberals were ahead in the polls in November 2005 and the conventional wisdom at the time was that Harper was unelectable and that a new election would at worst mean another Liberal minority and at best that the Liberals could regain a majority. If Martin had really wanted to avoid an early election all he had to do was seriously negotiate with Layton and with the independent MPs. Instead Martin said "damn the torpedoes" and dared the opposition to bring him down. Then of course the Liberals proceeded to run a ridiculously bad campaign and they lost the election. There was an election in January 2006 and way more people voted conservative than voted Liberal. The VOTERS rejected Paul Martin and only THE VOTERS. This silly argument about who did what to whom in November 2005 is beside the point. There was an election and Canadians collectively VOMITED up the corrupt Martin Liberals.

I disagree -- the independents were not going to negotiate -- 2 had just left the Liberals over the scandal and had blown their careers to do so and the third had lost the NDP nomination. The only indepdent who might consider voting with the government had been won over.

Layton had nothing to offer. He exaggerated his influence over events in order to appear more relevant. The fact is that when Martin lost those independents he was done and everyone knew that.

I think Martin thought he could win and he was tapped to get a minority but I disagree that he wanted to have an election on the scandal. The chance of increasing his vote was not great even if he felt confidencet that he could beat Harper. He was also worried about the NDP.

There is absolutely no evidence that any deal could have been possible between Layton and Martin. I remember this time well and nobody thought an election was avoidable-- even if a number of people thought Martin might win it.

When you have two MPs leave specifically in order to vote against you in the House you don't have a realistic chance of winning them back. Look at what they said from the time.

Could we take the rehashing of history to another thread?  Pretty please? This thread was actually a good - if vociferous - discussion until then.

And, maybe newer babblers could do us the courtesty of either PM-ing people or opening a new thread if they need context.

pookie wrote:

Could we take the rehashing of history to another thread?  Pretty please? This thread was actually a good - if vociferous - discussion until then.

And, maybe newer babblers could do us the courtesty of either PM-ing people or opening a new thread if they need context.

Sorry. I wasn't expecting anything like this. It derailed another thread too :/ I just wanted links, but I will remember to PM for them in the future.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'd also add that here in Western Canada, while we are proud Canadians and would prefer for Quebec to stay in Canada, it seems like the consensus opinion here is, "if Quebec wants to separate, let them go, we have our own issues here and our own issues with the federal government."

Goes to show how out of touch with the rest of the country the Liberals are on national unity. It's also worth noting that when the Charlottetown Accord, which was designed in large parts to appeal to Quebec nationalists, was actually voted against by both Quebeckers and Westerners.

That goes to show how out of touch the NDP is with insisting on reviving the Sherbrooke Declaration which was designed to appeal to Quebec Nationalists.

Any province that wants to separate should go ahead and do so without any interference but they have to deal with the setting of borders and the treaties that Canada has with FN people and their contractual obligations with Canada including their share of the debt.

Canada does not have the right to pass their treaty obligations over to the provinces.

As you noted yourself the Charlottetown Accord was rejected by all of Canada including Quebec. How about the NDP letting sleeping dogs lie? Quebec is NOT asking for the Sherbrooke Declaration. The NDP is seeking to impose it on us to please a minority of Quebecers.

I don't appreciate the NDP trying to deny me my rights as a Canadian to the same benefits recieved by other Canadians.

Why should western Canadians have more rights than Quebecers?

montrealer58 wrote:

That political polls can actually move based on racism is an absolute disgrace to this country. What is this? Alabama? 

A friend of mine in Brampton of Palestinian extraction who voted NDP last time is switching to the Liberals. He says the Bloc are just racists and so are the Conservatives. To him, those are white people parties who want nothing to do with him. I said what about the NDP? He said now is not the time for austerity, and he does not trust the NDP on the Clarity Bill. I asked what business he had talking about Quebec in Canada living as he did in Brampton, and given the inviolable principle of national self-determination. He is going to get back to me on that one, however he made vague statements about National Unity. It seems that the Quebec card plays very well in Ontario. I do not know why. Don't they have their own business to attend to? Like abject corruption in their own house?

In either case of Liberal or NDP, we are going to have a Montreal Prime Minister again, and that will be as it should be.  Torontonians need to be reminded where the real centre of the universe is.

To get back to political ads...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/18/new-bloc-quebecois-ad-niqab_n_81...

“The elections are coming,” says a narrator off-camera. “There is also a big beautiful pipeline that’s coming even if we don’t want it.”

A glob of oil then spills out of the pipeline and forms into the shape of a niqab.

The narrator then justifies “returning” to the Bloc by calling Mulcair’s position against a niqab ban during citizenship oath ceremonies the “final drop.”

The ad marks a second attempt by the party to frame the niqab debate into a wedge issue to turn NDP voters into Bloc supporters. It comes days after a Federal Court of Appeal ruled a ban on wearing niqabs during citizenship ceremonies to be unlawful.

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted to the decision Wednesday by saying, “Women should not have their face covered in our society.”

The above must be understood in the context of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. Consequently, full body costumes and Zentais (skin-tight garments covering entire body) were banned. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2]

The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. The key argument against the ban is that it encroaches on individual freedoms.[3]

As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other mask in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other headwear that do not cover the face, are not affected by this law and can be worn.[4] The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law (such as motor-bike riders and safety workers) and during established occasional events (such as some carnivals). The law imposes a fine of up to €150, and/or participation in citizenship education, for those who violate the law.[5][6] The bill also penalises, with a fine of €30,000 and one year in prison, anyone who forces (by violence, threats, or abuse of power) another to wear face coverings; these penalties may be doubled if the victim is under the age of 18.[1][5][7]

As a result of the law, the only exceptions to a woman wearing a niqāb in public will be if she is travelling in a private car or worshiping in a religious place.[8] French police say that while there are five million Muslims in France, fewer than 2,000 are thought to fully cover their faces with a veil.[2] The wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was previously banned in 2004 by a different law, the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. This affected the wearing of Islamic veils and headscarves in schools, as well as turbans and other distinctive items of dress.

The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".[9]

I am against the ban but I won't pretend there isn't an argument to be made for official secularism based on social cohesion through common values. Religion has caused a great deal of civil unrest and wars over imaginary deities with various cult-like rules imposed on followers including calls to violence against infidels. Religions require that adherents marry within so they will raise their children within the mosque/church. They create barriers. Religions are not harmless.

Quebec isn't as keen on multiculturalism as the rest of Canada (yet) because of the centrality of maintaining Quebec language and culture domination. For decades the goal has been assimilation into French society.

The problem I have with the ad is that it singles out the nijab and makes it appear ominous. It likens the image of an oil spill with a religious symbol exagerating the threat as though we are in danger of being invaded by nijab-wearing women. It feeds xenophobia and by extension violence against minorities.

Leading to terrible incidences such as:

Montreal police are investigating after an attack on a pregnant Muslim woman.

Police say the woman was going to pick up her daughter from school on Tuesday in the city's north end, near the Galeries D'Anjou, when two teenagers came up behind her on their bikes and tried to rip off her hijab.

The momentum of their tugging on her head scarf caused her to fall down.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-police-muslim-woman-1.32...

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

That political polls can actually move based on racism is an absolute disgrace to this country. What is this? Alabama? 

A friend of mine in Brampton of Palestinian extraction who voted NDP last time is switching to the Liberals. He says the Bloc are just racists and so are the Conservatives. To him, those are white people parties who want nothing to do with him. I said what about the NDP? He said now is not the time for austerity, and he does not trust the NDP on the Clarity Bill. I asked what business he had talking about Quebec in Canada living as he did in Brampton, and given the inviolable principle of national self-determination. He is going to get back to me on that one, however he made vague statements about National Unity. It seems that the Quebec card plays very well in Ontario. I do not know why. Don't they have their own business to attend to? Like abject corruption in their own house?

Coming at this a little late.

Obviously you know him better than any of us but....I have real doubts about this strategy convincing any ROC voter who happens to think the secession issue is impt (even if we know that it isn't).  

One, if it isn't important, why is the NDP addressing it?  

Now that is just silly, Pondering.  The fact that the NDP chose to make this an issue (for entirely legitimate political calculations) has little bearing on its actual importance, and certainly none as to its relative importance re: other issues being fought in this campaign.

Wow

"Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people..."

Is not the same as the definition of nation -- and you are looking in the wrong place -- under the definition of nationalism.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of Nation:

-- A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

Note: there is no requirement for a nation to be a state.

I really hope we don't hear a denial of First Nations as well as that would be where this would go if you follow the logic (such as it is).

But perhaps at least some of us could see that the words Nation and Nationalism are not interchangeable.

KarlL wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I ignore a lot of BS but this particular one -- the suggestion that the NDP were responsible for the end of Martin's government is not one I will not respond to. With respect, this is a major point and a lot more than what certs are. There are people who believe this and are shocked when they see the actual numbers.

I don't particularly like Jack Layton and am at a loss as to why we are expected to think of him as some sort of secular saint (as opposed to an NDP one) but I don't blame him for the defeat of the Martin government.

Neither do I. The issue is the timing of the election call.

Following negotiations with the Liberals that seemed designed to fail, Layton broke with the Martin government in a letter to health minister Ujjal Dosanjh on November 7, 2005. He wrote that he was halting talks with the Liberals vis-à-vis stopping “the growing privatization of public health care in Canada” because “in our view, on this key test of whether the Government has a real desire to make the present Parliament work, we must regretfully conclude that there seems to be none.” Three weeks later, the ndp joined with the other two opposition parties to defeat the minority Liberal government in a vote of non-confidence.

Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community. The federal election “badly tested the relationship” between social movements and the ndp, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper’s victory. “ndp strategists precipitated the election, sensing a moment of opportunity to win more seats. But their decision was made over the explicit objection of many progressive movements. They had used the Liberals’ fragile minority position to extract impressive, important gains (child care, new legal protections for workers, the aboriginal deal, and others); they wanted to solidify those victories, and win new ones.” Leaders from these progressive constituencies “all wanted the election later, not sooner.”

The most visible sign of division was Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove’s campaign to stop the Conservatives by supporting New Democrats in ridings where they were likely to win and Liberals elsewhere. Three weeks after the election, the Ontario ndp executive suspended Hargrove from the party; its president, Sandra Clifford, explained that the sum of the union leader’s actions led to the suspension. “It was appearing with the prime minister… hugging him. Saying that he wanted a Liberal minority government,” Clifford said. In effect, the party had decided that it was an expellable offence for members to advocate strategic voting. While many insiders wanted Hargrove to “buzz off,” others were just as concerned about the decision to bring down the government; some also saw the entire ndp campaign as strategic and found Hargrove’s dismissal deeply parodixical.

Prime Minister Martin had promised to call the election within thirty days of the release of retired justice John Gomery’s final report on the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which was delivered as planned on February 1, 2006. Either way, therefore, a trip to the polls was imminent. But ndp strategists thought it dangerous to allow the government to set the terms of debate, and were concerned that on the key issue of political ethics the party would be caught in a squeeze between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They believed that the Liberals would accept virtually all of Justice Gomery’s recommendations and that a chastened Liberal Party could win a majority government.

Still smarting over Martin’s successful last-ditch appeal to ndp supporters to vote Liberal to stop Harper during the 2004 election campaign, Layton’s team was determined not to let history repeat itself. Polls indicated that ndp supporters were the most worried about a Conservative government and, the thinking went, many would vote strategically again in the event of a successful campaign to demonize Harper. So, as revealed by ndp press releases, campaign literature, and Layton’s speeches, to prevent erosion of ndp support the party concentrated its fire on the Liberals, only sporadically mentioning the Conservatives in its attacks. The most memorable ndp television advertisement depicted Canadians giving the corrupt Liberals the boot.

These messages set the tone. Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, for one, told me that she felt pressure “not to critique Harper,” and that the top priority was “to win more seats for the ndp.” During the election, the Council was involved in the Think Twice coalition, made up of groups that came together to warn Canadians about Stephen Harper’s record. “If the ndp was not going to talk about Harper’s record,” Barlow said, “we felt we had to.”

The ndp and the wider progressive community are divided over whether it really matters if a Stephen Harper or a Paul Martin is in power. The standard party answer during the election campaign was a flat no, a position Maude Barlow couldn’t agree with.

Though author and social activist Naomi Klein had similar reservations about Layton’s tactics, she reasons that his strategy was “pretty much vindicated by his having won so many seats.” Klein speculates that Canadians may have a growing appreciation of minority governments and that the ndp could win many more seats in the next election.

“Why not” she asks. “The party stands for what many Canadians want.” At the same time, however, Klein insists that Layton “has a lot to prove. He must show that he can be a counterweight to Harper.” Moreover, the Canadian left requires a “strategy of revival” akin to the ones adopted in places like Mexico and France. In those countries there is considerably more policy interplay between social movements and political parties. The left, Klein contends, needs to be “more than a conference and less than a party.”

It turns out Maude Barlow and the other progressives were right. Layton was not able to be a counterweight to Harper. There was no revival of the left even though the NDP won more seats in following elections. Ten years later, Harper has wrought his dark magic and the NDP won't dare even say they will roll taxes back to 2005.

According to some, "Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community." never happened because the NDP had nothing to do with precipitating the election by a few months.

 

 

 

found Justin's quotes put up by pondering to be equal to hers or worse in respect to Nations and Nationhood.

 it's 19th century and small minded thinking according to Justin

Pondering wrote:

KarlL wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I ignore a lot of BS but this particular one -- the suggestion that the NDP were responsible for the end of Martin's government is not one I will not respond to. With respect, this is a major point and a lot more than what certs are. There are people who believe this and are shocked when they see the actual numbers.

I don't particularly like Jack Layton and am at a loss as to why we are expected to think of him as some sort of secular saint (as opposed to an NDP one) but I don't blame him for the defeat of the Martin government.

Neither do I. The issue is the timing of the election call.

Following negotiations with the Liberals that seemed designed to fail, Layton broke with the Martin government in a letter to health minister Ujjal Dosanjh on November 7, 2005. He wrote that he was halting talks with the Liberals vis-à-vis stopping “the growing privatization of public health care in Canada” because “in our view, on this key test of whether the Government has a real desire to make the present Parliament work, we must regretfully conclude that there seems to be none.” Three weeks later, the ndp joined with the other two opposition parties to defeat the minority Liberal government in a vote of non-confidence.

Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community. The federal election “badly tested the relationship” between social movements and the ndp, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper’s victory. “ndp strategists precipitated the election, sensing a moment of opportunity to win more seats. But their decision was made over the explicit objection of many progressive movements. They had used the Liberals’ fragile minority position to extract impressive, important gains (child care, new legal protections for workers, the aboriginal deal, and others); they wanted to solidify those victories, and win new ones.” Leaders from these progressive constituencies “all wanted the election later, not sooner.”

The most visible sign of division was Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove’s campaign to stop the Conservatives by supporting New Democrats in ridings where they were likely to win and Liberals elsewhere. Three weeks after the election, the Ontario ndp executive suspended Hargrove from the party; its president, Sandra Clifford, explained that the sum of the union leader’s actions led to the suspension. “It was appearing with the prime minister… hugging him. Saying that he wanted a Liberal minority government,” Clifford said. In effect, the party had decided that it was an expellable offence for members to advocate strategic voting. While many insiders wanted Hargrove to “buzz off,” others were just as concerned about the decision to bring down the government; some also saw the entire ndp campaign as strategic and found Hargrove’s dismissal deeply parodixical.

Prime Minister Martin had promised to call the election within thirty days of the release of retired justice John Gomery’s final report on the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which was delivered as planned on February 1, 2006. Either way, therefore, a trip to the polls was imminent. But ndp strategists thought it dangerous to allow the government to set the terms of debate, and were concerned that on the key issue of political ethics the party would be caught in a squeeze between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They believed that the Liberals would accept virtually all of Justice Gomery’s recommendations and that a chastened Liberal Party could win a majority government.

Still smarting over Martin’s successful last-ditch appeal to ndp supporters to vote Liberal to stop Harper during the 2004 election campaign, Layton’s team was determined not to let history repeat itself. Polls indicated that ndp supporters were the most worried about a Conservative government and, the thinking went, many would vote strategically again in the event of a successful campaign to demonize Harper. So, as revealed by ndp press releases, campaign literature, and Layton’s speeches, to prevent erosion of ndp support the party concentrated its fire on the Liberals, only sporadically mentioning the Conservatives in its attacks. The most memorable ndp television advertisement depicted Canadians giving the corrupt Liberals the boot.

These messages set the tone. Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, for one, told me that she felt pressure “not to critique Harper,” and that the top priority was “to win more seats for the ndp.” During the election, the Council was involved in the Think Twice coalition, made up of groups that came together to warn Canadians about Stephen Harper’s record. “If the ndp was not going to talk about Harper’s record,” Barlow said, “we felt we had to.”

The ndp and the wider progressive community are divided over whether it really matters if a Stephen Harper or a Paul Martin is in power. The standard party answer during the election campaign was a flat no, a position Maude Barlow couldn’t agree with.

Though author and social activist Naomi Klein had similar reservations about Layton’s tactics, she reasons that his strategy was “pretty much vindicated by his having won so many seats.” Klein speculates that Canadians may have a growing appreciation of minority governments and that the ndp could win many more seats in the next election.

“Why not” she asks. “The party stands for what many Canadians want.” At the same time, however, Klein insists that Layton “has a lot to prove. He must show that he can be a counterweight to Harper.” Moreover, the Canadian left requires a “strategy of revival” akin to the ones adopted in places like Mexico and France. In those countries there is considerably more policy interplay between social movements and political parties. The left, Klein contends, needs to be “more than a conference and less than a party.”

It turns out Maude Barlow and the other progressives were right. Layton was not able to be a counterweight to Harper. There was no revival of the left even though the NDP won more seats in following elections. Ten years later, Harper has wrought his dark magic and the NDP won't dare even say they will roll taxes back to 2005.

According to some, "Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community." never happened because the NDP had nothing to do with precipitating the election by a few months.

 

 

 

Maude Barlow is a Liberal; you're a Liberal. Nuff said.

quizzical wrote:

i hadn't read pondering's post until you responded SiO. i found it alarming such a backwards belief was being stated by pondering and Justin. read the links pondering had and as a Metis with a large FN family the comments by the both of them denies us agency as a Nation or Nations.

i was reading a newspaper comments section this morning about FN's voters having the ability to impact the election. there were a bunch of middle aged, or older, white men telling FN's to vote Liberal. well, if their profile pics are accurate. i couldn't even be bothered to waste my time telling them they were .......

Just the opposite. I am pointing out that FN treaties are with Canada not Quebec therefore Quebec's borders would have to be negotiated. First Nations land does not belong to Quebec. Quebec secessionists skim over this aspect of secession because they would not be able to get a yes vote if Quebecers were fully cognizant of what it would mean.

If FN people wanted to secede from Canada they would of course have a right to do that. Canada was imposed on them. It was not imposed on Quebec.

Unionist wrote:

Thanks kinda what I was saying, JKR. But if anyone doesn't think Québec has the "right" to establish an independent state without the "consent" of Canada (or anyone else), they belong in the same heap with the various empires - U.S., British, French, Soviet, the rest.

Fortunately, this is not the subject of any real debate anywhere, except where those dinosaurs go to feed. In Québec, all parties recognize that right. The NDP recognizes that right, since 2006. And even those who have the jitters about independence votes pretend to recognize Québec's "nationhood". It's unfortunate that only here do we find relics.

The people of Quebec have a right to determine their future but they also have a right to know what would have to be negotiated were they to decide on independence.

Those who do not want to seceed from Canada and wish to maintain their and their children's right to all the benefits of being Canadian also have rights.

The Supreme Court stated that areas of Quebec, such as Montreal, would also have the right to determine our future if a majority did not wish to separate. The NDP doesn't seem so keen on defending our rights.

The provinces are not occupied states. Quebec was a participant in the creation of Canada.

Rights to secede under international law and self-determination

The answer to the second question, which concerned Quebec's right under international law to secede, gave the opinion that the international law on secession was not applicable to the situation of Quebec. The court pointed out that international law "does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state."

The Supreme Court of Canada's opinion stated that the right of a people to self-determination was expected to be exercised within the framework of existing states, by negotiation, for example. Such a right could only be exercised unilaterally under certain circumstances, under current international law. The court held that:

The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.

and that

A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.

The court stated in its opinion that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within an existing nation state, there is no right to secede unilaterally.

For close to 40 of the last 50 years, the Prime Minister of Canada has been a Quebecer. During this period, Quebecers have held from time to time all the most important positions in the federal Cabinet. During the 8 years prior to June 1997, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons were both Quebecers. At present, the Right Honourable Chief Justice and two other members of the Court, the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian ambassador to the United States, not to mention the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, are all Quebecers. The international achievements of Quebecers in most fields of human endeavour are too numerous to list. Since the dynamism of the Quebec people has been directed toward the business sector, it has been clearly successful in Quebec, the rest of Canada and abroad.

The Supreme Court further stated that: Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec#Rights_to...

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

pookie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

One, if it isn't important, why is the NDP addressing it?  

Now that is just silly, Pondering.  The fact that the NDP chose to make this an issue (for entirely legitimate political calculations) has little bearing on its actual importance, and certainly none as to its relative importance re: other issues being fought in this campaign.

The NDP's "legitimate political calculation" is wrong. This isn't something that is popular in Quebec.

I am confused by your position which seems to to be that only positive responses to the Sherbrooke Declaration are politically legitimate.

The NDP pushed it for a reason. To try to win votes, but according to you it is not legitimate for them to lose votes over it.

Excuse me??

"Legitimate political calculation" simply means that it is a political issue on which a party might see an advantage in taking a position.  It does not mean that it is "correct" either as a matter of law or morality.  Nor does it mean that it will actually, you know, work.  

I take, and have taken, no issue on the NDP, Sherbrooke, Clarity or secession in general.  Nor do I intend to in this thread.

Again, you are being obtuse.  

Not deliberately. You seem to be saying that it is an unimportant reason to object to the NDP. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/romanow-disagrees-with-ndp-...

One of the most prominent NDP stalwarts, former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, says he disagrees with the federal party’s proposition that a bare majority Yes vote would be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec’s secession from Canada.

And he says he’s not the only New Democrat with qualms.

“I think within the party there are many people of varying views on this particular issue,” Romanow told The Canadian Press.

“I think there’s room in the party for a lot of debate and discussion about this issue, certainly when it comes to national unity. To me, it’s probably one of the most important, if not the most important issue that any political party in a federation as diverse and fragile as ours must consider.”

In a subsequent interview, Romanow stressed that he supports NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and understands why he has embraced the notion that 50 per cent plus one vote should be the threshold for any successful referendum vote.

“I can certainly understand the federal NDP’s position,” Romanow said.

“You have a principle here about democracy working and if 50 plus one is thought to be the general rule in a democratic society then ... that’s exactly what should govern all decisions, including the decision with respect to a possible separation.

“That can’t be dismissed easily, that argument.”

Nevertheless, he added: “I just don’t accept its consequences or its potential consequences.”

Romanow said he and his government’s legal and constitutional advisers did seriously consider whether a simple majority should be sufficient. But after analysing the Supreme Court’s advice on the rules for secession, upon which the Clarity Act was based, they concluded that the fate of the country could not hinge on a judicial recount over a handful of votes.

Romanow said he continues to believe that “the nation called Canada ought not to be easily broken up by a clerical error or the wrong attendance of a wrong voter at the wrong time and the wrong place, or something of that nature, that there’s got to be a clear expression of it.”

....

However, anything less than 100 per cent turnout would mean, under the NDP’s bill, that less than half of Quebec’s eligible voters could end up triggering the breakup of the country.

Romanow said it’s those kinds of concerns that persuade him it is more prudent to set “a higher bar.”

I agree that there are more important issues. If the NDP had been fighting the trade deals with the Council of Canadians and CUPE I would vote NDP.

I'll be interested to see - in exit polls - how high the unity file was in voters' minds.

pookie wrote:

I'll be interested to see - in exit polls - how high the unity file was in voters' minds.

Probably so low it can't be measured individually and people wouldn't necessarily choose it as a deciding factor because the impact can be indirect. It gave fodder to the argument that Mulcair said different things in French than in English. That in turn breeds distrust.

Some people also see it as evidence of a Quebec centric focus. It gives powers to Quebec that are withheld from the other provinces.

Quebec separation is old news. The reaction to the unity bill was negative.

It can be alienating in Quebec to federalists and secessionists alike none of whom want to be reminded of referendums.

Every policy has to be judged on it's net benefit if any. I doubt the Sherbrooke Declaration has helped win any votes at all in Quebec, as to English Canada.

This is from today:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/10/11/justin-trudeau-is-t...

Far more troubling is Mulcair’s proposition that Quebec can secede with a 50-plus one vote. This is against the law of the land, the Clarity Act. Quebecers have a democratic right to quit Canada but they must first obtain a clear majority on a clear question.

Siddiqui is no right-winger.

Cody87 wrote:

The reason why senate seats are not tied to population and are constitutionally guaranteed in specific proportions to specific regions is (at least in theory) to ensure that minority voices (in this case, smaller regions) are still heard and respected. This is why the senate can't be even reformed without well over 50% support no matter how support is measured. Why should 50%+1 be considered enough support to potentially exit the country, when that may cause significant harm to a minority to Quebecers?

For the same reason that Newfoundland and Labrador was allowed to enter into Confederation on a "Yes" margin that wasn't much greater than that which Quebec said "No" in 1995.

Cody87 wrote:

The reason why senate seats are not tied to population and are constitutionally guaranteed in specific proportions to specific regions is (at least in theory) to ensure that minority voices (in this case, smaller regions) are still heard and respected. This is why the senate can't be even reformed without well over 50% support no matter how support is measured. Why should 50%+1 be considered enough support to potentially exit the country, when that may cause significant harm to a minority to Quebecers?

Please read some Canadian History.

The Senate's creation had nothing to do with protecting minority rights -- it is, after all, a chamber designed to be elitist.

It was designed to protect the interests of clearly defined territories that were negotiating to enter Canada. It was not designed to protect minorities in general.