CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

[Navy_Pete]

Yes of course Pete, but we have to take him at his word until he blows the cover. Still, it's hopeful isn't it!

Yeah, it'd be nice to have a proper opposition leader and a genuine alternative, but withholding my optimism until the dust settles and he is in the role for a bit. Will be interesting to see what happens to the party.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Otherwise, I think the only chance for Canada is to hope that the LPC one day comes back to centre and embarks on some kind of fiscal turnaround like they did in the 90's.

The fiscal turnaround started in the 80s.  The LPC contribution was to make some spending cuts to pull the net surplus date forward by a couple of years.

 

[shawn5o]

I believe the fight for the CPC will not be with the left but the other 2 right parties the PPC and Wexit in the next election.
Vote splitting may be their downfall.

Hi X Royal
I think you nailed it

As LBD wrote, the PPC is essentially "DOA".


Maxime Bernier says Erin O'Toole is 'Liberal-lite,' unlike his People's Party
The assault on O'Toole's conservative credentials came only hours after the former military officer, lawyer and cabinet minister won the Conservative leadership

National Post

_____

Interesting article and Jay Hill has a compelling argument

WEXIT suffered a blow with the election of O'Toole as Tory leader
Western alienation got top billing from O'Toole during his first conversation with the PM on his first full day as leader of Canada's official Opposition


Licia Corbella
Aug 25, 2020  •  Last Updated 11 hours ago  •  4 minute read

Calgary Herald

 

[Brad Sallows]

It can be trying, sometimes, to politely tolerate people who want to deny you your pastimes while undoubtedly being ready to object if you tried to deny them theirs.

 

[LiveFightMove]

Part of the problem is this narrative that's pushed where if you're anti-abortion then you're this religious nutbar who probably hates women's rights.

In Canada abortion is legal at all stages of the pregnancy. Some people are uncomfortable with that.
The abortion issue falls under the mantra you're entitled to your own opinion as long as it agrees with mine.

That's the thing, with "women's rights", what about that baby's rights? The right for them to grow and continue to live inside a woman until they're born? Why is it only until they're not attached to someone that they're no longer allowed to be killed legally? (Just my opinion. Not looking for a debate.)

I suppose I would be one of those "religious nutbars" who gives the answer "because God" when it comes to same-sex marriage, because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...
But just as I see same-sex marriage/relations as a sin "because God", so is getting drunk and so is lust, and you don't see me protesting at bar or clubs.

I wasn't sure how to express my views on this, but yes I'm a "SoCon", but I wouldn't push same-sex relations to be illegal. Punishing people for acting on their feelings/attractions isn't going to make them believe in God.

Also, I do think firearms should be regulated. Let's keep people safe. But I do love sending rounds down range, and I'm sure there's a way to regulate them without a complete ban.

I don't think there's a large majority who share my views, thats okay. Part of demoncracy is having different opinions but being okay with losing every time.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

That's the thing, with "women's rights", what about that baby's rights? The right for them to grow and continue to live inside a woman until they're born? Why is it only until they're not attached to someone that they're no longer allowed to be killed legally? (Just my opinion. Not looking for a debate.)

Here's a good example of the absurd results that we get with this arbitrary determination that the child is only a person once outside the mother. In 1981, Manitoba resident Bernice Daniels was stabbed in the abdomen, resulting in the premature birth of her child who lived for 19 minutes before dying from injuries suffered during the attack. Sandra Prince was eventually convicted of the child's manslaughter.

Yet on the other hand there are numerous similar cases where the child died in utero and there was therefore no charge. For example the case of Turan Cocelli who stabbed his pregnant wife to death. Apparently the fetus still had a heartbeat at the hospital but by the time the surgeons completed the emergency c-section the baby was stillborn, so Cocelli was only charged with one count of murder.

So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder.

I suppose I would be one of those "religious nutbars" who gives the answer "because God" when it comes to same-sex marriage, because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...

I think it's a great failure on the part of the "pro-life" movement (which I frankly have very little use for, despite being personally vehemently opposed to abortion) that they allowed this to be framed as a "religion vs. science".

People would see me as one of those "religious nutbars" as well because I hold strong religious convictions. However, my religious beliefs are only a part of why I oppose abortion. To me it's simply a belief that murder is wrong and, as I understand the science, from a very early period of gestation a fetus is a human being by any definition I can think of (heartbeat, ten fingers/ten toes, etc.). I think everyone agrees that killing babies is wrong ... the real question is -- what, from a medical/science perspective constitutes a human being?

To say that one only becomes human once they exit their mother's womb seems arbitrary to me.

I wasn't sure how to express my views on this, but yes I'm a "SoCon", but I wouldn't push same-sex relations to be illegal. Punishing people for acting on their feelings/attractions isn't going to make them believe in God.

I think we're largely on the same page. You cannot legislate vice, essentially, it just doesn't work. Throwing people in jail will probably make people even more opposed to God.

Interestingly, back in the Medieval Europe, prostitution was not illegal. Obviously the Catholic Church condemned the practice, but the view was that outlawing it would cause more harm/problems than good, so it was tolerated. Likewise they never had prohibition even though preachers bemoaned drunkenness.

Also, I do think firearms should be regulated. Let's keep people safe. But I do love sending rounds down range, and I'm sure there's a way to regulate them without a complete ban.

I actually think the system we had before the OIC was pretty reasonable and, most importantly, it worked. Crimes committed with the rifles that have been banned were vanishingly rare and often committed in circumstances where the firearm was owned illegally anyway so outlawing them won't change anything.

 

[LiveFightMove]

Here's a good example of the absurd results that we get with this arbitrary determination that the child is only a person once outside the mother. In 1981, Manitoba resident Bernice Daniels was stabbed in the abdomen, resulting in the premature birth of her child who lived for 19 minutes before dying from injuries suffered during the attack. Sandra Prince was eventually convicted of the child's manslaughter.

Yet on the other hand there are numerous similar cases where the child died in utero and there was therefore no charge. For example the case of Turan Cocelli who stabbed his pregnant wife to death. Apparently the fetus still had a heartbeat at the hospital but by the time the surgeons completed the emergency c-section the baby was stillborn, so Cocelli was only charged with one count of murder.

So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder.

Thanks for sharing this information!

I think it's a great failure on the part of the "pro-life" movement (which I frankly have very little use for, despite being personally vehemently opposed to abortion) that they allowed this to be framed as a "religion vs. science".

People would see me as one of those "religious nutbars" as well because I hold strong religious convictions. However, my religious beliefs are only a part of why I oppose abortion. To me it's simply a belief that murder is wrong and, as I understand the science, from a very early period of gestation a fetus is a human being by any definition I can think of (heartbeat, ten fingers/ten toes, etc.). I think everyone agrees that killing babies is wrong ... the real question is -- what, from a medical/science perspective constitutes a human being?

To say that one only becomes human once they exit their mother's womb seems arbitrary to me.

Part of the reason I didn't include aborting babies in my "because God" list is because even if I weren't a Christian, I would still have the opinion that unborn developing human beings inside their mothers have the right to live. I'm not a part of any "movement" and I don't think this particular topic should be "religion vs science".

I think we're largely on the same page. You cannot legislate vice, essentially, it just doesn't work. Throwing people in jail will probably make people even more opposed to God.

Interestingly, back in the Medieval Europe, prostitution was not illegal. Obviously the Catholic Church condemned the practice, but the view was that outlawing it would cause more harm/problems than good, so it was tolerated. Likewise they never had prohibition even though preachers bemoaned drunkenness.

I actually think the system we had before the OIC was pretty reasonable and, most importantly, it worked. Crimes committed with the rifles that have been banned were vanishingly rare and often committed in circumstances where the firearm was owned illegally anyway so outlawing them won't change anything.

Thanks again for the information.

No handguns, or other firearms.  We don't need them. 

stellarpanter, I would say handguns could be used for self defence reasons. With this ban, where it may or may not reduce the amount of guns aquired illegally, I think that law-abiding and responsible citizens should be able to use this weapon system in the event of self defence.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Wow...

Yea you're right. Kids just find creative ways to swear and get around the censor program 

 

[Donald H]

.............., because let's be honest, if you don't believe in the Bible then why would you care about who has sex with who, or who gets drunk at the bars, or who goes to see strippers at the club, etc...

Yes, let's be completely honest. That's an offensive thing to say. People who feel 'socially responsible' do not refrain  from those activities you've listed because of the God. Or for that matter, any other immoral or illegal activity because of the God.
:cheers: :cheers:

 

[Blackadder1916]

So long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if the baby lives long enough to be delivered (prematurely as a result of the attack) then it's murder. 

Not to further take off track a thread that started as a discussion about the chances of renewed CPC leadership being successful in the future, I, being a stickler for accuracy, question the part of your statement that I've highlighted.  Given that you're a lawyer (correct me if I'm in error), I would have assumed that you would have stated more correctly that such a situation would likely result in charges for aggravated assault rather than none "absolutely".

 

[brihard]

I've always believed there should be a well defined right to property.  Because of the progressive left movement which I fear would abuse government powers, I am now much more in favour of having property rights enshrined in our charter somehow.  I don't know how or if that is possible, I understand it certainly won't happen under the current government.

Realistically, never gonna happen. Our Charter (Edit Constitution, inclusive of the Charter, has a few amendment formulas, depending on what's being amended. To amend the Charter, identical legislation to amend the Constitution Act would have to be passed by:

- The HOC
- The Senate
- At least 7 provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the Canadian population

The odds of our Charter or any substantial element of our Constitution beign amended at this point are exceptionally slim. It's been pretty much fossilized since the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord in 1987. Any reopening of the Constitution would result in a number of provinces wanting to delve into other larger issues, and the odds of getting all of those moving parts to align would likely be nil in the face of intransigence by various actors because they also want to address X or Y.

All that aside, the biggest push for enshrining property rights likely would come from the firearms lobby. That right there likely would prevent it from getting sufficient support. They wouldn't get BC or Quebec, and that only to more provinces need to decline to move forward with it. It would take long enough that there would be provincial governments changing parties during the process, and it would be an election issue in those provinces. And, of course, at the federal level it would be stillborn without a Conservative or Conservative aligned majority government.

So yeah- realistically, a non-starter. Our Constitution is in all practical terms very hard to change.

 

[Donald H]

The discussion on abortion brought up an interesting question to mind: If a married man gets his girlfriend pregnant, should the man have any say in the woman's choice to have an abortion?

And to take it to another level, considering that some conservatives' opinion is that a woman is aborting a child if she uses birth control pills or the 'morninig after' pill, should the man have a say on whether the woman should be allowed to use such pills?

 

[Blackadder1916]

The discussion on abortion brought up an interesting question to mind: If a married man gets his girlfriend pregnant, should the man have any say in the woman's choice to have an abortion?

And to take it to another level, considering that some conservatives' opinion is that a woman is aborting a child if she uses birth control pills or the 'morninig after' pill, should the man have a say on whether the woman should be allowed to use such pills?

Asking for a "friend"?  Or speculating that someone in the CPC leadership is in such a situation? Or that this would be a serious discussion point in a future election?  Perhaps a topic split is in order.  Personal opinion - when you get the affected uterus, you get a vote in the matter. 

 

[Donald H]

Asking for a "friend"?

Me? No.

Or speculating that someone in the CPC leadership is in such a situation?

Not that I'm aware of right now but quite likely the situation could arise in any of the parties!

Or that this would be a serious discussion point in a future election?

I sincerely hope that the abortion issue is discussed completely in parliament and not dealt with as it's been dealt with in the US. That reluctance to deal with the issue has resulted in M.D.'s being shot dead.

Perhaps a topic split is in order.  Personal opinion - when you get the affected uterus, you get a vote in the matter.

I hear you. My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Abortion isn't a "religion vs science" issue.  It's a philosophical and legal issue.  Everything hinges on when human life becomes a person, and what rights a person has.  To one side of the spectrum, we know that human life can be viable (become a person) before whatever its natural birth date would have been.  To the other side, Peter Singer is probably the best known of people who argue for permission to euthanize (severely disabled) children at some point after birth.  Science cannot identify when a human life becomes a person; all science can identify is markers along the road from conception to death.  Law cannot identify when a human life becomes a person; all law can do is assert definitions to support an aim.

Property rights should be much more strongly protected.  Without some absolute rights in property, a person basically only has inherent ownership of himself.  That is all that separates a person from slavery.  We should have more protections from the whim of the mob (people in fear, who assert that "people don't need to have X").  "Need" has nothing to do with the universe of activities that constitute "pursuit of happiness".

 

[garb811]

Partial cleanup of the thread, if you're looking to discuss Gun Control, that's been moved to the Great Gun Control Thread 2.0.

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[shawn5o]

Realistically, never gonna happen. Our Charter has a few amendment formulas, depending on what's being amended. To amend the Charter, identical legislation to amend the Constitution Act would have to be passed by:

- The HOC
- The Senate
- At least 7 provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the Canadian population

The odds of our Charter or any substantial element of our Constitution beign amended at this point are exceptionally slim. It's been pretty much fossilized since the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord in 1987. Any reopening of the Constitution would result in a number of provinces wanting to delve into other larger issues, and the odds of getting all of those moving parts to align would likely be nil in the face of intransigence by various actors because they also want to address X or Y.

All that aside, the biggest push for enshrining property rights likely would come from the firearms lobby. That right there likely would prevent it from getting sufficient support. They wouldn't get BC or Quebec, and that only to more provinces need to decline to move forward with it. It would take long enough that there would be provincial governments changing parties during the process, and it would be an election issue in those provinces. And, of course, at the federal level it would be stillborn without a Conservative or Conservative aligned majority government.

So yeah- realistically, a non-starter. Our Constitution is in all practical terms very hard to change.

I'm not sure but property rights were not included in the 1982 Constitution Act because the of provinces objections.?

 

[brihard]

I'm not sure but property rights were not included in the 1982 Constitution Act because the of provinces objections.?

Yup. PET actually proposed property rights in the first drafts of the Charter, but a few of the provinces weren’t cool with it. They feared it might limit provincial expropriation powers, among other things. Saskatchewan in particular made the elimination of property rights a condition for accepting the proposed constitution. Federally, the NDP bucked as well.

 

[QV]

My opinion is that the man who got his girlfriend pregnant should have no say in the matter. He's already guilty of making one bad decision.

In the words of Dave Chappelle: "My wallet, my choice."

Should one person's decision be able to affect so many others in such a profound way?  For example, in an unplanned pregnancy (a casual sex situation) where the mother wants to keep but the father does not, should the father than be absolved of any future financial and parental obligations?

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Not to further take off track a thread that started as a discussion about the chances of renewed CPC leadership being successful in the future, I, being a stickler for accuracy, question the part of your statement that I've highlighted.  Given that you're a lawyer (correct me if I'm in error), I would have assumed that you would have stated more correctly that such a situation would likely result in charges for aggravated assault rather than none "absolutely".

Fair enough, I should have been more specific/exclicit that when I say "absolutely no criminal charges" I meant in relation to the fetus.

Whether the baby lives long enough to make it outside the womb before dying, the attacker will still be facing charges for assault/aggravated assault/manslaughter/murder etc. in regards to the mother.