News   Apr 17, 2026
 788     0 
News   Apr 17, 2026
 1.8K     6 
News   Apr 17, 2026
 745     0 

Who will be the next Liberal leader?

I don't think it's a basic human right protected by the Charter. Where does it say that?
To those that think it's a human right, it doesn't matter if it's in the Charter. I imagine they think it is implied somehow.

We are confusing Human Rights with Constitutional Rights. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.
 
Oh, we're confusing the two.
IMO, yes. Equal treatment of civil unions is a constitutional right, but not a human right.

For example, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html "English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada". This can not be a Human Right, but is in fact language rights.
 
So maybe someone can define the "right" by which heterosexuals can get married.
 
So maybe someone can define the "right" by which heterosexuals can get married.
That's just it, marriage for anyone is not a right. It's simply a civil and/or religious recognition of a relationship. Marriage existed well before we had such ideas of Rights. What was/is irking the gay lobby IMO is that they're were not included in the government's definition of marriage, and as such that definition was against the Charter's rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

It's a shame that this turned into some discussion about rights, since this has little to do with who the next Liberal leader will be.
 
There is also the matter of discrimination against homosexual couples in terms of legal status, taxation, etc. It isn't a battle over the word, IMO.
 
Oh probably. This seems like a circular debate. If it makes everyone happy, let's declare than any different, separate or special treatment of any group over another group is by default a contravention of human rights.
 
The only person who doesn't understand that already appears to be you.
 
Oh probably. This seems like a circular debate. If it makes everyone happy, let's declare than any different, separate or special treatment of any group over another group is by default a contravention of human rights.

I guess incompetant employees could be considered a group :lol

So next time you are incompetant for a job and are not hired -- sue them :lol
 
It's simply a civil and/or religious recognition of a relationship. Marriage existed well before we had such ideas of Rights. What was/is irking the gay lobby IMO is that they're were not included in the government's definition of marriage, and as such that definition was against the Charter's rejection of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Yes, it is simply a civil recognition of a relationship, but it is one that comes with a tremendous number or related factors having everything to do with things from insurance to property rights. Same sex couples have had to battle to win these recognitions and rights to equal recognition under the law. While marriage is not a right per se, equal treatment of individuals under the law is.
 
Well, it seems to be shaking out a bit more.

I think pretty much everybody who was musing about running has thrown their hat in, so we can be pretty sure that the slim list will consist of Carolyn Bennett, Ken Dryden, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Joe Volpe, Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy, Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison, Martha Hall Findlay, Ashley MacIsaac, and Bob Rae. I hope I didn't miss anyone!

Bennett and Hall Findlay will both get a certain amount of support as the only women candidates, particularly from the spots assigned to womens' commissions. Hall Findlay has also been relatively well-organized, sending out mailings to introduce herself.

Bevilacqua and Volpe will be the more conservative candidates. The former is seen as as strongly fiscally conservative, and is trying to portray himself as the candidate of the right. He might attract a certain amount of business support. Volpe, though no hard-right-winger, is probably among the most conservative on this list, and may choose to reach out to anti-same-sex Liberals.

Brison's also seen as fiscally conservative, and socially liberal to boot. It would make him an attractive candidate if it weren't for his minor scandal, which came at the very worst possible time.

Dryden's a great candidate, though he's seen as a bit too wooden as a speaker, plus his French is a little rusty. He may also suffer from seeming slow off the mark to announce.

Dion will obviously benefit from being the only Quebecker, and he's quite popular among Quebec Liberals. Unfortunately, his English is a bit poor, and if nothing else, he'll be swimming against a strong current in favour of an English Canadian candidate.

Gerard Kennedy has a lot going for him, being among the most fluently bilingual. He has also run a major provincial ministry (and a challenging one at that) for quite some time without any significant scandal. He's very progressive, and is actually the kind guy who turned down a pay raise while he worked at the Food Bank during the cutbacks era. His biggest drawback, obviously, is his relatively low profile and the fact that he is a provincial politician. They have not tended to translate well in federal politics. He is definitely a micromanager, too, however you want to view that. Despite his low profile, though, he's developed pretty impressive support across the country. As you might be able to tell, I'm leaning in his direction.

That leaves Rae and Ignatieff. I like Bob Rae, and I think he's probably the most purely intelligent of all the candidates. He's personable, and an effective speaker. He also has some of the best organizers around. Unfortunately, the baggage of his premiership (and the fact that he was an NDPer) may be too much to overcome. Speaking of overcoming baggage, Ignatieff bizarrely seems to be the front-runner despite his controversial beliefs and the fact that he's been out of the country for thirty years. He's got an amazing array of party establishment lined up behind him, as well as his strange network of lawyers. He'll have a hard time winning, though, if he doesn't show overwhelming strength on the first ballot because of the strong anyone-but-Ignatieff movement.

I'd say that one of the most interesting races will be for last place on the first ballot. My guess would be MacIsaac, though one never knows...
 

Back
Top