Wednesday, December 29, 2010

WIll Justin Trudeau defend the charter from Sen. Celine Hervieux-Payette

Quick, someone call Justin Trudeau!

Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette continues on her quest to make herself the laughingstock of Canadian politics by perusing passage of Senate Bill S-206. The bill would require Parliament to ensure that all publicly traded companies, banks, insurance companies and trust companies to have 50% of their board of directors made up of women. Nanny state nonsense, which goes against not only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Liberals everywhere like to pretend that they are so concerned over but also against common sense and such basic ideals such as merit based advancement, all in the name of political correctness.

Here is what she said on S-206 in June 2009: She argues that last fall's market meltdown, which has sparked a deep worldwide recession, is the result of having a relatively small coterie of men holding multiple directorships in a host of corporations.

She suggests that bad investments might have been avoided had more women been sitting on boards, bringing fresh eyes and a more independent, prudent approach to decision-making than the `old boys' club.'
I may be old fashioned but blaming the market meltdown on men sounds sort of sexist if you ask me, but being part of the old boys club by virtue of my parts, I guess my judgment may be clouded by those very same parts, so I had best leave that sexist definition up to the rest of you to decide. (that is as long as your parts are deemed acceptable)


Some related background on the esteemed Liberal Senator:

From a letter written to an American family concerned with the seal hunt: They should be more concerned with "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners -- mainly blacks -- in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc." than the seal hunt.

Criticizing Alberta's Culture:  discussing statistics and how support for her bill was "off course" lower in Alberta than in Quebec because "we don't have the same culture" and went on to say in way of an explanation after being called out by host Tom Clarke "I am just telling you that maybe we (Quebec) have the appropriate way of dealing with children and education is different then hitting a child."  Not that her arrogant and clueless statement was enough she went on to laughingly say "We have some support in Alberta? That is news for me."

Filing a complaint against CTV and Bob Fife for doing their jobs, with just a bit of libel thrown in for good measure. ( "...and CTV is paid to broadcast these schemes.")

Where is Justin Trudeau and the "party of the charter" when you really need them?

Related: BC Blue on Payette.

Interesting Youtube video on affirmative action.


CanadianSense said...

She is a keeper. A comic goldmine. How many links and posts as a result of her unique insight?

We can only hope Ignatieff invites her on the campaign trail in Alberta to help bring out those Liberal votes.

Anonymous said...

She's a everything's just tickety-boo. Had Payette been a Conservative, the uproar about "another offense against the Charter" would be deafening.

ProgressCanada said...

You will have to show me what part of the charter this would infringe upon and if it does, then clearly an amendment is in order. Here is what I don't get, how two different Conservative bloggers are making this issues about the Charter and the Senate, and not focusing a damn on the fact that women are still underepresented in every single facet of western life.

Ardvark said...

How about this part:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs discriminate against everyone but the target group and diminish the accomplishments of those in that target group who have already made it on their own.

CanadianSense said...

Look if you are going to start including facts and logic for the basis of your posts I am going to be forced to hold my breath until I turn red.

Oh never mind, I have given up on being a Liberal.

As soon as MI return from his European vacation he will ask JT to jump on this.

J.T. is busy resolving the string theory in a workshop.

Anonymous said...

15. 2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Next time you want to rely on a section of the Charter, maybe post the whole thing, lest people think you are trying to mislead them or something.

Ardvark said...

Ah yes, the clause that allows laws to be made that go against the spirit of the charter in the name of political correctness. Sort of a mini 'not withstanding' clause without the all of the show & pageantry, but allows govt to pass laws which are grievous abuses of the charter.

This is interesting: ( a not withstanding the not withstanding clause?) Make note of the word 'anything'.

28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Anonymous said...

Sure. Affirmative action programs for men, when they are disadvantaged, are also lawful.

Do you know of any cases where the courts have found affirmative action programs violate the Charter?

Ardvark said...

I am not aware of any cases but I have not payed that much attention to the subject.

IMHO all affirmative action programs go against the charter, or at least the spirit of the charter as they give benefit to some at the expense of others based ONLY on the criteria the charter itself lists as protected. The logic of using those criteria as the basis which to discriminate makes me cringe.

Anonymous said...

That would make sense but for the fact that affirmative actions programs are specifically endorsed by the Charter.