Humans are natural philosophers; it is in human nature to pose questions about the unknown. If humans were indifferent to issues, questions, the sort, then religion would not exist; for, what does religion do other than attempt to give people explanations for phenomena that science cannot explain. There are few people, however, that fall into the category of ‘good philosophers’ because to be a good philosopher, one must be able to accept the truth, no matter what emotions it crosses. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, once known as the Canadian ‘Philosopher King’, was a philosopher that was able to do just that. He is used as an example of a person who revolutionized Canada, and is studied for his philosophical ways of thought. The many changes he made to this country have given it the identity Canada has today; it was his theory of a just society that keeps his name alive. In order to understand Pierre Trudeau’s theory of a just society, however, one must first examine who Trudeau was, what his philosophy was, and what the positive and negative impacts of his ideas were on Canada.
During the twentieth century, Canada as a nation witnessed and endured several historical events that have had a deep and profound influence on Canadian politics. The most influential and constant force in twentieth century Canadian politics has been the increasing power and command of Quebec nationalism and the influence it has had on Canadian politics today. Quebec nationalism has shaped the structure and dynamics of Canadian federalism from a centralized to a decentralized form of federal government (Beland and Lecours 2010, 423). The decentralization of several sectors within the Canadian government has been a direct effect of Quebec nationalism. Decentralization has led to more autonomy among the provincial governments, especially in the province of Quebec. This paper will argue that Quebec nationalism has affected Canadian politics through decentralization. Most importantly, the decentralization of Canadian politics can be determined constitutionally, institutionally, and politically.
...Journal." Canadian Medical Association Journal - March 8, 2011. 22 July 2003. Web. 08 Mar. 2011.
Mayo Clinic. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 3 May 2013. .
Written by the Health line Editorial Team | Medically Reviewed by Stephanie Burk-head, M.P.H. Published on August 9, 2012
On Monday, October 30th, 1995, citizens of Canada’s largest province gathered to settle an issue which had been plaguing Canada for many years. The province of Quebec, the only French majority province in Canada, held a referendum, which is a public vote on any matter, concerning the issue of sovereignty. This issue has been a recurring theme over the years, since Réné Lévesque initiated the Parti Quebecois (PQ) in 1968. The Parti Quebecois is the backbone of the Quebec separatist movement, it is the most prominent political party in Quebec which reveals the imminent possibility of a Canada without Quebec. In spite of the power of numbers which is supposedly working in Quebec’s favour regarding separation, Quebec’s desire to separate from Canada is simply a show of bravado without substance. Quebec cannot feasibly separate from Canada because the basis of the proposed separation through the referendum, is very ambiguous, furthermore, Quebec is not economically self-sufficient and ultimately, the presence of the large amount of ‘Non’ voters further prevents this fantastical notion of separation from becoming a reality.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has received criticism lately due to comments and actions by his Conservative government regarding the limiting of the liberties of a Muslim woman who wants to be able to wear her religious face covering during her citizenship ceremony, an act by the government that I consider to go against our constitutional right to freedom of religion. Prime Minister Harper was quoted in the Globe & Mail (18 September 2015, web) as saying “When you join the Canadian family in a public citizenship ceremony it is essential that that is a time when you reveal yourselves to Canadians and that is something widely supported by Canadians.” This comment goes against the Canadian value of liberty, a utilitarian viewpoint by limiting
If you ask Canadians, “What is our National Identity? How is it shaped?” You might get different answers for everybody, especially since Canada is such a young country that hasn’t had very much time to develop on its own yet, but most Canadians would say that our National identity is growing one way or another. Some people would argue that the culture is made up by our history and what we did throughout time, however, since Canada has such a small history compared to other countries, many others would argue that it is being built up everyday with the contribution of both the people and the government. Part of the way that Government helps to shape our identity is through political parties, especially the newer ones
Pierre Elliot Trudeau is perhaps one of the mostly widely recognized Canadian Prime Ministers. His contributions to the growth and progress of Canada stands forever engraved in the minds of all Canadians. Yet, in spite of his many contributions, Canadians share contrasting opinions of Trudeau. Frum (2011) says of Trudeau that “as a political wrecker, he was truly world class.” On the other hand, the results of a poll commissioned by the Harper government in 2013-2014 ranked Trudeau number one on the list of most inspirational Canadians . In this essay, I will provide an analysis comprised of three perspectives to support the argument that Pierre Trudeau’s impact on Canada was overwhelmingly positive because his legacy transcended politics.
In Canada, our society is governed by the philosophy and principles of liberalism, which is the foundation of the legal and political institutions in the Western world. Liberal society highlights individual rights, freedoms and autonomy while limiting state power and the scope of the legal system (Stoljar, Lecture). There are three liberal principles that are protected through legal doctrines, (Stoljar, Lecture). The first is the ‘rule of law,’ which is impartial, stable, and measured, and must be distinguished from the ‘rule of man,’ which is irrational, temperamental and unpredictable, (Stoljar, Lecture). The second is that law should be neutral and impartial, which means that it’s removed from politics and biased assumptions, (Stoljar, Lecture).