Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA - Justin Trudeau is facing the first serious test of his leadership of Canada's Liberals in the wake of a parliamentary vote to send Canadian fighter jets to Iraq.

Trudeau and most Liberal MPs voted against the idea.

But Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister and a globally recognized human rights defender, abstained from the vote, saying in a statement that his "principled absention," as he called it, was a result of his recognition that military intervention against Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria is required, but that the Harper government's proposal lacked "clarity."

Cotler, former Liberal leader Stephane Dion and former Liberal cabinet ministers Lawrence MacAulay and Mauril Belanger, were also absent from Tuesday night's vote.

And influential Liberals like former interim leader Bob Rae, former cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy, and retired general and former Liberal senator Romeo Dallaire, all argued ahead of the vote for a combat mission in Iraq.

The apparent schism among Canada's Liberals was an opportunity for Trudeau's political opponents to pounce.

"The Liberal Party should hang its head in a shame," Employment Minister Jason Kenney said after the vote. "This is an ignoble day for the proud Liberal Party of Canada, underscored by Irwin Cotler's absence tonight."

Kenney has long admired Cotler's work in defence of human rights in Canada and around the world and Kenney even began his political career as a Liberal staffer working for long-time Liberal MP Ralph Goodale.

"The vote that the Liberal Party cast tonight is contrary to everything that party ever stood for in foreign and security policy," Kenney said.

And, indeed, Trudeau now may have more work convincing his own party, let alone Canadian voters, that he was right to reject the combat mission Iraq largely on the basis that, in his estimation, the Harper Conservatives had not made the case for a combat mission.

More here:
A test for Trudeau? Canada's Liberals split on Iraq combat mission

Marketing executive and former journalist Dai Le. Photo: James Alcock

Pressure is building on the NSW Liberal Party to preselect a woman to its upper house ticket for next year's state election, with four female candidates putting their hands up.

Marketing executive and former journalist Dai Le nominated shortly before the deadline of October 1.

She is joined by Woollahra councillor Katherine O'Regan, who served as chief of staff to former environment minister Robyn Parker,andMary-Lou Jarvis, an adviser to Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells.

Woollahra councillor Katherine O'Regan is one of four female Liberal candidates for next year's state election. Photo: Tamara Dean

Their nominations follow that of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's sister Christine Forster, who is a City of Sydney councillor.

Advertisement

Ms Le, who stood unsuccessfully for the Liberals in the seat of Cabramatta at the 2011 election, was a surprisenon-starter for the south-western Sydney provincial spot on the upper house ticket this year. She is close to retiring upper house MP Charlie Lynn and was regarded as a strong contender to replace him.

Instead, a little-known motor mechanic and Wollondilly councillor, Lou Amato, was the only candidate to nominate for Mr Lynn's position. He secured the winnable spot thanks to backing from local powerbroker Jai Rowell, who is the minister for mental health.

Mr Lynn told Parliament in May that he was "absolutely perplexed as to how a position that commands a six-figure salary with a secure eight-year tenure could attract only one applicant, apparently an unknown tradesman with an invisible history in the Liberal Party".

More here:
Liberals under more pressure to preselect a woman to upper house

Bill Maher - Liberals don #39;t stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims
This is exactly why Liberals are criticized by Conservatives as having no Principles, because it actually takes courage to defend your Principles when it matters, not when its simply convenient...

By: TheAsianRepublican

View original post here:
Bill Maher - Liberals don't stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims - Video

Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman
June 2, 2014, Philippe Assouline discusses growing misinformation and liberal hostility to Israel as result of Palestinian propaganda.

By: philippe assouline

Here is the original post:
Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman - Video

I have a slightly different take on California's recent decision to regulate college sex. Don't get me wrong, it's beyond idiotic, unworkable, even borderline Orwellian. We'll get to all that.

But I also think it's incredibly useful. You see, for years I've been railing and ranting about the ridiculous myth that liberalism is socially libertarian; that liberals are "live and let live" types simply defending themselves against judgmental conservatives, the real aggressors in the culture war.

That thinking runs counter to most everything liberals justifiably take pride in, as liberals. You can't be "agents for change," "forces for progress," or whatever the current phrase, and claim that you're not the aggressors in the culture war. Liberals have redefined a millenniums-old understanding of marriage while talking as if it were conservatives who wanted to "impose" their values on the nation.

Most libertarians are surely against racial discrimination, sexism, poor eating habits, homophobia and so on. But their proposed remedies don't look anything like a liberal's. Libertarians, for the most part, do not favor racial or gender quotas. They're against banning big sodas, campus speech codes or forcing elderly nuns to pay for birth control coverage, among other things.

Liberals, meanwhile, are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. The difference is that when conservatives try to do it, liberals are quick to charge "theocracy!" and decry the Orwellian horror.

Enter Gov. Jerry Brown, whose answer to the alleged "rape epidemic" on campuses was to sign the new "affirmative consent" law. It will require a verbal "yes" at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.

The incredible overreach of the law has been discussed at great length. The Times editorial board expressed its own sensible misgivings in an editorial before Brown signed the bill into law. "It seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely as to tell young people what steps they must take in the privacy of their own dorm rooms."

This strikes me as extremely understated, but the sentiment is right. Some defenders of the law say it doesn't really matter because it will only have an effect when women accuse men of sexual assault. "The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters," feminist writer Amanda Marcotte reassures us. "It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint."

Never mind that it will also likely change the standard of proof in such situations, making it much easier to charge and administratively convict students of rape based solely on an allegation. Don't worry about false accusations, says Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler, they amount to only "about 2% to 8% of cases." Tell that to people who fall into the 2% to 8%.

Other defenders insist that such concerns miss the point. Ann Friedman of New York magazine rhapsodizes about the law's positive cultural impact. It will help in "deprogramming the idea that nice girls don't admit they like sex, let alone talk about how they like it." She notes that the "law will force universities to talk to all students, female and male, about how enthusiastic consent is mandatory." And that is great because "Confirming consent leads to much hotter sex."

The rest is here:
Liberals storm California's bedrooms