In Martin's own words
Unfit for office
Lorne Gunter
National Post
Monday, December 19, 2005
Forgive me, Mr. Prime Minister. I'm a bit confused.
In Friday's leaders' debate, when the subject of same-sex marriage arose, you said "the essence of the Charter of Rights is ... to protect minorities against a majority which may want to take away [a minority's] rights. That's why we have a charter."
Then, Sir, you added: "It is the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the Charter of Rights," and anyone who disagreed should rethink his desire to replace you.
On Saturday, at a Liberal rally in Burnaby, B.C., you went further. You said anyone with another view of the Charter or of same-sex marriage (SSM) was unfit for public office in Canada. It was a charge you repeated yesterday in Regina.
There are so many things wrong with these claims, it is hard to know where to begin.
For one, your remarks betray an uneven passion for the Charter's equality provisions. At one and the same time you demand that high-profile minorities be afforded equal rights while refusing to ensure, for instance, that fast-growing regions of the country be given equal representation in the House of Commons by creating more ridings in, say, British Columbia and Alberta.
Surely, Sir, your desire to protect some Canadians' equality more strenuously than others cannot have anything to do with their relative likelihood to vote Liberal, can it?
And your remarks display a profound ignorance of the Charter's original purpose.
At McGill University in May 1991, the Charter's principal architect, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, bemoaned the fact that his "people's package" had been subverted into "the government's package." Instead of entitling "people against the government," with ultimate sovereignty resting in individuals, the Charter (much to his regret) had become a "compact" through which governments and the courts picked winners and losers in power struggles.
Moreover, Sir, your assertion that certain views, held by millions of Canadians, should be a bar to public office demonstrates such an appallingly weak grasp of democracy that some might wonder about your own fitness as guardian of Canadians' right to govern themselves.
But, Sir, if those who disagree with you over same-sex marriage are unfit for public office in Canada, how do you explain that 31 of your own candidates voted against gay marriage last spring while they were sitting MPs?
If opposition to same-sex marriage disqualifies Conservatives from office, should it not also disqualify Liberals?
I believe you are not a hypocrite, Mr. Prime Minister. So will you promise Canadians that you will revoke the nomination papers of these 31 SSM-opposing candidates?
I know this won't be easy for you. Of the 31, 22 are running in Ontario. Jettisoning them at this late date will leave you scrambling to find suitable replacements. Since many of them represent rural or ethnic ridings where opposition to same-sex marriage runs high (under your logic, shouldn't opposition to SSM make citizens unfit to vote, too?), acting in such a consistent and principled manner would surely cost you several seats. It might well cost you the election.
But that wouldn't trouble you, would it, Sir? After all, you yourself insisted no one unprepared to defend human rights should want to be prime minister.
Twelve of the 31 are Privy Counsellors; seven are currently parliamentary secretaries to Cabinet ministers -- some of whom you required to resign their posts when they voted against same-sex marriage, then quietly reappointed in the summer and fall when no one was looking.
Andy Savoy, the chairman of the Liberal national caucus, will have to be given the heave. So will Bilingualism Minister Raymond Simard. The chairs of your Newfoundland, Manitoba and Northern Ontario caucuses, plus the chairs of several Commons committees and sub-committees, will be out.
John Maloney of Welland, who chaired the Justice committee, should be first to go since his committee is where rights legislation is formed. Can't have a Charter-basher in that sensitive post.
Even your own former parliamentary secretary, Rodger Cuzner of Cape Breton, will have to be purged. But that is a small price to pay, I'm sure, for someone such as you who repeatedly boasts of his passionate commitment to Charter rights.
Sir, others won't, but I trust you to apply the same fitness test to your own candidates that you insist be applied to other leaders.
Unfit for office
Lorne Gunter
National Post
Monday, December 19, 2005
Forgive me, Mr. Prime Minister. I'm a bit confused.
In Friday's leaders' debate, when the subject of same-sex marriage arose, you said "the essence of the Charter of Rights is ... to protect minorities against a majority which may want to take away [a minority's] rights. That's why we have a charter."
Then, Sir, you added: "It is the responsibility of the prime minister to defend the Charter of Rights," and anyone who disagreed should rethink his desire to replace you.
On Saturday, at a Liberal rally in Burnaby, B.C., you went further. You said anyone with another view of the Charter or of same-sex marriage (SSM) was unfit for public office in Canada. It was a charge you repeated yesterday in Regina.
There are so many things wrong with these claims, it is hard to know where to begin.
For one, your remarks betray an uneven passion for the Charter's equality provisions. At one and the same time you demand that high-profile minorities be afforded equal rights while refusing to ensure, for instance, that fast-growing regions of the country be given equal representation in the House of Commons by creating more ridings in, say, British Columbia and Alberta.
Surely, Sir, your desire to protect some Canadians' equality more strenuously than others cannot have anything to do with their relative likelihood to vote Liberal, can it?
And your remarks display a profound ignorance of the Charter's original purpose.
At McGill University in May 1991, the Charter's principal architect, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, bemoaned the fact that his "people's package" had been subverted into "the government's package." Instead of entitling "people against the government," with ultimate sovereignty resting in individuals, the Charter (much to his regret) had become a "compact" through which governments and the courts picked winners and losers in power struggles.
Moreover, Sir, your assertion that certain views, held by millions of Canadians, should be a bar to public office demonstrates such an appallingly weak grasp of democracy that some might wonder about your own fitness as guardian of Canadians' right to govern themselves.
But, Sir, if those who disagree with you over same-sex marriage are unfit for public office in Canada, how do you explain that 31 of your own candidates voted against gay marriage last spring while they were sitting MPs?
If opposition to same-sex marriage disqualifies Conservatives from office, should it not also disqualify Liberals?
I believe you are not a hypocrite, Mr. Prime Minister. So will you promise Canadians that you will revoke the nomination papers of these 31 SSM-opposing candidates?
I know this won't be easy for you. Of the 31, 22 are running in Ontario. Jettisoning them at this late date will leave you scrambling to find suitable replacements. Since many of them represent rural or ethnic ridings where opposition to same-sex marriage runs high (under your logic, shouldn't opposition to SSM make citizens unfit to vote, too?), acting in such a consistent and principled manner would surely cost you several seats. It might well cost you the election.
But that wouldn't trouble you, would it, Sir? After all, you yourself insisted no one unprepared to defend human rights should want to be prime minister.
Twelve of the 31 are Privy Counsellors; seven are currently parliamentary secretaries to Cabinet ministers -- some of whom you required to resign their posts when they voted against same-sex marriage, then quietly reappointed in the summer and fall when no one was looking.
Andy Savoy, the chairman of the Liberal national caucus, will have to be given the heave. So will Bilingualism Minister Raymond Simard. The chairs of your Newfoundland, Manitoba and Northern Ontario caucuses, plus the chairs of several Commons committees and sub-committees, will be out.
John Maloney of Welland, who chaired the Justice committee, should be first to go since his committee is where rights legislation is formed. Can't have a Charter-basher in that sensitive post.
Even your own former parliamentary secretary, Rodger Cuzner of Cape Breton, will have to be purged. But that is a small price to pay, I'm sure, for someone such as you who repeatedly boasts of his passionate commitment to Charter rights.
Sir, others won't, but I trust you to apply the same fitness test to your own candidates that you insist be applied to other leaders.