Martin will remove notwithstanding clause

[silverback]

Can I answer that question FarmRanger?

[farmers_son]

Stockwell Day was leader of the Conservatives, aka Canadian Reform Alliance party or CRAP for months before they found him a seat to run in. During that time Stockwell was Leader of Her Majesties Loyal Opposition from the public gallery. Canada has had two Prime Ministers who governed from the Senate, Sir John Joseph Caldwell Abbott and Sir Mackenzie Bowell. Both represented the Conservative Party.

[cowman]

So now the question? If the supreme court decides the churches must marry gays and they refuse...what then? If the federal government doesn't have the notwithstanding clause does that mean the churches are now outlaw hate organizations? Should the government be throwing little old church ladies in jail?
What a degenerate country we have become where the pervert has more rights than the moral backbone of this country? Where the murdering doctor mustn't be called what he is! Where the federal government would back a totally unhealthy lifestyle against values that have held this country together from the very start!
Paul Martin is playing with fire here for his own cheap short sighted gain? The notwithstanding clause was put in for a very good reason? To protect the people from a very obvious degenerate Liberal justice system!
Paul Martin likes to pretend he is a devout Catholic. Does he believe at all...because if he truly does...then the Catholic Church says his chances of going to hell are very good?

[farmers_son]

You are right, we are in an election and Martin is trying to bring attention to an issue which he believes favours his party more than the Conservatives. So it is for short sighted gain if that how you view attempting to win an election.

Any talk of removing the Not Withstanding clause has to be done in the context that it ain't goin to happen unless all the provinces sign off on it. Not very likely.

I think it is fair to say that the Liberals and Conservatives take a significantly different position when it comes to basic Charter Rights. And Martin is, in my view, correct to say that Canada will be a different place under the Conservatives. And if so that is fine if that is what the voters decide.

I think the Conservatives have a real chance of forming a government this time around and that government will be different than any government we have ever seen before in this country. Responsible voters do need to consider whether or not the Charter of Rights is important to them and which party will defend those Charter Rights. If you feel your views of right and wrong are always going to be reflected by the majority then you do not need a Charter of Rights and you would have no trouble with the government in power using the Not Withstanding clause. Majority rule is in effect mob rule, I believe I recall Cowman saying something to that effect some time back. However if you became singled out as part of a minority then you would value your Charter Rights more highly.

I think it is an important debate however that is all it is, the Not Withstanding clause is not likely to be removed.

[cowman]

No I am not in favor of Mob rule. But then lets take a look at this great "Charter"? The lack of property rights make the whole thing basically meaningless in my opinion. Without property rights you have nothing...in fact you have total mob rule!
I would consider the American constitution about as good as it gets when it comes to freedom and rights. The whole premise is these rights come from God and not any king, emperor or any MOB! These rights cannot be taken away by any one...including a court of degenerates!
I don't see anything in the American constitution about gay rights or sexual orientation? In fact I don't see it in any Canadian constitution!
However I do believe freedom to worship are in both charters? So how is it 9 degenerates can decide to add gay rights to the charter?
So now, thanks to the court, we have gay rights? Hate literature is a crime now. So if we have literature that says gays are evil and wicked...then we are committing a crime? If we deny these creatures anything we are committing a crime.
How long until some fruity couple take a church to court? How long until the supreme court says the churches are violating the gays rights by refusing to marry them? Who stands up for the churches on that day? It obviously won't be Paul Martin?
So in effect we will have a court deciding "rights given by God" are subservient to "rights given by the supreme court"? Do you realize how evil that is?

[silverback]

But Cowman, PMPM said that a womans right to an abortion and same sex marriage were the values this country was built on and that his dad and Tommy Douglas would be all for it. I'm pretty sure that is what he implied yesterday.

[FarmRanger]

It’s a red herring anyway. Martin is trying to claim that Harper will reverse abortion law and same sex marriage. Harper has never mentioned these things in this campaign, except answering a reporters questions about same sex marriage. His answer didn’t lend any credence to Liberal accusations. Like the martial law in our cities commercials, they’re making up policy for their opposition, and then criticizing it (ironic, since it was Trudeau, a Liberal, who was the only Prime Minister ever to invoke martial law).
It would be just as valid to say that Harper will use the notwithstanding clause to ban pedophilia, because if the supreme court said it was OK, then that would make pedophilia a Canadian value, and Martin’s all for Canadian values. (Actually that one isn’t funny, sadly there are people fighting for even lower ages of consent.) Liberal values enforced by an unelected untouchable supreme court might not reflect Canadian values.

Martin acts like the notwithstanding clause was put in solely to allow a prime minister to destroy minority rights. What about the rights of religious groups not to be forced to marry homosexuals? Will the supreme court deem the Bible to be hate literature? It seems to me that when you have the possibility of giving one group a right at the direct expense of another, you need a ways and means in law to offset this? Isn’t that also one of the things the notwithstanding clause is supposed to do? Isn’t protecting clergy something Martin himself promised he would use it for? Maybe Martin should quit trying to dismantle this section of the charter and worry about the protection of everyone’s rights. What about our right not to be dictated to by a bunch of unaccountable Liberal appointees, even after we punt their masters?

Besides, he’ll never be able to open this can of worms without the consent of a majority of the provinces so he’s just blowing smoke to cloud the real issues.

[ivbinconned]

Democracy = mob rule all powerful supreme court = dictatership! This describes Canada with out the notwithstanding clause and or triple E senate.
Martins last minute desire to dump the clause is the swan song of corrupt liberals trying to maintain their grip on the court and the country.



A Republic = rule by law with individual rights including property rights enshrined in a constitutuion. Court appointments are scrutinized by the people, with checks, including regional, on the executive branch of government are provided by a Triple E Senate.

It is great to hear the diverse opinions expressed here. Some one once said that if every one thinks the same...no one thinks very much.
I must thank farmers-son for prompting some of us to defend what we feel in our guts.
However, farmers-son, your postings remind me of the words of a G W Johnson who said,

"We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we hate and fear-unrulymen,disturbers of the peace, men who resent and denounce what Whitman called 'the insolence of elected persons'. In a word,FREE MEN

Men like Stephen Harper who comes from a life not "connected" I agree is a tremendious threat to the power brokers in Montreal and Toronto and Ottawa. I pray he wins, in a land slide.

[farmers_son]

I myself do not think we should get rid of the Not Withstanding clause but I noted Cowman's reference to the U.S. Constitution which does not include a Not Withstanding clause.

I think what the present situation does is put the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the voters, to not elect a government that would trample minority rights.

Ivbinconned: don't thank me, thank Paul Martin for bringing the election debate around to more important issues. I think we all have been scandalized to death.

[silverback]

"...scandalized to death." Interesting choice of words from a Liberal.

[farmers_son]

I really am not a Liberal or even a liberal. I would never vote NDP and being a proud Canadian would never consider voting for Harper's Conservatives. We don't have a Bloc candidate, not that I would vote Bloc anyway. The choices get narrowed down don't they.

If there was still a Progressive Conservative party I would have a choice between two national parties that would support Canada when I vote. Instead the way it is there is one national party with a realistic chance of winning that will support Canadian values and another regional party with an even better chance of winning that supports American values.

By the way, I see that the former president of the Progressive Conservatives is running for the Liberals in this election. A lot of Progressive Conservatives are supporting the Liberals.

[olhoss]

"So how is it 9 degenerates can decide to add gay rights to the charter?"

This is how.

“The rule of law requires judges to uphold <b>unwritten</b> constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion.” --The Supreme Court of Canada’s Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin