Martin will remove notwithstanding clause

[FarmRanger]

In last night’s debate, Paul Martin said he would remove the notwithstanding clause from the constitution.
This will effectively give the appointed Supreme court unlimited power in Canada, with no recourse for elected politicians to overrule them.

Remember the gay marriage issue, and Martin saying that it wouldn’t force churches to go against their beliefs by marrying homosexuals. Remember this?...
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.
"Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would use the clause. http://www.canada.com/national/features/samesexmarriage/story.html?id=ee4d2e69-d040-4e5f-8830-0cb2bb7d8bbd

Now we know who really has the hidden agenda. Who’s scary now?

[farmers_son]

Perhaps it would help all of us if we learned more about the Notwithstanding Clause. See:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm

Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality). Such a use of the notwithstanding power must be contained in an Act, and not subordinate legislation (regulations), and must be express rather than implied.

Now Farmranger, I am wondering just what part of the Charter of Rights you think should be overruled by the Notwithstanding Clause. Your freedom of expression, security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest, or your right to equality. If one were to imagine that you yourself could at some point loose your right to one of these constitutional rights I think you would object. The reality is that not everyone in this country is like you yet do they still deserve to be protected by a Charter of Rights?

Parliament will always have control of the Supreme Court because the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by Parliament. Yet in a democracy the majority can place unfair restrictions on a minority by the brute force of their larger numbers. The Charter of Rights places restrictions on that mob rule.

I think Martins announcement during the debate last night may cause voters to think about just what kind of country they want Canada to be. There is no question the Conseratives will trample on minority rights to garner support from a larger segment of voters. Now while I have no doubt that the required consensus from the provinces would never be forthcoming to see a change to our Constitution such as this it should make people think about just what it means when minority rights are subjected to the Notwithstanding Clause.

Martin has placed the debate squarely where it needs to be, what kind of Canada do voters want.

[cowman]

Now wait a minute! The notwithstanding clause has only been used twice...I believe?
Once by Quebec and once by Saskatchewan? I'm a little hazy here on the Saskatchewan thing but wasn't it about a dam?!!! I wonder how that relates to all the high value things you mentioned?
If I am wrong, I apologize, sometimes the old memory ain't what it used to be!

[olhoss]

>I am wondering just what part of the >Charter of Rights you think should be >overruled by the Notwithstanding >Clause.

Are one of the people who worship at the altar of socialized medicine?

The recent Supreme Court decision to allow public payments to private medicine might worry you.

[silverback]

You are wrong again f_s.

Parliament does not select judges for the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister does. There is no debate, discovery, or investigation about who sits there. How could you be comfortable knowing that one person has chosen the 9? people who will make the laws for the rest of society and there is nothing you can do about it? Would you accept Stephen Harper selecting conservative judges to make the laws of the land?

That would seal the pure dictatorship that many have been saying already exists.

Would there ever be anything that Paul Martin could do wrong that you might find fault in? Probably not.

[silverback]

the majority rules in the Supreme Court so five judges would have more to say than all the MP's. So if Martin gets elected why will we need Parliament at all ??? Let the judges decide !!!!

I am joking !!

[FarmRanger]

f_s, did you actually read my post? In late 2003, Paul Martin said that by using the notwithstanding clause, he would protect a church’s right to not be forced to perform a homosexual marriage. This would only be necessary if the unelected supreme court, deemed it unconstitutional for them to refuse to perform such a marriage. In this case, the notwithstanding clause would be used to protect a church’s religious rights, and it helped Martin convince more MPs to vote for his same sex marriage bill.
This shows whose rights Martin is now not willing to defend, but more importantly it highlights yet another of Martins deceptions to further his agenda.

How wise is it to make the supreme court untouchable by a government elected by it’s citizens?
If you look into the history of the notwithstanding clause, you’ll find that it was included to assure the provinces that this sort of thing would not happen. So to get the notwithstanding clause removed, I guess we’d be assuming Martin could now convince enough provinces to support this rewriting of the constitution. I think that’s quite unlikely, but it sure does divert attention from Liberal scandals...hmmm... are we on to something here?

f_s is right about one thing though, we should be debating if this is the kind of Canada we want? An elected Canadian parliament that has no power to overrule an appointed supreme court?

I say no.

[blackjack]

silverback is right...only the prime minister would have the power that decides who the judges would be...talking about banana republics...no one in the world would have us beat when it comes to dictatorships... i found martin's remark that quebec built canada as equally arrogant...

[ivbinconned]

My dad always told me there is no sence in having a war of wits with someone who is unarmed!!

[cowman]

Apparently Martins blurting out this garbage is just crass politics designed to make Harper respond and come out looking like a Nazi or something? The fact is he can't do it in any meaningful way without provincial support and that is practically impossible?
What is with Paul? Is he going senile or something? Last night on the French debate he accused Jack Layton of trying to get property rights enshrined in the constitution and taking away womans rights to kill their babies! All the other leaders looked at him like he was nuts or something and Layton tore a strip off his butt! Now obviously Martin meant the question for Harper but he never corrected his question? I wonder if his mind is going and he can't distinguish who said what anymore?

[farmers_son]

Yes it is the Prime Minister that appoints judges to the Supreme Court. And if we want to be technical in this country the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister does not have to be elected.

There is a very good discussion of the Not Withstanding Clause at http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.htm#ARGUMENTS

The link covers both sides of an important discussion and I think all Canadians should at least give the matter some thought. Instead the issues are scandals and which party can spend the most.

I think Martin was trying to bring the election debate around to issues where the Liberals may have an advantage, that is the area of human rights. I do not see the Constitution being changed by either party. I think Cowman is exactly right when he says Martin was trying to make Harper look some kind of Nazi.

Blackjack: I agree that Martins comments that Quebec built Canada was poor.

Cowman, your memory is right. Quebec used the Not Withstanding clause on the language issue and to promote the distinctiveness of Quebec. Saskatchewan used the Not Withstanding clause in Saskatchewan Government Employees Union Dispute Settlement Act which was back to work legislation.

[FarmRanger]

“if we want to be technical in this country the Prime Minister or any cabinet minister does not have to be elected.“ does not have to be elected?!
You’re describing a dictatorship! Is that the Liberal agenda f_s?

[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?