Harper's half-baked proposal

[maplesyrup]

Harper's half-baked proposal

Suppose Parliament passed a law that took away the right to vote of dog owners on the basis that candidates in any given election are afraid to canvass their houses for fear of being hounded back to the sidewalk.

Suppose that a politically engaged dog owner — and there are many — took the government to court and it found the rule to be in breach of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Suppose that the prime minister of the day simply turned around and asked MPs to vote for the same law all over again to send the message to judges that they should stand down in the face of the will of Parliament.

Suppose, finally, that the said prime minister argued that the courts should be content with interpreting laws in a manner Parliament finds convenient.

If you feel that the above is absurd, as it patently is, then you should question the loose ends of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's campaign rhetoric on same-sex marriage

Is there a pattern developing here?

[Argus]

Harper's half-baked proposal

Suppose Parliament passed a law that took away the right to vote of dog owners on the basis that candidates in any given election are afraid to canvass their houses for fear of being hounded back to the sidewalk.

Suppose that a politically engaged dog owner — and there are many — took the government to court and it found the rule to be in breach of the equality section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Suppose that the prime minister of the day simply turned around and asked MPs to vote for the same law all over again to send the message to judges that they should stand down in the face of the will of Parliament.

Suppose, finally, that the said prime minister argued that the courts should be content with interpreting laws in a manner Parliament finds convenient.

If you feel that the above is absurd, as it patently is, then you should question the loose ends of Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's campaign rhetoric on same-sex marriage

Is there a pattern developing here?

Is this the best you can do? I happen to agree with Harper that it's best to have our elected representatives making laws rather than unelected party bagman and failed politicians who are now judges.

BTW, Martin had earlier pledged to use the nothwithstanding clause himself if the courts got too freaky with the idea of same-sex marriage and started introduging on religious freedom.

[DAC]

Is there a pattern developing here?

Yes, there is a pattern here.

Historically our freedom has rested on the principle of rule of law instead of rule of people. The Stuart kings in England maintained that they had “divine right”. It meant they could make any law they chose and the law meant what they chose.

Over centuries, we have rejected that approach. We have insisted on rule of law. We have also insisted that no unelected human body could have final authority higher than the elected body, parliament. Because the establishment of a constitution set up a situation in which unelected judges could overrule parliament, a guard clause was established. Parliament or the legislatures in their own areas of authority, could write a law, “notwithstanding” the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution. To avoid tyranny, such a law would have to be renewed at five year intervals, or it would lapse.

Today, we are sliding back into the rule of people, not law. Many people, including Chantal Hebert in the article cited, are acting as though the Supreme Court’s judgments were the real meaning of the Constitution. That makes use of the “notwithstanding” clause an attack on the Constitution itself, instead of a fully constitutional override of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it.

Those who make such an interpretation are in fact attacking our Constitution. Use of the “notwithstanding” clause is explicitly constitutional. Denying it is contrary to the Constitution. Those who want to do this should not seek to subvert it, which is lawless tyranny, but to amend it formally and publicly.

The pattern? To accuse falsely those who use constitutional means to deal with dubious Supreme Court judgments of being unconstitutional. Throw away truth; grab an emotional bat and swing it hard and hope nobody will notice that in fact the person swinging the bat is the one who is really unconstitutional. :angry:

[Michael Hardner]

Today, we are sliding back into the rule of people, not law.

The slide will only happen when the will of the people coincides with the will of the man who holds the power.

Harper would have sent troops to Iraq against the will of the Canadian people. So what of that ?

[Bryant]

Yes I agree and that would have been Harpers fatal mistake if he was Prime Minister-so you see-A Dictator in waiting--The power would go right to his Head--at least with Martin we know what we got-He's so Rich he can"t be bought off by Corporations-He doesn"t need the money- He never did--

[Remus]

Yes I agree and that would have been Harpers fatal mistake if he was Prime Minister-so you see-A  Dictator in waiting--The power would go right to his Head--at least with Martin we know what we got-He's so Rich he can"t be bought off by Corporations-He doesn"t need the money- He never did--

Are you implying that only the rich can become the Prime Minister of this country because they will act in a more ethical manner.

[idealisttotheend]

Is it not interesting that Harper is so keen on using the non withstanding clause but it was he personally who launched the challange against the electoral financing law using the Charter as the basis for his suit?

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

[takeanumber]

I see the contradiction.

Very few others do.

It requires intelligence and critical thinking skills.

Of course, by admitting that you see such a contradiction, you'll be attacked instantly.

[DAC]

Is it not interesting that Harper is so keen on using the non withstanding clause but it was he personally who launched the challange against the electoral financing law using the Charter as the basis for his suit?

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

Let me say it again. Use of the “notwithstanding” clause is explicitly constitutional. Denying it is contrary to the Constitution.

Harper is not against the Constitution or against the Charter (which is part of the Constitution). He is prepared to appeal to them against legislative or judicial action which he considers to be wrong. Application of "intelligence and critical thinking skills" would see that this is not a contradiction, but a consistent appeal to the ultimate legal standard in the country.

Those who think the Charter (part of the Constitution, remember) is good and important should not object to application of it in full.

[DAC]

Harper would have sent troops to Iraq against the will of the Canadian people. So what of that ?

Michael, if you look at the quote you cited you will see that I said the rule of people, not of THE people.

The rule of people occurs when the law (which includes the Charter) is applied loosely, with the whim of a judge adding to it whatever he or she thinks ought to be in it, instead of sticking to what the law actually says. At that point the law is no longer really important. What counts is the philosophy of the judge.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Is'nt the notwithstanding clause constitutional.

I think that the reason it was put in the charter was to ensure that parliment elected by the people for the people would make the laws over their lives and society. I find it hard to believe that any left winger can criticize the right so much for wanting democracy, however if right wing judges made conservative laws, than they would be complaining. Very hypocritical.

[falling leaf]

maplesyrup

Is there a pattern developing here? 

Yes there seems to be !!!!! You are a nut case.

With your half baked ideas you are really going to get the NDP elected. I don't think so. Canadians are smarter than that. Don't you have anything esle to do but put down Stephen Harper? I think the NDP and the Liberal party are both running scared.

They are behaving like children when they don't know what esle to say or do!!!!!! They put someone down.

Let's wait and see who is the next Prime Minister.

I think it will be Stephen Harper because he has what it takes to be a good prime minister.

[August1991]

Is it not interesting that Harper is so keen on using the non withstanding clause but it was he personally who launched the challange against the electoral financing law using the Charter as the basis for his suit?

Is Harper keen to use the notwithstanding clause? Heck, he's apparently keen to do every other possible nasty deed - why would he waste his time on this minor one?

In fact, this was not one of Chantal Hebert's better efforts. It started with an unilluminating dog-owner story.

I'm sure Harper understands that the Charter and many other laws intend to protect minorities, particularly the individual, against the power of the State.

From what I can understand, Harper has made the point that in protecting one minority, we often hurt another minority. (Dog owners versus lovers of clean parks.) Harper's point seems to be that representatives chosen democratically should draw the line. They should not foist the problem off to some small council.

To be practical, take the case of same-sex marriage. Gays have the right to sign a contract (civil union) just as a woman and man can do.

Gays also want the right to have the right to refer to themselves as married which some other people object to. The argument of these other people? Granting this name-calling right to gays would presumably diminish the current name-calling right of straights.

Where do we draw the line in this name-calling right? (To be named mayonnaise, it has to have whole eggs. Otherwise, it's called salad dressing.)

It seems reasonable to me to let an elected Parliament decide.

Of all things confronting Canada right now, this issue strikes me as among the more inane.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, if you look at the quote you cited you will see that I said the rule of people, not of THE people.

The rule of people occurs when the law (which includes the Charter) is applied loosely, with the whim of a judge adding to it whatever he or she thinks ought to be in it, instead of sticking to what the law actually says. At that point the law is no longer really important. What counts is the philosophy of the judge.

I stand corrected.

But, really, t'was ever so.

Those in power do not let go of what's important to them, and Harper will be no different in this regard.