maplesyrup Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 PM could learn from past But Martin proved just as shaky in his grasp of the recent past, when he argued that he would protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the notwithstanding clause. Actually, the notwithstanding clause is a central part of the Charter. It broke the deadlock, and made the Charter acceptable to the provinces. No wonder Canadians get confused when their political leaders don't properly understand themselves. Either that or they are distorting them on purpose. Which is it folks? Fess up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Matrin must have just goofed. I am not so sure whether the Liberal notwithstanding clause is much different than Harper's views on reforming the judicial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 It wasn't a goof. The use of Section 33 is seen as a very negative thing in the Rest of Canada, mainly because they saw how Quebec used it preemptively to strip away the rights of anglophones in that province. Then it was used pre-emptively against strikers in Saskatechewan. Then it was going to be used by Klein to limit the rights of victims of eugenics. (which Albertans, rightly, freaked about.) You ask most Canadians whether a government should be able to take away your rights by a simple majority vote -- and most will tell you 'no'. Section 33 is just too dirty for use, inspite of social conservative efforts to revive it. I've written extensively on the subject of Section 33 use and voting patterns. So, we might go into it if this thread doesn't degenerate into name calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Takeanumber...would you happen to still have source of some kind in terms of Klein wanting to use sec. 33 in the case of victims of eugenics? Or, recall where you might have learned about this notion? This is news to me and rather shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 I'll look for the source. It's well known. He's already pre-emptively used S. 33 in the marriage act, and was going to use it against Vriend, but of course, he got disgusted by the hate mail against homosexuals and decided that homosexuals did in fact need human rights protection. (The one time I think he actually did the right thing) I'll dig it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 http://www.ffwdweekly.com/Issues/1998/0319/view1.html Fast Forward isn't academic. But I think all the other Alberta Newspapers have purposely deleted it. So yeh. It's not academic, but it'll have to do cos I can't find any other references online. check the Calgary Herald Archives for March 1998 though. Anyway, Canadians don't like pre-emptive use of S.33. We can have a discussion as to the pro's and con's and the status quo, but it requires a lot of past knowledge to be able to talk intelligently about the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cartman Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 Thanx muchly for the URL and other suggestions Take! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted July 4, 2004 Report Share Posted July 4, 2004 My pleasure Cartman. Nice to know that you like facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bro Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Charter of Rights The most abused legal loophole in any democratic society. Remember folks,if you don't stand for something,the charter is your easy way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 I would bet that you would be the first one to scream for your "rights" if anyone abused them. Anyone against the Charter of Rights is a really unbelieveable. What would you prefer mayhem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Our Charter is a Farce. People with Political Agendas hiding behind the Charter to force other people to take their position. It's sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bro Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 It is also as Brian says,a front of armour to wave around for individuals or groups when they can't get their own way.It has nothing to do with protecting law abiding citizens,who we all know face greater injustices than the person who would use the charter as a means of self purpose.Thank you for letting me clear that up for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 Anyone against the Charter of Rights is a really unbelieveable. What would you prefer mayhem?Do you mean that Canada suffered mayhem prior to 1982? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Our Charter is a Farce. People with Political Agendas hiding behind the Charter to force other people to take their position. It's sickening. That's rather eliptical. People with political agendas behind the charter? Certainly. The Charter is a political document, like the rest of the constitution. Force other people to take their position? No. The Charter applies only to government agencies, and legislatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Takeanumber! It is my thinking that the "Notwithstanding" Clause violates the Rule of Law and, thus, undermines democracy. That Rule binds government and people equally to obey the laws and prohibits governments from arbitrary actions. Then, a Charter is, by definition, a grant of new rights or an affirmation of existing rights. The Clause, in my thinking is, therefore, ultra vires of any Parliament and should be challenged accordingly. In the past, I have suggested this approach to the victims of its use in Quebec. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Terrible Sweal Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Your argument is defeated by the fact that the notwithstanding clause is an integral element of the charter itself. A constitution cannot be interpreted to outlaw its own provisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forum Admin Greg Posted July 13, 2004 Forum Admin Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 For those interested, we have a great article on the charter and it includes some discussion about section 33, 20 Years with the Charter Make sure to take a look, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Greg.....thanks for bringing the Charter information to our attention. . It is an excellent feature of Mapleleafweb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Does anyone here remember this issue. I remember Lucien Bouchard in a federal election debate, I guess when he was leader of Le BQ, holding up a, was it a le Journal du Montreal front page, with the caption "the night of the long knives" in French. But does anyone remember why Quebec would not agree to the costitutional changes? For example, what specific kinds of stronger French language rights did Levesque want? Mapleleafweb states: On November 4, 1981, the federal government and the provinces struck a compromise on patriation of the constitution (known as the Vancouver Consensus formula) and the entrenchment of a charter of rights. All provincial premiers agreed to the compromise except for Quebec Premier Rene Levesque, who advocated stronger French language rights in the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 I believe that Levesque suddenly found that the Patriation and Charter were not in his immediate political interests or that he could make political capital after appearing to be picked on by all the other leaders. Whatever, it was nohing to do with language rights and followed in the footsteps of his predessors who had refused to agree to earlier proposals for the Patriation. That goes back a long way. You might find this site interesting as background to that muthical night. http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/referendum/ referendum_constitution1981. html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maplesyrup Posted July 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 eureka.....thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.