Jump to content

La Bataille de Londres


August1991

Recommended Posts

If I understand properly, the issue is that Bora Laskin, a Supreme Court judge, spoke to politicians in Ottawa and London before the Court rendered a decision. This, supposedly, is wrong and violates a so-called judicial independence.

Well, I would be surprised if Bora Laskin never had coffee with Trudeau. Heck, I'm sure that Laskin had a chat with a minister in Lévesque's cabinet - if not two.

-----

1. It was obvious at the time that a federal Supreme Court would decide in favour of the federal government.

2. Nevertheless, the federal Supreme Court made it plain that, in the absence of an amending formula, it didn't know what to do except say that a federal government required broader provincial support.

3. Our federal Supreme Court noted the obvious: the BNA Act (our Constitution) was an act of the British Parliament and could be amended by another Act of the British Parliament.

4. Margaret Thatcher rightly did what Trudeau asked: She held her nose, and then she made it plain that no other British government would ever do such a thing.

5. Everyone at the time (whether alive now or not) knew what was happening.

====

Coup d'État ? Far from it.

Will Trudeau fils have to answer for this? Maybe. (But as Justin says, "I don't wear a rose in my lapel.")

Will the PQ win any more votes from this in the next election? No. (In fact, the PQ may lose votes since people are tired of such arcane arguments.)

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We lost a lot when we had this new constitution imposed upon us. We lost the common law, for example. (Some will argue, but let them put their evidence on the table.)

In return, we got the so-called Charter. Canadians like it, because they imagine that it is a document like the American Bill of Rights -- the Amendments to the American Constitution. But they 'rights' it enshrines limits common law rights by writing them down, and it pretends that the enemy of the rights of citizens is other citizens, rather than the state itself -- which involves a weird misunderstanding of our history. As an example, the Charter gives Canadians the right to a speedy trial, but it simply isn't enforced. The trial of Robert Pickton is an example. He was held in jail for six years, waiting his trial, because the Crown lacked the evidence it needed to support their charge of murder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton)

The first judge who tried to defend the right to a speedy trial was Judge Paul Cosgrove former mayor or Scarborough, and a Judge on the Ontario Supreme Court. For any of you who think the Judiciary is 'independent', it's an object lesson. He was essentially cashiered by the Attorney General and 'car rage' homicide perp. (http://injusticebusters.org/04/Cosgrove_Paul.shtml)

In other words, the Charter is a sham. The patriation of the Constitution was anything but -- it was a successful attempt to impose a new constitution on us. This discussion is long overdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No new constitution was imposed on Canada; the existing constitution was patriated and amended in the process. Common law is still extant in Canada, along with the Civil Code.

You say it was patriated and amended. That means it wasn't simply patriated, but it was changed in the process into something that it wasn't before. It was imposed. The additions included the mess that the courts have made of aboriginal affairs, to the point that people in a large part of south western Ontario don't know if the title of their land is valid, and economic development has been crippled.

Common law is more complex. Nobody will speak the truth, in simple terms, but would the rulings of those rogue Human Right Organizations have one iota of legal backing if we had the common law. In those proceedings, the victim defendant cannot cross-examine the evidence against him, and may not even know what it is. (S)he cannot face her/his accuser.

In addition, one of the immediate effects of the patriation imposition of these new legal arrangements was to locate sovereignty in the Supreme Court rather than Parliament. It's the Supreme Court that has left abortion absolutely unregulated, and which compelled Parliament to make a decision on same sex marriage. For the most part, the Court has constrained itself, but it has no respect for common law, that part is for sure. (Could same-sex marriage been imposed on us if we had common law?

If you respond, bambino, please use some examples and argumentation, not simply make assertions that you probably don't know are true or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That means it wasn't simply patriated, but it was changed in the process into something that it wasn't before. It was imposed. The additions included the mess that the courts have made of aboriginal affairs, to the point that people in a large part of south western Ontario don't know if the title of their land is valid, and economic development has been crippled.

I don't think you know what you're talking about; there's so much wrong with what's said just in your first paragraph above that it's hard to know where even to start.

The only notable changes that came when the constitution was patriated was: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (based on the Canadian Bill of Rights) was added; a constitutional amending formula was implemented; and section 4 of the Statute of Westminster 1931 was deleted and superceded by section 2 of the Canada Act 1982. The federal parliament and nine of the ten provincial parliaments approved of these amendments and additions. You're the one who has to explain how that equates with an imposition.

[ed: sp]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...