Martin has spoken

[kimmy]

Not use the notwithstanding clause.

Really? To "defend the Charter", all you have to do is not use the notwithstanding clause? Cool! It's a lot easier than it sounds! I'm doing it right now!

So vowing not to use the notwithstanding clause on SSM makes Harper a defender of the Charter too?

-k

[justcrowing]

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30898.html

Equality Rights (Section 15): This section includes the right to equal treatment before and under the law; and to equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability. The courts have also recognized other grounds of discrimination that are not specifically set out in the Charter such as sexual orientation and marital status. This section came into effect in 1985.

The Charter contains a limiting clause that defines under what circumstances a Charter right or freedom can be limited:

Limiting Clause (section 1): The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. This section provides that certain limits on rights and freedoms are acceptable if those limitations can be justified in a "free and democratic society".

[shoop]

I find your post symbolic of the Liberals arrogance and fear of applying the same standard to the entire country.

Quebec has had *two* failed referendums, yet nobody is calling Boisclair or Duceppe scary for talking about the next referendum.

(Maybe they are afraid Boisclair would go on a cocaine induced rampage and kick their butts. The clips of him berating reporters when the cocaine use surfaced were pretty freaky.)

The Supreme Court of Canada basically begged off the question of whether or not SSM was guaranteed in the Charter. Harper is making a reasonable point, no matter how many constitutional expertis say it is guaranteed under the charter that hasn't been decided until the Supremes make a decision.

Making the Supremes decide will be an interesting case.

Pretty sad though. A few Liberal activists working with the GLBT lobby hijcking this thread, but so be it...

The entire argument of SSM is a moot point. It has already been voted on by the house and the fact that Mr Harper won't accept this reality is, quite frankly, scary.

Although Mr Martin could be less arrogant when he argues this point, ultimately he is maintaining that Mr Harper cannot change a right which has already been written into the charter.

For Mr Harper to even propose the elimination of a charter right demonstrates his arrogance. Why is this even an issue?

This is the definition of arrogance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Quebec has had *two* failed referendums, yet nobody is calling Boisclair or Duceppe scary for talking about the next referendum. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no difficulty whatsoever calling Duceppe and Boisclair scary for talking about yet another referendum on separation. The notion to have yet another referendum in hopes of getting a different outcome is both pathetic and frightening.

In some ways (but not all) it's reminiscent of Harper's desire to have MPs voting on the same issue once again in order that he can get the outcome he desires, i.e., stripping away the legislated right of lesbians to marry each other in the future.

[Leafless]

normanchateau

You wrote- " In some ways (but not all) it's reminiscent of Harper's desire to have MP's on the same issue again in order that he can get the outcome he desires, i.e., stripping away the legislated right of lesbians to marry each other in the future."

I can see you do not think there is not a democratic deficit in parliament and the country.

Parliament does not only consist of the Liberals but other MP's from other parties who form an important vibrant part in the day to day role in the functioning of Canada, legally elected by their constituents to do this.

Do you not think these MP's should not be allowed to voice their opinion concerning this important matter which Paul Martin says is a Constitutional matter?

Better still do you not think Canadian citizen's have the right to vote in this matter?

In fact I think Canadians should have had a direct role on whether or not to accept or reject the Charter initially.

Like I said before , this country was fought over and given a Constitution in which the Charter was imposed in 1982 without a referendum on the matter but instead ratified by premiers only.

I think Liberals have politically infringed on the democrtic freedoms of Canadians have fought and died for and have produced a system of government that works aganist democratic freedoms similar to a cheap little banana republic.

[PolyNewbie]

ignore

[Argus]

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/fs/2003/doc_30898.html

Equality Rights (Section 15): This section includes the right to equal treatment before and under the law; and to equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability. The courts have also recognized other grounds of discrimination that are not specifically set out in the Charter such as sexual orientation and marital status. This section came into effect in 1985.

You can't "recognize" something that isn't there. The courts have not "recognized" other grounds. The Court has "invented" other grounds. This is because the SC is made up of judges appointed due to their political affiliations, activism and beliefs rather than their judicial knowledge and wisdom.