Scrapping notwithstanding clause... total stupidity

[Kula]

Paul Martin wants to hand over control of our democracy to appointed judges. Absolute stupidity. Imagine it. Why would we need a government? Martin is a coward and doesn't want to make decisions, he doesn't want Canadians to have a voice. This is the story from the debate.

Paul Martin doesn't support a strong voice for Canadian citizens.

[tml12]

Paul Martin wants to hand over control of our democracy to appointed judges. Absolute stupidity. Imagine it. Why would we need a government? Martin is a coward and doesn't want to make decisions, he doesn't want Canadians to have a voice. This is the story from the debate.

Paul Martin doesn't support a strong voice for Canadian citizens.

Hey Kula,

This sounds interesting but I would like to see a story on it...can you post a link?

Thanks

[kimmy]

Hey Kula,

This sounds interesting but I would like to see a story on it...can you post a link?

Thanks

From the Liberals themselves:

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11350

This does sound somewhat desperate... a grasp at what they hope will sound appealing. But is it viable? Somebody posted yesterday that Martin himself said not long ago that he'd use the Notwithstanding Clause of he felt it was in the interest of defending freedom of religion. Has he changed his mind on that? Is it no longer a good idea?

-k

[tml12]

Hey Kula,

This sounds interesting but I would like to see a story on it...can you post a link?

Thanks

From the Liberals themselves:

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11350

-k

Thanks Kimmy...

"The Prime Minister’s proposal would guarantee that every Canadian could rest assured that the federal government would never infringe the rights and freedoms everyone deserves."

But what about the Supreme Court? This looks cleverly designed as a SSM issue. What if the Supreme Court ruled against the will of the people and there is no nonwithstanding clause so that the ELECTED House could defend the will of the people? How can we check the power of the Supreme Court?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

This does sound somewhat desperate... a grasp at what they hope will sound appealing. But is it viable? Somebody posted yesterday that Martin himself said not long ago that he'd use the Notwithstanding Clause of he felt it was in the interest of defending freedom of religion. Has he changed his mind on that? Is it no longer a good idea?

I also see this as an incredibly desperate move, by a very desperate man. I believe he was trying to corner Harper into admitting that the CPC planned to use the clause (as per Liberal accusations). Now, with Martin himself having said that he would use the clause to defend religious groups, where does this move leave his promise to them?

In my opinion, Martin just painted himself as the man who would stab his own mother in the back for a chance at re-election.

Bases are loaded, and Mighty Martin is up to bat, swinging for the home-run, and a come from behind victory. However, after 2 debates, a swing and a miss, he's down two strikes. The French debate may or may not help, Martin sounds like he is giving birth when he speaks french.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I was little surprised when Stephen Harper said yesterday that the Americans don't have anything like our "notwithstanding clause".

Isn't their presidential "veto" sort of the same thing?

[The Honest Politician]

Harpers own words from the first debate: "I will not use the Notwithstanding clause......on this issue."

So what issue will he use it on. Apparently the supreme court has given somebody rights or freedoms that Harper's controllers disagree with, and he intends to use the notwithstanding clause on it.

Martin realises Harper's controllers are ultra conservative and want to repeal rights given to minorities that are disagreeable to their own beliefs. The removal of the notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure to try and ensure that the group behind Harper don't have the power to remove rights and freedoms because they simply don't agree with them.

[kimmy]

The removal of the notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure to try and ensure that the group behind Harper don't have the power to remove rights and freedoms because they simply don't agree with them.

That's kind of grasping at straws, isn't it? After all, if Martin remains Prime Minister to actually impliment this policy, it means Harper wouldn't be able to actually use the Notwithstanding Clause anyway.

It's also a debateable issue... Right now Martin thinks the Notwithstanding Clause is the worst thing ever... a couple of years ago he apparently thought it was something he'd use if necessary to protect religious freedoms. What if some other issue-- perhaps preserving public healthcare-- created a scenario where Canadians would be in favor of using the clause?

And it's also an empty promise, isn't it? Wouldn't removing the clause require a constitutional amendment? What are the odds of a minority government being successful in getting the provinces to agree to that?

-k

[Guest eureka]

It is not an easy question and could do without the silly commentary of "desperation." by the partisans. It comes down to the question of whether one believes that an elected government should have the power to overrule the Courts and remove Rights of citizens.

Trudeau fought against the inclusion of the Clause and only agreed when there was no other way of getting the Charter accepted. It was the insistence od a Rigt Wing Provincial government that is responsible for the clause.

I have always been against the Clause but I don't know what the alternative could be since the SCC does sometimes get it wrong.

The Clause should go, in my opinion, since, on a balance of probabilities, it will only be abused to abuse the guarantees of Rigts and Freedoms. That has been its only use so far. I have far more faith in the Courts than in an elected house that will often go whatever way the wind blows.

Would you trust these Conservatives with such a tool?

[The Honest Politician]

The removal of the notwithstanding clause is an extreme measure to try and ensure that the group behind Harper don't have the power to remove rights and freedoms because they simply don't agree with them.

That's kind of grasping at straws, isn't it? After all, if Martin remains Prime Minister to actually impliment this policy, it means Harper wouldn't be able to actually use the Notwithstanding Clause anyway.

It's also a debateable issue... Right now Martin thinks the Notwithstanding Clause is the worst thing ever... a couple of years ago he apparently thought it was something he'd use if necessary to protect religious freedoms. What if some other issue-- perhaps preserving public healthcare-- created a scenario where Canadians would be in favor of using the clause?

And it's also an empty promise, isn't it? Wouldn't removing the clause require a constitutional amendment? What are the odds of a minority government being successful in getting the provinces to agree to that?

-k

I really don't think the issue would have been raised if the Liberals where in the lead in the polls. I think Martin made the comment to try and illustrate how far he would be willing to go to protect minority rights and at the same time make people aware that the Harper controllers want to claw back freedoms. It seemed a bit over the top, especially when most people are unaware of the true power structure of the CPC.

[August1991]

I was little surprised when Stephen Harper said yesterday that the Americans don't have anything like our "notwithstanding clause".

Isn't their presidential "veto" sort of the same thing?

A presidential veto in fact refers to the fact that all federal legislation in the US must pass both houses of Congress and receive the approval of the President. Without the President's approval, the legislation is vetoed. (Such a veto can be overridden by Congress.)

The notwithstanding clause refers to legislation that the Supreme Court could find in contradiction with the Charter of Rights. In this case, a government could override the Court's finding. To my knowledge, only the Quebec government has in fact done this.

A notwithstanding clause is unthinkable in the US context. Trudeau included it in the 1982 constitutional package to obtain provincial agreement. A Charter of Rights is contrary to a common law, parliamentary style of government and the notwithstanding clause made the Charter palatable.

Harper's response during the debate was reasonable. The notwithstanding clause provides a balance.

So what issue will he use it on. Apparently the supreme court has given somebody rights or freedoms that Harper's controllers disagree with, and he intends to use the notwithstanding clause on it.

It's mere existence provides a balance, even if it's never used.

But HP, do you really prefer moving to an American-style of government and law making? If we are to make the Supreme Court a pillar of our government, then we should do as the US is doing now and have a formal review of Court nominees with legislative (Commons) oversight of the executive's (PMO) nominations. Is this the direction you want Canada to go?

[The Honest Politician]

I said the removal of the clause was extreme.

I also asked what issue Harper wants to use the clause on?

He inferred himself there was atleast one issue he would use it on. And he made a point of adding "on this issue" like he wanted to make sure he had a back-door to duck out of when he does use the clause.

So this clause is the only thing stopping us from having an American-style of Govt and Law Making?

This I did not realize. Please explain.

[Hicksey]

The Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution is about checks and balances. We are supposed to be governed by the three arms of government: the senate (currently closer to being a joke than to being relevant), the house and the judiciary. Each is to serve to correct the others when they outstep their bounds. But the clause exists because the man whose name Martin evokes whenever he can, Pierre Trudeau, understood when the Constitution was written that the buck needed to stop with arm of government that is accountable to the people.

Eliminating it will make us slaves to the whims of the courts and powerless to correct their mistakes.

Martin has effectively pledged to destroy the very Constitution that his father and other Liberal meccas wrote.

Wait until some constitutional scholars get ahold of this ... Martin will kick his own butt for such a raunchy brain fart.

[Argus]

I said the removal of the clause was extreme.

I also asked what issue Harper wants to use the clause on?

He inferred himself there was atleast one issue he would use it on. And he made a point of adding "on this issue" like he wanted to make sure he had a back-door to duck out of when he does use the clause.

He made no such inference. That is YOUR inference. And why on earth would he promise to never use it ever on anything? Even Martin hasn't said that. In fact, Martin said only a couple of weeks ago he would use it himself if the courts tried to force churches or mosques to violate their own religious doctrine.

So this clause is the only thing stopping us from having an American-style of Govt and Law Making?

This I did not realize. Please explain.

Oh I don't think that is accurate. After all, the US govenrment doesn't have nearly the kind of control over judicial apointments as the sitting Canadian government. Their appointments are also much more closely scrutinized and challenged than ours. We have a lot of nitwits in robes appointed because of their party status, for example. But in any event, in the US, the courts are supreme in all things. It's unsurprising this has led to the most litigious nation that has ever existed in all of history. Removing the notwithstanding clause would duplicate that situation here.

[Wilber]

The way I understand it a presidential veto requires both houses to reconsider the bill. There is no definition of reconsideration. A two thirds majority of those present in both houses can override the veto. The US Supreme court cannot be vetoed. The government must change the law or amend the Constitution to make the law constitutional.

It's interesting that Captain Canada, the defender of the Constitution, now wants to change it in a manner that will make us more like the US. But then, unlike the US, he gets sole discretion over who sits on the Supreme Court. Very democratic. Has it occurred to him that the day will come when he is not appointing the members of that court? Maybe, but this is secondary to winning an election isn't it?

Kim Campbell's quip about an election campaign being no time to discuss real issues was tailor made for a ploy like this.

I this how Canadians want their Constitution changed? The result of a desperate, grandstanding vote grabbing tactic during an election debate?

[scribblet]

Dear kimmy,

This does sound somewhat desperate... a grasp at what they hope will sound appealing. But is it viable? Somebody posted yesterday that Martin himself said not long ago that he'd use the Notwithstanding Clause of he felt it was in the interest of defending freedom of religion. Has he changed his mind on that? Is it no longer a good idea?

I also see this as an incredibly desperate move, by a very desperate man. I believe he was trying to corner Harper into admitting that the CPC planned to use the clause (as per Liberal accusations). Now, with Martin himself having said that he would use the clause to defend religious groups, where does this move leave his promise to them?

In my opinion, Martin just painted himself as the man who would stab his own mother in the back for a chance at re-election.

Bases are loaded, and Mighty Martin is up to bat, swinging for the home-run, and a come from behind victory. However, after 2 debates, a swing and a miss, he's down two strikes. The French debate may or may not help, Martin sounds like he is giving birth when he speaks french.

from the other thread:

The Martin tactic of wanting to get parliament to do away with the notwithstanding clause is a trap for Harper. Martin is by inference suggesting Harper will take away minority rights, when in fact, Harper has said he wouldn't use it. I don't think they should remove the NWC ( if they can actually do it) its a safeguard and the reason the Charter was accepted. This sounds like a desperate move on Martin's part and his Captain Canada act doesn't fly anymore. Martina also has stated he would use the NWC to protect freedom of religion/SSM. Too bad Harper or the other two were taken by surprise on this.

[shoop]

It was a trap that Harper skillfully avoided. Arguing there is a need for a balance was a great thing. He was reasoned in saying it and didn`t come across as extreme at all.

The Martin tactic of wanting to get parliament to do away with the notwithstanding clause is a trap for Harper. Martin is by inference suggesting Harper will take away minority rights, when in fact, Harper has said he wouldn't use it. I don't think they should remove the NWC ( if they can actually do it) its a safeguard and the reason the Charter was accepted. This sounds like a desperate move on Martin's part and his Captain Canada act doesn't fly anymore. Martina also has stated he would use the NWC to protect freedom of religion/SSM. Too bad Harper or the other two were taken by surprise on this.

[Leafless]

eurek

You wrote- " The clause should go but I don't know what the alternative could be since the SCC sometimes get it wrong."

The clause is going nowhere!

What has been proposed by Martin is scrapping it's use on federal level only so ther bad boy Conservatives or any other party in parliament can't dismantle Liberal legislation.

Provinces can still invoke the clause, I guess that is if the feds let them.

[Hicksey]

eurek

You wrote- " The clause should go but I don't know what the alternative could be since the SCC sometimes get it wrong."

The clause is going nowhere!

What has been proposed by Martin is scrapping it's use on federal level only so ther bad boy Conservatives or any other party in parliament can't dismantle Liberal legislation.

Provinces can still invoke the clause, I guess that is if the feds let them.

This is Paul Martin we're talking about ... do you really expect him to keep this promise? Lord knows it would be the first!

[Leafless]

Hicksey

You wrote- " Do you really expect him to kep his promise."

Ha-ha-ha- No way.

This is just a Liberal lame attemp to control parliament with their Liberal stacked courts.

But the joke is if the Liberals ever do muffle parliament they will also come up with 101 ways to prevent the provinces from invoking it also.

It's sometimes hard to believe this is Canada.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

The only reason I used the term 'desperate' is because that is exactly what it seems like. As Wilber points out,

I this how Canadians want their Constitution changed? The result of a desperate, grandstanding vote grabbing tactic during an election debate?

There was not an inkling of this stance from Martin, nor any Liberals, for the many years they have been in power. Why is it brought up at the eleventh hour, if not from desperation?

[cybercoma]

Paul Martin wants to hand over control of our democracy to appointed judges. Absolute stupidity. Imagine it. Why would we need a government? Martin is a coward and doesn't want to make decisions, he doesn't want Canadians to have a voice. This is the story from the debate.

Paul Martin doesn't support a strong voice for Canadian citizens.

Not that I want to agree with Martin or anything, but it's not the job of government to interpret the laws. The government writes the laws and the courts are there for interpreting.

[cybercoma]

I wonder what it would be like if Canadians had to vote whether the government could use the clause or not, each time they wish to use it.

[August1991]

I said the removal of the clause was extreme.

I also asked what issue Harper wants to use the clause on?

He inferred himself there was atleast one issue he would use it on. And he made a point of adding "on this issue" like he wanted to make sure he had a back-door to duck out of when he does use the clause.

So this clause is the only thing stopping us from having an American-style of Govt and Law Making?

This I did not realize. Please explain.

I have no idea what you mean by "on this issue". Is this some scheme you imagine that Harper has a secret plan to put all Liberals in concentration camps using the notwithstanding clause?

The notwithstanding clause is hardly the sole difference between Canada and the US. But I'll remind you that there was much English-Canadian opposition to Trudeau's 1982 constitutional package primarily because it was viewed as an American/French translation of the BNA Act, contrary to the British tradition.

HP, have you ever heard of George Grant?

[wellandboy]

In a debate yesterday at Brock University this came up. The Liberal candidate John Maloney stated he is opposed to ammending the Constitution to remove the Notwithstanding Clause. Evidently, the Liberal Brain Trust didn't feed this devistatingly brilliant idea down to the ridings.