Scrapping notwithstanding clause... total stupidity

[scribblet]

Link here for Martin's use of the NWC

Martin Promises to Use Notwithstanding Clause

June 08, 2004

OTTAWA – Guess what… Paul Martin is the only federal party leader to have promised to use the notwithstanding clause, or even suggest that using it – for anything – may be necessary.

“Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force…churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause.” – Paul Martin (CBC Radio, December 18, 2003).

http://www.stevenfletcher.com/archives/000073.php

[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.

Hey Kula,

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

Thanks

Sorry I didn't add a link.

Here is a link to story about this issue. It is about 2 of the people who helped draft the Charter.

Ottawa Sun

As for Martin's proposal to scrap the NWC. It just really pisses me off that a man who could be PM (getting less likely by the day) would want to hand so much control over to 9 people most Canadians don't even know. Why would we need MP's to represent us? Who would represent us? Isn't this a democracy?

I know more about US Supreme Court Justices than Canadian Supreme Court Justices. Maybe that should change.

Kula

[Guest eureka]

Removing the NWC would not bring us closer to the American system. There was always judicial review under Common Law. Parliament never had a free hand with the Rights of Citizens. The NWC gives them that.

As has been pointed out, the American veto is not related to the Clause. It could only be so where Congress acted to remove Rights and then the act would would be subject to Judicial Review.

As for Martin's change of heart, I imagine it could be because he has understood that his original fears were unfounded. Religion is protected by the Constitution not just the Charter. It is also in the Charter in a way that the NWC could not be used - I think, though I have not had time to look at that.

[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.

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?

If you have no idea why post?

[Canuck E Stan]

Toronto Star

Martin spokeswoman Melanie Gruer says there is no mention of the notwithstanding clause in the platform because it was printed over the weekend — before the prime minister made the comment.

...nothing like Liberal long range planning on important issues.So much consultation to do ect. ect.