Lost in Manitoba Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 You could be right, Hugo, but I just can't see the justice there. I have a decidely utilitarian kind of view on that; not the 'most good for the most people' but more along the lines of us giving up certain rights and freedoms to have harmony in society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike C. Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 It seems to me that when something occurs that is away from from being normal,or what most people would find acceptable,the Charter or portions thereof are brought in to justify whatever the incident is. If you watch the news, it will most likely be a liberal member of the commons to use it quickly to substantiate his or her stand.Seldom,is there a real explanation as to why they hold a certain view,just that the charter demands it.I think as Canadians we deserve MP's who use their intelligence in all matters,and cease their use of the charter for their inability to explain certain events,as not all Canadians agree with a charter that is rapidly tearing away at the fabric of this once great country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted September 10, 2003 Report Share Posted September 10, 2003 The charter as it stands is flawed and with the notwithstanding clause, not binding anyway. In extending the right to marry to gay couples the courts ignore the intent of marriage. No one should believe that marriage was intended to be an institution for two people to have sex. What would be the piont? Simply to say look I'm only having sex with this one person. Do people that are clearly in defiance of the natural laws, that is one man and one woman, in the duality of nature garner such protection? Is a natural law that is ignored and even broken and celebrated worthy of protection by our charter? Should cloning be protected then? What about polluters, shouldn't they also have the right to spill toxins into the water? If homosexualty is breaking the laws of nature isn't this also an environmentalists issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 I agree, the Charter is an attempt to segment society into groups - all vying for their human rights. Each group identifies with itself not with Canada. The Charter far from being a binding document on being Canadian is used to create divisiveness, even as the Lie-berals and their media friends talk of diversity. The perversion of the Charter is that this diversity is creating a segmented and illiberal society that covets various positive rights but feels alienated from the common weal. These groups can use the broad language of the Charter to demand certain rights unavailable to larger groups ie. to be sexually deviant and be married in a Church, when Church doctrine strictly prohibits such activity. The State using the Charter can impose its will on non-state institutions. In effect it means leads to the divisiveness of society not to a greater cohesion as our institutions are changed by politicians not by our society, culture or organic development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnsfurlan Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 My problem is more with the conducts of the Supreme Courts, both here and in the US. Constitutions are supposed to spell out the values that democracies want to preserve. So, judges are supposed to be there to protect the values specified in the Charter/Constitution. But then you have these activist judges who write-in their own interpretations of what those values are, which undermines the very writing of the Charter/Constitution itself. Why write a document if its not going to be preserved by the judges who are supposed to preserve it? Courts should uphold the values of a democracy, not change them to fit their own views and possible agendas. Is there any way of resolving such a state of affairs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydfish Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 The Trudeau Civil Code is at best a useless document, at worst it's simply the best example of a franco-republican contamination of our Westminster system of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 Boyd - Great stuff ! I agree - it is the usurpation of our British Parliamentary Heritage by the 'Rights' Lie-berals. It is an unnecessary and dangerous over-ride of the Constitution and Parliamentary process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chater Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 hmmm, i don't know. I don't have time to write something in depth, but i'm somewhat with it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 You can start by trying to produce a list of Charter BENEFITS with empirical real world support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnsfurlan Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Craig, Is it your contention that all Constitutions protected by Supreme Courts are dangerous? Or just the Canadian Charter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 what's not likable about the charter, it is vague enough to be contentious, and is also subjected to easy foreign and other influences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 I submit all Charters that supercede the Constitution and are open to judicial decree and interpretation are unnecessary. Even something like the Bill of Rights is open to suspicion - Britain for instance has no such 'Charter' Rights document. The issue lies with the political process - in a checks and balanced system like a Republican a Bill of Rights MIGHT be acceptable. In a Parliamentary system like ours, where Judges, Parliament heavyweights, bureacrats, and policy are largely chosen by ONLY the PM it is dangerous. Chretien can play both sides - Yes i am personally against Gay Marriage but No i don't want to upset the Charter. This is nonsense. The Charter is now the document defining what occurs in our country and it allows the State to demolish non-state institutions. This is more difficult to do, in the USA. The Charter here needs to be revoked and the entire Parliamentary process reformed. We need checks and balances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1963 Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 I don't think Chretien has said that he is personally against gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1963 Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 I don't think Chretien has said that he is personally against gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydfish Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Britain for instance has no such 'Charter' Rights document. No, it does: The English Bill of Rights was passed in the 1600's. It's much smaller than the US or Canadian equivilants, mainly because they recognized that with our rights already assured under Common Law, there was no need to make a redundant document. That's why the Trudeau Code is so stupid: It adds nothing new; it just phrases it in a francophone accent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 True enough. In England as far as I know this B.O.R is not used to; -Protect terrorists from being deported -Protect asylum seekers who just walk on to the country's terrirtory -Protect freedom of expression of every group to the detriment of the entire group -Allows the State to interfere in non-state institutions The English BOR is I believe hardly if ever invoked. The English Constitution is looser in many ways - more general - a framework of ideas. This is preferable to what we have here. It is better than the EU Constitution as well with its embedded worker rights, social rights, freedom rights and the like - a horrid document. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydfish Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Britain, depending on how you look at it, either has no constitution or the longest one in history. It is governed by Common Law and custom rather than a strict framework of written down rules. That's why, while admitting my natural bias as being British heritage on my maternal side, I think I prefer the British Common Law system to a franco-republican model: The Westminster Model gives the benefit of the doubt that people will act with common sense and only get involved when they stop doing so; the republic model with it's endless charters, constitutions, bills of rights and civil codes treats all people as stupid as the biggest idiot in the village. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirRiff Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 nothing more disturbing then a group of people who benefit from civil protection every day of their lives criticizing the letter of protection because it offers the same protection to gays or blacks or whatever. i suggest before anybody can reasonably claim the insight to decide others do not deserve teh same civil rights, they should cite thier contributions towards securing these rights in the first place. else its just mental masterbation SirRiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydfish Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 nothing more disturbing then a group of people who benefit from civil protection every day of their lives criticizing the letter of protection because it offers the same protection to gays or blacks or whatever. Riff...isn't it past your bedtime? Be quiet, the adults are speaking about important things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Read Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Yes Boyd I agree. Churchill was against a formal EU constitution for the reasons you mentioned. The British model is organic - namely it has grown over the centuries informally and sometimes formally or through revolutions or through political change [1832 Parliamentary reform, 1910 Liberal reforms etc.]. In today's real world - where Trial Lawyers, Tort Lawyers and Political hacks exist in abundance - a document like the COR will obviously be abused to make money. Look at the US where 2 % of GDP goes to Tort Lawyers !! These lawyers are now targeting WalMart - for sexual and racial discrimination !! Why ? Because WalMart has the money that is why. [source: R. Thornburgh, CNBC Sept 23]. This is dangerous. In Canada the use of the Charter to trump Parliament is reaching obscene proportions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.