National security trumps personal rights in terror cases, top court to

[mcqueen625]

I don't believe that foreign born terror suspects should have any protections under our flawed Charter. If we continue to allow the appointed, undemocratic Supreme Court to make laws in this country, none of us will be safe.

It is quite obvious from recent rulings by this elite gathering of appointed morons that they have absolute distain for both the Parliament and the people of Canada. They could care less what it is that the people of Canada want, as their only concern is making sure that they have the final say in every aspect of Canadian society. I don't remember ever having a vote on turning over Canada to this bunch of activists who have absolutely no respect for either the traditional morals and values this country is based on. We need to through legislation limit the powers of this unelected and undemocratic body, who place themselves above the law of the land, and above the power of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned this body is a direct threat to democracy, and their role needs to be redefined as simply a interpretive role only.

[FTA Lawyer]

I don't believe that foreign born terror suspects should have any protections under our flawed Charter. If we continue to allow the appointed, undemocratic Supreme Court to make laws in this country, none of us will be safe.

It is quite obvious from recent rulings by this elite gathering of appointed morons that they have absolute distain for both the Parliament and the people of Canada. They could care less what it is that the people of Canada want, as their only concern is making sure that they have the final say in every aspect of Canadian society. I don't remember ever having a vote on turning over Canada to this bunch of activists who have absolutely no respect for either the traditional morals and values this country is based on. We need to through legislation limit the powers of this unelected and undemocratic body, who place themselves above the law of the land, and above the power of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned this body is a direct threat to democracy, and their role needs to be redefined as simply a interpretive role only.

Good rant, but misguided for a number of reasons...

The SCC is doing "simply a interpretive role only"...problem is that PET gave them the Charter as the Supreme Law of Canada...i.e. they must interpret, according to the law passed by PET's government, all governmental activity (including legislation) to determine if it is in accordance with the Charter.

In this context, mere interpretation leads to the striking down of laws determined to be inconsistent with the Charter.

BUT, here's the good news, we don't need to "through legislation limit the powers of this unelected and undemocratic body" because within that same Supreme Law of Canada is a often blasphemed little provision known as the "Notwithstanding Clause".

That's right, recognizing the potential for exactly the status quo that you are complaining of, those reluctant to sign off on the Charter lobbied for and got an internal veto. If the SCC in doing its job properly interprets a law to be unconstituional and strikes it down...but that doesn't sit well with the people of Canada at the time...then the government can simply re-enact the law "notwithstanding" the Charter.

So there you have it...your hellfire and damnation ought to be directed at politicians who have set out to pass the buck and shirk their responsibility by demonizing anyone (read Harper) who would ever consider using the Notwithstanding Clause and thereby acting like they don't make the decisions and that they are stuck with whatever the SCC gives them.

FTA