Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[KrazyHorse]

Because we have the Charter for a reason. The day the federal government uses the notwithstanding clause it becomes completely worthless (more so than it has already been made by ****ers in the provinces using it).

Notwithstanding clause:

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because we have the Charter for a reason.

The notwithstanding clause is in the Charter. Is the Charter perfect or not?

The day the federal government uses the notwithstanding clause it becomes completely worthless (more so than it has already been made by ****ers in the provinces using it).

Notwithstanding clause:

Still in the Charter.

[KrazyHorse]

The notwithstanding clause was a copout.

"We guarantee Canadians the following fundamental rights, except when we don't feel like it"

The Charter is not and will never be a perfect document. Why even bother asking such a stupid question? But having a Constitution which protects basic civil liberties is a lot better than not having one, and inserting a ****ing back door like the notwithstanding clause to get around its protections was the worst idea in it.

The only thing which makes up for this is the fact that:

a) The provinces have only used the clause on a very few occasions (Quebec 3 times and Saskatchewan once, IIRC)

b) The federal government has never used it.

I'm glad you're comfortable with setting a precedent that the federal government should be able to violate any of your civil rights any time it feels like. I'm not.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The notwithstanding clause was a copout.


"We guarantee Canadians the following fundamental rights, except when we don't feel like it"

I agree. As were the affirmative action clauses.

The Charter is not and will never be a perfect document. Why even bother asking such a stupid question?

Umm, maybe because Liberals are trying to have it both ways (as usual). If 'rights' under the Charter are 100% inviolable why the notwithstanding clause? They ***** about the possible use of a clause that THEY themselves put in the Charter....

But having a Constitution which protects basic civil liberties is a lot better than not having one, and inserting a ****ing back door like the notwithstanding clause to get around its protections was the worst idea in it.

Agree again. Tell the Liberals.

The only thing which makes up for this is the fact that:

a) The provinces have only used the clause on a very few occasions (Quebec 3 times and Saskatchewan once, IIRC)

b) The federal government has never used it.

I'm glad you're comfortable with setting a precedent that the federal government should be able to violate any of your civil rights any time it feels like. I'm not.

Did I write the freaking document? The clause is there for a reason (like the reason or not). My problem is with Liberals that whine and cry about the rights protected by their precious Charter but simultaneously sneer at any that chose to use other parts of the very same Charter. What hypocrasy.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
I agree. As were the affirmative action clauses.

What ****ing affirmative action clauses??? We don't have AA in Canada. You know that the Canadian government requires companies that do business with it to report on the # of visible minorities employed, and that's all. If some company reports that it has 1,000 whites and no one else employed then that's fine. But if you donb;t report the numbers, then you're screwed, even if you have a balanced worked force.

Originally posted by Wezil
Umm, maybe because Liberals are trying to have it both ways (as usual).

It was the friggen Alberta Conservatives who demand the notwistanding clause be added to the Charter.

Lougheed is to blame fopr it.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Tingkai

What ****ing affirmative action clauses??? We don't have AA in Canada. You know that the Canadian government requires companies that do business with it to report on the # of visible minorities employed, and that's all. If some company reports that it has 1,000 whites and no one else employed then that's fine. But if you donb;t report the numbers, then you're screwed, even if you have a balanced worked force.

Go get a copy of the Charter and READ it Tingkai. I don't have the patience of NYE....

It was the friggen Alberta Conservatives who demand the notwistanding clause be added to the Charter.

Lougheed is to blame fopr it.

Nice try but his initials weren't PET.

[Wezil]

Tingkai - I'll save you the effort of finding it. Look at S. 6 (4) and S. 15 (2).

[St Leo]

Toronto Star | Martin soft on child porn, says Harper

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is maintaining his attack on Paul Martin over what Harper says is a Liberal failure to address child pornography.

The Liberal leader failed to strengthen the law against child porn by voting against an Opposition motion in the Commons to close the "artistic merit" loophole, which exempts some art from anti-pornography legislation, Harper charged today.

Opponents of the Canadian Alliance motion said it was too broad and would have banned some legitimate art.

Liberal legislation to tighten the definition of artistic merit died on the order paper when the election was called.

The issue of child pornography flared this week with the guilty plea from Michael Briere, who admitted on Thursday to the sex slaying of 10-year-old Holly Jones in Toronto in 2003.

He said he had been watching kiddie porn on the Internet when he decided to grab a child.

On Friday, the Conservatives issued a news release suggesting the prime minister supports child porn.

The Conservatives withdrew and re-worded the release and blamed the initial e-mail on over-caffeinated youngsters in the party's election war room who have been working long hours for nearly a year.
...
The child porn law came under legal challenge in the 1990s from John Robin Sharpe, a retired town planner from British Columbia who was charged after police raided his home and found photos of under-age boys engaged in sexual acts as well as a collection of stories written by Sharpe.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld most of the federal law that makes production, dealing and simple possession of child pornography a crime.

But the court said it would be wrong to outlaw material such as personal journals, fictional writings, and drawings that are imaginary and don't involve exploitation of an actual child.

Sharpe was subsequently convicted on several counts. But he was acquitted of the charges related to his writings, which a trial judge described as "morally repugnant" but not totally lacking in artistic merit.
...
An Ipsos-Reid poll, conducted after the leadership debates of Monday and Tuesday, suggested Conservative support had stalled at 32 per cent and the Liberals were down two percentage points to 29 per cent.

The NDP also dropped a point to 16 per cent of respondents, the Bloc Quebecois was at 12 per cent and the Green party was up a point to seven per cent.

Uhm, is the Sharpe case what's getting the mad jedi upset? As in, the one where a child pornography afficianado was convicted for having real child pornography but not convicted for writing down his personal thoughts?

I am no fan of thoughtpolice.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
Tingkai - I'll save you the effort of finding it. Look at S. 6 (4) and S. 15 (2).

Wezil, both of those sections merely say that AA are not banned. It doesn't require anyone to create these programs.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
Nice try but his initials weren't PET.

No, Lougheed pushed the idea of the notwithstanding clause, not Trudeau.

Lougheed was worried that the Charter gave too much power to the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause would provide provinces with the power to ignore the SCC.

Trudeau was against the idea. He didn't want to give the provinces the power contained in the notwithstanding clause. But Trudeau had to agree with the clause after Lougheed was able to rally a majority of the other premiers to his side.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Wezil, both of those sections merely say that AA are not banned. It doesn't require anyone to create these programs.

* sigh *

It protects discrimination where such programs exist. Simple concept.

[Tingkai]

Aye-yah.

You see the words "affirmative action" and you immediately scream "discrimination!" Take some time to understand what the Charter says. The charter's use of "affirmative action" is different from the way Americans use that phrase.

In the Charter, affirmative action includes programs designed to help the poor (regardless of race), the elderly, the blind, the deaf, etc. The phrase is not limited to ethnic background.

Ethnicity is not even mentioned in Section 6 (4) which says that governments have the right to create programs designed to reduce poverty. Yes, these programs are only for the poor, so it "discriminates" against the rich, but so what? How in the world can you object to that.

Use some common sense.

Section 15 says that everyone is entitled to the same benefits from the law. If we left it at that, then governments could not create programs to help the elderly, the deaf, the blind, etc because these programs do not provide equal benefits to all. Recognising the need for these programs, the Charter includes a subsection making it legal to create these programs.

This is common sense stuff. Only a fool would object to these clauses.

[Ben Kenobi]

the day we elect judges directly will be the end of traditional canada

I've always said good riddance to bad rubbish.

And they accuse me of being a traditionalist.

[Ben Kenobi]

The notwithstanding clause was a copout.

"We guarantee Canadians the following fundamental rights, except when we don't feel like it"

Interesting.

Here's the actual wording in the cardinal Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the abhorrent Notwithstanding clause.

EXCEPTION WHERE EXPRESS DECLARATION / Operation of exception / Five year limitation / Re-enactment / Five year limitation.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

This is essentially a declaration of the supremacy of parliament. Canada is a nation governed, not by appointed judges, but by the elected parliament.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

Again, Charter provisions may be abrogated by parliament, even provincial parliaments, as affirmed by Quebec. If Quebec can abrogate the charter under the Notwithstanding clause, then so can Alberta. To argue that one may do so, and the other may not, is inconsistent.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

5 years, would be after the legislative period, such that another election would have to be held in order to confirm the original use of the Notwithstanding clause. Thus, an unpopular government that abused the notwithstanding clause would see itself turfed out by the people.

This is an extraordinary limitation put on the Canadian parliament, and an extraordinary confirmation of the powers of the judiciary here in Canada.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

[Ben Kenobi]

The Charter is not and will never be a perfect document. Why even bother asking such a stupid question? But having a Constitution which protects basic civil liberties is a lot better than not having one, and inserting a ****ing back door like the notwithstanding clause to get around its protections was the worst idea in it.

Either the Charter is a document that is perfect, such that the civil liberties they contain ought to be perfect, or the Charter may contain errors, which ought to be amended.

If the Charter is perfect, then we ought to keep the notwithstanding clause.

If the Charter is false, then we still should keep the notwithstanding clause, since an elected parliament could correct the errors and omissions of the appointed judiciary.

There is nothing barring parliament from amending the Constitution of Canada, but this requires an extraordinary amount of support here in Canada.

a) The provinces have only used the clause on a very few occasions (Quebec 3 times and Saskatchewan once, IIRC)

b) The federal government has never used it.

I'm glad you're comfortable with setting a precedent that the federal government should be able to violate any of your civil rights any time it feels like.

I'm appalled that what applies to Quebec, ought not also apply to the other provinces. If Alberta wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause with respect to gay marriage, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so.

The only way to punish such a government, is for the people in the province to vote against the government that abuses the notwithstanding clause.

The government, in the Charter can no more take away the rights of the people, since they are elected by the people. However, I fear a judiciary, appointed for life, and secure on their bench stripping away Charter provisions laid down by parliament.

You have much less to fear from an elected parliament, then you have to fear from an appointed judiciary.