Debate - Part 2 (Notwithstanding this debate)....
Okay... I'm not going to go on for hours here. I will simply put things like this...
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA WILL REMOVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO USE THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE
If those words didn't scare you, maybe this will... PAUL MARTIN said them!!!
I'm not the biggest fan of the Charter. Nor am I the biggest fan of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution of 1982. I am, however, a very large supporter of the idea (a provincial one, negotiated by Alberta, Ontario AND Quebec) of the Notwithstandign clause. What it provides, essentially, is the ability for governments to rule that decisions made by the courts are out of line with the "moral fabric" of Canada. For example - The courts could rule tomorrow that Caucasian males should be taxed at a higher level because thier incomes are generally higher than other "minority" groups (to this end, keep in mind that traditionally the courts have ruled in favour of minority groups rather than the collective good due primarily to Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms - also take into account that this is a purposely extreme example). If, for example, this decision was made at the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA the Federal government, Liberal or otherwise, could overrule it using something called the "Notwithstanding clause", out of a simple realization that this could (and would) polarize the nation against the ridiculous power of the Charter.
Paul Martin, the prime minister of Canada, wants to remove this ability.
It is now obvious where the Liberal Party of Canada would like this nation to go. All Canadians should be subject to law as INTERPRETED by the courts. In fact, the people of Canada should be subject to the whims of appointed officials over the ones they ELECT to government. This is simply ridiculous - and downright frightening.
The objectives of a democracy include the ability for PEOPLE to make the calls on where the laws of this nation are going. People, by the way, do so through voting in elections. We like to call this idea, Democratic representation. I don't care if you're a Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Red Tory, Hippie, Socialist or otherwise... we MUST all value our ability to elect people to represent us. We DO NOT elect judges in Canada. It is perversely abhorrent to me (and to many people I would imagine) that the current Government of Canada would remove the only ability for a government to OVERRULE the decisions made by appointed officials. It is simply ridiculous, shameful and, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Paul Martin can have his vision of Canada. It is a Canada where LIBERAL appointees to the courts can decided OUR fate. Let's get down to brass tacks here people, the Liberal government has just sold out EVERY Canadian who didn't vote Liberal in the last election. Need I remind you that WE (those who voted for another party) represent the MAJORITY in this country. It is not a vision that I share. Even though less than 60% of the Canadian populace came out to vote in the the last election one out of every three Canadians just got the good ol' Liberal finger from the back of the train. I don't care if you live in Kenora, Charlottetown, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Saskatoon, Victoria, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal or St. John's - You have to realize how bad of an idea this really is. I emplore those of you who didn't vote to do so in the upcoming election. Canada has been sold out to what amounts essentially to bureaucrats (and the worst kind - appointed bureaucrats).
I will vote Conservative - this much is sure. But even those of you out there who may vote NDP or even Bloc... DO NOT VOTE LIBERAL. At this point, fuelled by anger and a feeling of shame brought on by a PRIME MINISTER who is willing to sell out what amounts to the only legal protection for US - The Electorate - I emplore you to vote for ANY party except the Liberal Party of Canada.
Even if you belong to a minority group, no matter how described. Do not vote Liberal.
I'm reminded of something. Something that we could very well be even more dangerously close to than any Canadian could've ever imagined:
I hate to do this, but:
STAND UP FOR CANADA - VOTE (for ANY party other than the Liberals)
THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA WILL REMOVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO USE THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE
If those words didn't scare you, maybe this will... PAUL MARTIN said them!!!
I'm not the biggest fan of the Charter. Nor am I the biggest fan of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution of 1982. I am, however, a very large supporter of the idea (a provincial one, negotiated by Alberta, Ontario AND Quebec) of the Notwithstandign clause. What it provides, essentially, is the ability for governments to rule that decisions made by the courts are out of line with the "moral fabric" of Canada. For example - The courts could rule tomorrow that Caucasian males should be taxed at a higher level because thier incomes are generally higher than other "minority" groups (to this end, keep in mind that traditionally the courts have ruled in favour of minority groups rather than the collective good due primarily to Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms - also take into account that this is a purposely extreme example). If, for example, this decision was made at the SUPREME COURT OF CANADA the Federal government, Liberal or otherwise, could overrule it using something called the "Notwithstanding clause", out of a simple realization that this could (and would) polarize the nation against the ridiculous power of the Charter.
Paul Martin, the prime minister of Canada, wants to remove this ability.
It is now obvious where the Liberal Party of Canada would like this nation to go. All Canadians should be subject to law as INTERPRETED by the courts. In fact, the people of Canada should be subject to the whims of appointed officials over the ones they ELECT to government. This is simply ridiculous - and downright frightening.
The objectives of a democracy include the ability for PEOPLE to make the calls on where the laws of this nation are going. People, by the way, do so through voting in elections. We like to call this idea, Democratic representation. I don't care if you're a Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Red Tory, Hippie, Socialist or otherwise... we MUST all value our ability to elect people to represent us. We DO NOT elect judges in Canada. It is perversely abhorrent to me (and to many people I would imagine) that the current Government of Canada would remove the only ability for a government to OVERRULE the decisions made by appointed officials. It is simply ridiculous, shameful and, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Paul Martin can have his vision of Canada. It is a Canada where LIBERAL appointees to the courts can decided OUR fate. Let's get down to brass tacks here people, the Liberal government has just sold out EVERY Canadian who didn't vote Liberal in the last election. Need I remind you that WE (those who voted for another party) represent the MAJORITY in this country. It is not a vision that I share. Even though less than 60% of the Canadian populace came out to vote in the the last election one out of every three Canadians just got the good ol' Liberal finger from the back of the train. I don't care if you live in Kenora, Charlottetown, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Saskatoon, Victoria, Halifax, Moncton, Montreal or St. John's - You have to realize how bad of an idea this really is. I emplore those of you who didn't vote to do so in the upcoming election. Canada has been sold out to what amounts essentially to bureaucrats (and the worst kind - appointed bureaucrats).
I will vote Conservative - this much is sure. But even those of you out there who may vote NDP or even Bloc... DO NOT VOTE LIBERAL. At this point, fuelled by anger and a feeling of shame brought on by a PRIME MINISTER who is willing to sell out what amounts to the only legal protection for US - The Electorate - I emplore you to vote for ANY party except the Liberal Party of Canada.
Even if you belong to a minority group, no matter how described. Do not vote Liberal.
I'm reminded of something. Something that we could very well be even more dangerously close to than any Canadian could've ever imagined:
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
An extreme example it may indeed be, but WAKE UP. Who will speak for us (The Electorate) if even our elected representatives are left without recourse?I hate to do this, but:
STAND UP FOR CANADA - VOTE (for ANY party other than the Liberals)
posted by Lucas at 19:17
3 Comments:
LK, your post was both extremely passionate and extremely well-written, and that's not just because I've known you for years. I share your same anger about Paul's latest promise/threat.
I wish that during the debate (much better format tonight) that any of the leaders would have had the balls to veer from their War Room Cole's notes and use any of the words you have chosen to defend the removal of the Notwithstanding Clause. The issue came and went until the pundits got the mics. Note to the MSM - Martin has offically become Scarier than Harper will ever be. As I write this, some of my usual blogging haunts haven't yet commented on Martin's promise to change the Charter. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the next 24.
In the meantime here are some of the lighter moments from tonight's debate...Once again with pen in hand, I took a tally of some of the buzzwords repeated in the debate:
Change (most often spoken by Harper): 20
Income Trusts: 5
Choice (most often spoken by Layton): 18
Childcare: 33
Beer & Popcorn: 0
Values (most often spoken by Martin): 14
Ethics/Scandal/Corruption/Gomery/etc.: 31
Options Canada/Federal Scandal (most often spoken by Duceppe): 12
Charter of Rights & Freedoms: 8 (Despite Paul Martin’s new promise to remove the Notwithstanding Clause)
Ghosts of Campaigns Past:
- René Lévesque: 5
- Ed Broadbent: 2 (Harper twice, Layton nil)
- Mulroney: 1
- Trudeau: 0 (but I swear I heard his ghost when Martin promised to remove the Notwithstanding Clause)
Vote NDP to elect an NDP MP: 1 (must not have focused well last time).
I am a huge fan of the charter and somewhat a fan of the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, nobody would ever accuse me of being a Conservative (OK...Maybe a Red Tory). However, in this case I must agree with cronicbny, no matter how much it irks me. Removal of section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is tantamount to an Americanization of Canada, something I could not stomach. We have seen it over and over again in the U.S as various Presidents try to appoint Supreme court justices who have the same political views as themselves. Justices who would overturn such landmark cases as "Roe vs. Wade" and "Brown vs. the Board of Education". I admit, these are extreme examples, however my point is that we can't allow the Supreme court of Canada to have the all encompassing power of the Supreme court of the U.S.A, Section 33 prevents this. I therefore have to agree with cronicbny that this uniquely Canadian idea must be uphheld.
Professor Wayne MacKay of Dalhousie University writes;
"The notwithstanding clause should be kept, at least for the present. It permits debate about which rights are fundamental in Canadian society and which should prevail when rights are in conflict. In a democratic society steeped in the tradition of parliamentary supremacy, it is proper to give our elected legislators the final word."
Of course it must be noted that the orginal notwithstanding provision for the Charter was first proposed by Saskatchewan in the summer of 1980 during the deliberations of the Federal-Provincial Continuing Committee of Ministers Responsible for Constitutional Affairs (C.C.M.C.)
(Something my esteemed blogging friend forgot to mention.)
I must also implore cronicbny to use spell check.
If of course we are discussing section 44....I still agree with cronicbny
Post a Comment
<< Home