Breaking: Paul Martin promises to eliminate the notwithstanding clause
During tonight's debate, Paul Martin unveiled his intention to introduce a constitutional amendment to eliminate the constitutional override clause.
To me, this is the best promise unveiled in the entire campaign. The first time I heard about the clause in Law class several years ago, I was outraged. I'm very excited at the opportunity to get rid of it. I now have a real reason to mark my ballot "Liberal". I was leaning NDP to be honest, but this just seals the deal.
posted by Ryan Ringer @ 1/09/2006 08:22:00 p.m.
4 comments
4 Comments:
I hate the thing too, but another Meech Lake isn't in the cards.
I want a constitutional democracy where the parliament has no choice but to abide by the constitution. Being able to override the constitution by simple majority vote is something that no other modern country has, and it is an embarassment.
Smears that the Liberals want to turn Canada into a dictatorship are just that - smears, and they are disgusting ones at that. Dictatorships are responsible for some of the worst and most grievous human rights abuses in history. So, just as I condemned Jean Lapierre for calling Gilles Duceppe a Nazi, I condemn each person who is making such outrageous, sickening, and quite frankly uneducated claims. There are lines in civil debate that you do not cross, and comparing people to mass-murderers is one of them.
"Sorry, don't know what else to call it when the government has the supreme authority of rule that trumps democracy. Got another word?"
That is a dictatorship, but Canada is a democracy, and unless the Liberals burn down parliament and declare an end to elections, your charges are hyperbolic, false, malicious and shameful.
"And Martin himself said he'd use the notwithstanding clause to protect churches from having to perform gay marriages."
It was unnecessary; religious freedoms are guaranteed by the Charter, a Charter that the government should not be able to override by mere majority vote. What if 50% of the people thought that the government should force churches to perform gay marriages. Would you want them able to do that?
"There are instances when it could be used to protect the rights of many over the few."
The point of a charter of rights is to protect the rights of the few over the many; the many have parliament to work their will, all the minorities have is the Charter.
"Even Layton said he'd use it if the courts decided that people should have the right to private healthcare."
I don't wanna say Layton doesn't matter, but...
"Look at this objectively, at least in the States they have elected -- not appointed -- judges."
Actually, the Supreme Court is appointed.
As for their elected judges... what's the point of that? Judges are not politicians, or at least they shouldn't be. The job of judge should not be a popularity contest, it should be based on competence.
"This is a system without any mechanism to protect Canadians from the government."
It's called voting. If that's not good enough for you, declare anarchism - that'll protect you from the government! But who will protect you from everyone else?
This is a big announcement until you look at the scoreboard: how many promises have the Liberals kept, and how many have they broken?
Just a desperate politician trying to get votes...
Post a Comment
<< Home