It continues...
Apparently, I'm not making myself clear enough. I'll try again, and try to be brief.
First, it is claimed that I equated the pro-life movement with the movement to legalize sex with children. I did no such thing, and a reading of my words will show that. I used them to make a rhetorical point - that is, a student council should not be forced to give funds to causes with which it disagrees, a principle with which I thought conservatives were in general agreement - but I did not equate them, which implies some sort of moral equivalence. I did no such thing.
But then, TT once again shoots a hole in his argument:
First off, NAMBLA is advocating something that goes against both the law and the Charter of Rights and freedoms, so no, they should not receive funding from the University.
Replace "NAMBLA" with "pro-lifers." There you have it: a group which advocates something that goes against the law should not receive funding, and since the Charter is part of the supreme law of the land (the constitution), groups advocating things that go against the Charter (like pro-lifers) should not get funding.
I am then called to task for making a partisan attack (ah, because TT is completely innocent of this) and my views on the matter are misrepresented. Allow me to quote myself:
"As I also stated, I don't agree with this position [banning pro-life groups from campus] 100%. But my objection to it is not with regards to the money, but with regards to barring the groups from council-managed spaces. I do disagree with that, and would go so far as to say it quite possibly breaches a Charter right. But money is a different issue; governing bodies must have a right to decide where their money will be spent." (emphasis added)
Do I need to make it any clearer?
Governing bodies have a right to distribute money how they choose. This isn't what's being argued.
It most certainly is, and attempting to argue otherwise is simply a red herring. It is precisely that right that is being challeneged here. A governing body is being told that it must, not should, but must as a matter of human rights provide funding to groups with which it disagrees.
Conservatives love to complain about courts "inventing rights." Well, that is precisely what is happening here. There is no right that exists in the Canadian constitution to receive money in order to promote one's political views. If there is, point it out to me, I'd love to see it. There is a right to free speech - which is being violated, not by witholding funds, but by not allowing the group to demonstrate. That is unconstitutional, and should be struck down.
You try to back away from an indefensible position by half condemning the CUSA decision
What? So being intellectually honest, and stating my real position on the matter (condemning the CUSA decision to ban the group from campus, and stating that while I disagree with their decision to withold funding, I support their right to do so, as I support the right of any governing body to decide how to spend money - emphasis added) is "backing away from an indefensible position?" Please. If my position is indefensible, than the idea of responsible government - that a governing body's most important function is managing a budget, and it must be free to make tough decisions regarding money - is meaningless. Should this same principle be applied to the government of Canada, than any political interest group - any at all - could claim a right to receive government funding, and could claim discrimination against their viewpoint, and sue the government for funding. And if my position is indefensible, they would win, and the government would be ordered to give them money. Indefensible? It is indefensible to be so irresponsible!
I'm sure glad you only get one vote.
I'm glad I only get one vote too - any more would be superfluous, and any fewer would be unfair.
posted by Ryan Ringer @ 12/12/2006 01:29:00 a.m.
3 comments
3 Comments:
I assume your referring to the Morgantaller descisions as the basis for claiming that abortion law would be contrary to charter rights. As such you're misinterpreting the decision, which was fact specific to the law in place at the time which required that abortions be vetted by hospital boards on the recommendation of a doctor. The boards being comprised of different individuals were notably all over the map in their propensity to approve the procedure and resulted in delays and alot of administrative wrangling.
However, the ruling stated specifically that the law in place was contrary to the charter as opposed to any law restricting abortion as the regime through which it was to be obtained was faulty. As such your extrapolating to a point where there is no actual legal or historical facts to support your assertion that any and all restrictions could not be made. There really isn't any jurisprudential basis to claim that should mps vote to to restrict the window for abortions to x number of weeks as is done in a large number of countries in Europe that it would be contrary to the Charter.
At best one can claim that we've constitutionally mandated "some" abortion rights. But the current state where no restrictions apply isn't constitutionally mandated so much as a lack of resolve from any political party to involve itself in the issue.
I'm not against abortion, but I do think you're departing from what is suported by the facts in saying pro-life groups are advocating against the Charter. Many of them lobby for ending late term abortions which is not on the basis of any current legal decision unconstitutional.
I won't contest what you've just said, only state that it's a side issue, as my position does not depend on the constitutionality of abortion.
Replace "NAMBLA" with "pro-lifers." There you have it: a group which advocates something that goes against the law should not receive funding, and since the Charter is part of the supreme law of the land (the constitution), groups advocating things that go against the Charter (like pro-lifers) should not get funding.
It does point out that this analogy is rather false considering the pro-lifers can make arguments regarding abortion restrictions which wouldn't be contrary to the constiution, however, you'd be hard pressed to formulate an argument for some-child molestation that would pass the legal smell test.
Post a Comment
<< Home