Critic Advocates Use of Notwithstanding Clause


I think not
#1
Tape Reveals Conservative Justice Critic Advocates Use of Notwithstanding Clause

January 09, 2006

Ottawa – Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews has called for the use of the notwithstanding clause to revoke the right to equal marriage in Canada, which is an equality right as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Vic Toews has also put forward a plan to have Supreme Court Justices face a public committee before their appointment could be approved. This suggests judges would be subject to scrutiny of their views on social issues, to prevent what Mr. Toews has called “radical liberal judges” from implementing “their own social agenda.”

In a 2003 interview with a far-right American organization, Toews stated:

“The second question is what are the chances of the Supreme Court overturning that? I’m very pessimistic, I think it needs to go to the Supreme Court, I think we need to hear from the Supreme Court on this issue because, remember, in Canada, Parliament has the ultimate tool. It’s called the notwithstanding clause, section 33, so that when the courts make a fundamental error in jurisdiction, Parliament can overrule it for a period of five years by an Act of Parliament. That is renewable, so they can do it over and over again. So what I think we need to hear is from the Supreme Court of Canada. And then if the Supreme Court continues on that radical agenda we need to push for the federal government to use this constitutional mechanism to ensure that courts understand that they not to interfere with social policy matters and stay within there realm of judicial interpretations.” (listen to this quote)

Toews also questioned the integrity of Canada’s judiciary, saying “we have seen these radical liberal judges who have their own social agenda coming to the bench and forgetting that their responsibility is to interpret the law and not to make law. And so we are very, very concerned about that.” (listen to this quote)

Toews made the comments in an interview with Concerned Women Today, a “broadcast ministry” run by Concerned Women for America (CWA), an American organization that seeks “to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.”

CWA founder Beverly LaHaye started her organization to respond to the advances of feminism after watching the National Organization for Women’s founder Betty Friedan on television in 1978. CWA identifies feminism as “anti-god, anti-family.” CWA has also identified state-level Equal Rights Amendments (ERAs) as responsible for the breakdown of families: “The ERA proposes the elimination of our God-given roles as men and women, resulting in the redefinition – and eventual destruction – of family.”

These comments are particularly disturbing given Mr. Toews prominent position within the Conservative Caucus, which was demonstrated when he stood beside Leader Stephen Harper to announce the party’s justice platform in Toronto on January 5.

From a man who would likely be Canada’s next Justice Minister if Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were to form government, this willingness to use the notwithstanding clause to take away a Charter right is deplorable. With one vacancy on the Supreme Court already, and others possible during the next mandate, Mr. Toews’ radical views and plans to reform the appointment process suggest that the rights of Canadians may hang in the balance.

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11344
 
Jersay
#2
The conservatives are trying to blow the lead they have. Well, if they lose it is because of their idelogical difference to Canadians and how it came out before the election, not after.
 
Jay
#3
"Vic Toews has also put forward a plan to have Supreme Court Justices face a public committee before their appointment could be approved."


Isn't that the sort of thing that happens in the US?
 
Jersay
#4
Exactly, I believe Harper and his little band of cabinet ministers are truly supportive of Bush, they just don't want to be known as little-Bush until in office. However, comments like that doesn't help.

On a whole different topic, has anyone noticed the ads by the nuclear-friendly and Pro-life ads in Canada. I know they have them in America but this is the first time I have seen them in Canada.

Also, I wonder which party they support?
 
Summer
#5
The first post illustrates a frightening movement in Canada by some people to attempt to re-make Canada in the very image of the present-day United States and then take them both in a regressive, reactionary direction down a path that leads back to the Middle Ages.

Don't let them.
 
Jay
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

Exactly, I believe Harper and his little band of cabinet ministers are truly supportive of Bush, they just don't want to be known as little-Bush until in office. However, comments like that doesn't help.

I don't have a problem with a public committee reviewing judicial appointments. If that is supporting Bush, then so be it.
 
Jay
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Summer

The first post illustrates a frightening movement in Canada by some people to attempt to re-make Canada in the very image of the present-day United States and then take them both in a regressive, reactionary direction down a path that leads back to the Middle Ages.

Don't let them.

Summer, do you realize this is a change in Canadian society that just, just, happened?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#8
This is from 2003.

Harper has promised NOT TO USE the Notwithstanding clause.

The appointment of judges requires oversight.

This is Liberal mud slinging.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

This is Liberal mud slinging.

Yeah...and the Conservative Party has no hidden agenda...
 
Jay
#10
I thought we got over the hidden agenda thingy already?
 
the caracal kid
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Summer

The first post illustrates a frightening movement in Canada by some people to attempt to re-make Canada in the very image of the present-day United States and then take them both in a regressive, reactionary direction down a path that leads back to the Middle Ages.

Don't let them.

exactly.

canada currently has:
2 progressive parties: green, NDP
1 progressive if poked with a pointy stick party: liberal
1 regressive party: conservative

so, the choice is do you want a progressive country or a regressive country?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#12
a public committee

answering to whom????
 
Jay
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

Quote: Originally Posted by Summer

The first post illustrates a frightening movement in Canada by some people to attempt to re-make Canada in the very image of the present-day United States and then take them both in a regressive, reactionary direction down a path that leads back to the Middle Ages.

Don't let them.

exactly.

canada currently has:
2 progressive parties: green, NDP
1 progressive if poked with a pointy stick party: liberal
1 regressive party: conservative

so, the choice is do you want a progressive country or a regressive country?

I'll take regressive, since I wasn't born yesterday and I know how "progressive" (read far, far left) the NDP is....
 
Jay
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

a public committee

answering to whom????

The Queen...who else?
 
the caracal kid
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I'll take regressive,...

every once in a while life gets to good for canadians. They forget what "lean times are". Not happy with the "good life", they revolt against those that gave it to them and vote for a regressive party. They soon after realize what a horrible mistake they have made and return a progressive party to power.
 
Jay
#16
I know we don't agree on these matters, but I thought having half and more of your earnings going to the government was "lean times". A government that wishes to reverse this is seen to me as progressive.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I thought we got over the hidden agenda thingy already?

Why would we have gotten over it?

Why would we ignore warning signs that a party contending for the leadership of our country has some dirty laundry that needs to be aired out now and then to remind us not to vote for the NEOCON bastards...

...but then those of you on the right are all about ignorance, and hopes that we'll forget...
 
Jay
#18
Well, even if you are right, it's better than voting for communists.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Well, even if you are right, it's better than voting for communists.

Yes...and I'd never endorse taking such drastic action as that...
 
Jay
#20
Not up front you wouldn't...but that is the hidden agenda that isn't discussed much by the left.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Not up front you wouldn't...but that is the hidden agenda that isn't discussed much by the left.

Well then, let's discuss it...you start...
 
jimmoyer
#22
There rarely is such a thing as a hidden agenda,
because we peons (speaking for anyone who identifies
themselves similarly) seem to always know about it.

The only agenda that switches is that the rebel
becomes the new status quo and wants all the
perks of power he formerly fought.

I've just seen the Republican Party rebel against
Pork and Waste to become the King of Pork and
Waste.

Hidden agenda ?

Nah.

It's what's for dinner when you become King.
 
the caracal kid
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I know we don't agree on these matters, but I thought having half and more of your earnings going to the government was "lean times". A government that wishes to reverse this is seen to me as progressive.

And what of the DEBT?

lets see: cut taxes, cut spending,..... have nothing but DEBT! This is the Harper way. If he was so fiscally responsible he would disclose to the people his financial plan. Yet he does not. Ever wonder why?
 

Similar Threads

13
Faint hope clause
by JLM | Jun 17th, 2009
55
Gore overuses hydro, critic says
by Avro | Mar 1st, 2007
11