Life on death row, kind of a cake walk.

[countryboy]

It is the right of every citizen to mount a Charter challenge, countryboy. Anybody has that right. However, Charter challenge is very expensive; it is not an easy undertaking. Besides, many Charter challenges fail.

So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think. It is a very valuable repository of our individual rights, which can many times come to the rescue of the underdog, rescue of the David against the Goliath.

Charter serves a very useful purpose. In my opinion, Canada was not a complete democracy before the Charter. Anyway, the last time I saw, about 70% of Canadians love the Charter.

"So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think."

Now where in the heck did I say that? I wouldn't use words like that to describe something so important, and I'm quite surprised that YOU did! Tsk, tsk, a little respect, please...

 

[countryboy]

It is the right of every citizen to mount a Charter challenge, countryboy. Anybody has that right. However, Charter challenge is very expensive; it is not an easy undertaking. Besides, many Charter challenges fail.

So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think. It is a very valuable repository of our individual rights, which can many times come to the rescue of the underdog, rescue of the David against the Goliath.

Charter serves a very useful purpose. In my opinion, Canada was not a complete democracy before the Charter. Anyway, the last time I saw, about 70% of Canadians love the Charter.

"So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think."

Now where in the heck did I say that? I wouldn't use words like that to describe something so important, and I'm quite surprised that YOU did! Tsk, tsk, a little respect, please...

"...which can many times come to the rescue of the underdog, rescue of the David against the Goliath."

I assume you mean the minority against the majority. I don't mind a good rescue, but surely not at the expense of the rescuer. :-| (Fair and balanced - like FOX news - should always be a consideration, no?)

"Anyway, the last time I saw, about 70% of Canadians love the Charter."

Which would place the other 30% in a minority. Hmm...didn't I see something in there about protecting the rights of minorities? Naw, must have been havng another common sense hallucination again... ;-)

 

[Mowich]

Indeed, that is what happened with Meech Lake Accord, it was killed by two tiny provinces, Newfoundland and Manitoba.

I must be mistaken then in my understanding that it all came down to Elijah Haper and his Eagle feather. No??? Oh, and I would hardly call Manitoba a 'tiny province'. It may be lacking in the overwhelming populations of the Eastern Cities, but it more than makes up for it in the size of its people's hearts. :smile:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I must be mistaken then in my understanding that it all came down to Elijah Haper and his Eagle feather. No??? Oh, and I would hardly call Manitoba a 'tiny province'. It may be lacking in the overwhelming populations of the Eastern Cities, but it more than makes up for it in the size of its people's hearts. :smile:

Mowich, it wasn’t just Manitoba. Newfoundland also considered the Meech Lake Accord (Clyde Wells was the Premier at that time) and its Assembly rejected it.

When I said ’tiny’, I did not mean any disrespect to either Newfoundland or Manitoba (or PEI in a previous post); I was strictly referring to the population. However, according to 2009 numbers, Newfoundland has a population of .5 million and Manitoba of 1.2 million. Both together constitute roughly 5% of Canada’s population.

So Meech Lake accord was approved by provinces representing 95% of Canada’s population, but two tiny provinces, representing 5% of Canada’s population, were able to hold it up.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I must be mistaken then in my understanding that it all came down to Elijah Haper and his Eagle feather. No???

In Manitoba assembly the votes were there to pass the Meech Lake, but time was running out. Not only all the provinces had to approve Meech Lake, but they had to do so within seven years.

When Manitoba took it for consideration, I think they were just a few days short of seven years. I remember quite a drama unfolded in Manitoba Assembly.

Premier Filman asked for unanimous consent to introduce Meech Lake. Unanimous consent was denied by Elijah Harper. So Filman introduced Meech Lake in the normal way. However, that meant a waiting period of three days before any debate or voting could take place.

When it was taken up after three days, Elijah Harper objected, claiming that it was not properly introduced. Speaker agreed with him and the accord was regarded as not yet introduced in the Assembly.

Then Filman asked for unanimous consent to introduce the Accord and Harper again refused. So they had to wait for three more days before there could be any debate or voting. Eventually they ran out of time.

 

[countryboy]

I must be mistaken then in my understanding that it all came down to Elijah Haper and his Eagle feather. No??? Oh, and I would hardly call Manitoba a 'tiny province'. It may be lacking in the overwhelming populations of the Eastern Cities, but it more than makes up for it in the size of its people's hearts. :smile:

I like the part about the size of its people's hearts! - a former Manitoban...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Which would place the other 30% in a minority. Hmm...didn't I see something in there about protecting the rights of minorities? Naw, must have been havng another common sense hallucination again... ;-)

And how do you suggest we accommodate the minority? By abolishing the Charter?

 

[talloola]

yeah, he doesn't have it very tough at all, BUT, he isn't
free, he is paying for his crime, and he did do the dirty
deed, and someday he will die for that.
His wife and unborn child, don't have a life at all, and
never will, he took that away from them, so for that, he
stays locked up, and I really don't care what he does in
there, as long as he can't do the things Clifford Robert
Olsen does, I wonder.

 

[JLM]

And how do you suggest we accommodate the minority? By abolishing the Charter?

That would probably be a good place to start. We need a charter that looks after decent law abiding people FIRST.

 

[countryboy]

And how do you suggest we accommodate the minority? By abolishing the Charter?

I'm not sure. What's your opinion?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm not sure. What's your opinion?

There is no way to accommodate that minority (the ones who wants to abolish the Charter), counrtyboy. They are entitled to their opinion and that is that.

 

[countryboy]

There is no way to accommodate that minority (the ones who wants to abolish the Charter), counrtyboy. They are entitled to their opinion and that is that.

Abolish or change it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Abolish or change it?

Oh, if they want to change the Charter, they are perfectly free to try. Good luck in that.

 

[JLM]

Oh, if they want to change the Charter, they are perfectly free to try. Good luck in that.

There is no doubt it needs a major overhaul. I have a lot of faith in the power of the masses, especially massess comprised of ordinary, decent, law abiding people who are sick of bing ripped off by unscrupulous entrepreneurs and whose safety is compromised by sex fiends and dope pushers. What we need is a hardnosed, articulate no nonsense person to lead us in this endeavour. Out of respect for Mowich I believe there are ten thousand square miles (out of the 75,000 on Ellesmere Island) that could be adapted to accommodate these losers. If it is a fact the Charter can't be amended that in itself clearly spells out one of the shortcomings of the Charter.

 

[countryboy]

Oh, if they want to change the Charter, they are perfectly free to try. Good luck in that.

I realize that it's a potentially long road and a long process to follow, but surely you can't be serious that the Charter is, for all intents and practical purposes, unchangeable?

You are making it sound like the Holy Bible (oops, inappropriate example there, possibly)...let's try again, you make it sound like, well, something so hallowed and perfect that we should never question it or even consider improving it.

I think you consider yourself a progressive thinking person, so I am sincerely curious as to why this document should be so untouchable, in your mind. We've had other lively discussions about the "good old days" and I believe you mentioned that things are much better today. But "today" is relative to time, and 30 years have passed since the Charter came along. To some of the younger folks, that would place its beginnings back in the "good old days." Or at least, back in history.

Now please don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing about the details of the Charter (at least, not in this post)...I'm just wondering why you feel so adamantly against "touching it."

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There is no doubt it needs a major overhaul. I have a lot of faith in the power of the masses, especially massess comprised of ordinary, decent, law abiding people who are sick of bing ripped off by unscrupulous entrepreneurs and whose safety is compromised by sex fiends and dope pushers. What we need is a hardnosed, articulate no nonsense person to lead us in this endeavour.

But that is just the point JLM, most Canadians don’t want to amend the Charter, they like the Charter fine just the way it is. So it doesn’t matter how articulate, no nonsense, hard nosed your leader is, if he has the support of only 30% of the population, he is not going to get anywhere.

You may think that Charter needs a major overhaul, but you are part of a small minority. Last opinion poll I saw said that about 70% of Canadian love the Charter, they like it just as it is.

 

[lone wolf]

But they're only opinions!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now please don't get me wrong...I'm not arguing about the details of the Charter (at least, not in this post)...I'm just wondering why you feel so adamantly against "touching it."

I am not against touching the Charter, countyboy. I simply pointed out how difficult it is to change or amend the Charter; it will need overwhelming and broad based support to do so.

And I can imagine hypothetical situations where I would support amending the Charter. Suppose Supreme Court rules that pedophilia is permitted by the Charter, and that banning pedophilia violates the Charter. Then I would support PM using the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Supreme Court and I would support amending the Charter to make pedophilia illegal.

But that indeed is an instance where amendment is likely to be successful. I imagine there will be support from almost everywhere in the country for such an amendment and it probably will go through.

But that is an extreme example. Barring something that extreme, I would be opposed to tinkering with fundamental rights, human rights by the majority. To give you an example, I am opposed to polygamy; I think it violates the Charter.

But I am sure there will be a Charter challenge some day to ban on polygamy. I think it is highly probable that Supreme Court will rule that polygamy violates the Charter. But in the unlikely situation that Supreme Court declares that ban on polygamy violates the Charter, I would much rather live with polygamy than amend the Charter.

Amending the Charter is the nuclear option (similar to Notwithstanding Clause) and must be used sparingly and in extreme circumstances.

 

[JLM]

But that is just the point JLM, most Canadians don’t want to amend the Charter, they like the Charter fine just the way it is. So it doesn’t matter how articulate, no nonsense, hard nosed your leader is, if he has the support of only 30% of the population, he is not going to get anywhere.

You may think that Charter needs a major overhaul, but you are part of a small minority. Last opinion poll I saw said that about 70% of Canadian love the Charter, they like it just as it is.

Yeah, right. If you took a hundred CAnadians at random and asked them off the top of their heads to list five things in the Charter, how many would be able to? Two, three, four? Now if some body with some gumption, savvy and sagacity would print off a few thosand copies and mail them out with a stamped envelope and questionaire I think we'd have a much truer picture of how many people think the Charter is "just fine the way it is".

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If it is a fact the Charter can't be amended that in itself clearly spells out one of the shortcomings of the Charter.

Sure the Charter can be amended, just that it is virtually impossible to do so. And this is not a shortcoming of the Charter, this is its strength.

Human rights, fundamental rights are an integral part of the constitution and must not be subject to the whims of the majority. If the Charter could be amended by say a 50%+1 referendum, then it won’t be democracy any more, it will be the tyranny of the majority. I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country where fundamental rights such as right to free speech, right to vote, right to life, right to freedom of worship etc. can be restricted or taken away completely by a 50%+1 Majority in a referendum.

The Charter, the constitution must be very difficult to amend, as it is in USA and in Canada. That is the strength of the constitution, that it gives a framework of human rights, against which any law is judged, it gives the unvarying, consistent framework from generation to generation.