OK I'm going to warn people up front that this may ramble on and all over...
I was musing on this while I was doing some chores earlier and later in the shower.
I've never been proud of the Canadian constitution. I vaguely remember the Queen, Trudeau and the premiers having the big celebration of signing it when I was 11 or 12 or so, and making some speeches about how important it was for the country but I've always viewed it with a rather sceptical eye (as I view most things from Ottawa, especially those that originated with Pierre the Western Hater). I remember Mulroney wasting all that time and effort on Meech Lake and Charlottetown, instead of addressing (or seeming to)the real issues of the country like the deficit and debt load that Trudeau created and Mulroney let spiral on out of control. I've listened to Peter Lougheed say that if he'd known how Ottawa was going to try and renege on the deal before the ink was dry and undermine provincial powers like they did, he'd have never signed the thing (and while I don't agree or like everything that Sheik Pete, our Blue-Eyed Alberta Arab did, I respect his opinion). One thing I don't like is the lack of any type of property rights or protection in the constitution or the Charter of Rights, so much beloved by the disciples of Trudeau. I think the inclusion of the catholic school system, such as Gerry is so fond of, is kind of stupid and in some ways is a contradiction to other values espoused by the documents, mainly concerning the equality and protection of religious freedoms.
Its not perfect by any stretch but it is functional. I think it says something about our nature in that we (as a nation) were aware enough of our own fallibilities that we built in the whole "not-withstanding clause" concept, because we (or those negotiating on the document on our behalf) realized that not all of this would work for everyone and there would have to be exceptions made. Now I also believe that the notwithstanding clauses have been abused, especially by Quebec in their application of their language laws but I am also of the opinion that if Quebec didn't have that option, they would have seperated, and the entire federation would have fractured. I don't think it has quite the innate flexibility as the American constitution has but I think its easier to ammend the Canadian one or to "work around" the short comings.
I think people are obsessing too much into some of the predecessors to later acts and ammendments, such as the 1689 Bill of Rights that Machjo is stuck on. Our constitutional Acts are in many ways living, evolving documents: what was acceptable to the British Empire of over 300 years ago is not always relevant in today's world and there have been updates and ammendments throughout the years, in some cases making some parts of the earlier Acts irrelevant or obsolete.
I couldn't really care less about the religious restrictions on the monarch, although I can also say that I cannot see a Catholic every being raised to the throne, given that one of the offices of the monarch is head of the Church of England. While Queen Elizabeth may have invited Pope Benedict to the UK for a state visit and there were rumours of a proposal of reconciliation between the monarchy and the vatican, I don't see that happening because of the conflict created by a fundamental difference in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism: the necessity of the Church to act as an intermediary between man and God, especially when it comes to confession and the forgiveness of sins. The sacraments are largely the same but that key difference in doctrine pretty much dooms any ideas of reconciliation because in many ways it does represent an exact opposite... But really the whole issue has nothing to do with governing us as a people, so long as our religious freedom to choose our own religion and be free from discrimination based on it, is upheld.
Thats my first thoughts. I'm sure I forgot something in the mix somewhere but I can always post later if I feel the need
I was musing on this while I was doing some chores earlier and later in the shower.
I've never been proud of the Canadian constitution. I vaguely remember the Queen, Trudeau and the premiers having the big celebration of signing it when I was 11 or 12 or so, and making some speeches about how important it was for the country but I've always viewed it with a rather sceptical eye (as I view most things from Ottawa, especially those that originated with Pierre the Western Hater). I remember Mulroney wasting all that time and effort on Meech Lake and Charlottetown, instead of addressing (or seeming to)the real issues of the country like the deficit and debt load that Trudeau created and Mulroney let spiral on out of control. I've listened to Peter Lougheed say that if he'd known how Ottawa was going to try and renege on the deal before the ink was dry and undermine provincial powers like they did, he'd have never signed the thing (and while I don't agree or like everything that Sheik Pete, our Blue-Eyed Alberta Arab did, I respect his opinion). One thing I don't like is the lack of any type of property rights or protection in the constitution or the Charter of Rights, so much beloved by the disciples of Trudeau. I think the inclusion of the catholic school system, such as Gerry is so fond of, is kind of stupid and in some ways is a contradiction to other values espoused by the documents, mainly concerning the equality and protection of religious freedoms.
Its not perfect by any stretch but it is functional. I think it says something about our nature in that we (as a nation) were aware enough of our own fallibilities that we built in the whole "not-withstanding clause" concept, because we (or those negotiating on the document on our behalf) realized that not all of this would work for everyone and there would have to be exceptions made. Now I also believe that the notwithstanding clauses have been abused, especially by Quebec in their application of their language laws but I am also of the opinion that if Quebec didn't have that option, they would have seperated, and the entire federation would have fractured. I don't think it has quite the innate flexibility as the American constitution has but I think its easier to ammend the Canadian one or to "work around" the short comings.
I think people are obsessing too much into some of the predecessors to later acts and ammendments, such as the 1689 Bill of Rights that Machjo is stuck on. Our constitutional Acts are in many ways living, evolving documents: what was acceptable to the British Empire of over 300 years ago is not always relevant in today's world and there have been updates and ammendments throughout the years, in some cases making some parts of the earlier Acts irrelevant or obsolete.
I couldn't really care less about the religious restrictions on the monarch, although I can also say that I cannot see a Catholic every being raised to the throne, given that one of the offices of the monarch is head of the Church of England. While Queen Elizabeth may have invited Pope Benedict to the UK for a state visit and there were rumours of a proposal of reconciliation between the monarchy and the vatican, I don't see that happening because of the conflict created by a fundamental difference in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism: the necessity of the Church to act as an intermediary between man and God, especially when it comes to confession and the forgiveness of sins. The sacraments are largely the same but that key difference in doctrine pretty much dooms any ideas of reconciliation because in many ways it does represent an exact opposite... But really the whole issue has nothing to do with governing us as a people, so long as our religious freedom to choose our own religion and be free from discrimination based on it, is upheld.
Thats my first thoughts. I'm sure I forgot something in the mix somewhere but I can always post later if I feel the need
