The Mystic Martin

[KanBob]

Liberal leader Paul Martin, according to the Globe and Mail, "Harper won't fight for Charter rights, Martin charges" has no interest in defending the Charter?

I just wonder how he knows what Harper will or won't do when he doesn't even know what he will do.

Today, his first priority (well, unless he has another first priority) is to alter the charter of rights and freedoms. This I believe, is the same charter he vowed for the last month to defend to death. So which is it? Will he defend it or change it?

If he doesn't know what he is going to do, how can he possible be believed in knowing what someone else will do?

I'm not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

 

[Colpy]

I just watched Martin facing questions from a group of reporters.

One grilled him over the attack ad (withdrawn) that insinuated that the Conservatives were going to put troops in our cities for nefarious purpose.

Martin, in a dozen tries, could not get out a coherent sentence.

This guy is done like dinner.

Bye-bye now.

 

[Jay]

Liberal leader Paul Martin, according to the Globe and Mail, "Harper won't fight for Charter rights, Martin charges" has no interest in defending the Charter?

I just wonder how he knows what Harper will or won't do when he doesn't even know what he will do.

Today, his first priority (well, unless he has another first priority) is to alter the charter of rights and freedoms. This I believe, is the same charter he vowed for the last month to defend to death. So which is it? Will he defend it or change it?

If he doesn't know what he is going to do, how can he possible be believed in knowing what someone else will do?

I'm not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

The funny thing about this as you mentioned, Martin claims to be a champion of the Charter and now wants to change it....what do you think Quebec is going to say about the NWC being taken out, as they currently use it for their language laws.

Martin says he wants to keep the country together, but then does things to break it apart.....silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

 

[I think not]

I don't know why you would support a policy that keeps the NWC in the Charter, it gives too much power to one decision making body, that's akin to dictatorial powers.

 

[Jay]

It isn't so much that I support the NWC, it's more the fact Martin praises the Charter one day, then the next it needs to be changed.

The NWC does have a purpose though, as we see in the language laws in Quebec. You might not agree with the Language laws themselves, but Quebec does, and it seems to have solved the issue they were facing.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: The Mystic Martin

It isn't so much that I support the NWC, it's more the fact Martin praises the Charter one day, then the next it needs to be changed.

The NWC does have a purpose though, as we see in the language laws in Quebec. You might not agree with the Language laws themselves, but Quebec does, and it seems to have solved the issue they were facing.

The NWC helped Quebec and created more division in Canada, the only purpose I see for the NWC is for politicians to behave badly. Politicians are supposed to be the guardians of the peoples interests, the peoples interests are not served by giving too much power to one branch of government. Martin is right about this, whether he did it to make Harper look bad or not, he's right. Power to the people I say 8)

 

[Jay]

Perhaps it is a matter of perspective....If your a Quebecer and not interested in being lost in a sea of English, you probably support the language laws. Some would say that is power to the people.

The NWC is rarely used and must be reviewed every 5 years, and that is about the length of a sitting government.

I don't fully support it's use, but at the same time I live in a country where the GG can void laws passed by a parliament.

 

[KanBob]

I don't know why you would support a policy that keeps the NWC in the Charter, it gives too much power to one decision making body, that's akin to dictatorial powers.

Yes, Martin would like Canada to be more like America, where the Supreme does have the last say.

You must remember this is the only check and balance in our system. The Supreme Court is all appointed. This is not the same as the US.

We also don't have the elected senate America has. Another balance.

And, in a parliamentary democracy, parliament should be supreme not unelected judges.

 

[Calberty]

It's a non-issue that 10 people in Canada care about and all of them have already made up their minds how they will vote.

It just shows the cliche of 'how out of touch' that Martin is (the man who insults and despises our soldiers).

 

[Jay]

Don't worry folks...ITN is just jealous because he doesn't live under the English Monarchy!!

 

[I think not]

You'll have to forgive me Jay as I have no trust in any government, and I need the rule of law to protect my rights. I certainly would never put any trust in the NWC despite it being rarely used. If it's there it can be used. I'm not even vaguely familiar with what you say about the GG that can strike down a law, if that is the case, that needs to go also in my opinion. Concentrating too much power in one decision-making body is risky when times are tough, when all is well nobody even thinks about it.

Take as an example The Patriot Act down here, why do you think there is so much fuss about it? It is primarily the precedence it sets. The Supreme Court has already struck down a number of provisions, but there is still some ways to go. Imagine we had the NWC down here, what could be done? The answer is nothing as it would be the law of the land.

Your Constitituion specifically states that all Canadians are entitles to "good government". Can you honestly say that has been the case in Canada? I don't think so. And I'm not knocking Canada by saying this, it's the way I see it.

Our Constitution on the other hand emphasizes checks and balances, to make sure "good government" doesn't get the "wandering eye". I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU, I have been all of my adult life. Yes, sometimes they go overboard and I don't agree with them on everything, but thank God they are there and have enormous support of the American population.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: The Mystic Martin

Don't worry folks...ITN is just jealous because he doesn't live under the English Monarchy!!

Yep, always did have the hots for Lizzy :lol:

 

[I think not]

I don't know why you would support a policy that keeps the NWC in the Charter, it gives too much power to one decision making body, that's akin to dictatorial powers.

Yes, Martin would like Canada to be more like America, where the Supreme does have the last say.

You must remember this is the only check and balance in our system. The Supreme Court is all appointed. This is not the same as the US.

We also don't have the elected senate America has. Another balance.

And, in a parliamentary democracy, parliament should be supreme not unelected judges.

Well I cannot argue with what you said, you raised valid points, I see your reasoning.

 

[Triple_R]

I think not - I would have to disagree with you on the ACLU. I know a lot of Americans who absolutely despise that organization, particularly for their defence of NAMBLA (a known pedophile group). I can't say that I blame them.

But that's a side discussion...

If Canada had an elected Senate, and a Supreme Court confirmation process, as you have in the US, I would also favour getting rid of the notwithstanding clause. As is, it's the ONLY meaningful check and balance we have on the courts. With out it, the courts would be too powerful.

Also, the notwisthanding clause is useful given how very diverse different regions of Canada are. You don't have this situation in America - while there are certianly political divides based on region within your nation, there's few overarching culture/language divides, which are more profound than political divides.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: The Mystic Martin

I think not - I would have to disagree with you on the ACLU. I know a lot of Americans who absolutely despise that organization, particularly for their defence of NAMBLA (a known pedophile group). I can't say that I blame them.

That is incorrect, they were defending the right of free speech not endorsing pedophiles, a political blunder to get involved in it, but nevertheless, it's there. Defending the right of free speech for unpopular organizations is critical, it is easy to defend free speech when its popular amongst the populous, try defending something unpopular.

 

[Triple_R]

I think not - When I said "their defence of NAMBLA", I was using short-hand for "legal defence".

I disagree with you on free speech, at least to a small extent. NAMBLA has manuals on how to effectively rape young boys (including what professions to seek out to garner the greatest unquestioned access to children). I see no value in defending free speech that is nothing less than an instruction manual on how to successfully commit criminal acts that constitute severe physical/emotional harm to others. The ACLU is wrong, dead wrong, and severely wrong, to be legally defending NAMBLA. On this matter alone, I see the ACLU in a very unfavourable light. They don't know where to properly draw the line, in my view.

Also, I think that they do have a broad political agenda beyond merely championing individual liberty. That's fine... but if they're going to have such an agenda, they should be open and honest about it.

 

[the caracal kid]

The NWC should be removed from the charter. As it is, the government can rewrite policies based on the decisions of the Supreme Court. A power that for a 5 year term grants complete overriding of all other bodies is "dictatorial".

Now as for Martin: his sudden introduction of the need to remove the NWC at this time is clearly a ploy to stave off the Harperites and nothing more. The only thing worse than a poor policy on the books is a poor policy used as a tool in an election that ultimately takes the attention off both the main election issues and the problems with the cited policy.

 

[Finder]

Funny how FPTP may make eithe rMatin or Harper (King) PM of Canada, and I'm pretty sure either will see a won election as giving them a manadate for change. Consider neither will win anything close to a magority in the populer vote, neither have a right to bring forth a radical platform of change. Change to something different nor change to what we had in the past (hint hint harper) ---(hint hint why we changed it in the first place!)

If Harper win's a magority in seats or a Minority he better relieze that he was elected with a broken system, that the magority of Canadians don't support him. That over 60 percent of the puplic didn't vote for him. He should govern moderately with this in mind, but I am doubtful he will. I think he will act like Martin and think that most Canadians support his idea's. the last 4 elections has proven the complete lack of democracy in our system when the magority do not support the government but the government is allowed to act as if they do represent most Canadians.

(Is completely sick and fed up with the system!)

:evil:

 

[KanBob]

Take as an example The Patriot Act down here, why do you think there is so much fuss about it? It is primarily the precedence it sets. The Supreme Court has already struck down a number of provisions, but there is still some ways to go. Imagine we had the NWC down here, what could be done? The answer is nothing as it would be the law of the land.

Your Constitituion specifically states that all Canadians are entitles to "good government". Can you honestly say that has been the case in Canada? I don't think so. And I'm not knocking Canada by saying this, it's the way I see it.

One point that seems to be missing is that Section 33 of the Charter (NWC) does not apply to all laws or even to all sections of the charter. For instance, freedom of religion specifically cannot be overridden by the NWC.

The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!

 

[I think not]

One point that seems to be missing is that Section 33 of the Charter (NWC) does not apply to all laws or even to all sections of the charter. For instance, freedom of religion specifically cannot be overridden by the NWC.

The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!

I realize that, I also realize it's pointless to compare the two political structures as they are vastly different.