• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Canada's New Facelift by Justin Trudeau

Genius

Genius

Legendary Member
[] I said the government and you thought I said the parliament, scroll up and things are clear, now you are deflecting again but people can scroll up and read.
Read and understand, good for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Advertisement
  • loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    Kindly refrain from personal attacks. Posts are being edited, but continued attacks will result in future deletion of posts. Thank you.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    1990
    Bill C-43
    The federal government, led by Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, introduces Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk. The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the Senate after a tie vote.
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    1990
    Bill C-43
    The federal government, led by Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, introduces Bill C-43, which would sentence doctors to two years in jail for performing abortions where a woman's health is not at risk. The bill is passed by the House of Commons, but dies in the Senate after a tie vote.
    1996: Manitoba “Glue-Sniffing” Case
    In August 1996, Winnipeg Child and Family Services attempted to have a 22-year-old pregnant woman placed in custody until the birth of her child because of her long history of solvent abuse, suicide attempts and an unstable lifestyle. Two of her three children had been born permanently disabled due to her glue-sniffing habit. All of her children were under the permanent guardianship of Winnipeg Child and Family Services. The lower court directed that she be detained and treated. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights and dismissed the case.
    Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case (See pp. 13-14)
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    1996: Manitoba “Glue-Sniffing” Case
    In August 1996, Winnipeg Child and Family Services attempted to have a 22-year-old pregnant woman placed in custody until the birth of her child because of her long history of solvent abuse, suicide attempts and an unstable lifestyle. Two of her three children had been born permanently disabled due to her glue-sniffing habit. All of her children were under the permanent guardianship of Winnipeg Child and Family Services. The lower court directed that she be detained and treated. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights and dismissed the case.
    Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case (See pp. 13-14)
    unrelated. case by case that does not prevent laws to be drafted.
    you still do not get it.
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    Research how many laws were passed that contradict the charters. you will get your answer.
    out of curiosity, can you point to which laws were passed that contradict the charter?
    The only way to override the charter is by invoking section 33 - the notwithstanding clause... and that happens very rarely. Actually i believe it was used only a handful of times.
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    unrelated. case by case that does not prevent laws to be drafted.
    you still do not get it.
    Actually they do, it is called juriprudence
    And you do not get it, parliaments and senates can draft the laws they want, if they get to courts if they are against the charters they will be struck down, just like the abortion law in 1988
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    out of curiosity, can you point to which laws were passed that contradict the charter?
    The only way to override the charter is by invoking section 33 - the notwithstanding clause... and that happens very rarely. Actually i believe it was used only a handful of times.
    Recent anti-terror laws passed by both conservatives and liberals.
    Check what the same PM who passed the Canadian charters did in the 70s against the separatists.

    Stop fooling ourselves, charters are like the human rights, they look good in normal times.
    They are only drafted to be violated in any exceptional measures.
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    Recent anti-terror laws passed by both conservatives and liberals.
    Check what the same PM who passed the Canadian charters did in the 70s against the separatists.

    Stop fooling ourselves, charters are like the human rights, they look good in normal times.
    They are only drafted to be violated in any exceptional measures.
    i know what he did... but i am asking you to list the laws that were passed by any parliament that contradict the charter. You said parliaments pass laws that contradict the charter left and right, and i am saying i think the notwithstanding clause has been invoked only a handful of times since the Charter was approved.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    i know what he did... but i am asking you to list the laws that were passed by any parliament that contradict the charter. You said parliaments pass laws that contradict the charter left and right, and i am saying i think the notwithstanding clause has been invoked only a handful of times since the Charter was approved.
    I just did ... Bill C51
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It seems that @Genius needs to do quite a bit of research about separation of powers.
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    I just did ... Bill C51
    Bill C-51 is being challenged in court, so it will be up to the courts to determine whether it violates the Charter...
    But i did tell you that there were a handful of notwithstanding clauses used... you said left and right, but you quoted only one.

    I am saying all this because i don't agree that the Charter should be discounted as just another paper. Even with the few exceptions. the Charter has ensure that the rights of Canadians are safeguarded.

    Politicians make threats and bold statements to attract voters, but they don't always stick to them because they know it's a losing battle.

    This happened with the abortion debate, Harper did nothing.... and with same-sex marriage where Harper was staunchly opposed to it before he was elected, only to declare that he will not re-open the debate and won't even put it to a vote, even when he had the majority in Parliament... why? because the courts would overrule him, he will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause - which will cost him a lot, and will probably be overturned by future parliaments once he loses majority... so he dropped it.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    Bill C-51 is being challenged in court, so it will be up to the courts to determine whether it violates the Charter...
    But i did tell you that there were a handful of notwithstanding clauses used... you said left and right, but you quoted only one.

    I am saying all this because i don't agree that the Charter should be discounted as just another paper. Even with the few exceptions. the Charter has ensure that the rights of Canadians are safeguarded.

    Politicians make threats and bold statements to attract voters, but they don't always stick to them because they know it's a losing battle.

    This happened with the abortion debate, Harper did nothing.... and with same-sex marriage where Harper was staunchly opposed to it before he was elected, only to declare that he will not re-open the debate and won't even put it to a vote, even when he had the majority in Parliament... why? because the courts would overrule him, he will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause - which will cost him a lot, and will probably be overturned by future parliaments once he loses majority... so he dropped it.
    Again ... there is not a single PM that clashed with the supreme court as much as Harper. It was not the supreme court that scared him.

    The decisions not to re-open the debates on certain topics were made based on votes calculations.

    We will see where the bill would go. It might pass or not. supreme court judges change and laws that are vague can pass. Meanwhile it is applied.
     
    Last edited:
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    Again ... there is not a single PM that clashed with the supreme court as much as Harper. It was not the supreme court that scared him.

    The decisions not to re-open the debates on certain topics were made based on votes calculations.

    We will see where the bill would go. It might pass or not. supreme court judges change and laws that are vague can pass. Meanwhile it is applied. C54 is also another example.
    hope you're not getting offended, but i don't really agree with assertions that are not based on facts. While decisions not to re-open debates COULD be based on voter counts, how do we know if they are or not. How can we be sure it is not because the PM doesn't think the battle and going against the supreme court is worth it?
    Things are not always binary... either voter counts, or supreme court... why can't it be related? remember for a bill to be challenged in the supreme court, it will have to be highly unpopular and has a chance of wining for violating the charter... and if the courts shoot it down, then you will have a wave of people who would think it's a bad idea, and might result in losing votes.
    Harper is an a** hole, but he is smart and knows when a battle is a losing battle.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    hope you're not getting offended, but i don't really agree with assertions that are not based on facts. While decisions not to re-open debates COULD be based on voter counts, how do we know if they are or not. How can we be sure it is not because the PM doesn't think the battle and going against the supreme court is worth it?
    Things are not always binary... either voter counts, or supreme court... why can't it be related? remember for a bill to be challenged in the supreme court, it will have to be highly unpopular and has a chance of wining for violating the charter... and if the courts shoot it down, then you will have a wave of people who would think it's a bad idea, and might result in losing votes.
    Harper is an a** hole, but he is smart and knows when a battle is a losing battle.
    We know when we get involved and when it is part of one's daily work.

    Smart? really? it was almost the worst campaign in canadian history.
     
    kmarthe

    kmarthe

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    hope you're not getting offended, but i don't really agree with assertions that are not based on facts. While decisions not to re-open debates COULD be based on voter counts, how do we know if they are or not. How can we be sure it is not because the PM doesn't think the battle and going against the supreme court is worth it?
    Things are not always binary... either voter counts, or supreme court... why can't it be related? remember for a bill to be challenged in the supreme court, it will have to be highly unpopular and has a chance of wining for violating the charter... and if the courts shoot it down, then you will have a wave of people who would think it's a bad idea, and might result in losing votes.
    Harper is an a** hole, but he is smart and knows when a battle is a losing battle.
    I think it all depends on the public mood lTO, whether through directly through vote counts or indirectly through laws, and the CONTEXT. If a terror attack happens tomorrow in Canada with casualties, bills like those of the anti-terror measures will pass easily regardless of the rights charter or the supreme court judges. Charters, laws and votes are dynamic and change (maybe not frequently or at a different frequencies) with time, but every now and then they can be modified according to the changing times :)
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    I think it all depends on the public mood lTO, whether through directly through vote counts or indirectly through laws, and the CONTEXT. If a terror attack happens tomorrow in Canada with casualties, bills like those of the anti-terror measures will pass easily regardless of the rights charter or the supreme court judges. Charters, laws and votes are dynamic and change (maybe not frequently or at a different frequencies) with time, but every now and then they can be modified according to the changing times :)
    absolutely. a terrorist attack would give any leader the ammunition to go against any court and easily invoke the notwithstanding clause.
    As per modifying the Charter.. i am not sure this will be done easily. The Charter is like a Bible :) feel free to interpret it, or violate it if you have to, but i don't see it amended any time soon (at least not reduce its power).
     
    kmarthe

    kmarthe

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    absolutely. a terrorist attack would give any leader the ammunition to go against any court and easily invoke the notwithstanding clause.
    As per modifying the Charter.. i am not sure this will be done easily. The Charter is like a Bible :) feel free to interpret it, or violate it if you have to, but i don't see it amended any time soon (at least not reduce its power).
    So it would be legitimate to say that observing the Charter in a 100 years from now for example is living in the past unless you force a modification according to the evolving times (or you become "atheist" regarding the code of this Charter) :p

    P.S. You just shot yourself (and others) in the foot ;)
     
    Top