Canada's New Facelift by Justin Trudeau

loubnaniTO

loubnaniTO

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
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 ;)
i'd hate to burst your short lived bubble :) but i didn't shoot myself in the foot. I already said in my previous post "at least not reduce its power", which you probably missed....

That said, the reference to the Bible was to say how "holy" Canadians hold the Charter, not a comparison in treatment or substance.. i am not that shallow.
The Charter details GENERAL principles, and not detailed way of living (like banning people from eating shellfish in the old testament). You can only IMPROVE on general human and social rights in a Charter, do you think ANYONE would DARE reduce them??

i think some of us should have another look at the Charter.. not many have read it it seems.

I have actually been calling for a similar Charter in Lebanon.. a Charter that cannot be amended by Parliaments (only by referendum) and that lays out the BASIC rights for individuals and groups, without necessarily becoming a constitution with detailed rules, rights and obligations.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    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).
    Some Law professors are saying it will be very hard to revoke it, as law enforcement are already using it and feel it necessary.
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    Some Law professors are saying it will be very hard to revoke it, as law enforcement are already using it and feel it necessary.
    true, and if it's working and gaining public approval, that's when a PM can invoke the notwithstanding clause and go against a court ruling.
     
    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.
    In 2004 where Harper lost to a minority Liberal govt, abortion was a very very hot topic.
    It was used by all parties against him. Why was the topic used if the parties knew it was unconstitutional?
    He learnt since that to get any majority/minority this topic is a no no ...

    Abortion is a constant legal battle. Anyone thinking that one court ruling ends the debate ... forever :)

    From 2004
    June 12 — Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe announces he would not hesitate to bring down a Conservative government if it moved to abolish the right to abortion. "We cannot ignore the rights of women in order to keep our seats. I will not accept that the Conservatives abolish the right to abortion," he said.

    June 14/15 — Party leaders engage in live televised debates in French, then the next day in English. Harper is attacked by Martin and Layton for being willing to endanger a woman's right to choose.

    July 7 — At the Conservatives' first post-election caucus meeting, party leader Stephen Harper acknowledges the need to put a more moderate stamp on the party and include more members from the Progressive Conservative tradition in his inner circle.
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    In 2004 where Harper lost to a minority Liberal govt, abortion was a very very hot topic.
    It was used by all parties against him. Why was the topic used if the parties knew it was unconstitutional?
    He learnt since that to get any majority/minority this topic is a no no ...

    Abortion is a constant legal battle. Anyone thinking that one court ruling ends the debate ... forever :)

    From 2004
    June 12 — Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe announces he would not hesitate to bring down a Conservative government if it moved to abolish the right to abortion. "We cannot ignore the rights of women in order to keep our seats. I will not accept that the Conservatives abolish the right to abortion," he said.

    June 14/15 — Party leaders engage in live televised debates in French, then the next day in English. Harper is attacked by Martin and Layton for being willing to endanger a woman's right to choose.

    July 7 — At the Conservatives' first post-election caucus meeting, party leader Stephen Harper acknowledges the need to put a more moderate stamp on the party and include more members from the Progressive Conservative tradition in his inner circle.
    just to set the record straight, i never said the debate can never be re-opened. It could, and with a popular support, it could very well go against the Charter. Everything is possible. But as you said, even the Conservative government realized it was a losing battle and dropped it, even when they had a majority. So what are the chances it will be reopened? i think slim.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    just to set the record straight, i never said the debate can never be re-opened. It could, and with a popular support, it could very well go against the Charter. Everything is possible. But as you said, even the Conservative government realized it was a losing battle and dropped it, even when they had a majority. So what are the chances it will be reopened? i think slim.
    That was not the original debate :) and that was exactly my point, except the loosing battle was not the supreme court, it was the elections.

    You know very well that any law supported by the 2 biggest parties will most likely take effect, and the supreme court will have little power to revoke it.

    C51 is your best example. liberals and conservatives voted on it. Good luck to the supreme court :)
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    That was not the original debate :) and that was exactly my point, except the loosing battle was not the supreme court, it was the elections.

    You know very well that any law supported by the 2 biggest parties will most likely take effect, and the supreme court will have little power to revoke it.

    C51 is your best example. liberals and conservatives voted on it. Good luck to the supreme court :)
    Don't worry, it is going to be overhauled

    Liberals planning swift overhaul of controversial Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-51 | National Post
    That's one of the many reasons the liberals won over GTA area. And if it doesn't get to be overhauled by the liberals, then the supreme court may strike it down once it gets to them, regardless of parliament support, just like they did with the abortion law, that was struck down, despite the progressive conservative government in place at that time that was supportive of abortion. For a law to be struck down it has to reach they supreme court, somebody has to context it in court.
    This said, the supreme court in Canada has already said that it doesn't consider a fetus human. So whichever way abortion can be regulated, once a fetus is aborted, there cannot be criminal charges of murder against the person who did it
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    Don't worry, it is going to be overhauled

    Liberals planning swift overhaul of controversial Anti-terrorism Act, or Bill C-51 | National Post
    That's one of the many reasons the liberals won over GTA area. And if it doesn't get to be overhauled by the liberals, then the supreme court may strike it down once it gets to them, regardless of parliament support, just like they did with the abortion law, that was struck down, despite the progressive conservative government in place at that time that was supportive of abortion. For a law to be struck down it has to reach they supreme court, somebody has to context it in court.
    This said, the supreme court in Canada has already said that it doesn't consider a fetus human. So whichever way abortion can be regulated, once a fetus is aborted, there cannot be criminal charges of murder against the person who did it
    you are all over the place. why do i bother.
    Overhauled by who? the liberal party. If both parties wanted the law, the supreme court can eat popcorn.
    Why did they overhaul it? because they are so keen on respecting the laws?
    or as you just shot yourself in the foot, for election purposes in the GTA?
     
    kmarthe

    kmarthe

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    i'd hate to burst your short lived bubble :) but i didn't shoot myself in the foot. I already said in my previous post "at least not reduce its power", which you probably missed....

    That said, the reference to the Bible was to say how "holy" Canadians hold the Charter, not a comparison in treatment or substance.. i am not that shallow.
    The Charter details GENERAL principles, and not detailed way of living (like banning people from eating shellfish in the old testament). You can only IMPROVE on general human and social rights in a Charter, do you think ANYONE would DARE reduce them??
    In principle human and social rights should improve only (i.e. one direction evolution) but that depends on the context again. In the last century for example, people were forecasting that the Middle East would continue its evolution towards civil states, yet today we not only have problems maintaining the civil state in many countries of the Middle East but heck we have a khilafa :) Another example, the surge of racist crimes in the US! When people thought Americans elected a black president would turn that page for good, you have an emerging trend that is similar to what was existing many decades ago :) So, bottom line, never say never! One can plan as if the future will evolve, but no one can garantee what will come and it is the context that influences the public opinion, that in turn change political classes, and consequently laws and charters. While the Bible is not mandatory (state and religion should be separate), looking at the Charter as the Bible (as you said ;) ) with the obligation that it should be observed and respected by laws is a form of dictatorship mentality! But you corrected that below:

    i think some of us should have another look at the Charter.. not many have read it it seems.

    I have actually been calling for a similar Charter in Lebanon.. a Charter that cannot be amended by Parliaments (only by referendum) and that lays out the BASIC rights for individuals and groups, without necessarily becoming a constitution with detailed rules, rights and obligations.
    Yes, referendum is the opportunity for people to speak directly, not through elected MPs, and their verdict is first and foremost dependent on the current context they would be living in and not on fixed charters, supreme court rulings and laws that were defined in a past framework not necessarily appropriate for future years.
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    you are all over the place. why do i bother.
    Overhauled by who? the liberal party. If both parties wanted the law, the supreme court can eat popcorn.
    Why did they overhaul it? because they are so keen on respecting the laws?
    or as you just shot yourself in the foot, for election purposes in the GTA?
    read again and maybe then you will get it, I won't explain it again just because you can't get it.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    you are all over the place. why do i bother.
    Overhauled by who? the liberal party. If both parties wanted the law, the supreme court can eat popcorn.
    Why did they overhaul it? because they are so keen on respecting the laws?
    or as you just shot yourself in the foot, for election purposes in the GTA?
    Didn't I tell you to read more about separation of powers? Why do you continue to spew nonsense.

    The Court is an apolitical body. It doesn't draft laws. It interprets them. Even if both parties draft a law by consensus, the Supreme Court can repeal the law if it was unconstitutional. It requires no political confirmation to act -- this isn't Lebanon LOL.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    Didn't I tell you to read more about separation of powers? Why do you continue to spew nonsense.

    The Court is an apolitical body. It doesn't draft laws. It interprets them. Even if both parties draft a law by consensus, the Supreme Court can repeal the law if it was unconstitutional. It requires no political confirmation to act -- this isn't Lebanon LOL.
    The sky is blue and the birds are singing.
    I never asked you for your opinion.
    Everything is politicial, even your bible, Allah and Satan.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    There are good things in Trudeau's plan like getting out of the Middle East (I really don't see why Canada's small military fleet should be involved in a place where big nations hold the final say, that is a waste of money) and foregin policy in general, but I think the bad news with Trudeau platform is the Canadian economy! We are already bracing ourselves for three years of deficits (with an expected total deficit of 25 billion $!!! and with the liberals flirt with past corruption scandals it may be even worse), and an increase of taxes for the wealthy ones (those might make big money but they also help creating jobs for many others). Let's give the man some time before judging though! He might surprise us in a positive way :)
    I wanted the NDP, but our electoral system is rotten.
    Badna l nesbiye :D
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    lTO, I don't think "abortion rights" can be placed on an equal stance with other items you listed, and without opening the debate here again, abortion rights = murder rights :) Killing a 1 minute old human is exactly the same thing as killing a many years old human. Had the hundreds of thousands aborted babies been given the chance to live they would have been contributing the Western socities and work force in the same way each one of us is doing. Instead of defending the murder rights, governments should develop plans for "adopting and raising" those unwanted babies.
    In islam, ensoulment happens after 4 month but abortion is only acceptable for danger to the mother and rape I think.
    Technically, you can abort in Canada at the 8th month. :eek:
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Is the Keystone Pipeline bad for the environment? or the oil that it carries? if you dont build the Keystone Pipeline do you think that people will go about without oil? they will find other sources of oil (probably from Venezuela) that is even dirtier. The solution is not to cancel the pipeline but rather to find alternative solutions to oil
    I don't know much about it, but it will pass on water.
    And yes, we need cleaner energy sources.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think only Quebec has ever used the Nonwithstanding Clause.
     
    Top