Jump to content

Canadian election


Wrecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Actually, they don't.  Most Canadians are ignorant of the Notwithstanding clause; which makes the Canadian Constitution and Charter about as useful as toilet paper.  Rights are inalienable, which is what makes them "rights."  That citizens could have rights that trump the government's power terrified Trudeau Srs' Liberals and its why the Federal Liberals invented this totalitarian escape valve on the Constitution and Charter; despite strong opposition from the then PC's and NDP to drop it.  Its also one of the reasons that Canadian's don't have property rights enshrined in the Constituion; but that's another Federal Liberal debacle.

The Not Withstanding Clause must be included in the legislation which is being challenged in the courts.  To date, the Not Withstanding Clause has never been included in any legislation passed by federal parliament ever.  It's just never happened.  Even that time when parliament's law against prisoners being allowed to vote was struck down by the Supreme Court for violating S.3 of the charter, in which parliament then passed a NEW law banning FEDERAL prisoners from voting only to, obviously, have it struck down by the courts again.  ("The healthy and important promotion of a dialogue between the legislature and the courts should not be debased to a rule of ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again’." Is, BTW, the best Chief Justice decision EVER.)

So, I'm sorry, but while that clause exists, to say that thus any discussion that the government may not pass legislation that violates the charter or constitution without being challenged by the courts is you being unreasonably dismissive to what is a very important aspect of protecting the rights of Canadians. It also ignores the many, many, MANY times that the courts have struck down acts of federal parliament for violating legally supreme laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Not Withstanding Clause must be included in the legislation which is being challenged in the courts.  To date, the Not Withstanding Clause has never been included in any legislation passed by federal parliament ever.  It's just never happened.  Even that time when parliament's law against prisoners being allowed to vote was struck down by the Supreme Court for violating S.3 of the charter, in which parliament then passed a NEW law banning FEDERAL prisoners from voting only to, obviously, have it struck down by the courts again.  ("The healthy and important promotion of a dialogue between the legislature and the courts should not be debased to a rule of ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again’." Is, BTW, the best Chief Justice decision EVER.)
 

No.  Section 33 may be invoked at any time, by any Federal or Provincial government by either declaring it in an Act (ie: this single Act purposefully violates the Charter) or by passing an Act that references another Act (ie: this Act enables sections x, y, z of Act ABC to violate the charter).  And it has been used several times by various Provinces.   Its the legislative equivalent of a nuclear weapon.  Almost never used, but there if its need.

So, I'm sorry, but while that clause exists, to say that thus any discussion that the government may not pass legislation that violates the charter or constitution without being challenged by the courts is you being unreasonably dismissive to what is a very important aspect of protecting the rights of Canadians.

The courts should always be the first line of defense, but the Liberals were quite clear in the scope and intent of Section 33.  There must be an Act (or possibly an OIC, that I'm not so sure about) and it must sunset every five years.  Although Section 33.4 does allow successive governments to re-enable the clause in perpetuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No.  Section 33 may be invoked at any time, by any Federal or Provincial government by either declaring it in an Act (ie: this single Act purposefully violates the Charter) or by passing an Act that references another Act (ie: this Act enables sections x, y, z of Act ABC to violate the charter). 

But that's what I said.  Parliament, federal or provincial, must include the language in the legislation.  They can however ADD that language to existing legislation as they can amend any existing legislation.  But it's also important to note that this must be an act of parliament, a sitting government can't simply declare it so.  With how politically dangerous a federal parliament deciding that charter rights should be suspended, is why it's never been done.  Even a vote would be hard to pass.  Many legislators while having voted for a bill, maybe be hesitant to add S.33 language too it after it's been struck down by the Courts.

But again, this has NEVER happened in a federal parliament, and the provincial usages have been so rare you can just about count them on your fingers (Not that provincial usage is relevant to federal legislation anyway)  So it is a nuclear option as you said, but because it's usage is so taboo I don't see how it is terribly relevant to a discussion of how a law can and will face the scrutiny of the courts, which is the way it works in this nation.  S.33's usage in response to that is, at most, hypothetical and until a member of federal parliament even announces an attempt to table a modification that would add S.33 language, it's not relevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its not racially motivated, its motivated by citizenship.  The fact that the law has only been applied to duel citizens of a certain geographic area is moot. 

Indeed.  The proscribed lawful  punishment for treason against the nation of Canada is still death by firing squad.  Given the choice, I suspect most criminals (and Canadians generally) would prefer to surrender their duel citizenship.

The law does not allow for the revocation of citizenship where the criminal is a citizen of a single country.  Nor does it allow criminals to become stateless.  It applies only to duel citizens and citizens of convenience.  Perhaps if you had actually read the law, you'd understand this?

 

The fact that this is only being applied to dual citizens of certain geographic area is not moot.  It is in fact the entire point.  Also it doesn't need to be a racially motivated decision for it to be a racist law or policy.  If a law disproportionately punishes individuals of a certain racial or ethnic group then it is a racist law regardless of the intent or motivation.

Just because they could receive a worse punishment, like the death penalty as you point out, doesn't suddenly make any lesser form of punishment acceptable.

Also even though it only applies to dual citizens that does not change the fact that certain people are being punished to a greater extent for committing the exact same crime.  The Law, referring here to the concept of Law itself and not the specific law, must treat all people who commit the same crime equally.  The example I asked for an answer to in that case was not a question about how the specific law would be applied, but was a rhetorical question to demonstrate how the Law isn't being applied equally.  So I would appreciate it if instead of posting passive aggressive insults at my ability to understand the issue you would just address the argument I am presenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 They can however ADD that language to existing legislation as they can amend any existing legislation.

 

My point exactly.  I think we're aligned on this, just arguing semantics from different ends of the spectrum.

But again, this has NEVER happened in a federal parliament,

I'm not sure because it never happened is reason enough to believe that it wont happen.  Nobody thought that the Liberal-Conservatives of 1885 would force the Conservative minority  to implement a poll tax on the Chinese.  Nobody every thought that the Liberal party of 1935 would ever suspend the rule of law and inter Citizens of Italian and Japanese decent.  Nobody expected the Liberals of 1970 to suspend the rule of law during the October crisis.  And yet, the most fascist, stateist events in Canadian history all happened under Liberal rule.  No co-incidence that the Liberals added Section 33 to their arsenal of tools.  The historical evidence is simply not in their favour.

We all wish it was not so.....but it is.

The fact that this is only being applied to dual citizens of certain geographic area is not moot.  It is in fact the entire point. 

 When non-Islamist duel citizens start committing atrocities against Canadian society, the law will apply to them equally as well.  The fact that its only been used against Islamists (because other duel nationalities are not committing crimes that warrant its invocation) is not  is on the face of it, grounds for a charge of racism.

 So I would appreciate it if instead of posting passive aggressive insults at my ability to understand the issue you would just address the argument I am presenting.

Asked and answered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Also it doesn't need to be a racially motivated decision for it to be a racist law or policy.  If a law disproportionately punishes individuals of a certain racial or ethnic group then it is a racist law regardless of the intent or motivation.

I have never read something more wrong in my damn life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 When non-Islamist duel citizens start committing atrocities against Canadian society, the law will apply to them equally as well.  The fact that its only been used against Islamists (because other duel nationalities are not committing crimes that warrant its invocation) is not  is on the face of it, grounds for a charge of racism.

Asked and answered. 

You have yet to even address the most basic point I am making.  Please just answer this simple question.  Why does one person deserve to be punished more severely for committing the same crime as another person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Nobody thought that the Liberal-Conservatives of 1885 would force the Conservative minority to implement a poll tax on the Chinese.

You mean the Head tax?

The act behind that was passed under the 5th parliament. The 5th parliament was not minority Conservative. The Conservatives were the majority with 94 seats, the Liberals were the opposition with 73 seats, and the others were the independent (just the one), the independent conservatives, the independent liberals, and the liberal-conservatives. The Liberal-Conservatives had 39 seats, but they were put with the Conservatives to say that the Conservative majority had 133 seats.

Along with that, the commission that created and pushed the act was lead by two Conservatives, the commission had few Liberals, and it had none of the independent-ishes. Yes, Macdonald was a Conservative and initially didn't like the act, but he was the one who had the final decision on letting the committee be formed in the first place. Even more, the man that gathered the testimony for the commission was a Conservative and only gathered testimony from Conservatives and two Chinese.

You are also misunderstanding what a Liberal-Conservative was.  These names were used interchangeably, and this is why the 7th Parliament was a Conservative Parliament despite the "Conservatives" having fewer seats than the Liberals and why Macdonald was described using both terms during both of his terms. The Liberal-Conservatives were Conservatives. The Liberal-Conservatives (and the Progressive-Conservatives) were counted with the Conservatives.

And they did expect this to happen. The public pushed for it.

 

Nobody every thought that the Liberal party of 1935 would ever suspend the rule of law and inter Citizens of Italian and Japanese decent.

First, most of the public felt this would (and should) happen as soon as they heard about the Japanese invasions of English holdings. This was no surprise and had happened in the First World War to some degree, but without the racism and later public-backlash.

You also have to remember that racism and xenophobia were prevalent in both parties. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives used anti-Asian slogans, cartoons, and articles to help them gain the vote of racists across the country, and why shouldn't they? The Japanese did not have the vote until 1948 under a Liberal government (Wow! Who would have expected that?) .

Members of both parties pushed for this, and members of both parties fought against this. For example, many members of the RCMP and DND command that stated that internment was not necessary were Liberals.

 

Nobody expected the Liberals of 1970 to suspend the rule of law during the October crisis.

I'll give you that this one wasn't really expected, but saying the Liberals were the only ones responsible is a bit arbitrary beyond the idea of the majority being Liberal. There were non-liberals, like Drapeau, that supported the move, and liberals, like Trudeau, that supported the move. There were non-liberals, like Douglas, and liberals, like Lévesque, that opposed the move.

Edited by MalletFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nobody expected the Liberals of 1970 to suspend the rule of law during the October crisis.

Irreverent, you have your facts incorrect here and you have bought into a common misconception of the October Crisis.  The Rule of Law was never suspended during the October Crisis, while the War Measures Act was invoked to deploy the Canadian Military to Quebec, martial law was never declared.  The Canadian Army operated under the control of the Surete du Quebec.  Civil law was maintained at all times.  Many people believe that martial law was declared but civil law and the rule of law were never suspended, this is just a common misconception.  To be further clear, the rule of law has never been suspended in Canada since Confederation in 1867.  Never.

that was the wrongest, most ignorant thing ive ever red

solidly guaranteed forever

bound in steel or whatever for eternity

Oh, here, let me change that for you.

THE MARTIAN WAS A DOCUMENTARY AND NOT FICTION.

^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, here, let me change that for you

THE MARTIAN WAS A DOCUMENTARY AND NOT FICTION.

^_^

Doesnt come close to the ignorance ive seen

I warn him though that reaching like that might hurt his back so he should  stock up on IcyHot

Edited by Gamedog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't expected.  ALSO DIDN'T HAPPEN.  Why don't people know Canadian history?  It wasn't even that long ago! ;_;

 

I wasn't going to directly state anything about it, and I never mentioned anything about what actually happened under the use of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis. It is close enough to today to be a really controversial issue, and I didn't want people able to take away from the other two points I made just to say, "But October Crisis!!?!?!!!!" Irreverent had his history wrong on so many levels that me being unclear on that last issue should not make him more right.

That's why that's my shortest statement on the three points.

But I do like how misunderstanding my intention means I don't know Canadian history despite the fact that I could talk about the first prime minister, Canadian political parties, Chinese-Canadian and Japanese-Canadian rights, the World Wars in Canada, and that I knew what the Head tax was off the top of my head.

You don't get that from a standard 'Murican education.

Edited by MalletFace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...