As Paul Martin dons the cloak of self-righteousness and proclaims himself the champion of the Charter and of 'rights' in general in Canada -- he might want to re-think the validity of his position.
Martin has suggested that Stephen Harper is not fit for the PM's Office because he will re-introduce the same-sex marriage issue to the House and allow a free-vote.
If Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister due to his stand on this issue, what about the Liberal MPs who voted against same-sex marriage? (And who would likely welcome the opportunity to do so again in a truly free vote?) MPs like John McKay, who as a Parliamentary Secretary, asked for, and obtained from the PMO, a special dispensation to vote against Cabinet and against same-sex marriage? If same-sex marriage is a Charter right -- why did Martin allow any members of his party to vote against it? Was it because he knew he had the numbers, so it didn't matter? If it's a right -- a Charter right-- it matters.
Over the past quarter century (maybe longer) the Liberals have managed to convince the Canadian public that there is only one right view on many subjects -- the Constitution/Charter, bilingualism, health care, immigration, and same-sex issues among them.
What Paul Martin has made clear in his diatribe against Harper, is that his view of the nation and its future is so narrow as to only include those who subscribe to a collectivist Liberal-defined (John Duffy-defined?) vision.
The Prime Minister of Canada has proclaimed Stephen Harper unfit to lead the country because he holds an opposing view on what Martin, by his actions, has proved he knows to be a morality or legal-rights issue -- not a Charter, or human rights issue.
When Martin says that same-sex marriage is a Charter issue -- he is saying that any opposition to it is unConstitutional. You can't 'cherry pick' Charter rights, right? Which means the vote in the House was moot anyway -- the decision was already there in the Charter and Parliament was simply affirming it.
But if that's the case, if same-sex marriage is a Charter right, then it was a Charter right prior to the vote -- then what of the Liberal dissenters? How does he allow them to run again when they have voted against the Charter rights of their fellow Canadians? Or, is only the Prime Minister obligated to defend the Charter and not his members? But how does a man defend the Charter, when members of his own party continue to believe and act in a manner that goes against the Charter?
Either same-sex marriage is a right, and it is unconscionable to support the candidacy of anyone who would vote against it -- or it is a legal issue to be decided by parliament. Paul Martin is trying to have it both ways by imposing a one-dimensional Liberal-framed vision of what constitute rights and what is wrong.
Even if you are for gay marriage -- Paul Martin's impassioned 'Charter hero' rhetoric doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He shouldn't be given a pass on the inconsistency between his actions and his words.
canadianna
8 comments:
You should be a lawyer CA.
I hope the CPC higher-ups get fed what you just wrote.
Excellent post.
Funny how the MSM seems so uninterested in exposing the many Liberal hypocracies and contradictions. Yet a person can take a half hour out of their day and make them as clear as anything and post them on the Internet. Whatever journalism schools are teaching nowadays, it ain't critical thinking. Great post.
Further to my previous comment, today's Toronto Sun column by Sheila Copps says the exact same thing. I've posted the relevant excerpts of the column on the Ranter. The Shotgun also carries the article in full, or you can read it on the Sun website. Just make sure you read it!
Mr. Harper has been quite clear on his plan to fairly address the divisive opinions on the matter of the definition of the word "marriage" in Canada. The traditional media channels have presented only selected parts of his plan, indeed, they are erroneously claiming that Mr. Harper will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause because (they claim) he wants to deny human rights.
While I'm certainly in no position to speak for Mr. Harper, I present the following detailed description of Mr. Harper's plan, in order to help clarify the situation for the benefit of all Canadians.
(1) Mr. Harper has said that all couples should have equal rights qua couples, independent of chromosomal specifics.
(2) Mr. Harper has said that he would vote to preserve the traditional use of the word "marriage" on the basis of its psycholinguistic value to a society that depends on the nuclear family for the successful replication of the species and the survival of civilization.
(3) Mr. Harper has said that he just gets one vote. It's not up to him to decide. In Canada's tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracy, this sort of issue is what is called a "vote of conscience", and Mr. Martin should have treated it that way.
(4) Because Mr. Martin abrogated parliamentary precedent by whipping his members on a matter of conscience, Mr. Harper considers the previous result to have failed the test of democracy under our parliamentary system.
(5) Therefore, Mr. Harper's position is that to prevent this failure of parliament from surviving as a wound to our national psyche, the restricted question on the definition of the word itself should be decided in a proper free vote of conscience.
(6) If that vote says yes to the redefinition of the word, that's the end of the matter. Problem solved, fair and square, in our democratic way.
(7) If that vote says no to the redefinition of the word, then Mr. Harper will proceed with legislation to implement for all couples the same rights relevant thereto, only that one word will be reserved. The supreme court explicitly did not agree or disagree that the use of that word is a right.
(8) If the supreme court vetoes that, then it's a done deal, Mr. Harper said he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause. Presumably the debate would then shift back to the more general matter of the roles of parliament and the courts.
This is exactly the correct approach to take in a functioning Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Anyone wanting a clear concise description of the Charter versus Constitutional realities of SSM, would do well to go read Williams piece at:
http://thefirebrand.blogspot.com/
The Supreme court ruled that same sex marriage does not violate the Charter. It DID NOT rule that the traditional definition does so. This, apparently, is a distinction that escapes Martin. Or, rather, it's a distinction that he refuses to acknowledge publicly. The Notwithstanding clause would not be necessary to challenge same sex marriage. Rather, if challenged, it would be necessary for the advocates of same sex marriage to take their challenge to the Supreme Court. To suggest otherwise is to lie to Canadians.
The problem I have with judges is this:
They claim to uphold the law and the Charter via "interpretation" or "reading in".
This is nonsense, IMHO.
The judicial system is losing the trust of the people as it's increasingly seen as having moved away from the "rule of law" so much that it's apparent the law doesn't matter to them-- they'll deem whatever they see fit now.
Astonishingly to me, the courts, the government, the MSM, etc., all claim that both marriage and sexual orientation are indicated in the Charter as rights while in fact there's no mention of these things whatsoever. I know personally as I have a framed copy of the Charter itself hanging on my wall and have never found any mention of marriage or sexual orientation.
Would Paul Martin or Beverly McLachlin please point out to us where, precisely, the Charter says what they claim it says? I know they cannot since it doesn't say! Why do they lie? Why does the MSM talk about these kinds of issues as if the Charter actually says something about them when it doesn't?
This is the question that's never getting asked, but I now ask it right here and now.
And I would observe that once again, the Liberals and the MSM are making SSM the number one most critically important issue facing the nation at the moment and are trying to make it the top election issue. Despite all the really important issues being ignored. Like the economy, regional disparity and alienation, a health care system paid lip service and having cash thrown all over it but that continues to deteriorate, Soviet-style, the very real threat of terrorism and of nuclear attack from a rogue dictatorship, the lack of democracy, handgun murders everywhere on a daily basis, crime, corruption, the imminent collapse of the Armed Forces, etc., etc.
Is it any wonder we desperately want the Liberals out of power, and for a long, long time?
Oh, wait-- McLachlin never claimed that SSM is supported by the Charter-- she left the question to Parliamentarians.
Yet, as mentioned before, Martin fails to acknowledge this fact and acts as if the "courts" have declared SSM as a "right".
Post a Comment