Thursday, January 19, 2006

Activist judges -- never!

n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj. Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view.

For the longest time I've believed that activist types have been yanking the political spectrum to the extreme left, and re-labelling it 'the centre'.

Paul Martin and the Liberal Party are the self-proclaimed centrist force in Canada. They say they embody Canadian values and represent the opinions of the average Canadian.

Paul Martin makes a point of saying that Stephen Harper once said 'you won't recognise Canada when I get through with it.' He castigates Harper for pointing out that the judiciary and the Supreme Court are stacked with Liberal appointees, and yet the social fabric of Canada has changed over the past 20 years -- based entirely on decisions of a Liberal heavy judiciary and the Liberal laden Senate.

In twenty years with a majority Liberal appointed judiciary, Canada has gone from a country that had a law regulating abortion, needed no law respecting the traditional definition of marriage because for centuries it was simply understood, upheld the standards of public decency, and held possession of child pornography to be illegal.

No more.

Liberals have set the agenda and changed Canada over the past twenty years - not through elected members of Parliament, but in the two unelected, unaccountable branches of government which are dominated by Liberal appointees. Are they impartial? Maybe they are, but the fact remains that the lack of abortion law, and the laws regarding child pornography, same-sex marriage and community standards all reflect an extreme liberal, rather than centrist view of social issues. They have sought not to balance justice but to force it. By reading rights into the Charter, they have indeed been 'activist', and gone beyond interpreting law and are now making it.

The radical social agenda has always belonged to the Liberal Party and they have managed to implement it -- particularly over the past twelve years. Not because they believed it was right, but because it was a way to differentiate themselves from the 'Christian right' they pretend lurks in the shadows of the Conservative Party.

Should the Conservatives win a majority, there is nothing Stephen Harper or the Conservatives would be able to do to transform Canada into the theocracy Paul Martin is prophesying, but Martin's current denunciations of Harper and all things conservative will likely have influence, at least here in Toronto.

Come on, Tuesday.



Mark said...

Another bang on post, CA.
And encore!

Toby said...

I think everyone is looking forward to Tuesday!

Candace said...

Please. Tuesday. Are we there yet?

'Peg City Kid said...


What about the poll whiched showed "72 per cent of Canadians believe the decision to abort should rest solely with the pregnant woman and her doctor."

Here's a quote by Chief Justice Brian Dickson

"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

Gay Marriage:

In Definition, Marriage is a religious idea. The only reason gays were excluded was becuase of the arrogance, and ignorance of the church. It was against "God's" law. We need a law regarding Gay Marriage to indicate to the churches and other religious establishments that they do not run this country, we do.

Public Decency:

"It does not contaminate society. It does not hurt, it does not do any harm to society and to the public in general."

Read the articles you post. I doubt you would have become aware of the existence of such a place unless it had been in the news. The only knowledge I have of the gritty sexual underworld of Winnipeg is from episodes of Kink I happen to pass on Showcase.

I do however agree with you and we do need stiffer laws on child pornography.

But to suggest that the courts are stacked by the Liberals is disgusting and pathetic. Conservatives are such sore losers, throwing tantrums when ever they don't get there way.

FYI.... The government does what the people want them to, otherwise they protest and riot. I hardly see Canada falling into the state where this will occur. If the majority of people want change, it will happen.

But there still seems to be something your not grasping. If the people of Canada, not just the conservatives of Canada, do not like the laws the government is passing, they will vote them out of office.

And these Liberal checks and balances, put the other 60 to 70 percent of the country at easy.

Canadi-anna said...

Peg as usual you've let your politics colour your opinion.
I'm not getting into any of the morality debates, suffice it to say that the extremes of any issue are not the 'centre ground' which is my point.
Middle ground on abortion is that there should be some limitations based on the age of the fetus.
Middle ground on same-sex relationships is that their should be legal recognition of SS unions with similar rights and benefits, but that marriage has an understood definition.
The 'harm' criteria set by the Supreme Court is a wedge and it will only get wider. That might not trouble you, but it troubles me and a good many others. Whether it is technically, legally correct is not my issue, it is still an extreme position.
Moderates proceed with caution. There has been no caution in the breakneck speed in which Canada has been changed. Less than twenty years have radically changed the country.
Did you read the post -- it wasn't an arguement for or against anything -- it was an observation that the radical changes in this country have occured under a Liberal government and they've happened fast, socially speaking. The public has scarcely had time to get their head around one thing, before another thing is changing -- and it's Harper who's accused of the 'radical' agenda.
Go back and read the post, Peg. You know I'm against SSM so you figure that this post is an affirmation of that -- it isn't. It's a statement of fact. When I was 20 there was a law regulating abortion, traditional marriage was understood, public decency meant something, and child porn was illegal. I am not yet 40 and all that has changed. In terms of societal evolution, that is way too fast.

Canadian Sentinel said...

In a nutshell:

I agree with what you wrote in your post, Canadianna.

And I second your response to Peg Kid. We the Conservatives are indeed moderate. It's the left, represented by the Liberals, NDP and Bloc who are the extremists.

The left has been reckless in its simpleminded pursuit of its own dogmatic values and ideals which it claims are "mainstream" but that we know aren't. Just because the state under the Liberals has been transformed into a leftist minority dictatorship via the controlling of the courts, the MSM, etc., doesn't mean that what they've been doing has been with the consent of the majority. It doesn't mean that what they've been doing is in line with the vague concept of "Canadian values", which aren't written anywhere, anyway.

One of the reasons why Canadians are turning away from the left is just that: the left is so extreme as to itself be the "scary" one, not the side you and I are on. We're actually moderate and mainstream. To call ourselves "conservatives" isn't a contradiction; rather, it's the same thing.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Peg Kid said:

"FYI.... The government does what the people want them to, otherwise they protest and riot. I hardly see Canada falling into the state where this will occur. If the majority of people want change, it will happen."

The Liberal gov't has not been doing what the people want them to. Therefore, enough people tonight will make this change. The Liberal gov't will have fallen upon its own sword by the stroke of midnight, AST, or sooner.

And not a moment too soon!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your common sense posting canadi-anna. I am sick and tired of activist judges whose decisions are always predictable.