NationStates Jolt Archive

I think Paul Martin might get more votes by shutting his mouth.

http://forums.cbc.ca/roundtable/2006/01/in_case_you_mis.html


"A new Liberal government would strengthen the Charter of Rights by removing the federal government's right to use the notwithstanding clause to override courts on charter issues."


The charter of right's is essentially a Canadian version of the almighty Constitution that our southern brothers and sisters in the States.

What Paul Martin wants is to make the judges have much more power than Parliament in terms of charter right issues.

Why is this bad? The american system, when appointing candidates for the supreme court, can actually be denied. In Canada, the Prime Minister has 100% power in terms of picking judges. They cannot be denied or appealed.

After all, Supreme Court justices receive their lifetime appointments from none other than the PM, and should he (gasp) appoint any of these individuals based on political rather than meritorious grounds it could transform the Supreme Court into an easily manipulated body incapable of rendering objective decisions.

And Liberals said that Harper was the one who was going to bring 'american' like standards to Canada.


All you good Canadians who worship at the altar of the Canada Health Act just watched your prime minister pledge he'd remove the authority of Parliament to protect the act from a future Supreme Court decision to strike it from the books. - The linked article

Were this a firearm debate, and the US Constitution were brought up, the reply of "But it's just an old piece of paper that's outdated".

Sounds like Martin is trying to become more of a "King" than the accusations against Bush say he is. (control of the judiciary, disarming the people, etc.)

Now all you need is them to support universal cameras for "Safety" and internet monitoring.

1. Next time coudl you please provide a direct link to an article instead of one where you have to go to another site.
2. Can you find a news story about this, rather than an editorial? From what I hear, the use of the notwithstanding clause has been deemed more of a threat to democracy in this country than getting rid of it would. But then I'm not too familiar with it.

1. Next time coudl you please provide a direct link to an article instead of one where you have to go to another site.
2. Can you find a news story about this, rather than an editorial? From what I hear, the use of the notwithstanding clause has been deemed more of a threat to democracy in this country than getting rid of it would. But then I'm not too familiar with it.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/09/elxn-debates-look.html

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/09/elxn-debates-look.html
Thank you. Still reading it, but this stands out to me: The Conservative leader has promised a free vote on the issue if he is elected, but has pledged not to use the clause. Harper did say he was going to use the notwithstanding clause, a number of times. I don't quite trust him not to either.

I don't particularly like Martin though, he would have taken us into Iraq just as fast as Harper would have (though he didn't go bitch about Canada on fox news and in the washington post like Harper did) and the smear campaign both parties are running against each other is really unappealing.

I like the bit about ""I don't believe that Canada was built on American conservative values," Martin said. "It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding."

So he's saying an "American Conservative" is cold-hearted, stingy, greedy, and intolerant.

Nope, no demonizing there. He must be playing to the "Bash the US" crowd.

I like the bit about ""I don't believe that Canada was built on American conservative values," Martin said. "It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding."

So he's saying an "American Conservative" is cold-hearted, stingy, greedy, and intolerant.

Nope, no demonizing there. He must be playing to the "Bash the US" crowd.

No shit. It's Paul Martin, who's been associating with a party that can't accept the fact that there is flaws within their own country for 12 years.

What really annoys me is that he wants to make Parliament much weaker. By making the parliament weaker, he is weakening the power of the people. We voted for those people who sit in the chairs and pay their salaries, and Paul Martin wants to deny their power and give it over to the courts (the courts that he picks without opposition)

Canada City']No shit. It's Paul Martin, who's been associating with a party that can't accept the fact that there is flaws within their own country for 12 years.

What really annoys me is that he wants to make Parliament much weaker. By making the parliament weaker, he is weakening the power of the people. We voted for those people who sit in the chairs and pay their salaries, and Paul Martin wants to deny their power and give it over to the courts (the courts that he picks without opposition)

As the issue has come up here, How many potential seats could Martin have filled during his next tenure?

I'm not as up on the Canadian political/governmental system as I should be.

The Canadian system places more trust in government in general than the American system, and as a general result, we have been rewarded for it. Trust in government is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies. If you trust your goverment, it's probably because it's trustworthy, etc.

Personally I think this is a vote-grabbing mistake, but I'm most likely going to end up grudgingly voting Liberal rather than giving any sort of endorsement to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.