Friday, January 13, 2006

Paul Martin has a point...

Paul Martin has a point when he says that establishing property rights in the Charter "might" make it impossible to ban handguns.

Because Charter rights are so general, and the Courts' powers of interpretation so broad, nobody has a clue when they establish a Charter right what it's going to mean. It's like saying, "we have no idea what this means, or where it might lead to, but here it is".

The "right" to an abortion is not in the Charter. Who can recall from memory what right that is found in the Charter was used to form the "Charter right" of a woman to abort her unborn child? The right to privacy? Wrong.

The "right" to same-sex marriage is not in the Charter. What was it based on? The right to equality based on sexual orientation -- which also is not in the Charter. Then what is it based on?

All of these rights were created by judges' interpretations of the Charter; given a different set of nine judges, the results may have been different.

And that's why it is utterly foolish to do away with the Notwithstanding Clause.

Nine persons. Deciding the moral course of a nation. And why nine? Why not six? Or five? Or three? Why not just one individual? Let him or her decide the nation's moral values and future course. Why not? Do you really think that having nine, from the same general milieu, vetted by the same Prime Minister, gives sufficient breadth to safeguard against bias?

Nine godlike persons picked by one man. Or 300+ persons picked by 20 million. Which arrangement do you think provides the best safeguard of Canada's foundational moral values, rights, freedoms, and democracy?

Exactly. That's why Trudeau went with the Charter.


frappeur said...

I grew very cynical about democracy in Canada after dozens of farms were stolen from people in St. Scholastique - now called Mirabel.

The farmers were given a fraction of the value of their farms so Trudeau could build a huge Liberal white elephant airport. There was no way the farms could be replaced with ones of equivalent value.

The Liberals have continued with their democratic deficit program to the present day with gag laws.

Ordinary citizens are not allowed to speak during an election in any realistic manner. The argument is that money will trump the political process even though it has been proven to be a false argument by what happened during the Charlottetown Accord referendum.

Fortunately the internet came along with blogs. I think this election is really being fought on the internet. Thousands of bloggers have been searching for every detail they can find about the politicians and publishing their referenced data.

Some bloggers are just giving their opinions. Often these are well thought out and very cogent.

I suspect that if the Liberals win the election an order will come from the CRTC that will close down the blogs. The Liberals/Socialists fear both property ownership and real free speech.

RkBall said...

Why was Dorval named after Trudeau, and not Mirabel?

frappeur said...

Dorval is very successful as an airport. Mirabel is virtually empty.

I guess they were embarrassed about Mirabel.

They stole a lot of property but only a small part of it is being used.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"