# Martin to end Notwithstanding claus?!? (Warning contains Canadian politics) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302 "2006-01-10T13:38:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/41 "2006-01-11T17:32:47Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Had the government tried to ram gay marriage down churches’ throats, I expect that the courts would have stopped it. Jeez, I’m glad you said down throats! > [@](#): > > As far as the conservative leader Harper goes, he has set out that if his party comes into power, [he will re-open the issue of gay marriage by way of a free vote in Parliament, but he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause](http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051217/wl_canada_afp/canadavotedebategay_051217213941) . [Old news. Now he has committed to never using the clause for same-sex marriage.](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060109.wdebate0109a/BNStory/specialDecision2006/) > [@](#): > > That means that if his party wins the election, and is successful in banning gay marriage, then it would be up to the courts to continue to uphold the Charter right to equality. When his party wins the election he will not ban gay marriage. He never intended to ever. > [@](#): > > I think that this is an excellent example of how the judiciary protects the Charter rights and freedoms of minorities against bigoted politicians. Who’s bigoted? A leader who would let elected officials vote freely? You’re ill-informed. Please watch the debates and read some newspapers more than monthly. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/42 "2006-01-11T18:08:02Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Who’s bigoted? A leader who would let elected officials vote freely? Both Parliament and the courts have determined that same sex marriage is a constitutional right. Harper wishes to take away that right. That makes him a bigot. As far as a free vote goes, the vote in the House was as free vote for all but cabinet minsters, and they were free to vote against the government provided that they resign their cabinet position only, not resign their seat in Parliament, and not resign from the libveral party. Joe Commuzzi is a good example. > [@Leaffan](#): > > You’re ill-informed. Please watch the debates and read some newspapers more than monthly. My cite concerning Harper was taken from coverage of the French language election dabate on Thursday. My cite concerning judicial appointment reform was taken from the leading House of Commons report on the issue. I suggest that you refrain from making spurious attacks against me personally in this forum, and instead stick to debating the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/43 "2006-01-11T18:36:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Does that mean that in Canada the civil, legal institution and aspects of marriage aren’t distinct from the religous ones as they are in the US? You can’t be married in law without being married in a church and vice versa? Or are “some people” simply mistaken about that (as they are in the US)? No, they were mistaken. You can get a civil marriage in a purely civil ceremony(I think that Justices of the Peace can do it). However, as a convienience to everyone, if you get married in a church the religious official presiding over it can issue a civil marriage license as well. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/44 "2006-01-11T18:49:32Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > No, they were mistaken. You can get a civil marriage in a purely civil ceremony(I think that Justices of the Peace can do it). However, as a convienience to everyone, if you get married in a church the religious official presiding over it can issue a civil marriage license as well. Yes. My sister got married at City Hall, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/45 "2006-01-11T19:04:34Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > I suggest that you refrain from making spurious attacks against me personally in this forum, and instead stick to debating the issue. Apologies. No personal attack intended. That’s not my style. It’s a pretty emotional topic and I got caught up in the moment. Anyway, once again, Harper is not taking away, and never intended on taking away the right of gays to marry. He said he would put it to a free vote. FREE. For all seats in the house, Conservative, Liberal, Bloc, and even the the NDP. You’re stating Liberal Party tactics when you talk free votes for all but cabinet ministers. The Conservatives have stated repeatedly that all members of their party are free to vote how they, or more likely, how their constituents want them to vote. I can find tonnes of cites on Harper’s decision to put the gay marriage issue to a free vote, but none alas on “his free votes for all” in general. At any rate he has now declared this issue is a done deal and he will not revisit it. How does any of this make him a bigot? He wanted to put it to a vote! Again apologies. But I think you have to agree with me on the above points. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/46 "2006-01-11T19:58:53Z")
> [@Sunspace](#): > > Yes. My sister got married at City Hall, for instance. And, just to show what happens when one does get married in a church, my then-fiancee and I needed a marriage license from the province (it was available from the local city hall). We took it to our wedding, and the minister who performed the ceremony filled out all the necessary blanks and such afterwards, as well as completed all the other required paperwork. We and our witnesses signed where the minister indicated, and then he mailed everything to the provincial registrar for us. Location may have differed (a church vs. a city hall), but in terms of governmentally-required paperwork, there was no real difference between what my wife and I did, and what **Sunspace’s** sister went through. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/47 "2006-01-11T23:56:22Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Anyway, once again, Harper is not taking away, and never intended on taking away the right of gays to marry. > [@Stephen Harper](#): > > Most Conservatives support the traditional definition of marriage. Our party position is to support the traditional definition while supporting similar rights and benefits for all other equivalent relationships. Our government will not use the notwithstanding clause after this election in which Canadians will debate this issue. We’ll simply hold a free vote in Parliament. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/48 "2006-01-12T00:18:37Z")
Hit enter too soon – link-i-poo: [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051216/elxn\_debate\_english\_trans\_051216/20051216/?s\_name=election2006&no\_ads=](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051216/elxn_debate_english_trans_051216/20051216/?s_name=election2006&no_ads=) > [@Leaffan](#): > > At any rate he has now declared this issue is a done deal and he will not revisit it. I did not hear him reverse his stance in the most recent debate of 9 January, nor does his party’s website indicate such a reversal, nor have I found any media coverage indicating such a reversal. He would be wise to not revisit the matter, but he has not made such a reversal generally known. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/49 "2006-01-12T00:27:38Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > You’re stating Liberal Party tactics when you talk free votes for all but cabinet ministers. Actually, that has been the position of all governments in Parliament that I can recall, regardless of party. Wanna be a cabinet minister? Get with the program, be it Conservative or Liberal. If the Conservatives go to free votes for all party members, including cabinet ministers, on all votes, including money votes (which if lost cause the fall of the government), they would be doing something quite unheard of in Canada’s Parliament. If they win, I will be curious to see if they follow through with this, or more practically, if any of their cabinet ministers ever vote against a government bill. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/50 "2006-01-12T01:56:57Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > You would give appointed officials the right to enact laws without any possibility of repeal from the elected parliament? You gotta be kidding me? Perhaps I missed it, but I’m surprised no one has responded to this question. I assume the appointed officials you are refering to are the judiciary, but even the Supreme Court of Canada is powerless to _enact_ laws. I applaud Martin’s promise to remove Parliament’s rights wrt the NMC. It is unfortunate, but the way this election is going it ain’t gonna happen and it isn’t unlikely that the NWC will be invoked some time in the next several years. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_loblaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@bob\_loblaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_loblaw)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/51 "2006-01-12T02:36:23Z")
the notwithstanding clause was inserted into the charter as a plum to the provinces, some of whom were worried of losing power to the federal government at the time of constitutional negotiations. any government would be foolish to try and reopen the constitution, especially for such a minor change, at this point in time. it would a national disaster. more likely, if the liberals are able to hold onto power, martin would introduce a motion to preclude federal use of section 33. this, of course, would be non-binding, and easily reversable by any future government. martin is desperate, and swinging wildly. this policy is not even mentioned in the official liberal platform. i doubt pm pm has even consulted with his justice minister on the issue. martin reads the polls, and like everyone who understands what they are saying, knows that unless there is a sizable change in opinion (entirely possible… we still have a week & half to go – a lifetime in an election campaign) we are looking at a conservative minority government. martin is likely to soon lose his job, not just as pm, but as liberal leader. his only hope to stay in politics is to win this election. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/52 "2006-01-12T04:01:49Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Perhaps I missed it, but I’m surprised no one has responded to this question. I assume the appointed officials you are refering to are the judiciary, but even the Supreme Court of Canada is powerless to _enact_ laws. No, it cannot enact laws, but it can read in sections into laws (as well as strike out sections of laws or strike out entire laws). A good example is the _[Egan](http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/cgi-bin/disp.pl/en/pub/1995/vol2/html/1995scr2_0513.html?query=%22egan%22&langue=en&selection=&database=en/jug&method=all&retour=/csc-scc/cgi-bin/srch.pl?language=en ~~method=all~~ database=en%2Fjug ~~query=egan~~ x=13~~y=6)_ decision, in which sexual orientation was found to be an alanogous ground to the enumerated ground of sex (gender) with respect to the Charter s.15 protection against discrimination. The court read in sexual orientation. (Who’d a thunk it – constitutionally protected sex – the courts as a giant condom – wheee!) ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/53 "2006-01-12T04:07:06Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The process is not nearly as simple as you suggest. > > You might wish to read [IMPROVING THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA APPOINTMENTS PROCESS: REPORT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, HUMAN RIGHTS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, MAY 2004](http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=84157) > > I would like a little more transparancy, but not at the expense of politicizing the appointment process, for to do so would result in politicized appointments. A synopsis: Some guys appointed by the PM put together a short list of candidates that they ‘say’ has been vetted using the criteria above who then give the list back to the PM who can then recommend (appoint) one of the candidates, or his pet dog, Pat, whichever he feels like. And of course, during this process none of the people involved would even dream of letting their political considerations get in the way of who they pick. As we can see political considerations do effect PM appointments: [This is who Alberta elected to represent them in the Senate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Senate_nominee_election%2C_2004) [This is who actually represents us in the Senate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_senators) There seem to be an awful lot of liberals in the latter list for a province that votes almost exclusively conservative. Why would you trust that the PM would be any more partial in his selection of judges? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/54 "2006-01-12T04:10:47Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Why would you trust that the PM would be any more partial in his selection of judges? Change ‘partial’ to ‘impartial’. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/55 "2006-01-12T04:35:24Z")
As an aside, the latest polls are now showing the Conservatives with a double-digit lead, and poised for a breakthrough in Quebec. Trends are suggesting a Conservative majority government. That notwithstanding clause thing appears to be either an off-the-cuff invention of Martin’s during the debate, or something that had been discussed but not formalized. Because the Liberal’s policy platform was leaked to the media, and it says absolutely nothing about the Notwithstanding clause. This looks like an incredibly stupid move by Martin, because it’s going to cost him in Quebec (the nuances discussed in this forum don’t much matter in the court of public opinion. Quebec hears ‘nothwithstanding’ and ‘remove’ in the same sentence, and hackles go up. And it didn’t help Martin with anyone else, because this simply isn’t an issue that anyone really cares about right now. All it did was make him look desperate. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/56 "2006-01-12T04:56:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > That notwithstanding clause thing appears to be either an off-the-cuff invention of Martin’s during the debate, or something that had been discussed but not formalized. I believe the technical term is “brain fart”. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/57 "2006-01-12T05:13:11Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > As we can see political considerations do effect PM appointments: > [This is who Alberta elected to represent them in the Senate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Senate_nominee_election%2C_2004) > [This is who actually represents us in the Senate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_senators) > There seem to be an awful lot of liberals in the latter list for a province that votes almost exclusively conservative. > Why would you trust that the PM would be any more partial in his selection of judges? Because I’m from Ontario. 😛 More seriously, there is a great difference between SCC appointees and Senate appointees. The senate jobs are political plums. The SCC jobs are for top Court of Appeal performers (although it is technically possible to appoint others). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/58 "2006-01-12T05:18:48Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > As an aside, the latest polls are now showing the Conservatives with a double-digit lead, and poised for a breakthrough in Quebec. Trends are suggesting a Conservative majority government. While that would thrill me, polls don’t take into account the Liberal Party bounce. The Tories will get a minority; a majority is just not at all likely. They still won’t win half of Ontario. > [@](#): > > That notwithstanding clause thing appears to be either an off-the-cuff invention of Martin’s during the debate, or something that had been discussed but not formalized. Because the Liberal’s policy platform was leaked to the media, and it says absolutely nothing about the Notwithstanding clause. This looks like an incredibly stupid move by Martin, because it’s going to cost him in Quebec (the nuances discussed in this forum don’t much matter in the court of public opinion. Quebec hears ‘nothwithstanding’ and ‘remove’ in the same sentence, and hackles go up. Quite frankly, if the Liberals win seven seats in Quebec, I’ll be surprised. I would be less surprised if they won zero. They’re at 19% there. And dropping. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/59 "2006-01-12T05:27:11Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > More seriously, there is a great difference between SCC appointees and Senate appointees. The senate jobs are political plums. The SCC jobs are for top Court of Appeal performers (although it is technically possible to appoint others). I think we’ve been damn lucky that we’ve made out as well as we have. There is no reason that an unscrupulous PM with a majority couldn’t have loaded the SCC with the same type of political hacks that sit in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2006, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302/60 "2006-01-12T05:38:53Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > But the point is, that elected members are the ones who should be making laws, and the courts should be interpreting them; not the other way around. Which they did; the law in question is the _Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, passed in 1982. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-to-end-notwithstanding-claus-warning-contains-canadian-politics/339302.md?page=4)