Jeez, I’m glad you said down throats!
.
Old news. Now he has committed to never using the clause for same-sex marriage.
When his party wins the election he will not ban gay marriage. He never intended to ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Q.E.D.
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=
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!)
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
This is who actually represents us in the Senate
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?
Change ‘partial’ to ‘impartial’.
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.
I believe the technical term is “brain fart”.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Which they did; the law in question is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, passed in 1982.