Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

Rights and Freedom

Recommended Posts

Argus, what is it with you and kiddie porn and incest?

If marriage is a 'human right' then why do we have any restrictions at all on marriage. In other words, you could marry your niece or sister if you so wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Argus, what is it with you and kiddie porn and incest?

I'm a pervert. So? Aren't I allowed to be a pervert?

What's more, I'm a pervert who supports the Conservatives. That must mean I'm schizophrenic, too. So being differently abled you need to treat me nicer.

More to the point, there is a certain hypocrisy in some people's positions.

You can't ban things!

Okay... then we should stop banning kiddy porn?

No!

Why?

That's different!

Why?

Never mind why!

:P

Everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they want!

So I can marry my neice right?

No!

Why not?

That's different!

Why?

Never mind!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The courts don't make laws.  They interpret the laws made by Parliament to determine whether or not they comply with the Charter.  Sometimes, the government has overstepped its bounds, and the courts strike the law, or interpret it in such a way as to ensure it is consistent with the Charter.

All quite proper - in theory.

Now back to the real world.

...

If I appoint 9 arch conservative born-again Christian lawyers to the SC you know very well they will "interpret" almost every law differently than the judges who are there now. You can, if you so desire, "interpret" all sorts of laws in just about any way you want. Especially if you have a lot of biases and prejudices, and are a political activist, as the two recent judges were.

And, of course, those who get to be judges in the first place are not selected for their great wisdom or ability. They're political suckups, some of them, apparently, having bought their robes by giving free legal services to the Liberals in Quebec.

So please don't preach to us about how the SC only interprets laws, but doesn't make them.

Argus,

We may just be arguing semantics, and I take your points regarding the appointment process...but that's a different thread.

The reality is that the Charter was enacted by, you guessed it, Parliament. Every statute that the courts get to interpret...again Parliament. The common law? Well, this is truly judge-made law, BUT...Parliament is free to (and historically often has) wipe out common-law decisions by passing statutes.

And, this brings me to a point I've made several times here in the past few days...if a court, including the SCC, ever interprets a law in a way that the government doesn't like (i.e. puts a spin on it that is akin to "making law") then Parliament can squash the will of the court like a bug, exert it's legislative supremacy and use the notwithstanding clause.

Politicians complaining about courts making law are simply too lacking in principles to risk losing their jobs and pensions for the greater good of the country (which is what they are supposed to do).

And as a public, rather than complain about courts making law, we ought to be informed enough to tell our politicians to use the notwithstanding clause where appropriate / necessary...i.e. do their jobs and govern the country...instead of ignorantly submitting to Paul Martin's scare tactics about how the notwithstanding clause is an implement of the Devil and "un-Canadian".

FTA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...