🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> In article <35290197.394E90FF@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> > > Trans: "It's time to forget about the individual rights of our citizens."
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > The Federal Supreme Court states that the Quebec Provincial Government
> > must stay out of a business decision (where they decide the language on
> > a sign).  The Quebec Government invokes the Notwithstanding Clause
> > saying that we as a Provincial Government must tell the business what to
> > decide.  Grumble, grumble, but it's in Quebec so who really cares in
> > English speaking Canada.
> >
> > .... move to the future...
> >
> > The Federal Supreme Court states that the Alberta Provincial Government
> > must stay involved in a business decision (where they decide who is
> > employed).  The Alberta Government invokes the Notwithstanding Clause
> > saying that we as a Provincial Government must not tell a business what
> > to decide.  Wild outrage in English speaking Canada by a vocal minority.
> >
> > The premier of Alberta should invoke the clause, and then call an
> > election.
> 
> Wrong conclusion.  The people of Canada pick and choose their battles
> along irrational lines.  However, this doesn't say anythign about the
> relative merits of either case.
> 
> The Premier of AB should simply amend the law officially and recognise
> that the law was at odd with the Charter.
> 
> Using the Notwithstanding clause is simply unjustified.

Oh come on, where is your confidence in your abilities to convince the
majority of Alberta voters that they should vote against the
Conservatives? And believe me I am being serious.

[snip]

> I'm multi-racial as well as are most people; nevertheless, as I've said
> before, either homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (like skin
> colour) or homosexuality is a 'lifestlye choice' (like Christianity).
> Either way, discrimination based solely on the fact that a person is a
> homosexual is unjustified.

Based on your definition, you can be comfortable with your decision,
fine. And i don't argue your position. Others don't see the behaviour
the same way, and feel otherwise.

> > > The keyword here is 'predator'. They'll always have the right to
> > > 'discrimiante' on that basis - just not on the basis of orientation.
> > > There are more heterosexual predators and by parity of reasoning we could
> > > then discharge people on the grounds that they are hetero.  The bisexuals
> > > rule the world!
> >
> > So people can discriminate based on predatory behaviour because you say
> > so, but not any other behaviour?
> 
> *Sigh* You are a dim bulb, aren't you?  Well, either that or you're being
> intentionally obtuse. The grounds for throwing people in jail for certain
> acts (not just behaviours) are to be applied across *relevant* cases only.

So theft can be justified in Canada if the case is relevant. (over the
net).

> > > > Unselected judges should not make law
> > > >
> > > > The laws of the land should be made by the people of Alberta through
> > > > their elected representatives, not through an unelected body in Ottawa.
> > >
> > > The judges didn't make law - they pointed out that the 'law' that the
> > > people of Alberta made was not valid under Canadian law.  Would you be so
> > > quick to dismiss the ruling of the SCC if it ruled that a law requiring
> > > all Christians to live in certain areas of town was unconstitutional?
> > > Would you be screaming that 'Judges should not make law'?  Would you be
> > > perfectly content if Pariament invloked the Notwithstanding clause to do
> > > it anyway?  I doubt it.
> >
> > A better question is:
> 
> Trans: "I have no answer that wouldn't embarass me so I'll ask a different
> question."
> 
> > Should non-elected people be able to pass
> > judgement on what is appropriate behaviour or not.
> 
> No, but the SCC isn't doing that: they are pointing out, officially, that
> the Charter prohibits this particular behaviour. I believe the Premiers
> and the Prime Minster are elected officials.

So then why do you object to the elected Premiers invoking the
notwithstanding clause?

> > What if some day the
> > Supreme Court decides that other laws discriminate on behaviour they
> > find acceptable but the majority does not?
> 
> If they find that the law as it stands prohibits or allows certain acts
> that the majority finds inappropraite, the majority can change the law
> (i.e., change the Constitution).  The SCC interprets what the law already
> says - they don't make it.

So then why do you object to the elected Premiers invoking the
notwithstanding clause?
 
> > Test the extremes, a good
> > enginnering principle, and find out how ridiculous some decisions are
> > (not neccesarily this one).
> 
> The SCC has no power to make any decision which is not already contained
> in the law.

I would suggest this should read: "The SCC has no power to make any
decision which is not already contained
in their interpretation of the law."

Gordon.