🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3529AAC5.F853C3A6@netcom.com>, Gordon@netcom.com wrote:

> Norman Gall wrote:

> > 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.

*My* abilities to do so?  I have little.  I am poor at rhetoric. And
judging by what Alberta voters have been convicned by in the past, it
would take someone much more cunning and devious in lieing than I am.

> > 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.

And a moral question like this cannot lie only in some sort of
relativistic stagnation.

 
> > *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).

I don't know what this means.  If it is theft, then it is a crime by
definition. Some 'taking of another person's property without their
permission' certainly can be justified.  We call them fines.

> > 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?

Because I don't like the fact that freedoms and rights that we consider so
incredibly fundamental that we guarantee them in the highest law of the
land can be side-stepped by just a few people in a day or so - depending
upon the legislature in question. 

As well, what people do in AB is a reflection upon Canada as a whole. 
What Quebec has done with the language laws is a disgrace to us all. 
Let's not counter that by doing ourselves further injustices. The phrase
'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face' seems to apply here.

> > 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."

You can so suggest; but you would be wrong.

Norm Gall

-- 
"Never ask a man what sort of computer he drives. If it's a Mac, 
 he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?"        - Tom Clancy