🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> 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.

So you are stating that the majority of Alberta voters will believe
anything that is told to them, that they cannot decide for themselves
what is the truth and what is not? Interesting.

[snip]
> >
> > 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.

I have not suggested that the Alberta Government JUST invoke the clause,
but rather call an immediate election to have their decision 'ratified'.

> 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.

I would suggest that the difference with invoking the clause and calling
an election is different. It is saying to the people: " we have done
what we believe is the correct thing to do. You as the people of
Alberta, tell us if we made the correct decision". I don't think this
ever happened in Quebec, so there was no full public debate.

> > > 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.

Are you suggesting that the SCC never INTERPRETS the law? Of course they
do, for every case.

Gordon.