🚀 go-pugleaf

Norman Gall wrote:
> 
> In article
> <Pine.A41.3.95.980402125511.30972D-100000@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
> Socred <socred@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
> > THE ALBERTA SOCIAL CREDIT PARTY - OFFICIAL NEWS RELEASE
> > April 2, 1998
> 
> Oh great.
> 
> > "It's time for moral leadership, not political correctness, invoke
> > the notwithstanding clause"
> 
> 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 if Alberta should invoke the clause, and then call an
election. 

[snip]

> > This decision will remove a Parent's right to choose who works with
> > their children.
> 
> Based on irrelevant and incosequential ground, yes.  Do you think a parent
> ahs the right to have a black or male or female or asian or native or
> white teacher on the grounds that they they don't want one of 'them'
> teaching their children?

NO, apparently parents shouldn't have any say in who teaches their
children when their children attend a government run school. There's a
message here. As someone else already pointed out these are not
behavioural, and as a multi-racial person I would consider you
out-of-line here.

> > Parents will not be allowed to refuse a homosexual
> > hockey coach or scout leader. Parents will not be allowed to
> > "discriminate" against homosexual predators such as the infamous Graham
> > James, coach of the Calgary Hitmen.
> 
> 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?

[snip]

> > 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: Should non-elected people be able to pass
judgement on what is appropriate behaviour or not.  What if some day the
Supreme Court decides that other laws discriminate on behaviour they
find acceptable but the majority does not? Test the extremes, a good
enginnering principle, and find out how ridiculous some decisions are
(not neccesarily this one).

Gordon.