🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> > > 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. 

Poor response which does nothing to answer my point nor support your position.

> 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.

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.
 
> > 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.

> > > 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.

> 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.

> 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.  If you want to discriminate against homosexuals, find enough
people who also want this in enough provinces, and you can have you wish.
Until then , all of this is Sour Grapes.

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