Thursday, November 16, 2006
Blogging Tories Short Takes: November 16, 2006.
Shorter Dr. Roy: "So, if by 'internecine fighting' we mean one disgruntled hack who happens to be married to a high-level GOP operative, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."
Shorter Adam Daifallah: "So, if you ignore our gutting the Status of Women Canada and the Court Challenges Program and our rampant racism and homophobia, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."
Shorter The Politic: "So, if someone wants to explain what my interesting point might be, I believe I have an interesting point to make here."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Daifallah's post is particularly vile. Especially given Harper's utter mismanagement of the Celil case since this spring.
I like how these cons pat themselves on the back for being "oh so cool" about human rights when they go after official enemies.
Yeah, Iran, China, Cuba, ... bad, bad, bad.
And Chavez in Venezuela is "worrisome."
But Pinochet got a "bad rap."
And the US and Israel? And Canada in Haiti? And Colombia? And Uzbekistan? And Egypt?
Mr. Daifallah, the world you'd be looking for, if you weren't a scummy moron, is "hypocrisy."
The Court Challenges program was an invention of Liberals to circumvent Parliament and Democracy. The ostensible reason for the program is to allow persons to challenge laws in court. The real reason for the program is so that regardless of what law Parliament passes (or chooses not to pass) a litigant can challenge the law until a sympathetic judge rules in the litigant's favour and then the executive (the Justice minister, with approval of the Prime Minister) would simply not appeal.
This is the way it worked for same-sex marriage. Chretien and Cotler wanted same-sex marriage but Parliament was mixed in it's opinion. So they waited for the courts, specifically the Ontario Court of Appeal, to legalize and instantiate same-sex marriage via writ of mandamus. Then the Justice minister simply chose not to appeal. No Parliament, no Supreme Court - voila.
This is why the Court Challenges Program had to die; it gave the executive and the courts too much power to circumvent Parliament.
This is why the Court Challenges Program had to die; it gave the executive and the courts too much power to circumvent Parliament.
Bullshit. It was a check on Parliament's ability to pass unconstitutional laws that would cause Canadians years of misery (including financial misery in challenging the laws) until they were declared unconstitutional.
Well ti-guy, it still takes years to get the courts to declare a law unconstitutional anyway. So, by your reasoning, the litigants have to suffer for years anyway. So what's the diff?
The courts are the check on unconstitutional laws - the only one. Laws passed by Parliament are given great scrutiny by legislative committees and many lawyers before being sent to the Commons. It is not a knee-jerk process by any means.
As far as financing goes, there are many organizations that can assist in cases by providing funding, support via amicus briefs and research, such as EGALE and the CCLU.
Paying good tax dollars to have the fully deliberated will of the people enacted in to legislation and then to provide tax dollars to have it knocked down again seems to me to be a waste. Parliament represents the people; if it does something wrong (i.e. against the Constitution) then the courts will let us know. The courts can award costs if they feel it is required.
I stand by my claim that the CCP was an end-run around Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Justice minister were on the same side as the litigants against the governement in the same-sex challenges. All they had to await was the OCA judgement and then refuse to appeal.
The method CCP used to select cases for funding is closed to the public and it's objectivity in this regard could not be verified. When spending public tax dollars this cannot be justified.
Then the Justice minister simply chose not to appeal. No Parliament, no Supreme Court - voila.
Holy crap, anonymous, are you really that clueless about the rulings involved?
Legislators write laws, lawyers and judges interpret them. Sometimes, the laws legislators write break other more fundamental laws. Usually those that are affected by such breakages are minority groups that would typically lack the resources necessary to sustain a challenge through to its endpoint.
The Charter Challenges Program (CCP) existed to enable challenges and have them heard at the correct and appropriate level.
The fact you have a moral problem with SGM morally does not change the legal principle of equality that was challenged.
Wow, someone actually has valid criticism for the CCP. It would have a lot more credibility if the criticism didn't include misleading statements like:
Chretien and Cotler wanted same-sex marriage but Parliament was mixed in it's opinion.
First, Parliament is mixed on almost every opinion. Why do you think Harper is avoiding making threats about confidence motions these days?
Second, parliament did vote on the subject. Although some MPs were forced to vote with their party, this would not have changed the outcome if they were not.
Third, that vote didn't truly express the will of the government and the people, why hasn't Harper reintroduced the motion as he said he would?
Fourth, Parliament's decisions do not supercede the Charter. This is what ensures that, whatever cockamaimie parliament is elected, the individual Canadian's rights are protected. If you don't understand that, well, I don't know if you're really qualified to comment on the subject.
Fifth, how do you supppose the courts will "let us know" about the constitutionality of a law without a challenge brought forward in court? Do you really want the supreme court ruling on laws passed by parliament, rather than on individual cases?
Though I agree with you absolutely about the need for transparency in selecting cases.
Post a Comment