If Canadian talk radio is any indicator, both here and in Alberta, the loss of a governments right to over ride the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is akin to anarchy and chaos reigning supreme - conditions more than likely to appear within days, if not hours, of the NWC clause being removed.

Our local (Right)WingNut hinted that if it was removed this may be the last election people get a chance to vote in.

The clause would be a bad idea in a strong charter but is a good idea in a weak charter.

A strong charter is one which draws lines around the power of institutions of government and reserves all other rights to individuals.

A weak charter is one which draws lines around the rights of individuals and reserves all other rights and powers to government.

If we revisit the constitution/bill of rights/charter to ensure that the legislative and judicial branches of our government are confined to lanes, then we could probably safely discard the clause.

It’s a safety hatch. Stable government generally does require the consent of the governed, as the saying goes. The laws also have to make sense. Without the clause, what are the alternatives if the judicial body in particular reads in something that people simply won’t stand? Revolt? Separation?

1) Canada is supposed to be a democracy. Without the NWC we are not. The idea of Court Supremacy is an American one, not a Canadian one. Our system is based on the British system of parliamentary supremacy. The Yanks also have instituted checks and balances on power, not just of the government, but of the court too. We have none of those checks and balances. Without the right to over-ride a bunch of unelected lawyers, we don’t have democracy at all. We may as well abolish parliament.

2) The NWC can be used to protect rights as well as over-ride them - especially keeping in mind the American habit of expanding the scope and power of the courts by the court’s own decree. Without a check on that power, they can do whatever they please. Look at the current American court fight. If the side you don’t support stacks the court, what are you going to do about it? When looking into matters of governance, it is always helpful to reverse the situation and then ask yourself if you would be so supportive of a supreme court that can’t be overturned if there were 9 judge Alitos on it instead of 9 activist socialists. If the court was stacked with 9 young conservatives, and there was no way to overturn their rulings, you could end up with 40 years of the left being totally shut out of government. Think about it with what little capacity you have.

3) There would be no Charter without the NWC and to try to remove it would end the country. Neither Quebec nor Alberta would accept it. And to suggest a non-constitutional solution is liars (PMPM) selling snake-oil. Only re-opening the constitution would work. Anything short is a sham.

This discussion is academic. Trudeau never wanted the NWC to begin with but was forced to include it to get the provinces to agree.

Martin will not get them to agree to have it removed now. Any Act in Parliament to preclude it’s use would only be as binding as the goverrnment of the day’s whim.

Martin and his team of desperados know that. It was nothing more than a tactic to try to throw the media and Harper of their game.

“makes it an interesting, engaging, and (IMO) fun debate to have.”

I agree, but I am not sure the country is ready to go through another round of constitutional debates. Friggin wore me out the last time.

There is a middle ground. Instead of all-or-nothing, amend 33(1) to narrow the sections subject to 33(1). For example, we could exclude sections 2 and 7, which safeguard the meat of inherent and fundamental social and civil freedoms. 8 through 14 deal with legal and justicial protections. One might like to exclude 15 along with 2 and 7 for the same reason (fundamental rights), but since 15 can be interpreted to read in positive rights no sane government would give it up unless there were somewhere else in the Charter a set of ironclad protections against unfunded liabilities. If we separated equality rights into equality protections and equality benefits, it might be possible to negotiate the former out of 33(1).

1) Canada is supposed to be a democracy. Without the NWC we are not. The idea of Court Supremacy is an American one, not a Canadian one. […..] Without the right to over-ride a bunch of unelected lawyers, we don’t have democracy at all. We may as well abolish parliament.

Democracy? By what mistaken defination are you calling Canada a democracy Warwick? In how many of our fair ridings did anyone get elected with 50+ any really timy number you can think of majority? Democracy is the will of the people, as I’ve said before what we have is “the will of more people who voted for the idea of “W” than the collective will of those who voted for “X”, “Y”, and “Z”” Find me a defination of democracy that fits that.

That aside, the law is what is supposed to be supreme in a democracy, ever since the Magna Carta that limited the power of the ruling class that’s been they way it is supposed to be. Now I realize that not all governments may want to have their authority unchecked but I guess it sux to be them in that case ‘eh?

2) The NWC can be used to protect rights as well as over-ride them

The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects rights Warwick - loop holes that allow constitutional rights to be side stepped, ignored, or legislated out of existance do not.

3) There would be no Charter without the NWC and to try to remove it would end the country.

You’ve been listening to Lowell Green haven’t you… If the NWC is taken away this may well be the last election you get to vote in.

(PS: I have no idea which filter your post tripped that did not allow your comment through immediately, I apologise for not seeing it earlier - I’ll be looking into what happened over the week-end.)

Personally I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would want more than one spouse at the same time (and after watching an Arab guy on a documentary talking about multiple wives and just how expensive, how much work it was, and how emotionally taxing it was for him, my views didn’t change any at all), but my thoughts on the matter are personal in nature and not objective.

If I put on my objective hat I can’t think of a logical argument for not allowing a multiple spouse relationship if it works for all parties concerned. It’s not something that’s new by any stretch of the imagination and other than offending the sensibilities of some religions what is the problem if all the partners know what they are getting into?

Maybe it would be easier for folks if they thought of it as a return to biblican old testiment values instead of a decline in morals :-)

The problem with relying solely on the SCC is that the court has the power to make things up without regard to what the charter actually says. They can also chose to ignore what the drafters specifically included. In what way in hell is the election gag law not a curb-stomp on the rights of citizens to freedom of expression and association? Now, it was the gov’t that enacted that one so having Liberals in Ottawa is certainly no help when discussing rights, but is the SCC not supposed to rule in favour of rights that the drafters actually included in the damn thing?

The Supremes have not only failed to support rights IN the charter, they’ve added in rights which were specifically left OUT of the charter. I’m in favour of Gay rights myself but they were debated in parliament and the Liberal gov’t of Trudeau rejected their inclusion into the charter. The SCC made it up out of thin air. These are not people I want dictating to us. I don’t want 5 unelected, partisan hacks lording over us when we can’t do a thing about it. If they can’t be trusted to follow the law, why would we make the law supreme and not parliament?

I guess you missed the point of the Magna Carta. It was invented to take absolute power away from the king (who is not elected - obviously.) It was to add accountability to a system that lacked it. This is exactly what we would NOT have if we made our judges supreme as they are neither elected nor accountable to anyone. Not only that, the Canadian public has exactly zero say into their appointments.