 |
| |
|
|
Zylka
|
|
If it does reach parliament, which provinces other than Alberta would likely invoke the notwithstanding clause? It would kick ass if a near or even full Provincial majority rejected the ruling - reitorating to the nation and showing international viewers just how out of touch the Liberals are with the people outside of Ontario. Powerhouses such as Alberta and BC voicing upset together would take notice largely even outside of Canada. Say what you want of the social leanings in those provinces, or maybe even Saskatchewan, Manitoba (chance?) etc... It just furthers a bias of ignorance, ironic in what you claim to be achieving.
Hell, there is even a large and significant portion of intelligent, successful people within Ontario who are frustrated with their ignorance and rule lately. This could be a major catalyst in repelling our Mickey Mouse governement, and electing strong individuals not in politics for the image of themselves and their family (Chretien)
Or we can keep up with the national frustration, dissent, and move on to a Trillion dollar debt. I'll wait and see
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
...and to clarify, I don't see the allowance of gay marriages as just in breaking up a government ALONE - I'm just frustrated and hope for this as a catalyst of accountance for past and future failures.
Opportunist, I guess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
NYE -
First, my right not to have government distort the language.  |
Where was that universal right of man enunciated?
quote:
If I own an apartment complex or hotel and allow married folks in, I might have to allow homosexuals in because they too are "married". If I own a business and provide a benefit to married employees, the homosexual employees could argue I'm discriminating if I don't give them the same benefit since they are "married". "Civil rights" have been co-opted by the left to outlaw our freedom of association in all sorts of areas, this will only continue the process. |
Hmmm. Yes, it is a bugger we can't keep them darkies out, ain't it?
Sorry to be blunt, but the point of rights is that all enjoy them, not just the priviledged few. If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong. Society is moving to accept homosexuality as a fact, not a disease. Yes, some people will have to be dragged along by the short hairs. So what? Just how different is this from other discriminated against minorities?
quote:
It doesn't matter if the couple is a man and a woman or two homosexuals, neither should get benefits by imposing a burden on others. |
So we're talking general principles of marriage and libertarianism, and not just gay marriage and reality. So this can be ejected from the debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
techumseh
|
 |
of the frozen North.
Apr 1999
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
The gun registry is going to fail because many provinces are refusing to enforce it. That is a matter entirely of federal jurisdiction, although some people want to say otherwise.
The granting of licences for marriage is a provincial jurisdiction. The feds can pass all the laws they want, they will have the same effect as federal labour laws. They will only apply to very large companies or to smaller companies doing significant business with the federal government. ie, they will mean squat unless the provinces go along.
If the Federal government clothed any such over-riding law in the language of the Charter, as the courts have done, then any province would have a very fine case for invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Welcome to Canadian civics class. |
While I hesitate to bandy words with an arrogant undergraduate, I'll remind you that the issue (at least as I originally stated it), is whether or not a provincial government can invoke the notwithstanding clause in a matter of Federal jusrisdiction and whether or not the definition of marriage is a federal matter. When you've done your research, you will find the answers are no and yes.
The question of the gun registry has to do with administration of federal laws by provincial governments. I acknowledged that provincial governments may refuse to administer federal laws. To oversimplify somewhat, refusing to administer a federal same-sex marriage law would put a provincial government at odds with the Charter, while refusing to administer a federal gun law would not. Hence, one is more likely to be enforced than the other, especially given the judgements already rendered by the courts.
You see, Canadian "civics" (really an American term) isn't really enough.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-06-2003 10:35
Attachment: 
|
