Xref: utzoo can.politics:1998 can.francais:90
Path: utzoo!lsuc!nrcaer!cognos!sysint!robert
From: robert@sysint.UUCP (Robert Nelson)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.francais
Subject: Re: Notwithstanding clause -- truly a sad day for Canada
Message-ID: <237@sysint.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 88 22:11:00 GMT
References: <1988Dec13.133220.28851@lsuc.uucp> <4321@hcr.UUCP> <809@auvax.UUCP> <230@electro.UUCP> <2521@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: robert@sysint.UUCP (Robert Nelson)
Distribution: can
Organization: Systems Interface Inc, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 75

In article <2521@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>The decision to use the famous notwithstanding clause to me marks one of
>the worst events in Canadian political history.

I can think of a couple of other events just as bad:
	War measures act for the FLQ crisis
	Free Trade Agreement (;-)
	
>
>I think most people don't like the fact that the clause is there, but I
>had always held the hope that, like many other aspects of the law, it
>would never be used -- that no province would dare to be the first to
>use it to remove fundamental rights.

Quebec was the first to use it.  The Parti Quebecois used it routinely
when passing every law.

I believe Saskatchewan was the first to specifically use it to pass an
unconstitutional law.  They used it to settle a public service strike.
I think this is an even worse blow to charter, since there was no lofty
excuse such as protecting the cultural identity of a province.  It was
used out of political expediency.

>
>Today, this hope is dashed.  You may call this a 'slippery-slope' argument,
>but I believe that this precedent will make it much easier for other
>violations of the chater to be entrenched in law.
>

I think this was a rather naive hope.  If you give politicians an easy way out
they will take it.  (As would most people, human nature being what it is).

>The sign law was stupid and the courts agreed.  You should be able to
>have a sign in Japanese, Swahili or rot13 code if you want to.  Certainly
>in one of Canada's official languages.
>

No argument here.

M. Bourassa has stated that while signs alone do not destroy the french
fact of Quebec they are symbolic.  The Quebecois believe that if the signs
contain English everyone will speak English and Quebec will become another
English province.

In other words the decision was made because of peoples emotions, suspicions
and paranoia.  These are the sorts of things that a charter should prevent.

I am sure that the people of Canada believed in 1942 that the Japanese-
Canadians were a threat and the internment was justified.  The charter would
have been no more protection for them at that time then it is for the English
Quebecers now.

>We should scrap Meech Lake.  A province that would do this over something
>as trivial as the control of signs deserves no place in the constitution
>of this country.  That's how strongly I feel about this.

I believe we should scrap the Meech Lake deal also, however, I felt this way
before the Supreme court decision.

>-- 
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473


IMHO, the purpose of a charter of rights is to protect the rights of a minority
against the wants of the majority.  The politicians have used the internment
of the Japanese as an example of why we needed one.  However, a charter of
rights which can be overridden by the majority is worse than none at all.
It provides a false sense of security and removes the motivation to enact a
real one.

-- 
Robert B. Nelson                                Systems Interface Inc.
VOICE: (613) 230-4103                           560 Rochester St, 2nd Floor
FAX:   (613) 230-6928                           Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA  K1S 5K2
UUCP:  uunet!mnetor!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!sysint!robert