Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Not Actual People | Main | I get a C+ on the Teachout cultural concurrence index »

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Randy White was right

Even Ontarians -- moderate, nice, non-judgemental, Charter-loving Ontarians -- agree: to heck with the courts. Toronto Sun columnist Linda Williamson says more needs to be done to counter the criminality our courts, if not encourage, at least do nothing to discourage.

Posted by Paul Tuns on July 11, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Randy White was right:


Ontario people are soft on crimes against people.

Crimes against property are severely punished - stealing a car will get you years in jail, but keeping kids in a cage is scarcely punished.

This is why Alberta must take control over its criminal justice system, and use the "Notwithstanding Clause" to stop any federal obstructions.

Posted by: Scott | 2004-07-11 3:51:02 PM

The not withstanding clause should NEVER be used, because it applies only to legal rights and fundamental freedoms in the Charter. It does not apply to socialist "language rights."

Libertarians support negative rights -- that is, rights that prevent state and criminal interference in peaceful activities (i.e. legal rights, property rights, free speech rights, etc.). The Left generally wants to add positive rights, which demand that something be provided to you at the monetary expense of others -- i.e. school in french, healthcare, etc.

Randy White would like to use the notwithstanding clause because he is, in principle, contemptuous of human liberty and because he enjoys government interference in private affairs (i.e. ask him his opinion on drug use).

I agree with White that Canadian hate laws are unjust restrictions on freedom of speech, but using the notwithstanding clause sets a terrible precedent and should be avoided.

Posted by: Michael Cust | 2004-07-11 5:16:42 PM

I tend to agree with M. Cust. I do believe, however, that the clause should be used only in extreme situations where the courts rule against individual rights or against freedom of religion. For instance, if the courts rule that churches must perform gay marriages (which is not that far-fetched), the state should step in and use the clause to overrule this.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-07-12 12:31:02 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.