The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Selective application of rightsThere is an editorial in the Star today which begins
Same-sex marriage has been a fact of life in Canada since 2003, when an Ontario court ruled that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman was unconstitutional.
This is rather hypocrytical to me. The Star is saying that because a provincial court made a decision, the rest of the country has to live with it, regardless of how they feel about it. However, the Holy Grail of Canadiana - the public health system - has been struck down as being in violation of the Charter by the Supreme Court, yet we still suffer under it, and anyone who tries to change it is shouted down as un-Canadian, or worse yet: American!
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Selective application of rights:
You have to remember that the court which ruled on SSM was in Ontario. Ontario is supposedly the center of the known universe (or at least Toronto is). Of course, that's only one opinion. I've been to Toronto and Ontario and it ain't that great!
Posted by: Mike in White Rock | 2006-12-05 9:08:46 AM
The Big Political Lie
By Stephen Gray
The vote on a question on whether this aberration called “Same-Sex Marriage” (SSM) should be revisited, is going to be held in parliament this week. Many of the usual political suspects who imposed this nonsense on the country will take part in the vote.( The people of the country will be excluded.)
Does anybody really believe that this vote on an abominable lie (SSM was NEVER in the Charter) will really change things?
"Same-sex marriage is not a basic human right.
"(It) does not appear in any recognized human rights document. It's not in the Charter of Rights. It's not in the Canadian Bill of Rights. It's not in the European Convention of Rights, It's not in the American Bill of Rights.
"It's a social experiment, and I personally think it's a dangerous social experiment."
Any thinking person knows that this farce being enacted in parliament is a charade. It is a con job designed to give hope to the “true believers” in the “conservatism” of the Harper government. If Harper and his government had any courage at all they would use the not-withstanding clause on this judicial and political imposed falsehood. The reason the not-withstanding clause is in the Charter, is for occasions such as this, when the judiciary subvert the Charter.
If Harper will not use the not-withstanding clause, then he should let the people speak by way of referendum on this matter. Instead, what will happen is that a bunch of cozy politicians will vote on a LIE, and then turn around and tell the people “democracy” has spoken.
The results of this corrupted and perverted SSM decision by judges and politicians has resulted in the words “husband and wife” and “man and woman” being eliminated from all government statutes in Ontario. In the Province of B.C. the Premier met in secret with two men, one described as the “husband” of the other man. One of these men wanted “Queer History” taught in the B.C. schools and of course the Premier capitulated. Though he is now covering his derriere by calling this course “social justice.”
Make no mistake, we have not seen the end of this political and judicial insanity. The door of the asylum has been opened, so what will be the next piece of nonsense from the judicial jackasses and the political poltroons in their Houses of Power? Sex with Children justified under the “equality” section of the Charter? Oh, this could never happen you say! Oh really, who would have believed that our mad rulers would have imposed SSM upon us, but they did. And there is also a move on to reduce the age for anal sex to 14 years of age; so the forces of filth are gaining momentum. Be very afraid people for what is happening to our country, and the end result of all this on our children and grandchildren. We are being dictated to by morally challenged elites who have lost ALL sense of right and wrong.
SSM as I stated earlier was NEVER in the Charter. We, the people of Canada have seen an abominable lie imposed upon us by unscrupulous judges and politicians. The Harper government is giving credibility to this LIE by even holding a vote on it. The right thing to do would be to use the not-withstanding clause, or let the people decide by referendum. But hey, that takes courage, and courage appears to be sadly lacking in our politicians today.
December 1, 2006.
[email protected] Website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-12-05 9:13:52 AM
Oh the irony. You decry the Star's editorialists for, apparently, extending a provincial matter to the nation by relying on a case (Chaoulli v Quebec) that only applies to a single province.
Classic case of not reading the decisions:
1) Chaoulli v. Quebec did not "strike down the public health system" as unconstitutional. It ruled that the QUEBEC HEALTH INSURANCE ACT and the HOSPITAL INSURACE ACT preventing individuals from purchasing private medical insurance violated the QUEBEC CHARTER of Human Rights and Freedoms. Three of the seven judges also ruled that these PROVINCIAL acts violated the Canadian Charter. It was a ruling that is only applicable to Quebec and to these specific acts.
2) The Ontario ruling on Same Sex Marriage is also only applicable to Ontarians. Since that time, the courts of 6 other provinces have ruled the same way; but it wasn't the province of Ontario that required "the rest of the country to live with it," it was the other provinces themselves and, ultimately, Parliament who made those decisons.
Posted by: bob | 2006-12-05 9:20:25 AM
Will Dion allow dissenting Liberals to exercise their Charter right to vote according to their own consciences? Or will he compel them to vote for an immoral, logically impossible entity generously referred to as 'gay' marriage?
Posted by: TJ | 2006-12-05 9:27:34 AM
Please direct me to the specific clause in the Canadian Charter that defines an MP's "right to vote according to their own consciences" in Parliament.
Not that I don't think Dion should allow a free vote on the issue; but I really hate it when people cite imaginary parts of the Charter to support their arguments.
Posted by: altacan | 2006-12-05 9:31:53 AM
All Canadians have a right to vote according to their own consciences. MPs are Canadian too (with the possible exception of Dion...).
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-05 9:33:55 AM
Now I am not sure whether this thread is about marriage or the health or the inconsistency of the Supreme Court. I have posted before on the Shotgun about the new type of marriage from the perspective of the quite conservative Christian that I am - I believe that perspective is being called more and more by the label: "scary". Yet for this post I will confine my comments to health and the inconsistency of the Courts. I am not referring the the Supreme Court decision about health that you mention but to the Canada Health Act itself.
I draw attention to Section 91 and 92 of the Constitution of Canada:
It seems to me that there is no mention of health in Section 91 (Federal powers) and yet under Section 92 labelled EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES I note item 7:
The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
Now the meaning of the word "EXCLUSIVE" is very clear to me and I think we all know what hospitals are. I am going to make the claim that at least parts of the Canada Health Act are unconstitutional. I understand that a constitutional attorney can make a claim that physician services outside a hospital are not covered and so are unclear. I think another attorney can make a claim that they more naturally fall under provincial jurisdiction than under federal jurisdiction - they are licensed provincially.
I also understand that the Federal government could subsidize "with no strings attached" the idea of health for then it would not be in the "management" business of health. But this is not what we have in the Canada Health Act and this is not what the Federal government (at least before Harper) has wanted. The monies are given on a "quid pro quo" basis.
Therefore it seems to me that the parts of the Canada Health Act as they apply to the management of hospitals (and arguably the entire Act by extension to all of health services) are unconstitutional. Now, am I missing something? I am not a constitutional attorney. If I am not missing anything, why has the Supreme Court not dealth with this?
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 9:35:47 AM
Can politicians be trusted to do the right thing on “same-sex marriage?”
By Stephen Gray
The politicians are to have a so-called “free vote” on the “same-sex marriage” issue in the fall of 2006. On June 8, 1999, politicians voted in parliament to “preserve the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.” It passed by 216 to 55 against, and commonsense, decency, sanity and truth prevailed.
Then in June 2005, parliament voted by 158 to 133 in support of so-called “same-sex marriage.” Did some of them make liars of themselves? For in 1999, some of them voted for traditional marriage. Which poses the question: Why would any thinking people trust them again on this issue? Most of them now bend and break like rotten branches blowing in the wind when the nonsense of “same-sex marriage” is raised and they now support it. Therefore, I believe this matter is much too important to be left to untrustworthy politicians. In fact, some politicians who were against “gay marriage” are now wavering and others cannot be trusted to do the honorable and decent thing and come out against this perversion of justice, law and politics.
The Globe and Mail of June 3, 2006, had this to say: “Several Conservatives, most recently Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, who originally said no to same-sex unions, now say they would not vote to reopen the issue, arguing that Canada has moved on.”
And Liberal MP, Keith Martin, who was a former Tory MP (it’s getting harder and harder to keep track of these guys and their politics) was quoted in a Canadian press story on the “same-sex marriage debate” which said: “Liberal MP Keith Martin said the country has more important things to deal with and Harper should get on with them.”
"The prime minister has to get over it," Martin said in Ottawa. "This issue is dead. It's over. The provinces, the courts and Parliament have decided the [sic] same-sex marriage is the law of the land." 
Note: Keith Martin voted in favour of the traditional definition of marriage in 1999 in Parliament.
Parliament sensibly decided in 1999 that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. But then the House of No Shame, sometimes called Parliament “decided” in 2005 that people of the same gender could marry each other. So I ask the question again: Can we trust the politicians in this Parliament? Some of them have betrayed the people who voted for them by crossing the floor. So double crossing comes easy to some politicians.
Another politician who crossed the floor from the Liberal party to the Conservative party, David Emerson, had this to say on the “same-sex marriage” issue: "Candidly, I'm not excited about reopening the issue," Emerson said. "Even in the last election, when I ran as a Liberal, it was not a big issue that I was confronted with at the doorstep." 
In summing up, one can see, based on the evidence of the original vote in Parliament in favour of traditional marriage, that many of these politicians do not have the courage of their convictions. They can change their vote as easy as some of them change parties. So I ask once again, can any of them be trusted? I believe the only hope is the use of the notwithstanding clause by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to protect “the rule of law.”
“We are the product of our values, a country that cherishes freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.” Prime Minister, Stephen Harper
The above words by P.M. Harper sound good. But are they true? Since when did this aberration called “same-sex marriage” have “values?” If we cherished “freedom” the people would be allowed to vote by referendum on whether they accept this lie of so-called “same-sex marriage.” If we cherished “democracy” non-elected judges would not be allowed to “read in” words not written in the Charter. And finally if we cherished the “rule of law” this nonsense called “same-sex marriage” would never have been made into “law.” I believe the not-withstanding clause is appropriate in this matter.
“In sum, using the section 33 Notwithstanding power is a perfectly legitimate response to the courts’ usurpation of the legislative responsibility to make laws—in this case, the law of marriage. This is especially true for homosexual marriage, as the courts have added new meaning to the Charter that was explicitly rejected when the Charter was being written….Critics of section 33 say that we cannot trust politicians to act as a check on the courts. Fine, if that’s the case, give the decision to the people. Legitimize the use of the notwithstanding clause by democratizing it. It [sic] we cannot trust politicians, surely we can trust the Canadian people.” 
The people must be allowed to speak based on the evidence of subversion of the Charter by non-elected judges, or Prime Minister Harper should do the honorable thing and invoke the not-withstanding clause. This is what he could say: This distortion and invention of words called “same-sex marriage" was never in the Charter. It was imposed by non-elected lawyers that we now call judges. Therefore I am going to use the not-withstanding clause to return sanity, truth and decency to this country for the sake of our children. But unfortunately he is dedicated to holding this so-called “free vote” on a lie and is on record as saying he would “never” use it on this issue.
The Prime Minister, by even holding a “free vote” on this lie, is giving credibility to judge-imposed nonsense and political charlatans who concocted a “law” on this matter. Surely, he must know that this issue was NEVER in the Charter. Decency, truth and justice demands that he should invoke the not-withstanding clause. If he won’t do that, then let the people decide by referendum. For I do not believe, based on the earlier evidence of their actions, that politicians can be trusted to revoke this lie called “same-sex marriage.”
July 5, 2006.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
4 F.L. (Ted) Morton National Post, A14, Sept. 4, 2003)
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-12-05 9:45:05 AM
Why are you Theo-pawns so dense?
If you use the notwithstanding clause to void homosexual marriage the only thing you will be doing is opening the door for the Liberals to take back power.
Don't you understand nobody cares about your obsession with sodomy? Why do you people spend so much time and energy obsessing over homosexuality? It's just wierd.
Posted by: What will You Guys Get Wrong Next? | 2006-12-05 9:50:39 AM
Stephen, do you know the phrase "link whore"? The comments section of someone else's post isn't the place to copy and paste your own blog's material.
Posted by: africarib | 2006-12-05 9:55:31 AM
What will you Guys Get Wrong Next, you seem to be just a little confused. It is not that "nobody cares about your obsession with sodomy", but rather (and speaking of "wierd") it is apparently the ONLY obsession of the homophiles. So let me ask you this question....Why do YOU spend so much time and energy obsessing over homosexuality and SSM when it is NOT a so-called human right?
Posted by: John Lufe | 2006-12-05 9:58:59 AM
''I understand there is some kind of time limitation,'' said Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
Tories move to limit same-sex marriage debate
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
OTTAWA - After promising to hold a vote on revisiting same-sex marriage, the Conservative government plans to limit debate to a few hours and relatively few MPs will rise to have their say when the contentious issue reaches the Commons floor on Wednesday.
Government House leader Rob Nicholson, who is leading the Conservative charge, said Monday that he expects the debate to be short-lived and that he'd like to ''get it over with'' by holding a vote by Thursday.
The government will introduce a motion ''to call on government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''
The wording of the motion mirrors the Conservative election platform.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised on the first day of last winter's election campaign to hold a Commons vote on same-sex marriage, but Nicholson's assertion that the debate will be a quick one is a sign that the government is only going through the motions and hopes to put the issue to rest as quickly as possible.
''I don't think it has to be a long debate. Most members have expressed their opinion on it and, quite frankly, most members have made speeches on it already,'' said Nicholson, adding that he is inclined to limit debate to new MPs who haven't had a chance to voice their opinions in the past.
By most accounts, the motion is expected to fail.
The NDP, Bloc Quebecois, a majority of Liberals and even a sizeable number of Conservatives are expected to vote against turning back the clock, many because they support same-sex marriage, but others because they say it's time to move on.
Stephane Dion, the new Liberal leader, said Monday that he would like the entire Liberal caucus to vote against the motion but he could not confirm whether his MPs will be required to vote en masse.
''I will discuss the kind of vote it will be with the caucus,'' he said in the foyer of the House of Commons, ''but I have been clear many times. To me, it's a matter of respect of the Charter of Rights.''
Win or lose, the Conservatives will not revoke the more than 12,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since June 2003, when the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the federal ban as a violation of the equality rights of gays and lesbians.
Socially conservative Tory MPs who have opposed same-sex marriage in the past say that they intend to vote the same way this time, but that they are not planning to say their piece Wednesday.
''I think there is a strategy and an itinerary and we pretty much want to stick to it,'' said MP Art Hanger.
''I understand there is some kind of time limitation,'' said Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.
The previous Liberal government, reacting to a string of court rulings, passed a law in June 2005 that rewrote the traditional definition. The bill in the Commons at the time succeeded 158-133.
The group Canadians for Equal Marriage reported less than two weeks ago that 12,438 gay and lesbian couples have married since June 10, 2003.
Supporters and detractors of same-sex marriage have intensified their lobbying efforts in recent days, in advance of the Commons vote.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-12-05 10:00:02 AM
Also to What will you Guys Get Wrong Next, it is a shame that the notwithstanding clause has not been used as it should. Use it and use it often. The ermine skin robed unelected dictators on the Supreme Court do not run this country. We do not live in a Left Wing Juristocracy as much as you would like it to be that way. But it is always that way with pinkos...they love the power of the state to impose their will.
Posted by: John Luft | 2006-12-05 10:02:56 AM
John - we let them. We can't scream about them running the country until we take steps (as you say, the NWC) to stop them.
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-05 10:09:20 AM
Since this thing, SSM, is an aberration in itself and only opening the door to other aberrations, like the use of children by homosexuals and pedophiles, I think a referendum is a must.
At the same time, while holding a referendum, we should find a way to reform the judiciary system who is a the origin of this nonsense and put it to referendum too.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-12-05 10:21:15 AM
I'm not obsessing over sodomy nor am I preoccupied with homosexuality. It is simply unnatural and deviant behavior. I could care less what body parts people stick into others or where, however I don't believe it should be legitimized and celebrated.I don't think homosexuals should be vilified either.
And I use the terms unnatural and deviant in proper context.
Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-12-05 10:22:43 AM
Canada's third world medical system is disgusting.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2006-12-05 11:01:07 AM
"Don't you understand nobody cares about your obsession with sodomy? Why do you people spend so much time and energy obsessing over homosexuality? It's just wierd."
It is the Left who is mesmerized with poop-chute sex and you are right ... that is WEIRD, SICK and just a bit disgusting.
This opinion has nothing to do with religion, but rather simple human decency. I am Atheist, but I find that Christian values are for the most part good and correct.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-12-05 11:08:43 AM
If the left is so obsessed with homosexuality why is it righties who keep starting groups to 'stop' it. Conservatives just want an excuse to sit around in their little hug circles and complain about buggery.
Anyway, this thread should come in handy during the next election. Thanks guys, and sort-of girl.
Posted by: What will You Guys Get Wrong Next? | 2006-12-05 11:16:56 AM
I never started any group to "stop it".
I don't enjoy "hug circles" and never complain about buggery, unless of course, someone is trying to do it to me.
So who's doing the stereotyping now?
Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-12-05 11:27:02 AM
Thanks for your thoughts, ebt. You know, after I posted this I realized that I should not have posted it. I reread the original article by RG and can understand why everyone else posted on the "other" issue. Sometimes, some of us deliberately nudge a thread off course to discuss a related item. This was not the case this time; I misread the original post. I still think the point I raised is valid (at least as a question); I simply introduced it into the wrong thread.
BTW, I enjoy the humour you often introduce into your posts in the other threads.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2006-12-05 3:03:47 PM
Lots of broad minded Christians here. Please don't forget that the terms "broad-minded" and "Christians"
are not mutually exclusive.
I love minds. I love broads. I am a Christian.
Can't get much better than that.
Posted by: Ralph Rattfuc | 2006-12-05 3:50:20 PM
"If the left is so obsessed with homosexuality why is it righties who keep starting groups to 'stop' it. Conservatives just want an excuse to sit around in their little hug circles and complain about buggery. "
If the right is so obsessed with homosexuality why is it the lefties who keep starting groups to "stop" the right. Lefties just want an excuse to sit around in their little hug circles and complain about those who complain about buggery.
Actually, we know what the Left are really doing in those circles and hugging is the least of it.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-12-05 4:22:05 PM
H2o! Give a beverage warning next time!
RG - wiping diet coke off the screen...
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-12-05 7:24:56 PM
Just because a Province did something, did not mean that the Feds had to cough up the laws to mirror what was being done at the Provincial level.
But, the interpretations at the Provincial level, in court, were strong. They were mirrored off our constitution. And the mirroring went in the constant revision of what it means when you read the word "descrimination". Or as I really prefer to see it, the interpretation of what it is to be "discriminated against".
Just because there is a union of a man and a union, to the exclusion of all others, does not mean it is discrimination against. It is a view that is solidly there to support two people, with all the substance and efforts, of a society as a whole, on the most important job that those two people have.
Sure, to lesbians can have and raise children. That is simply not the issue. Canada has changed in many ways, and their rights to living and raising children are respected. I have no issue with the matter of what people do, and who raises the children, so long as they are safe, well fed, happy, getting a well rounded education, and are prepared for the adult world. What I do object to is that the interpretation of who can get married, has been interpreted as a "discrimination against", rather than the original intent, which was a purposeful exclusion. A law covering the domestic union would have served the special interests of all gay people, and would have also respected the rights of heterosexual people, to the terms that have been in support of the union of a man and a woman, for thousands of years.
Enough said. It is over.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-12-06 10:51:48 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.