Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not believe there is a constituency for this ... anti-rule-of-law agenda.
That tells me that Ian Mulgrew doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Canada is regarded as a "rule of law" state. That means that the Canadian government respects its constitution, does not engage in arbitrary (and unconstitutional) decision-making, and affords its citizens and residents all the rights that they are entitled to under the Charter. What does not happen in a rule-of-law state is arbitrariness--the idea that the government can curtail your rights for any or no reason whatsoever. The leading case on arbitrariness in the rule of law context in Canada is Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; have a look at it if you want to see a government in Canada that ran roughshod over a citizen for no reason other than it didn't like the citizen's religion.
Mr. Harper and his government may not like the current state of affairs; and from what I've seen, they don't. However, every time they try something, they are shot down. Senate reform? Nope, says the Supreme Court. Prostitution? Ain't happening. Lack of credit for pre-trial custody? Sorry, Steve.
And what would happen in a "non-rule of law" state? The government would go ahead and do it anyway.
The current government, under Stephen Harper, respects the rule of law, in that when they are told "no" yet again, they simply deal. They don't do what they want regardless of the prohibition. Oh, they may try to get around the prohibition somehow, or consider a different approach; but ultimately, they respect the decision. They act in accordance with what a government in a "rule of law" state would be expected to do: lick their wounds, accept that they lost, and otherwise just deal.
If Ian Mulgrew thinks that Mr. Harper and his government are acting contrary to the "rule of law," then I suggest Mr. Mulgrew should take a class on what that concept actually is.
I should add, in regards to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)--
It is true that three seats on the nine-seat SCC are reserved for Quebec. And it is equally true that in civil matters, Quebec operates on a "civil-law" basis, where a judge decides, based on the facts and their interpretation in light of the civil code. For all questions arising out of the common-law jurisdictions (i.e. nine out of ten provinces, and all three territories), the SCC interprets law correctly.
The SCC judges are, by their very nature, neutral. They must be; else they run afoul of Charter s. 24, and Charter s. 1. It doesn't matter who appoints them; any SCC justice who does not behave in accordance with common law, and who promotes a political position, will be constitutionally dismissed. The idea that "Harper is trying to pack the SCC with cronies who will let him have his way" is ludicrous; that may happen in the USA (see, e.g., Robert Bork), but it is not how we do things in Canada. There are a number of reasons ("our constitution is a 'living tree,'" is perhaps the best one); but regardless, Mr. Harper will not, and cannot, turn Canada into a dictatorship through the SCC.
Ya, Chevy knows his stuff. I will read up more on this. However, it still doesn't make me feel secure about Harper.
Understood; but to ascribe to Harper any greater degree of arrogant authoritarianism than what he might actually deserve one needs to compare what we've experienced in the past and what we would undoubtedly experience in the future with a PM cut from the "try to appease everyone while servicing no one" cloth.
We've got to tighten our belts from the usual 'hand-out' mentality and neither of the other alternatives are leaning in that direction right now.
Keep it coming Chevy; you're the very epitome of what keeps the aging grey matter of us old pharts out here stimulated and thirsty for more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
Ya, Chevy knows his stuff. I will read up more on this. However, it still doesn't make me feel secure about Harper.
Thanks, folks. It is good to know that my contributions are appreciated.
I'll add this: Nat, you can feel as unsecure about Harper as you like; indeed, you have the right to feel as unsecure as you like. Further, you can work against the Tories if you choose to. You always retain your Charter s. 2(b) rights: you can scream "Harper is a bigoted redneck" on Parliament Hill, or buy a full-page ad in a Vancouver newspaper to say the same, and no police officer or government official will touch you as long as all you do is express yourself. (If they do, call me; I will either defend you or refer you to someone who can.)
But contrast what we enjoy in Canada against what history has taught us about places that do not enjoy rule-of-law. The best examples include Germany under Hitler ("Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally ill must be rounded up and killed"), the Soviet Union under Stalin (its constitution, promulgated under Stalin, guaranteed freedom of religion, but just try going to church and not coming under government scrutiny for "anti-revolutionary activity"). and Pol Pot of Cambodia ("Anybody with anything beyond a basic education must die!") More recent examples include Kim Jong-Un of Korea, who ordered his uncle executed. Why? Kim undoubtedly had a reason, but I'd bet that it is not one that we would regard as valid. Heck, having outlawed the death penalty, we don't regard any execution as valid.
That's why, when I hear about Stephen Harper acting against the "rule of law," I tend to roll my eyes. Is he unpopular? Currently, yes. Is he a monster? No. He and his government may introduce and pass legislation and institute policies that Canadians do not like, but he is always constrained by our Constitution (and the SCC enforces his adherence to it), the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament (cannot remember if it was Dicey or Coke who said this, but it is so entrenched that it cannot be overridden), and ultimately by the voters. Mr. Harper knows all this, and operates within the constraints. (Note to Americans: these are among our "checks and balances.")
Regardless, the fact remains that constitutionally, no Parliament can last for more than five years. Should any Government try to last for more than that, the Governor-General will dissolve Parliament and force an election, regardless of the PM's wishes. The only way this will change is if a constitutional amendment occurs, and Mr. Harper cannot legally orchestrate such a thing himself; it requires cooperation from the provinces. That's a high bar. Given all this, I think Canadians are safe from waking up and finding themselves in a "non-rule-of-law" state under Dictator-for-Life Harper.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 06-27-2014 at 02:32 AM..
Thanks, folks. It is good to know that my contributions are appreciated.
I'll add this: Nat, you can feel as unsecure about Harper as you like; indeed, you have the right to feel as unsecure as you like. Further, you can work against the Tories if you choose to. You always retain your Charter s. 2(b) rights: you can scream "Harper is a bigoted redneck" on Parliament Hill, or buy a full-page ad in a Vancouver newspaper to say the same, and no police officer or government official will touch you as long as all you do is express yourself. (If they do, call me; I will either defend you or refer you to someone who can.)
But contrast what we enjoy in Canada against what history has taught us about places that do not enjoy rule-of-law. The best examples include Germany under Hitler ("Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally ill must be rounded up and killed"), the Soviet Union under Stalin (its constitution, promulgated under Stalin, guaranteed freedom of religion, but just try going to church and not coming under government scrutiny for "anti-revolutionary activity"). and Pol Pot of Cambodia ("Anybody with anything beyond a basic education must die!") More recent examples include Kim Jong-Un of Korea, who ordered his uncle executed. Why? Kim undoubtedly had a reason, but I'd bet that it is not one that we would regard as valid. Heck, having outlawed the death penalty, we don't regard any execution as valid.
That's why, when I hear about Stephen Harper acting against the "rule of law," I tend to roll my eyes. Is he unpopular? Currently, yes. Is he a monster? No. He and his government may introduce and pass legislation and institute policies that Canadians do not like, but he is always constrained by our Constitution (and the SCC enforces his adherence to it), the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament (cannot remember if it was Dicey or Coke who said this, but it is so entrenched that it cannot be overridden), and ultimately by the voters. Mr. Harper knows all this, and operates within the constraints. (Note to Americans: these are among our "checks and balances.")
Regardless, the fact remains that constitutionally, no Parliament can last for more than five years. Should any Government try to last for more than that, the Governor-General will dissolve Parliament and force an election, regardless of the PM's wishes. The only way this will change is if a constitutional amendment occurs, and Mr. Harper cannot legally orchestrate such a thing himself; it requires cooperation from the provinces. That's a high bar. Given all this, I think Canadians are safe from waking up and finding themselves in a "non-rule-of-law" state under Dictator-for-Life Harper.
More good stuff! I'm love'n it.
Harper, as with all politicians, let's his arrogant gene dictate his policy making and caucus rules, but every so often along comes a bit of a smack down to remind him he's got to use forethought and co-operation to greater degrees if he expects to make any strides in his chosen direction for Canada.
The recent decision regarding title rights and aboriginals must have given him a migraine to remember for life.
Doomed? Hardly think so. Going through a rough patch politically, yes.
Harper is out of step with the majority of people in Canada, absolutely. His myopic vision of believing the tar sands will be our saviour, is not shared by everyone.
The first link you posted is over a year old. The Rob Ford scandals do not represent all of Canada, same with Montreal. I doubt Canada is the only country in which mayors sometimes get in trouble with expenses. It's hardly earth shattering.
Debt, yes it's a problem…it's a problem for other countries as well, but Canada will survive. The lie that the Cons are good fiscal managers is revealing itself to more and more people.
Housing bubble…well I've been reading that for over 15 years, and if there is one and if it's bursts, I don't see that as dooming a country…other countries have survived that as well.
Your second link from last year, first line is telling to me.
"When The Economist declared ten years ago that Canada was “cool”, with its mix of social liberalism and fiscal rectitude, it was a startling idea."
That was pre - Harper and his reform style politics. His lack of environmental foresight , his dismantling of Canadians institutions, his attack on hard data ( long form Census ) his slowing killing the CBC, etc has definitely made an impact and has made Canada uncool. In other words our reputation internationally has been tarnished.
Some things in the second article have passed, such as the situation of religious symbols in Quebec, Marois was soundly defeated. Quebec earned back it's reputation as a tolerant place.
Also this isn't quite correct "Canada also has a cool new trade deal with the European Union" It's not signed yet.
What will be done to fix Canada is what democracies always do when people aren't happy with the current government. We vote them out, wait two years, and start complaining again.
However I do believe, that the Harper years, have been the darkest politically in Canada in my adult life.
I assume then that you didn't experience Pierre Trudeau. If Justin is elected PM, Canada will be in big trouble, especially the Western provinces.
Only a Canadian would randomly call someone out just for being American...
That is true. Any time anyone says something even mildly critical of Canada, they are labeled an American.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
