News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

the right wing always advocates for referenda on controversial social issues..

how about we have a referendum committing the government to end poverty, to ending the underfunding of education?

one issue referenda are not neccessarily "democratic".

There are reasons we have a representative democracy.
 
Members of parliament are democratically elected to represent their constituents

If the same could be said of our Supreme Court justices. The supreme court can overrule the votes of your elected representatives whenever they feel the Charter is in question.

For the record, I am hardly far right minded as suggested above. If you think that, what do you call Albertans? Fascists?
 
If the same could be said of our Supreme Court justices. The supreme court can overrule the votes of your elected representatives whenever they feel the Charter is in question.

That's why we have the Charter in the first place - in order to prevent right and freedoms of all Canadians, particularly those of minorities, to be oppressed by the majority, i.e. the elected representatives. The fact that they aren't elected provide justices a certain amount of freedom to undertake legally sound but politically unfavorable decisions.

GB
 
...and who do you think appoints the Supreme Court justices? Who wrote the Charter?

Moreover, the notwithstanding clause allows elected officials to override Supreme Court decisions as long as they can muster sufficient popular support.
 
Well, now it's legal in Spain as well, from Yahoo News:

Spain OKs Gay Marriage, Defying Opponents
By MAR ROMAN, Associated Press Writer

MADRID, Spain - Parliament legalized gay marriage Thursday, defying conservatives and clergy who opposed making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third country to allow same-sex unions nationwide. Jubilant gay activists blew kisses to lawmakers after the vote.


The measure passed the 350-seat Congress of Deputies by a vote of 187 to 147. The bill, part of the ruling Socialists' aggressive agenda for social reform, also lets gay couples adopt children and inherit each others' property.

The bill is now law. The Senate, where conservatives hold the largest number of seats, rejected the bill last week. But it is an advisory body and final say on legislation rests with the Congress of Deputies.

After the final tally was announced, gay and lesbian activists watching from the spectator section of the ornate chamber cried, cheered, hugged, waved to lawmakers and blew them kisses.

Several members of the conservative opposition Popular Party, which was vehemently opposed to the bill, shouted: "This is a disgrace." Those in favor stood and clapped.

The Netherlands and Belgium are the only other two countries that allow gay marriage nationwide. Canada's House of Commons passed legislation Tuesday that would legalize gay marriage; its Senate is expected to pass the bill into law by the end of July.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero noted this in debate before the vote.

"We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality," he told the chamber.

Zapatero said the reform of Spanish legal code simply adds one dry paragraph of legalese but means much more.

He called it "a small change in wording that means an immense change in the lives of thousands of citizens. We are not legislating, ladies and gentlemen, for remote unknown people. We are expanding opportunities for the happiness of our neighbors, our work colleagues, our friends, our relatives."

Zapatero lacks a majority in the chamber but got help from small regional-based parties that tend to be his allies.

Spanish gay couples can get married as soon as the law is published in the official government registry. This could come as early as Friday, or within two weeks at the latest, parliament's press office said.

Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy said after the vote that Zapatero has deeply divided Spain and should have sought a consensus in parliament that recognized same-sex unions but didn't call them marriage. Rajor said that if the vast majority of countries in the world don't accept gay marriage, including some run by Socialists, there must be a reason.

"I think the prime minister has committed a grave act of irresponsibility," Rajor told reporters.

Beatriz Gimeno, a longtime leader of the gay rights movement in Spain, held back tears as she hugged her partner Boti after the vote.

"It is a historic day for the world's homosexuals. We have been fighting for many years," Gimeno said. "Now comes the hardest part, which is changing society's mentality."

The gay marriage bill was the boldest and most divisive initiative of the liberal social agenda Zapatero has embarked on since taking office in April 2004. Parliament overhauled Spain's 25-year-old divorce law on Wednesday, also irking the church, by letting couples end their marriage without a mandatory separation or having to state a reason for the split-up, as required under the old law.

He has also pushed through legislation allowing stem-cell research and wants to loosen Spain's restrictive abortion law.

The Roman Catholic Church, which held much sway over the government just a generation ago when Gen. Francisco Franco was in power, had adamantly opposed gay marriage. In its first display of anti-government activism in 20 years, it endorsed a June 18 rally in which hundreds of thousands marched through Madrid in opposition to the bill. Some 20 bishops took part in the June 18 rally.

On Wednesday, a Catholic lay group called the Spanish Family Forum presented lawmakers with a petition bearing 600,000 signatures as a last-minute protest.

Late last year, the spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, Antonio Martinez Camino said that allowing gay marriage was like "imposing a virus on society — something false that will have negative consequences for social life."

Despite the street protests in Madrid and elsewhere and the petition drive, polls suggest Spaniards supported gay marriage.

A survey released in May by pollster Instituto Opina said 62 percent of Spaniards support the government's action on this issue, and 30 percent oppose it. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. But surveys show Spaniards about evenly split over whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

GB
 
Fighting Madd, I'd like you to respond to my earlier post, in response to your assertion that this is a "contentious" issue. Please provide specific, concrete examples of the material impact of SSM on the lives of heterosexual couples, whether they are raising a family or childless.
 
"contentious" issue. Please provide specific, concrete examples of the material impact of SSM on the lives of heterosexual couples,

You're confusing "contentious" with "impact". It was contentious, IMO because we had opposition and governing politicians threatening to break up the government over the issue, we had non-stop media coverage of the national debate over the issue and we had religious and conservative groups calling foul. None of these complainers could realistically claim to have been impacted directly by the SSM issue. That doesn't make it less contentious though.
 
Elected judges does not improve accountability. Judges should not need to play politics, they should be interpreting the law as it sits on paper. Politicians make changes to laws, judges only interpret them.
 
That freedominion site is something else. Lot's of creative immaturity, hatred, ignorance. Makes you wonder why the conservatives are labelled as a bunch of backwood redneck hicks. Harper, if those are the types voting for you, you can have them. They have no place in my world.
 
That's why we have the Charter in the first place - in order to prevent right and freedoms of all Canadians, particularly those of minorities, to be oppressed by the majority, i.e. the elected representatives.
Easily said if the courts are voting in favour of your position. Do you hold the same value in the courts power over the elected reps in the case of the courts recent Charter ruling allowing private health care?
 
Ah, I knew it will come to this question.

To me, the issue of access to health care is rather different creature entirely, since it entailed a distributive/redistributive function of the government, and not just a right by itself, as same-sex marriage is to the equality provisions of the Charter. Besides, what about the right of all citizens to access the same level of care? Doesn't two-tier health care result in a differential in access? What about the rights of those who can't afford it in that case?

So no, I don't hold the position of the SCOC in this case, and with damn good reasons.

GB
 
But this is what concerns me, that regardless of what our elected representatives decide (in this case, that private health care is not allowed), a higher, unelected power can essentially veto in the name of the charter. Sure, we have the nothwithstanding clause, but to get that through at the federal level today would be a near impossibility.

In believe that PET's experiment of giving the SCOC executive control over public policy is damaging democracy in Canada. Forget about SSM, that's nothing but an issue, albeit recently contentious of bureaucratic definitions; it's the usurping of the elected parliament's decisions that worries me.
 
Actually no, I don't think involking the nothwithstanding clause would be that shocking in this particular case - in fact, I would argue it would be one example where it can be used with far less public outcry, given the general stance of Canadians across the board towards the medicare system.

To be frank, it isn't the SCOC that one needs to worry about - but the inability of politicans to take stance on controversial issues that does.

GB
 
The need for private healthcare is not being mandated by the Supreme Court's decision... it is being mandated by the fact that elected officials are dilly-dallying in solving access to care issues such as long wait times to the point that private care must be allowed to exist because a reasonable public alternative does not. Who in their right mind would pay for what one could get for free in the same amount of time? The issue is that if we or our elected officials are unwilling to pay the price of ensuring a good public health system, then people have a right to a private system. In their ruling it was the "lack of timely delivery" of medical care which made banning private care unconstitutional.

I would have to agree with that decision because waiting months for surgery is a violation of my rights when I could be living a normal productive and quality life given the ability to pay for medical care. People do have a right to not be sick or suffering when a solution exists that can end the sickness and suffering. That is the arguement. Quebec can easily continue a ban on private healthcare IF they provide funding to ensure timely delivery of healthcare.
 
Besides, what about the right of all citizens to access the same level of care? Doesn't two-tier health care result in a differential in access? What about the rights of those who can't afford it in that case?

I don't recall seeing the right to universal health care in the Charter.

Kevin
 

Back
Top