Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Paul Martin Pledges Judicial Tyranny if Elected

The most frightening thing to come out of Monday’s leadership debate was when Paul Martin pledged to eliminate the notwithstanding clause from Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The notwithstanding clause allows Parliament or the legislature of any province to overturn a Court ruling temporarily. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that the people who have final say on the Charter are the ones elected by Canadians and not the ones appointed by politicians.

In the last few years, Canadians have watched as unelected, unaccountable liberal judges with life tenure have imposed liberalism on our country. It was the Supreme Court that gave us abortion on demand. It was the Court that struck down portions of Canada’s child pornography laws. It was the Court that redefined marriage. It was the Court that declared two-tier health care a Right. And most recently, it was the Court that ruled sex clubs are okay.

A recent article by The National Post gave us a wonderful insight into the mind of Canada’s foremost liberal activist judge. Canada’s Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Beverly McLachlin said, "The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion," while speaking to group of law students at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

What the highest ranking liberal judge in our country essentially told these law students, is that even when the law is clearly written and the Constitution says nothing, she believes in making it up and calling it the rule of law. As Angry in the Great White North tells it, this is the legal principle of, “making it up as we go along”.

When it comes to judicial philosophy, the debate is not between liberal activism (which would see liberal judges strike down any law that restricts a perceived Constitutional right of Canadians to have sex with sheep) and Conservative activism (which would see Conservative judges impose the death penalty for adultery). The debate is between judicial activism (where judges enact or strike down laws based solely on their opinion) and original intent (where judges look at what is written in the law and consider why the drafters wrote that law in the first place).

Take the recent decision of the Supreme Court who ruled that swingers clubs are okay. The Supreme Court overruled two lower court rulings that sex clubs violate the criminal laws against keeping a bawdy house. This ruling means Canadians can have orgies and offer their husbands and wives up to complete strangers for sex in private clubs.

Not surprisingly, it was Canada’s most notorious liberal judge, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who said in her decision, "Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society."

The law does not say that it can hardly be supposed. It is her opinion that it can hardly be supposed. But remember, she is unelected. She is unaccountable. She can never be fired, no matter what rulings she makes. Liberal activist judges can legalize abortion on demand, strike down child porn laws, strike down provisions of the Canada Health Act, rewrite the definition of marriage, and disregard laws that criminalize bawdy houses and there is very little we can do to stop them.

Now Paul Martin wants to take away the only provision that can ever keep these out of control liberal activist judges in check. The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter to prevent exactly what these judges are doing.

Make no mistake, if any Prime Minister, Conservative or otherwise, was to ever use the notwithstanding clause to take away a Right that Canadians truly believe is a Right, that politician would face the wrath of voters in an election. That is democracy. And that is why the final say should always rest with those who are elected and accountable to us, the people. The final say should never rest with nine men and women in black robes who cannot ever be touched by Canadians.

The sponsorship scandal is proof that liberals loathe democracy. The empty promises liberals tell every election to get elected is proof that liberals loathe democracy. The militant opposition that liberals have to an elected senate is proof that liberals loathe democracy. And Paul Martin’s desire to insulate liberal judges from all accountability by eliminating the notwithstanding clause is proof that Paul Martin and his liberal friends absolutely loathe democracy.

On January 23rd we will either vote to preserve our democracy or lose another piece of it.


Post a Comment

<< Home