Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Election? I don't care about no election, let's give this wolf a lethal injection
NOTE: This post should have gone up yesterday, but I was experiencing a multitude of technical difficulties.
Some catching up. . .
Gonzo journalism
Well, I voted today, and it wasn't for the Conservative candidate, but I still feel a little righteous indignation on the party's behalf after reading today's Journal cover story. Entitled "Tory Platform a Legal Minefield", it claims that the Conservative platform "contains at least 12 items that either violate the Charter of Rights, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution". The items mentioned in the story are:
1. Eliminating federal prisoners' voting rights
2. Banning gay marriage
3. Eliminating artistic merit as a defence for owning child pornography
4. Repealing the "faint hope" clause
5. Imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, life sentences for criminals convicted of multiple offenses;
6. Eliminating parole for criminals convicted of life sentences
7. Declaring criminals convicted of three violent or sexual crimes dangerous offenders and jailing them indefinitely
8. Requiring violent or serious repeat offenders who are 14 or older to be tried in adult court
9. Banning partisan advertising from government departments
10. Eliminating political party contributions from corporations and unions
11. Implementing an elected senate
12. Allowing a committee of MPs to ratify appointments to the Supreme Court
Now, all of these except 9 an 10 are bad ideas. But is this truly a "legal minefield"? Let's look at them one by one:
1. On this one, the article appears to have a point. The Supreme Court ruling that gave prisoners federal voting rights was based on a section of the Charter that is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause (which applies only to Section 2 and Sections 7 through 15). Short of amending the Constitution - which currenct Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews suggested was a possibility - there's not much that could be done to implement this promise.
2. First of all, nowhere does the Conservative Party promise to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The only thing the Conservatives have committed to doing if they form a government is withdrawing the reference to the Supreme Court on the question, and then having parliament vote on it. If Parliament so chose, it would be free to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to shield the law from a Charter Challenge. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in the Conservative platform about gay marriage that would seem to constitute a "legal mine".
3. This issue is fairly clear cut, the Supreme Court having already ruled on it. However, Stephen Harper said during the leaders debate that he would support invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to accomplish this. There is nothing suddenly newsworthy about this issue that should be appearing on the front page of the Journal at this point.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The article itself essentially admits that there is no particule reason to believe that these would raise the Charter's ire. While they *could* be challenged under the Charter's cruel and unusual punishment section, the same is true of any criminal sanction. Effectively, the logic at play here is that any party that proposes stiffening criminal penalties is guilty of erecting a legal minefield.
9, 10. Again, while these measures *could* be challenged under the Charter's freedom of expression sections, the Supreme Court just upheld the much more restrictive third party gag law. If we're going to accuse the Conservatives of having a platform that's a legal minefield, shouldn't we have accused the Chrétien Liberals of the same?
11. Stephen Harper has been very forthright on exactly what this Senate would look like: it would consist of Senators appointed in the usual manner (by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister), after they had won the sort of sham provincial Senate elections that Brown and Morton have won in Alberta. There could not possibly be any legal issues at play here - once again, no minefield.
12. Once again, there is nothing at all to stop the Prime Minister from forwarding his nominees for positions on the Supreme Court to a panel of MPs, and then withdrawing them if they don't meet with the panel's approval. Once again, there is no legal mine. Once again, this is an example of partisan journalism of the worst kind.
The strategy of my enemy is my friend
So there I am out in Kananaskis, when an acquaintance of mine, knowing that I practise the art of punditry as an amateur, asks me to explain something to him.
"So the Conservatives are doing much better than expected this election, right?" he asks. I murmer my agreement.
"And the Liberals are trying to counter this surge by launching a lot of attacks against the Conservatives and Stephen Harper in particular, to make them look like maniacs, right?" Again, he's got it right.
"And this strategy isn't working, because the public doesn't view the Liberal allegations as believable, right?" Three for three, oh anonymous and possibly fictitious acquaintance o' mine.
"So how come the Conservatives, on this child porn thing, decided to make a series of far *less* believable allegations against Paul Martin and Jack Layton? Especially when they don't seem to be in the position of desparation normally associated with such attacks?"
Ah, well, maybe he'll understand when he's older. Maybe I'll understand when I'm older. Maybe, if we're all very good, politics will one day make some sense. Until then, I change the subject to the Eskimos' quarterback situation.
I got me the Western Alienation Blues (WAB)
Paul Martin has done the near impossible: he has made me, a left-leaning University educated suburbanite, feel Western alienation. The culprit? His profoundly silly comments on Ralph Klein and health reform.
Now, as regular readers of this space are no doubt aware, I am a raving socialist. I do not care for Ralph Klein, and probably won't care for his health plan either, once it's unveiled on the thirtieth. But it seems to me that if Albertans want to move to a system of health delivery/payment (matters, it's worth noting, of purely provincial jurisdiction) that is appreciably different from traditional Canadian Medicare (and it's my belief that most Albertans don't), it's none of the business of the following people/groups:
1. Paul Martin
2. Ontario voters
As an Albertan and as a member of Alberta's electorate, I object to the suggestion that I am not competent to make decisions on my own province on matters of provincial responsibility. Butt out, Paul.
|
NOTE: This post should have gone up yesterday, but I was experiencing a multitude of technical difficulties.
Some catching up. . .
Gonzo journalism
Well, I voted today, and it wasn't for the Conservative candidate, but I still feel a little righteous indignation on the party's behalf after reading today's Journal cover story. Entitled "Tory Platform a Legal Minefield", it claims that the Conservative platform "contains at least 12 items that either violate the Charter of Rights, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution". The items mentioned in the story are:
1. Eliminating federal prisoners' voting rights
2. Banning gay marriage
3. Eliminating artistic merit as a defence for owning child pornography
4. Repealing the "faint hope" clause
5. Imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, life sentences for criminals convicted of multiple offenses;
6. Eliminating parole for criminals convicted of life sentences
7. Declaring criminals convicted of three violent or sexual crimes dangerous offenders and jailing them indefinitely
8. Requiring violent or serious repeat offenders who are 14 or older to be tried in adult court
9. Banning partisan advertising from government departments
10. Eliminating political party contributions from corporations and unions
11. Implementing an elected senate
12. Allowing a committee of MPs to ratify appointments to the Supreme Court
Now, all of these except 9 an 10 are bad ideas. But is this truly a "legal minefield"? Let's look at them one by one:
1. On this one, the article appears to have a point. The Supreme Court ruling that gave prisoners federal voting rights was based on a section of the Charter that is not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause (which applies only to Section 2 and Sections 7 through 15). Short of amending the Constitution - which currenct Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews suggested was a possibility - there's not much that could be done to implement this promise.
2. First of all, nowhere does the Conservative Party promise to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The only thing the Conservatives have committed to doing if they form a government is withdrawing the reference to the Supreme Court on the question, and then having parliament vote on it. If Parliament so chose, it would be free to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to shield the law from a Charter Challenge. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing in the Conservative platform about gay marriage that would seem to constitute a "legal mine".
3. This issue is fairly clear cut, the Supreme Court having already ruled on it. However, Stephen Harper said during the leaders debate that he would support invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to accomplish this. There is nothing suddenly newsworthy about this issue that should be appearing on the front page of the Journal at this point.
4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The article itself essentially admits that there is no particule reason to believe that these would raise the Charter's ire. While they *could* be challenged under the Charter's cruel and unusual punishment section, the same is true of any criminal sanction. Effectively, the logic at play here is that any party that proposes stiffening criminal penalties is guilty of erecting a legal minefield.
9, 10. Again, while these measures *could* be challenged under the Charter's freedom of expression sections, the Supreme Court just upheld the much more restrictive third party gag law. If we're going to accuse the Conservatives of having a platform that's a legal minefield, shouldn't we have accused the Chrétien Liberals of the same?
11. Stephen Harper has been very forthright on exactly what this Senate would look like: it would consist of Senators appointed in the usual manner (by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister), after they had won the sort of sham provincial Senate elections that Brown and Morton have won in Alberta. There could not possibly be any legal issues at play here - once again, no minefield.
12. Once again, there is nothing at all to stop the Prime Minister from forwarding his nominees for positions on the Supreme Court to a panel of MPs, and then withdrawing them if they don't meet with the panel's approval. Once again, there is no legal mine. Once again, this is an example of partisan journalism of the worst kind.
The strategy of my enemy is my friend
So there I am out in Kananaskis, when an acquaintance of mine, knowing that I practise the art of punditry as an amateur, asks me to explain something to him.
"So the Conservatives are doing much better than expected this election, right?" he asks. I murmer my agreement.
"And the Liberals are trying to counter this surge by launching a lot of attacks against the Conservatives and Stephen Harper in particular, to make them look like maniacs, right?" Again, he's got it right.
"And this strategy isn't working, because the public doesn't view the Liberal allegations as believable, right?" Three for three, oh anonymous and possibly fictitious acquaintance o' mine.
"So how come the Conservatives, on this child porn thing, decided to make a series of far *less* believable allegations against Paul Martin and Jack Layton? Especially when they don't seem to be in the position of desparation normally associated with such attacks?"
Ah, well, maybe he'll understand when he's older. Maybe I'll understand when I'm older. Maybe, if we're all very good, politics will one day make some sense. Until then, I change the subject to the Eskimos' quarterback situation.
I got me the Western Alienation Blues (WAB)
Paul Martin has done the near impossible: he has made me, a left-leaning University educated suburbanite, feel Western alienation. The culprit? His profoundly silly comments on Ralph Klein and health reform.
Now, as regular readers of this space are no doubt aware, I am a raving socialist. I do not care for Ralph Klein, and probably won't care for his health plan either, once it's unveiled on the thirtieth. But it seems to me that if Albertans want to move to a system of health delivery/payment (matters, it's worth noting, of purely provincial jurisdiction) that is appreciably different from traditional Canadian Medicare (and it's my belief that most Albertans don't), it's none of the business of the following people/groups:
1. Paul Martin
2. Ontario voters
As an Albertan and as a member of Alberta's electorate, I object to the suggestion that I am not competent to make decisions on my own province on matters of provincial responsibility. Butt out, Paul.
