Monday, December 19, 2005
News Flash: Paul Martin Says Something Logically Incoherent Regarding Gay Marriage!
I have to hand it to Paul Martin. I really do. He's the Prime Minister of a government that introduced legislation expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Stephen Harper is the leader of a caucus that voted overwhelmingly against this legislation. I'm a secular humanist who's all about same-sex marriage. And yet, when Martin and Harper square off on the issue, I still find myself more on Harper's side than on Martin's. To lose my support under those conditions takes the kind of talent that only Paul Martin has.
For the latest jaw-droppingly dishonest portrait of the issue from our Prime Minister, check this out. Paul Martin has managed to take an uncertain situation and, in a few short sound bytes, come up with a wide enough variety of statements to ensure that he has a flagrant lie for any eventuality.
Let's examine the uncertainty surrounding the gay marriage issue, and see how spectacularly Martin has managed to misrepresent fact.
Uncertainty #1 Is same-sex marriage a right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
See, we still don't have a definite answer on that, in the form of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question. We have a whole pile of provincial court rulings - meaning that, absent a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, prohibiting same-sex marriages is illegal in all provinces except Alberta and Prince Edward Island, where the courts haven't yet spoken. But before you can claim definitely, as Paul Martin keeps doing, that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Charter, you need rulings in all jurisdictions, or (with apologies to Tolkien) one ruling to rule them all. So when Paul Martin asserts (without acknowledging that he's engaging in legal speculation, rather than stating a fact) that gay marriage is a Charter right, he's lying.
(Incidentally, one reason that we don't have a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question is that the Liberal government declined to appeal the ruling that its laws were unconstitutional. Which is fine, and I applauded it for it at the time, but it's a little disingenuous to pass up the opportunity for certainty when you were in a unique position to deliver it, and then proceed to claim that you have it anyway. This is what Paul Martin is doing.)
Uncertainty #2 Would a Conservative-dominated House of Commons invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to "protect" traditional marriage?
Harper says no and, to the extent that he would be in the position to prevent it from happening, I believe him. But we'll treat this as uncertain anyway, for illustrative purposes.
So let's first assume that Harper's telling the truth, and that there would be no invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. In that event, the question would almost certainly wind up in the Supreme Court, whereupon we'd get Uncertainty #1 resolved. If Uncertainty #1 was resolved the way I'd anticipate it being resolved - with a ruling that the right to marry somebody of either sex is a Charter right - then same-sex marriage would remain legal, and Stephen Harper would have done nothing to undermine the Charter. On the other hand, if Uncertainty #2 was resolved through a Supreme Court ruling declaring that gay marriage is not protected by the Charter, then the Conservatives would actually have accomplished something. Again, though, the Charter wouldn't have been undermined, since all the government would be doing is making legislation that complies utterly with the Charter. Clearly, in this eventuality, Paul Martin's assertion that Stephen Harper would be undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is nonsensical, by which I mean "a lie".
But let's pretend that it's Stephen Harper who's lying and that, when the dust settled and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, the Conservatives *do* invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. In that eventuality, Paul Martin's still lying. How so? Well, the Notwithstanding Clause is also known as Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, legislation that declared gay marriage illegal would *still* be completely in accordance with the Charter.
Now, Paul Martin is welcome to argue, as I would, that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is, absent a totally batshit crazy ruling from the Supreme Court (and I set the threshold for that very high, such that no existing SCC rulings would come close to meeting it), never a good thing. But it's rather a stretch to go from that to saying that because Stephen Harper is probably lying when he says that he wouldn't invoke a specific portion of the Charter, he has no respect for the laws of the country and is unfit for office. In fact, it's downright offensive, among other reasons because it implies that adherence to laws on the part of a Prime Minister is voluntary.
It gets worse. Apparently, even though it's a Prime Minister's responsibility to voluntarily adhere to the highest laws in the land, MPs are not subject to the same burden of stringent voluntary compliance to the Constitution that the Prime Minister is. As such, it's perfectly okay for a quarter to his own caucus to oppose granting what are, according to him, rights that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And just to make things even sillier, he's essentially telling the voters in (to take but one example) Scarborough-Southwest that they need to vote for Tom Wappel, who has as anti-gay-rights a voting record as any MP in the House, because otherwise Stephen Harper will take away the right to gay marriage.
So, yes. On balance, I'm on Stephen Harper's side. Politics do indeed make for strange bedfellows.
Tee hee.
|
I have to hand it to Paul Martin. I really do. He's the Prime Minister of a government that introduced legislation expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Stephen Harper is the leader of a caucus that voted overwhelmingly against this legislation. I'm a secular humanist who's all about same-sex marriage. And yet, when Martin and Harper square off on the issue, I still find myself more on Harper's side than on Martin's. To lose my support under those conditions takes the kind of talent that only Paul Martin has.
For the latest jaw-droppingly dishonest portrait of the issue from our Prime Minister, check this out. Paul Martin has managed to take an uncertain situation and, in a few short sound bytes, come up with a wide enough variety of statements to ensure that he has a flagrant lie for any eventuality.
Let's examine the uncertainty surrounding the gay marriage issue, and see how spectacularly Martin has managed to misrepresent fact.
Uncertainty #1 Is same-sex marriage a right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
See, we still don't have a definite answer on that, in the form of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question. We have a whole pile of provincial court rulings - meaning that, absent a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, prohibiting same-sex marriages is illegal in all provinces except Alberta and Prince Edward Island, where the courts haven't yet spoken. But before you can claim definitely, as Paul Martin keeps doing, that same-sex marriage is a protected right under the Charter, you need rulings in all jurisdictions, or (with apologies to Tolkien) one ruling to rule them all. So when Paul Martin asserts (without acknowledging that he's engaging in legal speculation, rather than stating a fact) that gay marriage is a Charter right, he's lying.
(Incidentally, one reason that we don't have a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on the question is that the Liberal government declined to appeal the ruling that its laws were unconstitutional. Which is fine, and I applauded it for it at the time, but it's a little disingenuous to pass up the opportunity for certainty when you were in a unique position to deliver it, and then proceed to claim that you have it anyway. This is what Paul Martin is doing.)
Uncertainty #2 Would a Conservative-dominated House of Commons invoke the Notwithstanding Clause to "protect" traditional marriage?
Harper says no and, to the extent that he would be in the position to prevent it from happening, I believe him. But we'll treat this as uncertain anyway, for illustrative purposes.
So let's first assume that Harper's telling the truth, and that there would be no invocation of the Notwithstanding Clause. In that event, the question would almost certainly wind up in the Supreme Court, whereupon we'd get Uncertainty #1 resolved. If Uncertainty #1 was resolved the way I'd anticipate it being resolved - with a ruling that the right to marry somebody of either sex is a Charter right - then same-sex marriage would remain legal, and Stephen Harper would have done nothing to undermine the Charter. On the other hand, if Uncertainty #2 was resolved through a Supreme Court ruling declaring that gay marriage is not protected by the Charter, then the Conservatives would actually have accomplished something. Again, though, the Charter wouldn't have been undermined, since all the government would be doing is making legislation that complies utterly with the Charter. Clearly, in this eventuality, Paul Martin's assertion that Stephen Harper would be undermining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is nonsensical, by which I mean "a lie".
But let's pretend that it's Stephen Harper who's lying and that, when the dust settled and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, the Conservatives *do* invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. In that eventuality, Paul Martin's still lying. How so? Well, the Notwithstanding Clause is also known as Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, legislation that declared gay marriage illegal would *still* be completely in accordance with the Charter.
Now, Paul Martin is welcome to argue, as I would, that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is, absent a totally batshit crazy ruling from the Supreme Court (and I set the threshold for that very high, such that no existing SCC rulings would come close to meeting it), never a good thing. But it's rather a stretch to go from that to saying that because Stephen Harper is probably lying when he says that he wouldn't invoke a specific portion of the Charter, he has no respect for the laws of the country and is unfit for office. In fact, it's downright offensive, among other reasons because it implies that adherence to laws on the part of a Prime Minister is voluntary.
It gets worse. Apparently, even though it's a Prime Minister's responsibility to voluntarily adhere to the highest laws in the land, MPs are not subject to the same burden of stringent voluntary compliance to the Constitution that the Prime Minister is. As such, it's perfectly okay for a quarter to his own caucus to oppose granting what are, according to him, rights that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And just to make things even sillier, he's essentially telling the voters in (to take but one example) Scarborough-Southwest that they need to vote for Tom Wappel, who has as anti-gay-rights a voting record as any MP in the House, because otherwise Stephen Harper will take away the right to gay marriage.
So, yes. On balance, I'm on Stephen Harper's side. Politics do indeed make for strange bedfellows.
Tee hee.
