Angry in the Great White North watches as the same-sex marriage legislation is now being side-tracked, after promises to get the legislation through quickly before the summer break.
He notes that Irwin Cotler doesn’t seem to have the Prime Minister’s ear, or as Angry puts it:
Perhaps Irwin Cotler should spend more time listening to the echoes reverberating from his boss. Clearly Cotler’s opinions are not “resonating”.
Ouch!
Angry in the Great White North reveals how Irwin Cotler promised that he could protect civil servants who were morally opposed to same-sex marriage, and now admits he can’t.
Some have already lost their jobs.
Cotler has promised to protect churches. Yeah, right. Cotler’s word and a loonie will buy you a Coke from the vending machine.
Both Mike at brock on the attack and Steve at Angry in the Great White North consider the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.
A new post at Angry in the Great White North considers what the notion of “property rights” means in Canada, and wonders why we bother prosecuting theft.
As the court ruled, ‘Thou shalt not steal’ has no legal force upon the sovereign body. But that power is jealously guarded.
When you or I take something, we’re freelancing. Stealing is a federal monopoly in this country.
If you want to be a thief, you need to be a member of the federal civil service.
I think we always knew, deep down, that this was true.
On June 3, there was a motion put forward in the House of Commons by Mr. Richard Marceau, Bloc MP for Haute-Saint-Charles:
That the House denounce the recent remarks made by Mr. Justice Michel Robert stating that it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of political opinion when appointing candidates to the federal judiciary and that it call on the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create a special subcommittee with the mandate to examine the process for appointments to the federal judiciary and make recommendations for reform, with the primary goal of eliminating political partisanship from the process, by October 31, 2005.
Mr. Marceau went on to quote the data printed in the Montreal Gazette (and first revealed in this blog over a week earlier) that 60% of Quebec judicial appointments went to key Liberal supporters.
He suggests reducing the number of members of the selection committee appointed by the minister of justice be reduced from three out of the seven members, and that the ability of the minister to select an appointee who is not on the “highly recommended” list be constrained. But that’s just his recommendation — the motion calls for a subcommittee to study the problem.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler then delivered a speech defending the current process, and I urge you to go and read it. It’s a good speech, but I think there is a blind spot here, in which the government refuses to acknowledge that the process has resulted in politicized appointments, something that Justice Michel Robert thinks is just fine. Mr. Cotler will not be voting in support of the motion:
Accordingly, because of this I will be voting against this motion, which I regard, taken as a whole, as being inappropriate, uninformed, unconstitutional and prejudicial to the independence of the judiciary and the responsibility of Parliament. Indeed, I am very concerned about the trafficking in innuendo in relation to the judiciary over the past few months.
The vote happened yesterday, and true to form, the Liberals voted against it, and the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives vote for it, for a final vote of 157 to 124 in favour of the motion.
Of course, the motion is not binding, but as the fellow who first discovered the disturbing trend in judicial appointments, it’s nice to know that I’ve made some sort of impact. Now if we could actually make the government responsive to the wishes of the elected representatives, then the impact would actually matter.
[Cross posted to Angry in the Great White North]
Canada is on the hunt for name-callers:
Two thousand leaflets attacking gays and lesbians have put a Christian activist in western Canada under investigation by Edmonton police for hate crimes.
“Attacking”? Like with a stick?
The flyers by Bill Whatcott of Regina refer to gay marriage as “sodomite marriage” and use graphic language to describe the alleged sex practices of homosexuals.
The handouts also used derogatory terms to describe federal Defence Minister Bill Graham.
Oh, that sort of attacking. Like what children do. Calling people names. Being rude.
Children get their feelings hurt, and run to their parents. Adults are tougher than that, and ignore the offensive person, or dish it back out. They don’t run to their…
No wait — this is Canada. We do run to mommy government:
“The material is offensive and it’s an affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co-existence,” Const. Steve Camp, of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit, said.
Last month, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal fined [Bill Whatcott of Regina] $17,500 for handing out similar material.
They were “offensive” and “an affront”. Time to get the cops involved. Because an affront, which means “to insult intentionally, especially openly” must be pursued with the vigour and power of the state. It’s indicative of a bad thought that must be expunged for the good of all.
I better stop before someone comes after me for my doubleplusungood thoughts.
[Guest blogging for Kate: a slightly longer post is at Angry in the Great White North]