The Reformer's Firebrand

*-{The New Canadian Colonist's Advocate }-* A commentary of fiery reformist sentiment from the spirit of it's 210 year old Canadian ghost publisher patron. This will be a home to the new wave of anti-partisan advocacy for defeating Canada's second "family compact" and reinstallation of responsible governance in this 21st century new Canadian democratic dominion.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Leader's debate: Martin, Layton, Duceppe commit charter fraud

This is to shed light on the Constitutional lies the 3 left wing leaders told during the debate:

1) The constitution is clear on this the definition of marriage rests solely with the House of Commons.

2) The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule in favor of SSM…it ruled on the federal definition of marriage and who was responsible for changing it. The SCC threw it back to the House where it belonged constitutionally. This was a non-binding opinion.

3) The SCC has NEVER made a ruling confirming the current marriage systems available are discriminatory to Gays. The SCC has also never issued a bench order to parliament to include senual orientation in section 15 of the charter. They offered a non binding order to Alberta to amend its HR act. The SCC has held that by not appealing lower court "reading in" of sexual orientation as a section 15(2) inclusion, the government (not parliament or the people) has demomnstrated agreement….this was an OPINION and not constitutionally nor legally binding in assuming gay rights being legally in the charter. So called "read in" sexual orientation laws are enforced unconventionally by lower court decree outside the constitutional purview of the courts or the governments making such laws.

4) Further the lower courts read into the Charter of Rights and freedoms in Section 15, sexual orientation since it was not enumerated in there. Additionally, the lower courts never defined sexual orientation in their rulings but left it open for further challenges. The charter remains unamended as per legal requirements and as such “sexual orientation” as a protected charter right is legally unenforceable…any laws which do so are in pith and substance unconstitutional.

5) It is clear that Canadians wish to re-visit this issue and allow a free vote in the House. I personally believe that such a contentious social issue which has been so vulgarly politicized and so callously used to subvert the rule of law and the charter requires a nation wide vote at time of election to vote yes or no to changing the traditional definition of marriage.

I was amazed that the so called "undecided" voters on the CBC comment panel, and the so called average Canadian voters giving the questions in the "leader’s debate (more like a job interview with 4 finalist applicants). My amazement was focused at those who think the definition of marriage issue is:

A) a charter issue
B) settled
C) a right

If I were a suspicious person, I'd swear the people who tossed that question out fist in both debates are special interest activists or liberal partisans. I was also quite taken aback at how thoroughly and callously the media and the left wing parties have convoluted and politicized this simple jurisdictional and legal matter. People seemed to have no grasp of the issue save the emotion charged disinformation seed through the media by the liberal spin-doctors.

Harper obviously didn't have time to "educate" the deliberately confused masses so he was quite firm and honest that he would hold the free parliamentary vote on changing the federal marriage act definition of marriage, which we never got. He also reiterated he would not opt out if he lost (actually it's up to the provinces to opt out but we won't get into the correct process when we are dealing with a nation of constitutional toddlers who have no understanding of the workings of their own nation's rule of law). Harper made it clear that the reference on the issue to the SCC was returned to parliament to make a decision....this was parliament's purview but it was NOT a free vote with Dither's whipping cabinet ministers and buying independent votes with patronage and threats....Harper clearly wants a totally free vote on conscience and to reflect the will of the majority who the MPs represent.

The liberals have avoided democracy or the will of the people on this issue because:
A) It is not a "rights" issue
B) The nation is bitterly divided on this issue
C) The provinces know it will open up abuse of the civil law system
D) The solemnization of marriage jurisdiction is the province's right to set suitability for issuance of marriage licenses. Ultimately it is the provinces who will decide this issue of marriage or civil union regardless of the definition the feds concoct.
E) All the law requires of the government to conform with charter section 15 requirements for minority nondiscriminatory laws is that a separate but equal legal remedy be available for minorities which has the end result of approximating the system available for the majority....civil union is a lawful and charter sound remedy...but they will never tell you that because if they keep the public constantly confused as to what the charter actually says then they can “read in” anything they want and change the charter without using the mandated democratic amendment formula contained in it.

Did anyone pick up on Martin's buzz phrase that "we are a nation of minorities"?

This is one of those happy face wrappers over a very ugly face of a hidden agenda. That agenda, of course, is state compartmentalization of its citizenry and it is culturally and nationally divisive. Liberal dystopia revolves around repressing, controlling and robbing the majority under the guise of serving the needs of minorities…it’s all so Machiavellian only the amoral statist left could accept it as civil.
Next post we will examine the lies the Left wing leaders told regarding the constitutional confederation and national unity.


Blogger Shaken said...

I nearly jumped out of my chair when I heard the Dithering Dolt make that statement. My reaction was the same as yours: the readl Hidden Agenda is not so hidden anymore.

My god, is there anyone out there to rescue us from the Gulag along the 49th?

December 17, 2005 at 10:01 AM  
Blogger ABFreedom said...

Excellent Bill... my reaction was similar to shaken ... this is pure bull$hit..

December 18, 2005 at 10:20 AM  
Blogger Justthinkin said...

Superb post Bill...I'll link it up.This needs to get around

December 18, 2005 at 10:49 AM  
Blogger Debris Trail said...

Isn't it ironic, that those who crow loudest about "hidden agendas" are likely the ones most likely hiding their own agenda.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown of this issue Bill. The hack job that the media does this issue is purposeful, so that citizens don't get to know the truth. Thanks for the truth!

December 18, 2005 at 4:36 PM  
Blogger Junker said...

Indeed. A superb and thorough explanation that I have yet to recieve from the media.

Well done.

December 19, 2005 at 10:29 AM  
Blogger ABFreedom said...

Merry Christmas Bill, to you and yours, and have a most excellent New Year!

December 24, 2005 at 8:36 AM  
Blogger DazzlinDino said...

Merry Christmas Mack, from my family to yours. Have a great holiday season.


December 24, 2005 at 8:45 AM  
Blogger Debris Trail said...

Hey William! Have a wonderful Christmas! Hope all goes well and safe, and that you're in fine form come the New Year. There's a battle to be fought, so stand down for a couple of days, then report for duty in full gear.


December 24, 2005 at 8:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home