Paul Martin's Flip-Flop on the Charter
Paul Martin said that he has felt "for a long time" that the Notwithstanding Clause should be removed from the Charter. That is a lie... I've never used such strong lanugage towards our Prime Minister, but this time, there can be no doubt about it. Courtesy of the CBC...
He made a promise to us to defend the rights of churches with the Notwithstanding clause... now he wants to remove it. So, which is it Mr. Martin? Do you plan on defending the rights of religious people, or do you plan on leaving them defenceless before the courts?
Asked on CBC Radio in December 2003 whether he would use the constitution's Notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules churches must perform gay marriages, he replied: "Oh yes, I would. I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a [religious] right."Read it for yourself HERE.
He made a promise to us to defend the rights of churches with the Notwithstanding clause... now he wants to remove it. So, which is it Mr. Martin? Do you plan on defending the rights of religious people, or do you plan on leaving them defenceless before the courts?
"I believe fundamentally that governments cannot discriminate on a question of rights."Paul Martin said that. On the CBC. I am not making this up.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 3:01 p.m.
5 Comments:
At Thu Jan 12, 04:12:00 p.m. EST,
Shawn Cuthill said…
have you seen the liberal parody ads? You should enter this post in their contest
At Thu Jan 12, 10:19:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
I'm not personally convinced that the Notwithstanding Clause is a good thing in the first place. Something is either Unconstitutional or not I would think, and if it is then I can't see a good reason to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. Can anyone explain why the Notwithstanding Clause should exist at all?
At Thu Jan 12, 10:23:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
And keep in mind that we already have freedom of religion under the Charter.
At Fri Jan 13, 12:28:00 p.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
But the Charter's religious clauses haven't been enough to protect men like Mr. Brock, who refused to print homosexual materials, or the BC Lyons club when they refused to rent out their hall for a lesbian couple.
At Fri Jan 13, 04:03:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
The Freedom of Religion clause doesn't mean that one gets to break other parts of the Charter though. All clauses have to be considered equally.
Post a Comment
<< Home