frequentmouse
2006-01-25 06:41 am UTC (link)

Thank you, for without this wank I would never have read the phrase "Soviet Canuckistan;" I'm pretty sure they won't be using it on As it Happens tonight. There's times it would have been useful in understanding the ravings of right wing BC pols.

Now if someone would just explain to me why people have been going on about the not withstanding clause for weeks now, I would be satisfied.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

wrazn
2006-01-25 07:23 am UTC (link)

Re: the notwithstanding clause (I am not a lawyer)

I think they've been going on and on about it because they don't understand the mechanism of it.

Right wing freakazoids want(ed?) to use the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to revoke the marriage bill C-38. ~~Never mind that it was a charter ruling by the courts that brought about equal rights for gays and lesbians. Use the Charter to kill a Charter ruling!~~

And now that it's a right wing government, they want to re-open the issue of same-sex marriage.

*sigh*

At least that's what I'm picking up from being Down Under rather than at home in Lotusland. Political wank, gotta love it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	notjo 2006-01-25 09:45 am UTC (link)
	If I recall correctly, that's basically how it works - you use the Notwithstanding clause to overthrow any interpretation of the Charter by the Courts. Quebec has used it in regards to language laws. Of course, there are checks and balanaces in the system. It has to be renewed every 5 years. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

tsian
2006-01-26 05:11 pm UTC (link)

Not exactly. The notwithstanding clause can be used to, temporarily (5 years, renewable) uphold a law, notwithstanding its unconstitutionality. However, you can not override just any part of the charter, only section 2, and 7-15. So, while the government can mess with the right to assemble, certain legal and equality rights, it can not, for example, declare itself to be elected indefinitly through use of the clause. They could also not declare that black people could not vote, as this would violate not only section 15 (equality) but also section 3 (democratic rights).

What is interesting is that, if the clause is not used for a long enough period of time, it is possible for it to essentially "fall out" of the constitution. And, generally speaking, on any majorly contentious issue, the government has been less than willing to use it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	mael 2006-01-25 07:12 am UTC (link)
	And that's why I want to move to Sicily. No GW Bush (worst President in my lifetime, and I've been around for 7 so far). Yep, and you get Berlusconi and the mafia! W00t! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	nolifeking 2006-01-25 05:18 pm UTC (link)
	Ha ha ha, that was the most hilarious thing I've seen in a while. How can someone be around for seven presidential periods and still be that clueless about the world around them? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	nebbieq 2006-01-25 05:47 pm UTC (link)
	Hey now, that person could be an enterprising Good Fella. The mafia would be a major plus for them! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladybirdsleeps 2006-01-25 08:32 am UTC (link)
	What's a "Canada"? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	notjo 2006-01-25 09:46 am UTC (link)
	It's sorta like Belgium, but with more hockey. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ecchaniz0r 2006-01-25 01:59 pm UTC (link)
	And lacrosse and beer. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ladystarlight 2006-01-25 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	And funny coloured money. Coins are involved. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	amxjm 2006-01-25 09:41 pm UTC (link)
	And a less profane name. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	gobsmacked 2006-01-25 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	What's a "Canada"? A bit like the United States, only with actual English speakers and better comedians. See under "Canuckistan", aka "Soviet Canuckistan". (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kannaophelia 2006-01-25 09:04 am UTC (link)
	This is why my one passionate political allegiance isn't to a party, but to the system of preferential voting. Of course, our PM still sucks, but that's democracy for you. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	kannaophelia 2006-01-25 09:05 am UTC (link)
	(double post deleted) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vigilanterodent 2006-01-25 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	I would kill to have preferential voting in the U.S. Though on the other hand, our current system allows for the theoritical situation in which nobody gets elected President due to the bizarre workings of the electorial college, which is . . . impressive, I suppose. Not something which speaks well of the Founders' logic skills, but impressive. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	carlanime 2006-01-25 07:41 pm UTC (link)
	::dies of cute:: Over your icon, not your founding fathers, although I'm sure they had their moments. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2006-01-26 03:51 pm UTC (link)
	According to our nickels, Jefferson was pretty hot. And didn't wear shirts. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	carlanime 2006-01-26 05:08 pm UTC (link)
	And didn't wear shirts. That tease. Seriously? You have a shirtless guy on your nickels? All I know about Jefferson was that he was a lover, not a patriot (and possibly "1776" has misled me on this point). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2006-01-26 05:14 pm UTC (link)
	pulls change out of pocket He's on some nickels and quarters. And I'm mistaken -- sometimes he's got a jacket, sometimes not. I'm thinking those are the winter nickels. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	carlanime 2006-01-26 06:28 pm UTC (link)
	Damn it, why does all my pocket-change feature a fully-clothed QEII? Let me rephrase that: why does all my pocket-change feature a fully-clothed QEII instead of a different person, naked? I do not, repeat, not, want money with a shirtless QEII. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2006-01-26 06:30 pm UTC (link)
	Don't worry. I'm sure they'd tart her up a little for the coin. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tiki 2006-01-25 11:39 pm UTC (link)
	Uncut Diamond is either a troll or an idiot who doesn't understand the voting process of his own country. I'm guessing the former, though the latter isn't out of the question. In any case, if he doesn't like seeing NDPers on his friends list talk about the election, maybe he should, like, take them off his friends list? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	carlanime 2006-01-26 03:32 am UTC (link)
	He has the fine "harper sucks" community on his friends list as well, so methinks the complaints are unconvincing. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tekenduis 2006-01-26 12:03 am UTC (link)
	Ah, you can always count on uncut_diamond to bring the wank. No one brings the wank like us newfies, eh b'y? :D (Reply to this)(Thread)

	carlanime 2006-01-26 03:31 am UTC (link)
	::snickers uncontrollably:: G'wan wit' ya, we're not that bad! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pragmatic 2006-01-26 02:29 am UTC (link)
	I hate the whole "you elected Stephen Harper by voting NDP" thing anyway. It's the whole insane "OMG WE MUST VOTE STRATEGICALLY" that causes more problems anyway...like the classic Oshawa example in 2004. I hope one of the things Harper does in his whole "reform" package is a new voting system...FPTP is most-lame. PR and IRV are both way better. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	goldberry 2006-01-26 05:30 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, but let's face it - FPTP benefits Harper, as without it the Conservatives would have significantly fewer seats (as would the Liberals and the Bloc). The best shot we had at introducing PR was during the Liberal minority, but the NDP didn't push it the way they should have. Bitter NDP-er, heavily involved in push for PR (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pragmatic 2006-01-27 01:17 am UTC (link)
	Harper supports scrapping FPTP, just that the Conservative party hasn't "picked a plan yet". Because it's not a huge issue, though the NDP are trying very hard to make it one. He'd probably support some form of MMP. I don't see him going PR-all-the-way anytime soon. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	goldberry 2006-01-27 04:54 pm UTC (link)
	I seriously don't believe that he'd scrap it - it's his only hope of getting a majority government. He's made positive noises, but I'm pretty damn sure that noise is all he'll make. (Reply to this)(Parent)

twocorpses
2006-01-26 07:19 am UTC (link)

I live in a riding where there was no chance in hell of a con victory, so I was able to vote Svend and NDP safely, knowing if he didn't win then Hedy and the Libs would
It's this kind of attitude that really irks me. If people would just vote for the party or the individual that best represents their needs and wants we would have a much more balanced government. Strategic voting never works. In the best case scenario we have the results of this election and in the worst case we get Mike Harris winning in Ontario with 60% of the vote! (That was in 98 or 99)

No one will ever convince me that my vote for NDP has been wasted as long as the NDP are the best representatives of what I need and want in a government.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	wrazn 2006-01-26 09:36 am UTC (link)
	Icon love! Is it gankable? (Ignore the Trudeau in my icon.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	twocorpses 2006-01-26 02:37 pm UTC (link)
	Yes of course! I have no clue who made it - I got it from a friend on my LJ friends list and don't remember if he made it or not. So no need to credit. :D (Reply to this)(Parent)

	goldberry 2006-01-26 05:31 pm UTC (link)
	I cannot ignore the Trudeau in your icon, due to the fact that Trudeau=sex. Nodnods (Reply to this)(Parent)

pragmatic
2006-01-27 01:21 am UTC (link)

When people just stop voting strategically and how they actually feel, the weird results start creeping out...strong Alberta Alliance showing last provincial election here, Bob Rae winning a *majority* government, etc.

Anyway, I believe you should vote for who would best represent you. I'm no right-winger, but the Conservative in my riding was easily the best of the bunch. Likewise, I wouldn't cast my vote for Myron Thompson, Cheryl Gallant or Stockwell Day anytime soon.

Random note - Vancouver Centre was totally the most bizarre riding this last election...Svend vs. Hedy: Deathmatch.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	frequentmouse 2006-01-27 04:16 am UTC (link)
	After listening to Vaughn Palmer on KUOW (Seattle NPR) for a bunch of years, my impression of Vancouver politics is that it's sort of permanently, or at least persistantly, bizarre. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	heddychaa 2006-01-27 07:05 pm UTC (link)
	My dad emailed me after the election to gloat about the Conservative win. I emailed back to gloat about the fact that the man I voted for was a gay NDP. . . and he won in my riding. <3 (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	twocorpses 2006-01-27 07:56 pm UTC (link)
	HA Awesome. I would have done the same had someone done that to me. Well, if the NDP in my riding had won. And was gay. Although I don't know that he wasn't. ROFL (Reply to this)(Parent)

	yubsie 2006-01-26 04:32 pm UTC (link)
	No, you elected Stephen Harper if you voted Conservative. End of story. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	twocorpses 2006-01-27 07:56 pm UTC (link)
	Word! (Reply to this)(Parent)