Canada Election 2021

[Grey Fox]

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

Yes, that's fair. The modern BQ narrative is to paint Canada has anti-Quebec and for some reason last Thursday Kurl & Paul decided to help Blanchet paint it.

[crazy canuck]

That Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.

And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

[Grey Fox]

Yes. Our plans for independence have failed...twice.

[crazy canuck]

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

Yes, that's fair. The modern BQ narrative is to paint Canada has anti-Quebec and for some reason last Thursday Kurl & Paul decided to help Blanchet paint it.

I agree.  Kurl created a platform, I think unwittingly.  There is a lot I did not like about how she moderated the debate, and that tops the list.

[Sheilbh]

And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

I don't think that follows. Surely you can dispute the court's ruling and say they got it wrong and still reject that it's discriminatory, but acknowledge they're the court so you have to invoke the appropriate constitutional mechanism?

[Oexmelin]

Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?". 

[Barrister]

The Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.

The Charter was never Quebec's point of opposition - at least as long as it included the Notwithstanding clause.

On the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords (which Quebec did sign, although they were not implemented) would not have amended the Charter.

[crazy canuck]

Yes. Our plans for independence have failed...twice.

It is worth noting that Quebec was able to do as it wished by implementing the Notwithstanding clause.  That was its purpose.

[crazy canuck]

Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?".

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

[crazy canuck]

And the Quebec government invoked the Notwithstanding clause.  They did not engage in the fantasy that the law is not discriminatory. They fully realized it was and so put in the Constitutional mechanism to protect it from being overturned.

I don't think that follows. Surely you can dispute the court's ruling and say they got it wrong and still reject that it's discriminatory, but acknowledge they're the court so you have to invoke the appropriate constitutional mechanism?

The Notwithstanding clause was not invoked after the court decision - it was drafted into the legislation.  A clear recognition that law required that protection.

Further, it would be very hard to argue that the law has no discriminatory effect and I don't think that argument was made.  The legal argument of those who support it is not to deny the discriminatory effect but to argue that it is justified under our constitution.  To get further into the weeds, we have a saving provision that a law which breaches a Charter right can still stand if it can be justified - something called the Oakes Test.  But they did not have to press that argument very hard because, as noted, they could rely on the Notwithstanding clause.

[Oexmelin]

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

[Barrister]

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

This is the second time you've raised a hypothetical about Erin O'Toole having to defend something happening in Alberta.

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

[Barrister]

Question for the Quebecers: is Francois Legault's effective endorsement of the Conservatives something that is likely to move the needle?

It's certainly different than here in Alberta where Jason Kenney has gone into witness protection for the duration of the campaign.

[Grey Fox]

I am distraught to have to agree that YFBlanchet is a political leader

Dude is a power standing agent hack.

[Grey Fox]

Question for the Quebecers: is Francois Legault's effective endorsement of the Conservatives something that is likely to move the needle?

It's certainly different than here in Alberta where Jason Kenney has gone into witness protection for the duration of the campaign.

Yes, against the CAQ next election. It was a very dumb move for him. Will probably help the PPC outside of Beauce.