For all who've had enough......
What on earth do Liberal higher-ups have against Democracy? Whatever it may be it's now a fact that those with the audacity to always accuse the Conservatives having a "Hidden Agenda" (who, unlike the Liberals, have been open and consistent about their policies for years) are the real party who go against the will of the public whenever it clashes with a newly minted Leftist policy.
Take same sex marriage, for example. This idea, rejected by the Liberals just three short years ago, has now become an important enough issue for Martin and Co. to forever render the Canadian Government at the mercy of unelected judges. Or is there anyone else who didn't take a back-flip when P.M. for Tylenol PM promised to revoke the Not-Withstanding Clause in tonight's debate? What was the jolly ol' fellow thinking?
Whatever it was he certainly couldn't be thinking very clearly. Perhaps that's why it's not ordinarily recommended to formulate far reaching policy initiatives in middle of a leaders' debate. Perhaps this is also just one little reason why the Liberals' foremost hero, Pierre Trudeau, sponsor of - among other things that shall remain unmentioned (this is a G-rated posting after all) - the Not-Withstanding Clause, was less than supportive of Martin's first bid for the Liberal leadership and would have been so even if it hadn't been against Trudeau's long time friend, le petit menteur de Shawinagin.
Well, after tonight's debacle all one can ask is this: What was Paul thinking? What has Paul been drinking?
The Not-Withstanding Clause is our only protection in a democratic society against runaway judges. It serves to protect the electorate from judicial rulings that are not supported by the public or which belong in the realm of debated theory but are otherwise too impractical to implement (and are dangerous if implemented). The Not-Withstanding Clause protects the rights of the electorate in that its representatives, not unelected judges or justices who will never face public scrutiny, are given the final say on all legislation.
What, Dear Mr. Martin, will you say when the Supreme Court strikes down laws that are necessary for the public good but which an academic may frown upon? What will you say should they ever make a ruling that is wholly unpopular or impractical? Have judges not been known to do just that? And then there's the larger issue Mr. Martin. What of the "Democratic Deficit" you so correctly, yet so facetiously, ranted about when you first took office?
Why, Mr. Martin, can't you take an example from Mr. Mulroney, your far more worthy predecessor, who you hate - even though he never did anything as brazen as to unilaterally force his social opinions down the throats of the Canadian public and down those of his own ministers. Quite the opposite of you, sir, he had the decency to call for free votes on issues of national confidence. He did not pretend to be the king and social concious of a nation. What do you believe you stand to lose by taking a similar approach? Aren't the tactics you currently employ a bit much for a man who only two short years ago sought to style himself as the long awaited champion of the people who, after 10 years of Croutonic rule, would finally respect the will of the electorate? Indeed, Mr. Martin, you are as shallow as you are hollow.
This emperor is truly without clothes. Let us hope that, come election day, he adorns an equally few number of votes. The consequences of this race have just been raised a notch and the sooner we rid ourselves of this man who has shown himself tonight to be careless, conceited and thoughtless beyond belief, the better off we are as a nation.