I realise that gun control is about stopping domestic, not criminal, violence. Nevertheless, it does have the effect of levelling the playing field somewhat. If the rapist is armed, and I’m a tender young thing, all else considered, I think I’d like to be armed too. (but even just the possibility that I could be is something of a deterrent.)

As to the non-partisan judicial system… I don’t think it being non-patisan now is any kind of long-term guarantee. The fact that they *can* interpret the Charter however they like, and overturn laws on the grounds that they violate the Charter, is enough.

Whether or not the government has ever used the Notwithstanding Clause, it needs to be there… again, as a deterrent. The fact that the house CAN pull rank on the court encourages the court to NOT overturn laws just because they have an agenda towards a particular social perspective.

Also I get to see LotR musical too! The parents got tickets for myself and Chris as a Christmas gift.

Mike, to me, the Canadian judicial system is non-partisan. There is a reason that despite all the other Conservative and Liberal governments, and ALL of the previous appointed judges, regardless of who appointed them, that we have not used the Notwithstanding clause. We don’t have the US judicial system, which is blatantly partisan. I accept every Supreme court decision, as I have faith in any federally appointed Supreme Court Judge that they will interpret law in the spirit of the Charter. They don’t interpret decisions in the spirit of the Notwithstanding clause.

The majority of Parliamentarians are not qualified to interpret law. An analogous situation is would you want a History major marking your ODEs exam? They may be able to be given guidelines to mark it, but they don’t understand the underlying process and won’t be able to properly mark it for all situations. A supreme court appointment is not taken lightly, and if you care to research the history of the court make-up, you will see that the last two Chief Justices were apointed by the PCs, and the make-up of the court was primarily PC until this decade.

I have faith in our judicial system to be non-partisan, respect the charter, and support inalienable rights. Our Supreme Court has done so, and will continue to, despite the make-up of the government. The Notwithstanding (in opposition to your statement) is NOT a key part of Canadian democracy. There is a reason the Federal government has never used it. It would strengthen our charter is it was barred.

Sure, right now the supreme court is dominated by liberal-appointed judges, so it would make sense for the Liberals to hand them more power. But what about down the road, after a few Conservative governments, when there’s more right-wing representation? Would you really want the courts overturning every house decision in that kind of situation?

The Charter exists only as it is interpreted by the judges. The entire point of the notwithstanding clause is that the elected officials (the house) have final say. It’s a key part of Canadian democracy, and I’m shocked that Martin would propose a removal of it.