Personally, I'm quite happy with the structure of the court system. As long as the judges doe their jobs properly and stand in the way of those who would oppress others I'll defend it to the death. Every country needs a court like this that's not afraid to tell the Harpers of the world to fsck off!

So "progressives" have nothing to fear from Harper appointed judges, because the concept of judicial activism is really just an invented "boogyperson" so little right wing chilren will eat their peas at supper?

<blockquote class="smalltext"><small><small>The Conversion of Stephen Harper:

To change from voting Liberal to voting Conservative on Monday would mean accepting that Stephen Harper had undergone a conversion from the rightwing Saul of Canadian politics, to the middle-of-the-road Paul. Voters asked to believe this conversion need to satisfy themselves that the Harper who stood in front of a gathering of neocons in the USA in 1997 and lauded them as examples to be followed, praised their philosophy, denigrated Maritimers, decried Canada as a welfare state not to be emulated, has, in the course of the past 18 months, suddenly seen the light, and changed.

How credible is this Harper conversion? Well, let the man speak for himself: he said he has become more realistic, but his fundamental beliefs have not changed. Oh, and his comments were really in jest.

If so, how much stock can a voter place today on his program, on his statements that there will not be serious cuts, that he will not introduce legislation to take away rights entrenched by the Supreme Court? What assurance does a voter have that Harper will not turn around in six months time and tell the country: Sorry, folks – I was only joking when I said those things ....

Sorry, Mr Harper, I for one do not believe a leopard can change its spots. Not even a very smart leopard. But I do believe a leopard just might dress up in sheep’s clothing ...</small></small></blockquote>

David: essentially that is correct. He will really do nothing new by making his appointments and his song and dance is a sham. If he picks partisan hacks he will only have himself to blamd but I rally doubt he will. It is his characterization of what the court is that is so stunned.

And if the curious man posts off topic again, it gets deleted.

I've been wondering about these comment trolls -- more have been Tories, though I've seen some lefties lately -- do they honestly think that people are going to say, "That's it! I have seen the light from your mass-posted long-winded comment spam!"?

About the Senate, though, do you not remember its role during the Mulroney years?

Ben, I want elected and representative government. I fail to see the sense of an Upper House at all. As long as we have an independent judiciary and a beefy constitution, why do we need to wait with baited breath for the blessing of our betters.

I'm with Al on his last comment (I think) -- my idea of senate reform is "abolish the senate". A EEE Senate is not needed because provinces are already represented by political regions with quasi-country like powers (i.e. "provinces") and further adjustments are made in the way Federal ridings are set up.

I'll have to disagree with you on judicial activism, with the following notes and caveats
- I don't believe the Canadian courts are particularly activist, especially in recent years. The worst activism (that I've noticed) tends to be in Aboriginal cases, such as Marshall.
- The judiciary have been given plenty of gudiance on how to rule on cases in the form of laws, constituion and precidents. Judges should only insert "themselves" into cases when weighing between things found in the previous list, or to state it another way, the courts should never act as the "conscience of the nation"
- The more judges insert themselves into cases (i.e. try to rule to get an outcome they like) the more politicized the courts will be, because the stakes will be higher for "stocking" the judiciary with the people you want to create certain political opinions
- If you politicize the judiciary, we'll end up in a situation like the States, creating judgements like _Kelo_ and various things around the "interstate commerce clause". There's a lot to be say about _Roe v Wade_ and the negative political impact it has had on the Democrats and also the infantilization of poltical debate in the US.

I think David and I agree in all aspects. I don't think the current courts a activist. I think to say so is about as low a thing a politician can say. But I think Harper has a chance of making them so to all our detriment but most candidates in Canada would not be pawns to that sort of political interference.

This mirroring a discussion I'm having elsewhere on a mailing list. I think you're wrong about Stephen Harper; he's probably one of the most fair and even handed guys around (I won't speak for his party on this matter). Expect Harper judicial appointees to be over 50, boring, and knowledgable.

If you politicize the judiciary, we'll end up in a situation like the States, creating judgements like _Kelo_ and various things around the "interstate commerce clause".

You forgot to mention the Schiavo case: the case where the executive branch ('we have majority') attempted to find a way to sidestep the judiciary. Classic.

For the most part, I agree with both you and Alan.

I think you are wrong about Stephen Harper. He says things like the courts and the bureaucracy are "Liberal" and plans on handing a major portfolio to someone who thinks the world began 4,000 years ago.

But on the judicial appointments I suspect you are right and this is cheap bluster.

Wow - you really seem to know an awful lot about Stockwell Day.

Say what you will but other, perhaps less knowledgable people, disagree.

He would be an improvement over our current foreign minister.

PoliticsWatch:
While not a great prime ministerial candidate, Day has proven over the past two years that he is a more than able foreign affairs critic. Day still has his supporters in the party and that, coupled with his performance as foreign affairs critic, should land him the same cabinet post, no matter what the Toronto Star says.

This article http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/january/11/day/ suggests Peter Kent, if he should get elected, might get the nod with his experience as a foreign correspondent.

Wow. I know at least one thing and that is the one I reference, Don. It is a poor debater that thinks the way to answer one question is to provide the answer to another. Stick to the point. I am sure he makes a mean lasagne as well but that does not change my point that he is wobbly on some of the essential points of reality. Kent would be the better call in any event.

Unless I am mistaken, Stockwell Day believes the world was created 6000 years ago.

You said "A thinking person's first response to this ought to be somewhat similar to hearing that our Foreign-Minister-in-Waiting, Stocky, will have difficulty dealing with visits to Kenya giving their obviously heretical and slanderous position on the meaning of the Rift Valley's contents."

I said there are thinking persons - (again, maybe not as thinking as you) - that would consider him to be fine candidate for foreign minister. He has travelled extensively around the world and knows the issues.

Nope - you demand to know if the man believes in creationism - to what form/extent/nuance doesn't matter - bring him out so we can stone him!

So we are going to debate Day's personal religious beliefs - can you first provide some proof of them?

...and I don't want to use any reference to his demonination's teachings as then we'd get into a discussion on whether our Prime Ministers for the past 40 years have been wobbly on some essential points of reality.

Yes Flea - and Paul Martin thinks that when he takes communion that the dry flaky thing magically turns into a piece of Jesus.

We are not debating, Don. I am not asking you to judge. And Jesus does not like stoning, Don. Creationism of that sort is a heresey, too. I think you need to take a moment.

The guy doesn't beleive the world is only 6,000 or 4,000 years old and he would be a fine foreign minister. He would be an improvement over Pettigrew.

'nuff said.

That he comes across as a mere doofus and is not as bad as King Doofus the First of the Doofalonians does not make him the best candidate.

Arthur: re this -- and failed.

I'm with Don (I think) on the Stockwell Day thing -- it's not nice or needed to smear people on the religion, especially it has no particular bearing on policy (I wouldn't put him in charge of education). People believe lots of strange religious things, some of which are much more damaging to my day to day life. For example, the "hockey stick model" of anthropomorphic climate change, that lawn chemicals should be banned (from _my_ lawn!) because fido might get ass cancer from enjoying his morning squat (on _my_ lawn!), and so forth.

Arthur: re this -- and failed.

(that's what I said, didn't I?)

But let me elaborate: I hear the words 'Activist judges' a lot nowadays, just because some people don't agree with rulings that don't fit their political needs. To these people I normally refer to the fact that, over time, society simply changes and that judges and courts are generally at the forefront of these cultural and technological changes.

David, if you're going to denigrate a perfectly reasonable proposal, at least get the information straight. Your right to dump toxic chemicals on your lawn just to make it purty, does not, and should not, supersede my right to breathe air that is not laden with them. It has less to do with Fido's "ass cancer" than it does with you bein gprevented from assaulting your neighbours with chemical weapons.

God, I just got into it with a co-worker who honestly thinks that the judiciary writes the laws in Canada. His narrow view doesn't allow for a difference between writing the law and making sure the law, as it's written, is legal subject to other superceding law.

If I'm putting something on my lawn that you can reasonably demonstrate causes cancer or has a quantifiable ill effect on your health, then you're talking sense. If you don't -- if you can't demonstrate it and tests have been done to reasonably show that you can't demonstrate it -- then you're talking religion or something else: the equivalent of saying we should be able to ban radios in our house because aliens are sending messages into your brain. Nonsense, non-science, and basically in the same category of Stockwell Day's belief in the Earth being created 6,000 years ago: contrary to all evidence around you, but you can't get the message through to true believers.

I reject the idea that I am smearing. Atone, please.<p>It is clearly on point. If a person has a belief is something that is a decision of the will which can be evaluated as a measure of the quality of their decision making. That does not go to the particular heresey of choice but the exercise of the choice which is very important to consider when picking leaders.

I would suggest that bringing someone's religious beliefs into the debate _if_ they're not reasonably applicable is a smear. I accept your point that it may be applicable to understanding one's ability to reason properly. However, would you (for example) say that Maher Arar shouldn't be eligible for cabinet posts because he believes [insert your least favorite Muslim belief here]?

OK - if I made it up or it was not known I might buy that, David. <p>On our second point, I do not accept that dinosaurs and man walking the earth side by side to actually be Christian theology. That sort of creationism is a specific blasphamy against the Book of Job's teachings in its desire to make the word meet man's needs and was invented by a medieval monk. It is the new age pap of beliefs sadly thrown up against the faith. So if Mr. Arar is devout that is fine but if he was as heretical in his Islamic faith as the 4,000-yearers are you might have a point. Your better example might have been an Islamic militant just as a violent Christian sect would be operating under heresey. Are there Islamic pseudo-science hereseys?<p>Thank you, however, for the opportunity as a Christian to blast heretics and others who would ascribe anything to the faith for their own ends. And of course to spell heresey in any number of incorrect manners.

I would suggest that bringing someone's religious beliefs into the debate _if_ they're not reasonably applicable is a smear.

What makes Stockwell Day qualified for the job of Foreign Minister? I'd like to know this. Does he speak at least three languages? Does he have a long diplomatic career?

Religious faith and theology, to outsiders, is I would think inherently impenetrable by intellect. I.e. it's a matter of faith. Thus, I won't judge what Mr. Arar or Day's faith mean to themselves.

As to Arthur's point, the job of a minister is to set policy for the professionals to carry out, not implement it. Your question in general is applicable to almost all politicians in all roles.

So Christianity is whatever anyone says it is? No wonder the way of faith is littered with so many corpses!

Your religion is to you what you say it is. If you're interested in corpses, I'd look more to Marxism and other socialist variants -- they're fresher and there's a lot of them.

I'd try to get a glimpse but for those dark satanic mills of industry.

What a coincidence -- I'm opening a satanic mill mill next Tuesday! Bwah hah ha.

Garden gnome production? Again? When will we ever learn?

If you're interested in corpses, I'd look more to Marxism and other socialist variants

Please David, give me your timeline of human history. For some kind of reason, I get the impression that your version of history only covers 1933 to 1980.

Ummmm ... humanity emerged around 40,000 BC and it's now 2006? Or were you looking for something in particular, maybe political? How about "do what I say -- obey -- and society will be better" isn't a particularly original thought in any of its old or modern variants and generally the quality of life for everyone improves the further we move away from it.

I could care less how old Stockwell Day thinks the world is. I just don't want his equally moronic views on social policy imposed upon me and mine. Though for what it is worth, I agree with Alan: the 6000 year time-line is even worse Christianity than it is science. But then the views of non-evangelical Christians are regarded with contempt by many in the new CPC. A quick browse through an average day in Western Standard blog comments will demonstrate the point.

I think that you imply a very good point about faith, Flea. Were any person to take the position that I have my faith and my beliefs on one hand and, on the other, I have my knowledge and capacity - but they are separate things which inform each other through ethics - I would have no problem. Otherwise it is gnoticism which is a Class A heresey and which Job got lectured about by God. <p>I read or heard Northup Fry once remark about being fully aware he was a believer in a blood ritual and how he could neither shake it or fully explain it. Otherwise it is a misrepresentation of the nature of faith so ultimately a misrepresentation of the nature of the faith - and while we enjoy freedom of religion I don't think we can be free with the religion as in the end it is not ours each to be free with.