Apparently Gilles Duceppes comment last night;"We shouldn't have a free vote every six months on a question that's already been decided." has gotten the blogoshpere left and right and centre all in a tizzy.Of course he was talking about SSM and the Tory plan to revisit the issue if they become government. And of course as predictable the response from the above folks has been to remind Duceppe about all those Quebec referendums.
A couple of points the last referendum was a decade ago and fifteen years after the first one. And they were REFERENDUM's not Legislature or Parlimentary votes. They were the voice of the people. This is comparing, for the sake of cliche, apples and oranges.......
3 comments:
I have to disagree with you on this one Eugene -- that referendums are somehow more democratic than legislatures. After all, it was a referendum that made Napoleon emperor.
For a negative use of the Referenda one can use the California experience where in the 70's they began the tax cut campaign Prop 13 through Referendum, it passsed and we have had the neo-cons using it ever since.
Or
How about the Meech Lake Accord and the attempt to force through a State social contract with a new P3 focus that was to redefine Federal provincial relations. Those of us on the left that opposed Meech did so for these reasons, as did native and metis women. And in Quebec it was opposed by the Serperatists.
But the point remains the 'people' have the right to referenda, and it is different than Legislation by parlimentary representatives. That was just my point, not whether the results were good or bad.
Mr. Harper has been quite clear on his plan to fairly address the divisive opinions on the matter of the definition of the word "marriage" in Canada. The traditional media channels have presented only selected parts of his plan, indeed, they are erroneously claiming that Mr. Harper will have to invoke the notwithstanding clause because (they claim) he wants to deny human rights.
While I'm certainly in no position to speak for Mr. Harper, I present the following detailed description of Mr. Harper's plan, in order to help clarify the situation for the benefit of all Canadians.
(1) Mr. Harper has said that all couples should have equal rights qua couples, independent of chromosomal specifics.
(2) Mr. Harper has said that he would vote to preserve the traditional use of the word "marriage" on the basis of its psycholinguistic value to a society that depends on the nuclear family for the successful replication of the species and the survival of civilization.
(3) Mr. Harper has said that he just gets one vote. It's not up to him to decide. In Canada's tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracy, this sort of issue is what is called a "vote of conscience", and Mr. Martin should have treated it that way.
(4) Because Mr. Martin abrogated parliamentary precedent by whipping his members on a matter of conscience, Mr. Harper considers the previous result to have failed the test of democracy under our parliamentary system.
(5) Therefore, Mr. Harper's position is that to prevent this failure of parliament from surviving as a wound to our national psyche, the restricted question on the definition of the word itself should be decided in a proper free vote of conscience.
(6) If that vote says yes to the redefinition of the word, that's the end of the matter. Problem solved, fair and square, in our democratic way.
(7) If that vote says no to the redefinition of the word, then Mr. Harper will proceed with legislation to implement for all couples the same rights relevant thereto, only that one word will be reserved. The supreme court explicitly did not agree or disagree that the use of that word is a right.
(8) If the supreme court vetoes that, then it's a done deal, Mr. Harper said he will not invoke the notwithstanding clause. Presumably the debate would then shift back to the more general matter of the roles of parliament and the courts.
This is exactly the correct approach to take in a functioning Westminster parliamentary democracy.
Post a Comment