Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Ah so it's maintenance of the staus quo that makes this okay. So I assume you're against the right of women to vote, after all that was a step to fix an injustice that was present in the legal/rights system at a certain point in time.
|
C'mon Valo, you don't have to build strawmen to attack. Nage is rather naive in his belief that innocence will be proven innocent, but he is absolutely right in stating that this ruling has "sacrificed" no right, no matter how hard Tranny tries to argue otherwise.
As far as universal suffrage goes, it was the democratically elected Parliament/Congress that granted it to Canadian and American women, not the courts. In this case, it should also be Parliament that adds this right, not the courts. The courts should never, under any circumstances, create law. Ever. If the charter does not presently include statements that can be reasonably interpreted to grant such a right, the court has no choice but to accept that. The onus is on the government to fix this gap, and by extension, the people that elect them.