Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
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.
|
I agree with all that, I was just latching on to his apparent argument that this is all well and good as it's just preservation of the status quo. My point was really just intended to demonstrate that maintenance of the status quo can be just as harmful as the removal of an enshrined right.