Quote:
As I've pointed out numerous times, the issue of rights violations was never conclusively decided either way, meaning that the "yes" side won simply on the whim of the government of the day, for reasons of personal beliefs--which is exactly what the Liberal fearmongers say the Cons would do. If it had been decided--legitimately--to be an issue of rights, it would be different....
|
It was determined to be a rights issue by the highest court in eight provinces and one territory. I might buy that one or two judges might have made a bad interpretation of the Charter, but nine?
You are correct that the highest court in the land has not ruled on it, but when nine lower courts unamiously agree, I find it extremely hard to believe that the Supreme Court would come to a different conclusion.