The Great Debate--What will we learn tonight?

The media had written off the last English debate as probably another snore-fest. They wanted to see the verbal slash and hack, the bellowing of false indignation, and hopefully, blood on the floor at the end. However, the easily-distracted viewing audience needs the present format. The Jan. 9 debate was the last time that all four might lay out their platforms to most of the country in a coherent manner -- with some leeway for direct rebuttals. The moderator was to be the referee for these exchanges. We hoped that the moderator would be better than Trina McQueen was in the last debate. Martin was almost never cut off, while Harper and Layton frequently were. Trina was once a CBC biggie, which might explain that uneven treatment.

The Great Debate took place and its most notable moment came when Mr. Martin declared, "The first thing my new Liberal government will do is enact legislation which would abolish the use of the Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter at the federal level." I nearly fell off my chair. I thought: This man is having a nervous breakdown. First Martin is on record as saying, "The Charter is sacred"; now he is saying that he would tear the entire guts out of it. The Charter is a highly contentious issue as it is, so why would he suggest removing our only political safeguard against a rampantly activist Supreme Court? The Charter would never have come into being without the Notwithstanding Clause. And to compound his blunder, Martin is again on record as stating that he "would use the Clause in certain circumstances."

Neither Layton nor Duceppe would endorse the P.M.'s bizarre constitutional idea. Parliament is the political body that makes the laws in the first place. MP's are supposedly acting in good conscience, with constitutional lawyer advice, and more importantly, with the blessings of their electorate. No unelected, Liberal-stuffed Federal or Supreme Court should be allowed to veto these laws. The SCOC's obnoxious habit of "writing in" laws to advance some narrow lobby group's cause is a greased path to judicial dictatorship. Before long, the idea of the will of the majority will be meaningless. For example: Do you really believe that the majority of Canadians agreed with the Supremes' ruling that Aboriginals should get reduced jail time? This supposedly was necessary because Natives make up a disporportionate number of those incacarcerated. For that matter do you think that the majority of Natives want this? They are the major victims of these criminals. They don't want these swaggering felons back on their streets. Who are the next groups to get a "get-out-of-jail-free card? The Notwithstanding Clause is the sole defense we have to halt worse rulings emanating from these activist judges.

Martin must have thought that Canadians would reward his party for taking this stand. The implicit suggestion was that this would keep that Mugabe-in-disguise, Harper, from trampling all of our rights. However, all it did was make Martin the truly "scary man". It will be fun to watch Martin tonight in the French debate. Quebecers love(d) the Notwithstanding Clause. Rene Levesque used to toss it about willy-nilly when passing legislation; half the time it didn't even apply, but he wanted to make a point. Duceppr will play with Martin like a cat with a mouse over his fantastic Charter notion.

Bud Talkinghorn