This is the Oregon experience. It ought to be Canada's also. That's precisely what the Supreme Court of Canada concluded was our constitutional right under the Charter in its powerful, plain as day, per curiam decision in the Carter case.
Unfortunately our prime minister decided to abridge our Charter rights - yours and mine - to appease his religious fetish, thereby condemning many Canadians to years of inhumane suffering. And, for that, Justin Trudeau is a real, first class son of a bitch.
Charter rights are neither Justin's to grant nor abridge. It is our Charter, not his.
Why hasn't the Supreme Court of Canada corrected Trudeau and his Minister of Justice? Frankly, why didn't Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould fixed this? Has she a religious thing about assisted dying too? Or did Trudeau bully her?
Wilson-Raybould, Toby? You've got a sense of humour. Look at how she sold out her own First Nation on Site C.
If you want to see how miserably cold-hearted a hack Justice Minister Jody can be, read this:
Yeah, I was being a bit rhetorical. This government puzzles me. Trudeau's cabinet ministers are either incompetent or actively opposing the point of their ministerial post. This is not new but this government has honed the practice to a fine art.
While I'm at it, I don't think Trudeau is nearly the feminist he pretends to be.
Every now and then something happens to remind me that I've never really figured out Trudeau. Occasionally he can do something commendable. I can't recall having that experience of Harper.
I think that, above all, Trudeau is a cynical opportunist for whom the pursuit of power predominates. As child psychologists say, he "presents well." He panders. To secure our support he readily promises what we want, he says what we want to hear, but, having secured that support, his promises can be discarded in pretty short order.
After writing this post I pondered how many in our corner of Christendom will rise up in rage over the notion of sharia law subverting our democracy and yet this decision of Trudeau's is a layering of religious injunction, principally Catholic, over constitutional rights. And it's no small matter, either.
If, for example, you've been condemned to death by some horrible, dragged out debilitating disease, such as ALS, Trudeau has seen to it that you will not escape the ordeal. That's because you have to be in the throes of the terminal stage before you can request assisted dying. By the time you reach the physiological standard, your ability to request anything, a glass of water, could well be gone.
I called him a son of a bitch. I should have called him a fiend for to assuage his religious conscience with the horrible, unbearable suffering of many others, is genuinely fiendish.
Your post puts in stark relief the contrast between Trudeau the image and Trudeau the reality, Mound. As long as people are content with the superficial, nothing will change.
I agree with you about all of this MoS. I think the Oregon model is humane, reasonable and kind. I think ( and have always thought) that Trudeau is a lying sack of shit. But with this issue, I now think he is also cruel.
Anyong....what a person's religious beliefs are, do not have a place within government, ever. Based upon something that no one knows if exists.
For my two cents, I thought at the time of the debate and resolution of this issue that justice minister Wilson-Raybould was behind the very narrow interpretation of what would constitute grounds for assisted suicide. You may recall that at that time, the number of young native suicides in some communities was a cause of serious concern. So I think the aboriginal justice minister had this in mind and was most reluctant to allow anything more than what we ended up with and Trudeau went along to pacify her. In other words, she bullied him. I don’t really buy this notion Trudeau pandered to the religious crowd, though I know they pressured the government hard on this issue. He doesn’t seem to mind disappointing that same group over the Summer Jobs Program re anti-abortion and LGBT issues. Agree whole heartedly that the result is a sham and should be changed. Might mention too that anyone I spoke to on this issue at the time was quite satisfied with how it went down stating that this was at least a start and it would be modified over time. Not so in my mind; this will become one of those don’t ever restart debate on this as it is too divisive, etc. Fear we are stuck with this half-assed solution for a long time. Do you see Mr. Sheer or ??? making this better? I sure don’t.
Mac, the court's decision in the Carter case is clear, plain as day. Young native suicides could never possibly be taken as falling within the court's ambit. I've seen nothing to indicate that the government's policy on implementing the decision was her doing rather than his.
Fortunately the courts, so far at least, have rejected the government's narrow interpretation of the case. I believe Joe Arvay is counsel on another case that is expected to reach the SCC for clarification.
Post a Comment