Martin Raises The Stakes

With the polls getting worse for the Liberals in each passing week Paul Martin is getting desperate. Instead of addressing his record or explaining his new programs, he's hoping to win the election with some good old fashioned fear mongering:

The Liberal leader, after a one-day trip to Europe for the D-Day commemorations, cut short what was originally supposed to be a day off to do a series of media interviews.

Throughout the interviews, he repeated his message, sharpening the contrast between the parties by condemning Mr. Harper's apparent willingness to use the notwithstanding clause to legislate the traditional definition of marriage and his support for free votes on moral issues such as abortion.

"I don't believe that in today's multi-ethnic, multi-religious society Parliament should take away fundamental rights. When Stephen Harper says that the Charter is flawed, I say I fundamentally disagree with him," said Mr. Martin.

The Liberals also dispatched Mr. Cotler -- one of the country's pre-eminent human rights experts -- into the fray.

In a stinging attack of his own, Mr. Cotler said Mr. Harper has displayed "appalling ignorance" and an "utter disregard" for the Charter, and warned the Conservative leader will use every opportunity to "undermine the judiciary by stacking the (Supreme) Court with politicized choices."

Mr. Cotler said Mr. Harper is in effect proposing a "counter-revolution" of civil rights and said any attempt to use the notwithstanding clause would be "a moral failure of leadership."

Well this is all great print but what basis does any of this have with reality? The Liberals apparently believe that Parliament is subservient to the courts. And of course since the current arrangement benefits the Liberals this mistaken belief is obviously what they want to present to the average voter.

My question to the prospective voter is who can be trusted more, an elected body of our representatives, or judges appointed as political cronies? I'ld go with the elected representatives any day.

And why don't any of these idiot journalists interviewing Martin ever ask him how he intends to get rid of the 'democratic deficit' if he wants our MPs to be subservient to the courts? And once again if he is so concerned about reasserting the rights of Parliament why won't he let MPs vote on these issues? Does he not trust their judgement? Or is he just trying to pull one over on us?