FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved

Viewpoint by Hamish MacAulay Dear Lucien Bouchard: Somehow, I always knew you and your Quebec colleagues would be the ones to destroy the last of my misplaced faith in politicians. You certainly were not the only ones involved, but the idea of using the notwithstanding clause to ban bike gangs is the final straw. Now, as one of its biggest former supporters, I have to eat my words and agree that Canada's politicians are too small-minded to wield the power of a constitutional opt-out clause. The notwithstanding clause was meant to be the glue that holds Canada's Constitution together, but the country’s politicians are using it to turn our Constitution into an international joke. The clause is a powerful tool, created to protect the will of the people from unaccountable judges, and give the members of our federation a little working room to make laws that reflect their community values. It was never meant to justify arbitrary measures that took away a specific group's rights for political gain. A charter of rights, if is it to mean anything, must apply to most people, most of the time. Our society is not so fragile that it needs to trample the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect itself from the moronic thugs that call themselves bike-gang members. My sympathies go out to Michel Auger, shot five times in the back by a cowardly bike thug. That kind of violence makes my stomach turn, but the political reaction to the shooting left me gagging. You and your fellow Quebec politicians knew the media would be all over a story about one of their own being shot. As shameless self-promoters, you jumped for the free advertising and called for a ban on bike gangs. To make the ban stick, you would have to use the notwithstanding clause to exempt the ban from the guarantee of freedom-of-association in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The only good news about this is that Ralph Klein is no longer the only politician to come up with an embarrassing use for the clause. Admittedly, for pure callousness, taking away someone's right to join a bike gang hardly compares to limiting the ability of good citizens to claim compensation for being sterilized by their government or refusing to protect someone from being fired for being gay. Don't get me wrong. This has nothing to do with my views on alternative sexuality (My Oprah-loving wife Mitzy makes me use that term). Whether or not you want to regulate people's sexuality or gang membership, you have to agree with the contents of the charter. This is not radical stuff. There certainly is plenty of disagreement about what the words in the charter mean, but that's life. Mitzy and I have disagreements about what words and phrases mean every day. For example, since when does, "I'm writing a letter to the Premier of Quebec," end up meaning, "I would love to help you pick dog hair out of the rug shampooer"? The notwithstanding clause was put in place to prevent such disagreements from escalating into a divorce. As a stout defender of the clause, I always said give the politicians a chance to show they can handle such power responsibly. If they try to use it to hurt the powerless and the marginalized, we can get rid of it. Between your crew and Mr. Klein, I have now seen one too many close calls. A gratifying public outcry prevented Klein from doing any damage, and I'm sure the same will save the less-deserving bikers. I've realized we cannot go on living on the edge of a slippery slope that makes Canyon Ski Hill here in Red Deer look like a bump on the prairies. You ban bike gangs for being involved in criminal activity. Why not get rid of the Masons while you are at it? Those troublemakers have been behind some of the dastardliest international plots imaginable. You can't stop at the Masons either. If you get rid of them, someone else such as the Elks or Kinsmen will be right there to pick up the slack. Before you know it, I'm explaining to the Oddfellow Flyers, our pee wee hockey team, that the Oddfellows can't sponsor them any more because we've been banned and our leaders put in jail for criminal conspiracy. I could never go as far as Brian Mulroney and claim the notwithstanding clause makes the Constitution nothing more than scrap paper. I think the idea was sound. We just picked the wrong people to wield the power. Ridiculous knee-jerk reactions by two-bit political hacks looking for a little instant glory will kill the notwithstanding clause and Canada along with it.

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |