Supreme Court of Canada and their not so subtle Colonialism

1938 "Man of the Year" - Seeking to "Ensure basic moral standards"

Colonialism and Imperialism.

They are nasty words these days, reminiscent of the British Empire's efforts in subjugating other nations to provide Britain the benefits of those nations' resources at the expense of those nations peoples.

And while many of us look upon colonialism as a practice of bygone days - what we don't realize is it continues to happen today.

Here.

In Canada.

And I'm not talking about issues of the rights of indigenous people - I'm talking about the rights and interests of all Canadians.

How so?

Well.

Canada's federal political system strikes a balance between Federal powers and Provincial Sovereignty, originally set out in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America act.  The federal government is given authority over certain prescribed powers and the Provinces are given authority over others.  And in many respects, each Province is a nation unto itself - with the right to assert the interests of its citizens without interference from not only other countries, but without interference from the federal government.

But the problem is, more and more, we see the federal government seeking to assert colonial powers over the provinces.

And today - we see the Supreme Court of Canada again grapple with that issue in the context of reproductive technology - coming out strongly divided with some authority ceded to the Provinces and some maintained by the federal government.

The details of the decision are not particularly important - but the attitude of some Judges, notably that of the Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin, are important.

In a minority decision (thankfully) she suggests that the federal government should basically do anything it likes under it's authority over "criminal" law.  To quote her:

"Parliament has a strong interest in ensuring that basic moral standards govern the creation and destruction of life, as well as their impact on persons like donors and mothers," wrote Justice Beverley McLaughlin, whose group would have upheld the entire act as a federal power.

"The act seeks to avert serious damage to the fabric of our society by prohibiting practices that tend to devalue human life and degrade participants."

Really?

I'm sure the British had similar rhetoric in mind when they created the British Empire..  "we're simply seeking to ensure basic moral  standards over these countries to assure the welfare of their citizens.

Canadians should consider this when we hear people like Michael Ignatieff spout off about national daycare and control over transport of natural resources and the like..  because in many ways the effort of the federal government (read "Ontario and Quebec") is a colonial effort to seek to dominate the people of Canada for the benefit of foreign interests at the expense of the "subjugated people".

So.

Pay attention.

When we are presented with any new plan or policy of the Federal government, ask yourself - if Adolph Hitler was seeking to impose the new plan upon us - would we be inclined to resist it even if it sounded benevolent?

And if so, should we stand by passively as Ontario and Quebec seek to do the same?