i think that the point that he's making is actually that the undrip is likely to be declared unconstitutional in canada, but he's lost himself down the unlikely path that occurs when the courts interpret international law as of greater importance than constitutional law, which is a non-starter, and not in their mandate.

it follows that the liberals can go ahead and support this bill, in order to avoid the optics of opposing it because it will amount to little. i wouldn't expect anybody to go through the formal process of striking anything down. and, it also follows that what romeo saganash ought to be pressing for is an opening up of the constitution, because that is the level of law that needs to be addressed in order to implement undrip in canada - at least rigorously.

a private member's bill like this is really equivalent to a non-binding resolution. and, everybody involved in putting it together is fully aware of it.

i want to be clear: the canadian constitution has specific provisions for indigenous rights, and they have been developed by the courts over the last several decades. that is the law that the canadian judicial system will defer to and, in the presence of any contradictions, any international law reintroduced as domestic law would be declared null. for, that is what a private member's bill is - domestic legislation, subject to constitutional challenge. but, the unconstitutionality of the document doesn't come in a void, in canada. we already have a legal mechanism in place.

the article is basically right - bringing in the undrip would cause havoc on the judicial system. but, the judicial system is neither obligated nor likely to accept this interference into the independence of the judiciary; the fact that it would cause havoc is why it won't happen.

we've been seeing this undrip thing play out for years, though. it's a dead end, in canadian law, and everybody has to understand that, so it all seems kind of fishy. in fact, the constitutional discussions held during the meech lake accords (which the push for undrip has erased from activist memory) explored a lot of the same issues being looked at in the undrip, and would provide a far better starting point for serious legislative action.

opening up the constitution won't be easy. but, it will be the only way to fundamentally change the legal framework overseeing the project of canadian imperialism; these private members bills, they do nothing. the process unfolding in the courts may lead to greater and greater amounts of compensation and local democracy around specific settlements, but it will ultimately maintain the allodial land rights of the crown to make decisions, made or not, to exploit the land. to change that is too deeply embedded in our laws for it to change by a declaration in the house. that is a constitutional level of change, in canada.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-trudeau-government-signs-on-to-give-aboriginals-veto-rights-nobody-else-has

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.

so, those girls weren't legally underage for sexual consent, although one was underage for drinking. it's a technical twist that ought to matter but ultimately doesn't. it's crass enough behaviour to be disqualified from public office.

and, as to the precise question of his resignation, his guilt isn't even a factor - he was asked to resign because of the distraction the allegations would create around the campaign. he should be free to run in the upcoming leadership campaign, should the accusations be demonstrated frivolous in due time. it's just that this narrative around due process is missing the point; he is being asked to resign so that he can go through with his due process in a way that is severed from the party that is running for office. he can't be asked to do both things simultaneously, and the public can't be asked to multitask on that level.

could that happen to anyone? well, yeah. and, anyone that it might happen to ought to be entitled to a leave of absence to attempt to clear their names of charges. but, a running premier can't take a leave of absence, so he must be dismissed instead.

the fact that he might be likely to defeat the charges is immaterial in the decision. politics is hard.

but, if this is truly frivolous, who might be responsible for it?

well, i think it was ultimately the democrats that took out al franken. might somebody in the conservative party be watching too much game of thrones? well, it's a plum position to be in, in a potential backlash election. a coveted spot. might somebody more powerful have taken it away from him? or, maybe it was a disgruntled group of hard right conservatives that wanted to stop brown from steering the party into the centre...

of course, it might have been kathleen wynne. that would be a sneaky move. and, invite retaliation - and a potentially stronger opponent.

i'm not sure the motives add up for any of the suspects, here, besides a usurpation from above. and, if true, i suppose a potential suspect will make itself known, in time.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.