Obviously, they are simply issuing a political opinion rather than a legal opinion, since the law is already clear. They tell the Supreme Court to alter the Oakes test. They do not wish to follow the Oakes test. They do not wish to follow the oakes test because, in this case, it results in women being paid full value for their work.

The idea that this kind of systemic discrimination can be dealt with by the "democratic system" is a fantasy. The women plaintiffs would go to their MP's till hell froze over, and would not get their due.

It is impossible to have a localized issue like this, relevant to only a small amount of women workers, to effect elections. Other issues are always most important to most people.

quote:

---

The Newfoundland ruling concludes that the province was amply justified in deciding that the equity payments were too costly to sustain.

---

Yes, equality is so costly. We should do away with it, and bring back patriarchy.

That is what the decision is about.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]

(That test is the fundamental decision in Constitutional law in this country, as it governs when the Charter can be used, and when not.)

Those who spend time in courts may well recognise the syndrome wherein one judge writes a lengthy opinion, and the other two simply write: "I agree".

Speaking of "common sense" and the Clapham omnibus, Lord Denning used that test to reject claims by IRA terrorists that the police had manufactured the evidence against them.

18 years later, in the case of the "Birmingham Eight", it was proven that the police, had, in fact, conspired to convict the defendants based on nonexistent proof.