Who's scary now?

In the 2004 election, the Liberals successfully portrayed Stephen Harper as too "scary" to vote for. Mind you, with his support of American belligerence, talk of a firewall around Alberta, insulting Canadians before an American audience, and other peccadilloes, Harper could be accused of doing the job himself. In any case, it worked.

In this election, Harper comes across as the soul of moderation; he has "evolved," he says. And maybe he has. So, apparently, has Paul Martin. This former soul of moderation suddenly proposes removing the notwithstanding clause from the constitution, a scary proposal on at least two levels.

First, the notwithstanding clause is one of the best things in the constitution. It is also unique -- at least I know of no other constitution that has one. It represents a brilliant compromise between those who put their faith in the courts to protect our freedoms and those who put their faith in parliament. Both have their arguments. It is one of those instruments that are of very great importance but which you hope you will never have to use. Like an insurance policy, perhaps. Its power lies in its symbolic value. While it recognizes the right of the courts to decide the legality of legislation, it emphasizes that ultimate power lies with the people. Brilliant!

Second, did Paul Martin get permission from his party to promise this dramatic change to our constitution? There isn't a word in the official Liberal platform about it. If he didn't, the members of his party should be a little afraid. Such an act would be frighteningly arbitrary and autocratic. Scary.

What a topsy-turvy election this is becoming.