EDMONTON, Mar. 31 (LSN) – Premier Ralph Klein has recently set up a ministerial task force to prepare a response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on the Vriend “gay rights”  case, which is expected to be handed down on Thursday.  Gay activist Delwin Vriend alleges Alberta is violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by refusing to include “sexual orientation” in the province’s human rights legislation.  Many Albertans, and indeed many Canadians from across the country, have urged the Alberta government to stand firm, and to use the “notwithstanding clause” of the constitution in the event of a pro-gay ruling.  The “notwithstanding clause” is a legal mechanism by which governments can protect legislation from Charter-based challenges.  Far from showing contempt for the constitution, they argue, opting out in this case would be the first step in restoring traditional constitutional limits on the power of the judiciary.  Increasingly since the adoption of the Charter in 1982, Canadian courts have gone from interpreting law to creating law, thus usurping the role of elected legislators, and politicizing the judiciary—who are not democratically accountable, and who tend to be much more liberal than most Canadians.  It is universally acknowledged, for example, that the pro-abortion cause, and especially the “gay rights” cause, would never have gotten as far as they have, without the partisan support of the courts.  Instead of defending their constitutional rights and responsibilities, however, Canadian governments have apparently welcomed this phenomenon of “judicial activism.”  It is generally believed that this is due to the fact that it enables them to avoid taking a stand on the most controversial issues of the day.  At first, it seemed clear Premier Klein was thinking along this line.  Last fall, in the face of growing pressure to use the “notwithstanding clause” in the event of a pro-gay ruling in the Vriend case, he said publicly that he would accept the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.  More recently, however, Attorney General Jon Havelock indicated he was open to the idea of opting out