Leaderboard

Yes...standing up to Trump. The battle cry. Trump has wounded Canada and JT/Freeland are the heroes in the foxhole. A self-inflicted wound...but by golly...they'll hide those tell-tale powder burns from the public.

To be fair, legalizing the weed will keep Trudeau's supporters high enough to vote for him once again. Of course, this is in addition to screwing up our relationship with the US, wishing that enough Canadians dislike Trump to win even more votes..

The Liberals can't run on their record...there is none...not good anyways. So let's start a war...

It WAS the leadup to a study. The government passed it and immediately began said study. You know this. Given the mentality of the Liberal government I was far from the only one who feared this was simply going to be justification for such legislation. Only partisan hysterics think he said that. The time to worry about something and do something about it is BEFORE it happens. More childish hysteria. Grow up.

I have no problem with a judge ruling according to a clearly enunciated charter right. But that's often not the case. In this case, if you read the objections from legal scholars which have been posted, it sounds like the judge made up a reason why Bill 5 was unconstitutional. Don't you have the least thought that "against the right of freedom of expression" is absolute bloody nonsense?

On the contrary. America is suppose to handle Trudeau and Freeland with kid gloves because they are losing and can't stop crying. Trump is treating the world the way the world has been treating America and Americans for decades now. Trudeau and Freeland are all in it for themselves and their lefty liberal socialist anti-Canadian party with it's anti-Canadian programs and agendas that have done nothing good for Canada or Canadians at all. Trudeau and Freeland sure have you by the short and curly's. LOL.

Dammit. I blame Trump for all of Canada's woes. I agree, let's start a war with America and let's show them once and for all as to who is the real boss here. LOL. Dammit, where is my slingshot?

... and yet, you have posted a very different sentiment in other threads, to wit: The earth's human population has grown quickly with "climate change" (correlation, not cause)....population has not been diminished.

You are soooooo quick to judge my motives and determined to paint me as a racist and Islamophobe that you fail to read what is written. My first sentence made it clear who I was referring to - extreme misogynists. Or are you now denying that there is extreme misogyny in Islam?

It's women in Canada that bear the brunt of the extreme misogyny we are importing. They don't like being told "No" by a woman and don't see why they can't physically assault women who do.

If a French Canadian could learn the grammatically difficult Arabic language and the scripturally difficult Chinese, then he could learn the at least relatively easier English too. the point is he can't even learn English well, so how will he learn Arabic and Chinese? As to the point of speaking different languages opening one's mind, I agree. I speak a few languages too and even have friends who share no common language with one another and have had friends with whose friends I shared no common language. Knowing different languages is great at a personal level. But I sure wouldn't want language policy in Air Traffic control and between pilots being a free for all. Parliament and the courts are the same thing. We're not talking about personal bilingualism here.

In principle municipal law and its representatives don't exist until the provincial government passes a Municipal Act delegating those powers. So in principle Ford is right, but procedurally and in practice he is wrong. Had he passed a new law amending the existing Municipal Act I would contend he could have shrunk the government down. He did not. He tried to short cut that process. He's in a rush. Had he done it the proper way it might have taken until after the next election but I think he would have prevented any constitutional arguments from being raised. I think Ford in this sense is his own worst enemy and walked into his error by not taking the time to follow proper procedure. Whether one believes in large or small governments, is a political issue I leave to others. I am only commenting on the legal procedural issues which he did not properly avail himself of. Personally I believe the Toronto council is too big and defective and needs to be down-sized and the voting system re-examined, but that is a subjective political sentiment not relevant to the legal issues. Just because I believe Ford is correct politically in his intent, I can't justify his defective way of doing it feeding right into the self serving fat cats trying to protect their jobs.

Don't recall him saying he was "above the law". As you would say - do you have a cite? (AKA "I'm not buying it")

I'd be more worried about collusion with a different foreign government. Israel. If you want to talk about REAL influence on USA elections.

NAFTA talks on hold again until at least next week. Freeland: "I believe a deal is still possible." Sounds promising

Hey fella, did you know that two days ago Freeland took a day off on Sept. 10th from the NAFTA negotiations to attend a "Woman of the World" summit in Toronto. Our dear prime mistake leader attended also. Why not? He is a feminist. The introduction video was called "Taking on a tyrant" which is believed that the video was referring to Trump. Unbelievable that she would do such a thing in the middle of negotiations on a trade deal with America. These lefty liberals are a bunch of whacked out crazy batards. Well, if that is not a slap in the face to Trump what the hell is? It is plain as day to see that this stunned lefty liberal biotch could careless about these negotiations because she had other lefty liberal business to attend too that she thinks was much more important than NAFTA negotiations. These leftist liberals are really trying to make fools out of Canadians with their style of leftist stupid negotiations. Just thought I would let you know about that little news story. Chuckle-chuckle. Source: RCI(Radio Canada International).

Nevertheless, the earth's climate has been much hotter (and cooler) before modern record keeping. But NASA, NOAA, and NSIDC are....American. Can't trust those "bullies" (unless it supports an agenda, right ?). ....but we do have the best "climate change" porn.

The notwithstanding clause was controversial when it was first written into the 1982 Charter. It was only accepted in order to get a deal and there's since been an unspoken agreement of sorts that it only be used in very extraordinary circumstances. Mainly, Quebec has used it to shield its language laws from Charter challenges but most believe this a more-or-less reasonable application of the clause. That Ford is using the clause to address such a minor matter worries a lot of people, including politicians who were involved in the negotiations that generated the clause. Ford's behavior could open the floodgates, causing legislatures to casually apply the clause to escape judicial accountability. You're correct that U.S. legislators don't have such a thing at their disposal and the legal rights of Americans are more solidly protected as a result of this. In many respects, Canadian rights protections are weaker than their American counterparts. Free speech protections are much less solidly grounded here than in the U.S., for instance. I'm not sure about the rights protection regimes in European countries, but I believe Canada's free speech protections are among the weakest in the Western world. Our elites like it this way.

In the U.S., on the other hand, our courts have delivered civil rights victories to people who wouldn't have had a prayer if we had anything like "legislative supremacy" in this country. Thank God we don't have a notwithstanding clause. I've come to believe that the belief many in Canada and western Europe have that the parliamentary form of government is "superior", is pure B.S. National pride channeled in the wrong direction.

Absolutely nothing is what they've done

How can the constitution or charter hold the SC to account when the SC gets to decide what they mean? Yes, there are nine liberal judges who all pretty much have the same ideological makeup. Remember when Harper was desperately searching for a constructivist judge to put on the Quebec court? He couldn't find any! Only activist judges! He had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge to the job. And then the SC got together to thwart him to ensure only activist judges were appointed. Ontario's bar is so left wing now that they are going to require all lawyers to attest to how progressive they are, and forward written plans about how they intend to enhance diversity.

Who holds the SC to account? What stops it from interpreting the Charter however the hell it wants?

Wynne privatizes Hydro. Trudeau triples debt with no balanced budget......neither of which were in campaigns and both of which have far more impact on peoples' lives than the number of councilors. Where was the outrage? Where were the lawsuits? The mentality of the Right is to accept democracy. The mentality of the Left is to litigate if it goes against their ideology. Have you noticed that now Greenpeace is launching a lawsuit against the Ontario government over the cancellation of Cap & Trade? And on and on it goes.

Ford's use of the clause is perfectly legal and used precisely as it was intended when the Charter was passed in 1982. Specifically, to address provincial concerns about judicial overreach in the use of Section 2.

The labor shortage is a myth, just like the supposed demographic apocalypse. Everyone who's paid attention to anything over the last decade or two knows that the real economic debate is about what the heck will people do as automation takes over more and more jobs, not a "labor shortage".

The extent to which people here want to cover up and dismiss the atrocities going on in South Africa really calls into question their motivations.

Time and cultural change have altered our perceptions where the issues you cite are concerned. The Charter is modeled on the American 'Bill of Rights' concept, as elucidated in the First Amendment (ratified in 1791) to the U.S. Constitution. As enlightened and high-minded as that document is, it did nothing to end slavery nor to prevent Jim Crow segregation laws from emerging following the Civil War. Nor did it prevent the U.S. from (also) turning away the MS St. Louis refugees or interning that country's ethnic Japanese citizens during WWII.

Cameras on Parliamentary Pages? What did they do? That said a page would be in a good position to serve as a process guardian - a fly on the wall so to speak.

It appears to be working well for the people of Switzerland. Referendums are still in use over there. Referendums are good and do help the people to have some control and say as to what the government may try to force on the people that will be of no benefit to the people at all. Canada has plenty of special interest minority groups who pretty much get to control the politics of Canada and who do get to rule over the majority with their many programs and agendas that will be forced on the majority of Canadians that will be of no benefit to the majority of Canadians.

What is the difference between a Liberal government and a Liberal court? What we've seen from the courts for the last couple of decades is creeping politicization. We have law schools telling students it is their mission to push laws that help society, that indoctrinate students into a progressive mentality of legal activism. We have a law society which now demands every lawyer not only adhere to progressive beliefs but sign a binding promise to do so. And we have courts so liberal that when Harper tried to find a judge in Quebec to appoint to the Supreme court who would actually just read the constitutions the way it was written and didn't believe in judicial activism he had to try and pull some guy out of semi retirement in Quebec. And then the Supreme Court in all its stolid, stern liberal indignation, made up a reason why he couldn't do that. Because the courts now are wholly devoted to judicial activism from a liberal progressive ideological base. They see law as intended to serve their view of a progressive society and are not the least hesitant to twist and stretch its meaning to cover just about anything they want to. Thus when a conservative government, responding to the anger of people over low sentences by judges for violent offenders imposed mandatory minimums the judges rose up in their sanctimonious anger and struck such laws down as 'unconstitutional'. When the conservatives, again, responding to public anger, tried to reign in the judicial habit of granting 2 for 1 or even 3 for one time served while in custody the judges found that unconstitutional. The judicial branch is acting like they are in charge of both making law and changing society and NOBODY elected them for that. At least when politicians do things people don't like they can be voted out. Judges are in there permanently and are under no obligation to give a shit what the people want while they remake society according to their own vision.

Trudeau is a faux humanitarian (protects islam tooth and nail but doesn’t care when hate rallies against Jews call for genocide) who doesn’t care about “Canada”, he cares about “getting elected”. Somehow fake virtue signalling seems to have replaced policy as the number one election issue, and opening our border & our vast welfare vault to anyone and everyone seems like a great idea to his mindless followers. So does calling Canadians racist and pandering to Hollywood elites who fly in on personal jets to lecture us about how bad oil is for the environment Trudeau’s first term will be remembered for unsustainable amounts of debt and the killing off of our energy sector. He couldn’t have done more damage to this country if he tried. Trump is a faux law and order president (loves cops, hates rules) who, like Bill Clinton, couldn’t keep it in his pants. He puts America first though, and he is far more pragmatic than politically correct. He also realizes that America has lots of willing, legal immigrants to choose from and that it’s better to give many, many people aid where they are then bring in far fewer people and provide them with food, medicine, shelter, health care, and dental care indefinitely. People who talk about how bad Trump’s wall is are some of the dumbest people on earth: they say they don’t need a wall because it is too expensive and they think that it’s cheaper to just hire more people to patrol the border. That saves money over the course if a year or two, but over the course of ten, twenty or fifty years the savings of a wall are massive. The wall is also more effective. Those same people who talk about hiring more ICE agents also want to abolish ICE lol.

What's with all the exaggeration? I guess if it makes you happy. You should get some kind of Genghis Khan moniker or a pic of a Viking about to rape and pillage. It seems like you're happiest making some Gwar/Masters of the Universe type comment like, "We will destroy you." You should get a monster truck, put a giant woofer in the trunk, and blast Kid Rock while you honk your horn and cut people off. Otherwise just joint the artillery and bomb a bunch of shit.