Goddess

And whilst the eagle soars, it still shits everywhere.

Wow.

He's come up a bit in my view, too. Still, it seems like our choices are: the Muslim extremist, the Sikh extremist or the Christian extremist.

I agree that the people who are making these decisions on behalf of Canadians need to bear the responsibility of them. Otherwise, politicians will just keep doing whatever they want - why should they care? The millions of dollars in compensation doesn't come out of their pockets. They have no incentive to make the right decisions when they are allowed to just walk away from the mess they've created, bill the tax payer and still go home with their fat cat jobs and astronomical pensions.

YAY! And now you know all that, too!

He has to pander to the Muslims and Sihks right now. Give him a break - he's getting to them all eventually.

I did the work of Googling his career choices and I'm the one who is "uninformed"?

It's my opinion based on what I've read about his career. You're the one who said you don't know anything about him - go find out. Like I did. I'm not your Google.

His career has been defending terrorists. He seeks them out. I don't see that that makes him a great candidate for a judge.

“My teachers have always pushed me over the cliff, and that is what has awakened my compassion for what human beings are up against. I am afraid that because of where we come from as Westerners, with our Judeo-Christian heritage, that if you get too focused on doctrine, on codifying, or ethics as a major emphasis, it just turns into harsh judgment. And then there is no genuine compassion.” ~~ Pema Chodron ~~

I don't think we'll be safer for much longer with a government that is soft on terrorism and appoints judges who know how to use our flawed charter to get terrorists not just off, but also get them paid millions. Just the other day there was a bunch of fake calls put in that required RCMP precense and lockdowns at Edmonton and Toronto hospitals. Someone is checking response times.......

Yes, yes. Charter rights, charter rights. You're one of those people who think the charter rights are the most important thing and should be upheld no matter if the person is an active terrorist and hates Canada. I'm one of those people who sees a huge flaw here that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise we'll go broke paying off terrorists. But do go on about the rights of terrorists being the most important thing to Canada, not safety or security.

We'll never know.

Yeah, yeah, I know. He's completely innocent and deserves 10.5 million.

He used a controvertial section - #7 - of the Charter to plead for Khadr (who was a terrorist, actively working to kill us and our allies and who still has not renounced his terrorist beliefs) and then circumvented the SOC to settle out of court. Something needs to change here.

And the root cause of his rights getting pissed on? That would be because the entire Khadr family pisses on Canada. Unfortunately, they are legally allowed to piss on Canada. Which is what needs to change. The entire family is warped. They need to GTFO.

Wrong. The rest of the world sees us coddling them. Why do you think the majority of Canadians feel we are coddling terrorists - because of our tough stance on it? Pfffft. Get real. I'm suggesting we change it to deal with terrorists who clearly use its flaws against us.

I get that. I really do. It just bothers me that these Khadrs have done nothing but piss on our charter and our country until it benefitted them. And that we paid them to the tune of 10.5 million dollars for pissing on our country. And that they continue to piss on our country. I'd love to see them GTFO and I'd love to see us slam the door behind them. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or just. Legality is a matter of power. Apartheid was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal.

Are you really arguing that ^^^THIS^^^ guy should have been welcomed and invited to India? And that the world hasn't noticed that Canada coddles terrorists?

That could be. I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that our government is extremely sympathetic towards terrorists - we pay them millions of dollars, we guarantee their rights no matter how much they piss on them, we invite them to foreign countries in spite of the fact that they assassinate that counrty's leaders and we let them live free in Canada as long as they attend poetry readings and we support their ideologies by "looking the other way" and not saying anything about them.

Perhaps Trudeau is expecting more cases involving our own terrorist citizens. He's prolly stacking the judge circuits with terrorist sympathizers in anticipation.

I'm not sure I totally agree with the lawsuits being "frivolous." To an extent - yes. I mean, it's a friggin' cake, after all. On the other hand, it is "tyranny" for Christians to discriminate and refuse service to others based on their own harsh, rigid interpretations of the Bible. I mean, it's a friggin' cake, after all. Baking the cake would be an opportunity to show Christ-like love, create relationships and support people without judgement no matter what their choices are. I believe that was Jesus' point when he came to earth. The only upside to these lawsuits that I see - it turns a lot of people off religion. I'll take a lesbian or gay couple over a self-righteous, judgemental, critical, hate-spewing religious nutter any day.

Some will want to do that, for sure. Most will just cluck on about how "This isn't the REAL Islam" while they video your beheading on their new iphone.

There's a thread on here right now about how to get passports and visas. Easy peasy.

I have a question: There's a lot of accusations about the make-up of the jury, but I thought it was supposed to be a jury of Stanley's peers (which it was) not of Bouchie's? Is this correct? I understand that the Bouchie family wanted indigenous people on the jury, and I agree to an extent. The extent would be another point you make: If the jury had only been indigenous people, couldn't Stanley have made the same charge - that it wasn't a jury of his peers? I'm assuming that any white person who said, "Ya, the Native kid had it coming" wouldn't be selected for the jury, the same as any indigenous person who said, "Ya, I wanna hang the white guy" wouldn't be selected. Why are we assuming that only indigneous people can be impartial and that no racism exists amongst indigenous people?