blackbird
-
Posts
8,078 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 minute ago, eyeball said:
General Dynamic Land Systems in London Ontario, with the blessing of Ottawa, sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, one of the worst most bloodthirsty dictatorships on the planet that uses these weapons to kill rebels that are fighting to get out from under their thumb. Apparently the contract our government brokered with the House of Saud is largest manufacturing export contract in Canadian history.I
The most important thing we provide the monsters we align ourselves with however is our silence in the full knowledge of their crimes - the fact you don't know about this is no excuse. BTW are you equally unaware of just how awfully Saudi Arabia treats homosexuals, women and other people who exercise free speech?
Don't tell me you have fallen for the propaganda from hot enough. Not living in the real world. Russia, China, and most countries in the world do not respect human rights in one way or another. Some are worse than others. What are you going to do about it? If you stopped dealing with every country that does bad things, you would be totally isolated and have no trade with any country. You are not being realistic. Just because we trade, doesn't mean we approve of what they are doing. If Canada didn't sell weapons to some of these countries, they would get them from numerous other countries. Not selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will not change a thing. They are also an ally of the U.S.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Omni said:
In a nutshell: collusion with the Russians is the treason issue
firing Comey is the obstruction issue
There are a few others but these are the ones he most has to worry about.
Collusion is invented by the democrats and leftist, liberal media.
If Comey was working against the Pres, maybe he shoud have been let go. The Pres is the boss, not the FBI.
-
10 minutes ago, Omni said:
Interesting isn't it though how Obama was in office for 8 years and we never heard this kind of disruption. Trump has been there 120 days or so and we've heard more or less nothing but. I guess it must just be all the fault of the press.
You never heard much during Obama's time because the press and Obama are both liberals. If you haven't figured that out yet, I dunno.
-
36 minutes ago, Omni said:
Oh c'mon, quite simple. Collusion with a foreign power to interfere with the democratic process during a federal election.
Sounds like you actually believe it. How gullible.
-
6 minutes ago, Omni said:
Interesting isn't it though how Obama was in office for 8 years and we never heard this kind of disruption. Trump has been there 120 days or so and we've heard more or less nothing but. I guess it must just be all the fault of the press.
You are quite right. The anti-Trump media is responsible. If you believe in collusion with Russia, you have fallen for fake news.
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
That may be true of many or most Christians in Western Secular countries, but it's not true of all Christians.
Nor can Muslims, according to their beliefs. For most of them ... the ones you don't hear about on the news ... Its up to God to judge and punish, not man.
Exactly what Muslims say about the extremists in their midst. Funny how Christians can distance themselves from their evil twins, but Muslims aren't allowed to do the same.
Hahaha.
There is a difference. Non-Muslims killing Muslims over religion is unheard of. But Islamic radical groups who kill people exist in a number of countries in Africa, the middle east, the Philippines, southeast Asia, and in a number of western European countries. France is reported for instance to be supplying high numbers of fighters for ISIS. There are hundreds of people killed (including Muslims) by radical jihadists every week in some parts of the world. There is no comparison to this among non-Muslims as you seem to think. It is disturbing that you don't want to acknowledge this and see christians or non-Muslims as doing the same things. Of course most Muslims are not doing these things and many or most do not support terrorism. But significant enough numbers do.
-
6 hours ago, eyeball said:
Do you understand the concept of complicity?
If I provided money, materials and intelligence to ISIS what would that make me and why?
When your elected government does this for a bloodthirsty dictator what does that make you?
Who is providing support for these things? Nobody in this country as far as I know.
-
3 hours ago, dialamah said:
I said that those actions were morally wrong and in Canada, illegal. And yes, they do happen although probably not as often as in the $tates. It's usually the conservative Christian right objecting to gays, transexuals, abortion providers and sometimes violently. I'm sure you don't approve of violence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
This is why I don't like talking to people like you, this implication that because I fail to hate and fear Muslims I must therefore "love" everything about them/their religion/their countries.
Again you have it mixed up. Christians disagree with homosexuality, etc. but do not hate the people who do those things. Christians simply cannot condone the practice of abortion, homosexuality, etc. Violence by conservatives or christians is extremely rare. As far as I know christians and conservatives do no approve of any kind of violence against people. But we know there are extremist groups in some parts of the world. We cannot control what they do.
Never said you should hate or fear Muslims. It is the religion we disagree with.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, dre said:
Thats true most conservatives are not a problem. But its conservatives on both sides that are ones causing the problem, and spouting all kinds of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides. The most conservative muslims are the also the most militant, and the most conservative westerners are as well.
Like I said... I wish they could just fight to death in a big stadium and leave everyone else out of it. I would buy front row seats.
I don't know what inflammatory rhetoric some conservatives are spouting. Maybe you could enlighten us. Also we live in a free country and people of any political belief are free to express their disagreement with certain things. You can call that inflammatory and it might offend some, but that is what freedom of speech is all about. You can disagree with whatever you wish. You have expressed very strong opinions on here yourself.
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
I agree, you can hate homosexuality as much as you want. So can Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs. But what you and they can't do, by law and morally, is attack them physically or discriminate against them in the marketplace, school or work.
It's bizarre that you think Conservatives or people in this country physically attack or discriminate against homosexuals in Canada. There are laws against that. But in some of your beloved Muslim countries, homosexuality is illegal and people can be imprisoned or maybe even receive a death sentence. There are place where people kill homosexuals. That's why Canada just recently accepted a refugee claim from a bi-sexual man from a country in Africa.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Your disgusting culture rips people's fingernails out with pliers and then murders them.
What on earth on you talking about? What part of the world do you live in? Africa, Iran? You seem to have some very strange ideas that you must have heard or been taught.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, dialamah said:
Conservatives are the ones who reject people because they are gay, because they are gay and want to marry, because they are transgender, because they are pro-choice, because of their religion, because they wear a hijab, because they don't 'fit in' with the prevailing culture.
The Muslims that we don't want in Canada view the world with the same narrow-minded, "my culture is superior, you must accept it" attitude that a certain small right-wing group on here also have.
Not all conservatives believe exactly the same way. There are many who are not religious and are more like liberals on these issues. A political party is not a church. The Conservative party includes people from all different religious and non-religious beliefs and backgrounds.
But many conservatives oppose certain things because they are contrary to the Bible and the christian faith. These are such things as :
Homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage, and Islam. Christians disagree with these things but do not "reject people" as you claim. That is a false statement. You are misleading. Christians still work with people, talk with people, and do business with people every day whom they disagree with on some of these issues. We all must live with and do business with people who do not think like us every day. Your rejection claim is false.
-
2
-
-
On 2017-05-16 at 7:21 PM, dialamah said:
This from the guy who styles himself an expert on immigration, the legal system, how "leftists" think and how Muslims think.
But you have to admit he makes excellent points.
-
17 minutes ago, Omni said:
Ok so if you want to play the politics game, I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused. The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.
You make a false assumption. No, conservatives don't wish to do away with rights of the accused. Conservatives can be accused of crimes as well and want to have fair treatment by the justice system. You have a bias yourself in that you are willing to only accept one side of the argument and make no good defense. Rights are not an absolute thing where you have them or you don't. In legal matters they are a difficult balancing act where the rights of the accused must be weighed against the rights of the general public to be protected from a perceived danger. This is the conundrum.
11 minutes ago, dre said:This is just a mindless strawman and mis-characterization of someone elses position. I think EVERYONE needs protection from some form of constitution and that governments needs to be LIMITED in what they are allowed to do to any of their citizens, and governments that are not constrained by rules have a history of doing terrible things to people.
I think the judge in criminal case needs to have a list of convictions when considering bail, but nothing else, and definitely not arrests or cases where the accused was found not guilty. The presumption of innocence is one of the more important pillars of our legal system, so the courts should only consider pre-existing convictions where that presumption of innocence has been credibly overcome by the prosecutor in a court room.
Also I believe bail should almost always be granted unless a person poses an immediate danger to others, or there is good reason to believe there is a risk of flight. Remember... a guy in a bail hearing hasn't been found guilty of a god damn thing.
As for complaining about the constitution... Move to a country without one, and see how that works out for you.
I HATE criminals BTW, especially violent criminals, and financial criminals. But that doesnt mean people should be stripped of their rights just because they are accused of something. And the reality is, we have struck a pretty good balance between maintaining constitutional rights and keeping the public safe from criminals.
Our system appears to be working pretty well...
Of course Argus will just tell you that people don't report murders anymore LOL.
No, it's not a mindless argument. If you have done any reading about this, you will find that it is a difficult balancing act between the rights of an individual, the accused, and the rights of society to be protected. Liberal judges and politicians lean one way and conservative politicians generally lean the other way. Depends how one views it. There have been cases of judges letting people out on bail and these accused went on to murder people. This can't be right.
-
1 minute ago, Omni said:
You don't see the blatant bias in the title?
He's obviously doesn't agree with the assertion, but he's free to give his reasons why. My view is it has more to do with the liberal ideology and belief in an accused's rights. Everyone believes in rights but how far do you go with rights when it comes to putting society in danger?
-
13 minutes ago, dre said:
The title of this thread underscores the dysfunctional nature of the debate around here. Its like something somebody in grade 3 would write. Without even really reading the article we start off with the bold proclamation that liberals MUST love criminals. To stupid to even bother with.
It's up to you. It is simply a title to start discussion. Nobody else created the topic so we should give him/her credit for starting the subject.
-
15 hours ago, kimmy said:
Sometimes stuff that seems like a great idea actually has unintended consequences. As Dialamah posted, there seems to be a possibility that these changes could actually create a higher evidenciary burden and make it harder for the prosecutor to have bail denied.
The fundamental problem with the liberal position is they view an accused person as an underdog or coming from a disadvantaged group of society and therefore needs special protection of the Charter of Rights. Many judges are guided by this philosophy as are of course many liberal and left politicians. That is why it is so hard to get any law changed or created which might somehow reduce the underdog rights and give more protection to socieity. To these people it is a contest between individual rights and state's rights (or society's rights). The problem is often the safety of the public is not given the consideration it requires. The classic liberal view would be that if a prosecutor is going to bring in a criminal's record, then anything that is said is open to be challenged by the defense. This of course carries the bail process to the scenario where, if the system permits, there must be a trial just to determine whether bail should be given or not. At some point society (or the state if you prefer) has to say enough is enough and it cannot be dragged on endlessly. If requiring an accused person's criminal record will make it possible for a judge to make the right decision, that should be required. The defense could be given several minutes to make any counter-argument, but the law should require it ends there and the judge must make a decision based on the information put before him with the safety of the public being paramount, not the individual's rights.
Updating the bail system to protect society may end up requiring a change to the Constitution which is a very difficult if not impossible process. Of course anything that might be seen as reducing individual's rights in favour of state's rights (even to protect society) would be vigorously opposed by liberal and left politicians.
-
Defense wants justification for any decision where the accused person's rights are effected. The judge could examine the criminal record and if he feels the accused does represent a risk to the public, he should be able to deny bail and give his reasons for doing so. I understand an accused person has certain rights, but the public has a right to expect their safety will not be put at risk in the administration of justice. But that's just my opinion; I'm not a lawyer.
-
32 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:
....except bail conditions. This isn't "Law & Order" Canadian Victim's Unit.
Bail conditions didn't do much good for the victims of criminals who killed them while out on bail did they? But who cares about public safety?
-
If someone is charged with a serious crime and they receive bail, there is nothing to stop him from going out and trying to shot or intimidate witnesses or police officers involved in the case or others. Obviously this is something which should not be allowed to happen.
-
6 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:
.....so a person with a record automatically puts the public at risk?
If in the opinion of a prosecutor and the judge the public would be at risk, yes. It is the job of the judge to make the final decision on whether a person should be given bail or denied on the basis of what information he has in order to protect the public. The justice system must protect the public foremost when there is reason to believe there is a risk of committing an offense. This is a temporary incarceration until the actual trial can be held for the charges. The best solution in such cases is to have the trial as soon as possible.
-
1 hour ago, Bob Macadoo said:
If it is a must in court proceedings then it becomes a point of focus, attention and dispute....thereby lending evidence in its ability to delay bail decisions. Both improving a guilty's 2-1 pretrial incaceration....and delaying justice for the innocent. If its not a mandatory inclusion....although used by the judge anyway....win win. I notice people only want things over regulated and prescribed when they think it won't affect them.......otherwise discretion and judgement should reign.
If a suspect has a criminal record, there may be good reason the judge should be told and the person not receive bail to avoid putting the public at risk. There have been cases where the judge was not informed and it has had dire consequences. It is better to keep someone incarcerated if there is any question about a suspects record until the matter is settled, rather than to put the public at risk.
-
I posted a link to an article entitled "Judge Bertha Wilson, a Classical Liberal Judge" an hour or so ago, but can't see it on here now. Wonder if my post was deleted for some reason. Never received any notification about it. Here is the link.
https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Roach/_08_Roach.Wilson.pdf
-
29 minutes ago, Argus said:
You can do both. You can do your best to keep them out while also speeding up the processing. Unfortunately, here in Canada, since the Bertha Wilson decision, anyone who sets one inch across the border has all the rights of native born Canadians. Which means they have multiple ways to appeal and delay being removed, and their legal fight to stay is paid for by us.
I'm glad you mentioned Bertha Wilson. I googled her name and found an interesting essay for anyone who would like to have a little peek into what liberalism is and how it has effected some of our Supreme Court rulings and justice system.
"The Andrews approach to equality also illuminates Justice Wilson’s approach to
criminal law because she was well aware that those accused of crime arethemselves an unpopular group and that other disadvantaged groupswere overrepresented in their numbers. "It is easy to see why liberalism places a high emphasis on the rights of accused and disadvantaged groups. This is an important part of their philosophy and constituency. They also realize if these disadvantaged groups vote at all, they most likely will vote for the liberal or further left. This is an important part of the liberal constituency. On some issues, like the Wynn law debate though, it seems like they are shaking hands with the devil.
Islamophobia in Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by blackbird
The west picks it's allies in the world from the lesser of the evils. You can choose to idealistic and say we shouldn't deal with this country or that, but then we would end up with no allies in an evil world.