suds

Whatever their intentions, I have to ask if they would have done the same thing today with the Genocide Convention in place. I would have to say probably not. In particular, The Rome Statute of the ICC Art. II (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. What they did was wrong (in hindsight) and should never be repeated with any other ethnic or racial group. The purpose of the convention was to prevent events such as the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide from reoccurring which in my opinion sets the bar higher than what took place at the residential schools. I'd agree that 'cultural genocide' would be more appropriate but is not acceptable either.

Maybe the amendment being made to the criminal code in 2022 wasn't such a good idea. Yes, the holocaust was a genocide, and by definition so was the residential school system. Beyond that, is there a case to be made that the residential schools get the same status as Auschwitz?

Ontario has also recognized the common law protection of property rights. So I can't really see them messing around with anyone's property rights unless due process was taken and it was absolutely necessary.

There's nothing in the 1982 Charter that says anything remotely similar to that which I can find. But this may be of interest..... A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of the constitutional protection of property rights. First of all, there is the historical precedent. Property rights have played a central role in the evolution of Canadian society and indeed are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to the year 1215, when the Magna Carta was signed. The right to own property was also included in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. In 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of which reads: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Property rights are also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. Clearly then, it is arguable that our Constitution should be brought into line with these historical documents. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Harrison v. Carswell,(3) commented upon property rights in Canadian law as follows: Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4) Section 26 of the Charter stipulates that: The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada. Case law has construed this section to mean that the common law protection of property rights is at least not threatened by the Charter.(5) Only the inclusion of property in the Charter, however, would enable an individual whose property rights had been infringed to have recourse to the enforcement section of the Charter. Subsection 24(1) states in part that "[a]nyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court ... to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances." https://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm#CONCLUSION

Note to CdnFox.... I was wrong. The BNA Act explicitly says under Section 92.13 that property and civil rights falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario for example, you presently have the right to own property, but not a constitutional right. So in theory they could simply change the law and take your property away from you by majority vote. I'm guessing that could also include any right to judicial review.

From what I have read, property rights can be traced back to 1215 (the year the Magna Carta was signed). They are also included in the English Bill of Rights (1689). Since the BNA Act (1867) was to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom which was primarily an unwritten one, and the BNA Act is part of our constitution, then the property rights recognized in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights should have some significance in Canada. Countries can have constitutions that are written or 'codified' such as our 1982 Charter, or unwritten such as with English Common Law. Our Supreme Court recognizes both. So do we have property rights or not? Or is it judged on a case to case basis? To be clear, I'm interested in the property rights aspect, not the landlord/tenant part. Your thoughts?

The best way to measure living standards is to ask yourself if you're better off today than you were 20 years ago, or if your children will live to see a better life than you have. The cracks in the system developing today are a product of the road we're headed down which is unsustainable. Achieving world economic growth on a yearly basis is not compatible with the transitioning of the energy supply from fossil fuels to renewables (which all economies depend on). It's not even compatible if the energy supply was kept at 100% fossil fuels because it's not an infinite resource. Fossil fuels today represent about 75 to 80% of the world's total primary energy mix and the goal is to reduce that to 0% and very rapidly. I wish you all the luck in the world but it's impossible to do with the present technologies available to us. Add to that a world population increase of a few billion souls before any projected decrease of world population near the later part of the century. Think of it as your slice of pie (or living standards) getting a lot smaller. And if that doesn't kill us, then debt will. Governments go into more and more debt because they figure future economic growth will add to their revenues and pay off the debts they've accumulating so far. But what happens if economic growth is a thing of the past and can't pay off their debts? There are things they could do, but then your money becomes worthless. What we should be trying to calculate is..... 1) how much energy can renewables realistically provide in future years as fossil fuels get phased out, 2) how our economies should be structured with the energy available to us, 3) the kind of living standards we desire and set population controls to achieve those standards. It is a bit draconian, but the world's resources are not infinite, energy from renewables (which have to built from resources) is not infinite, economic growth is not infinite, and there is a trade-off between population and living standards.

We have individual rights (or civil rights) which are usually laid out in a country's constitution. We have human rights which are more international in scope such as the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. And then there's the ordinary 'right' which is a privilege or power that belongs to a person by law. Maybe you're all getting a little too hung up over exactly what a right is? Just my opinion.

I don't see the significance of Netanyahu being tried for corruption in any of this. At least it proves that Israel has some semblance of rule of law, and something that Netanyahu will have to deal with. So, getting back to the conflict, I'd like your opinion on a few things. 1) What did Hamas hope to achieve in the Oct 7 attack? Hostages are great for negotiating prisoner swaps, but 1200 dead civilians aren't much good for anything. 2) How would any reasonable person expect Israel to respond? 3) I hope we can both agree that Israel has the right to defend itself against such things as happened Oct 7. Could we extend that right to the removal of a hostile government so that Oct 7 doesn't repeat itself? Or is this when the principle of proportionality kicks in? 4) Israeli has 2 objectives, freeing the hostages and removing the Hamas government. In my opinion, the smart thing to do would be Hamas releasing all the hostages and forcing a concession from Israel. So why don't they? Or do they purposely want this carnage to go on and on?

I find it kind of weird why Hamas is still holding about 100 hostages. Its been almost a year now. Or maybe there's too much money to be made by a handful of people at the top that don't want the carnage to end. If they did hand over all the hostages then Israel would be forced to reciprocate in some way. So why don't they? Hamas is recognized as being the de facto government of Gaza and are bound by international law by documents they've signed and ratified. As far as I know, international law doesn't exactly care for attacks on civilian populations, killing women, children, babies, and taking hostages. So how does your international law and principles of proportionality apply to Hamas?

The U.S. Constitution for example doesn't mention the word 'party' anywhere because the framers feared the use of political parties. They felt they were too divisive which they are. But they were not banned either because how do you prevent like minded members of a congress or legislature from unofficially forming their own bloc?

I agree, the party system is the weak link in our democracy. Politicians look no further than the next election while China plans 100 years ahead. But try and get rid of them.

Here's what he actually said.... "Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to prevent and interdict Russia's continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and mostly to kill innocent civilians in their unjust war." So it brings up the question if US/NATO policy on such actions is settled or is it still in discussion? I understand that in the past Ukraine has gotten the green light (under certain circumstances) by the US and a few Euro countries to hit border targets in Russia with US and European made ordinance. I'm just questioning on where everyone stands on this. Was it out of place? Probably not, it's not like Trudeau as a politician to stick his neck out on such things. Maybe it could have been worded (or even reported) a bit differently.

Well that really clears things up. Except my post wasn't directed toward anything you posted.

Since the possibility of a Trudeau government being around anywhere near 2032 is remote, it's 'commitment' to Nato spending is really nothing more than a meaningless gesture is it not?

If Trudeau really wants to stick his nose into something where it might not belong it should at the very least be consistent with present US/NATO policy. If not then he's getting into something way over his head.

Unfortunately, in some cases that's exactly how it works. But that's the price we pay for living in a free country.

It's the independents (or the common sense folks) who generally decide who wins or loses U.S. elections. So how about we let democracy do its thing and go from there? Republican or Democrat, which ever party loses is going to have to sit back and start asking themselves some serious questions.

Generally I'm not a big fan of elitism either. We vote for federal MP's, city councilors, mayors, school board trustees, provincial MPP's, and it's fairly egalitarian as far as I can see. But when it comes to our justice system, our Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, I think I'd start being a little picky and prefer those who were skilled in matters of the law and constitution. But that's me. You on the other hand want 'the people' to have the final say. And maybe to reduce the backlog, we can get Freddie the bootlegger to fill in and do some brain surgery in his spare time

Look bud, I'm not about to start playing silly little word games. If you can't understand what I'm trying to convey in response to Myata's posts then I'm finished with you.

It should be obvious to anyone by now that the term 'democracy' can be seen in a number of different ways. Is there a direct (majority rule) democracy in effect anywhere in the world today? And what exactly is 'my purpose'?

I don't think you do. I like liberal democracies, constitutional democracies, representative democracies, but not a big fan of direct democracies.

I've no problem with referendums in general, sometimes it's a good idea and sometimes it's not. Referendums are the perfect example of direct democracy and happen at the state level all the time. But they're not exactly 'final' because the U.S. Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. What you clearly want is the ability to hold referendums on U.S Supreme Court decisions and making it 'final'. Well good luck with that.... you'd better get rid of Article 3. The U.S. was created as a representative democracy and not a 'direct democracy' for good reason. For one thing, too much democracy may come at the expense of rights and freedoms as the founders feared. To put it more simply, one of government's most important roles is protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens, while democracy suggests government should function strictly by the will of the majority. Btw.... how did brexit turn out?

There really is no such thing as a final say. Supreme Court rulings are often changed or overruled by subsequent Supreme Courts. There is an amendment process as others have pointed out. Allowing the people to have the final say brings us back to ancient Greece and majority (or mob rule). And what does the average American know about the law or unintended consequences by their decision making? If activist judges are what you're worried about a notwithstanding clause makes far more sense than what you're proposing.

If I was part of one of the bereaved families in attendance I think it would mean something that at least somebody showed up. In this particular case nobody has anything to apologize for. Yeah rules are rules but there are always exceptions.