suds

Are there problems as to why they're doing this now? Are there some Canadians or parts of Canada that are disenfranchised for whatever reason? Skeptical minds would like to know.

When I posted he hadn't been sentenced yet and I believe it was his lawyer who suggested he was going to get between 8 and 14 months. All I can see is the link by NBC (and posted by sharkman) has automatically updated itself. 5 years sounds more realistic than 8 to 14 months. Now if he was a Trump crony and pulled that off of Pelosi he would have gotten life.

Yeah, process guardians. That'll be the answer all right. And who gets to pick these process guardians?? I get your point though, average Canadians are just too stupid to be making these decisions on their own.

I can think of a better way, have a referendum or whatever, but let the people have the final say on something so vitally important to our country as our elections. These politicians, they don't own this country, we do. WE THE PEOPLE!

In U.S. elections for Senators and Representatives, the times, place, and manner of such elections are prescribed by each State Legislature. So why is that I wonder? Why isn't it Congress which sets these rules? I believe the idea is that it would avoid the possibility of the same Party controlling House, Senate, and the Executive from going rogue. So the Constitution allows each State Legislature to make the rules for electing their own Congressmen. And if worse comes to worse and one or two State Legislatures do go rogue, it's not really going to hurt anything that much at the national level. I'm not sure if we could do the same thing with our Provinces but it wouldn't hurt. It's not really a good idea giving majority governments too much say with how our elections are conducted.

So this IRS contractor stole thousands of tax records of rich and prominent Americans, released them to the media, plead guilty to 1 charge of disclosure, and is likely going to get 8-14 months in jail. WOW! Did they ever nail this guy!

'Threatening' isn't the right word. Governments as a rule don't arbitrarily try to change election legislation unless it helps them. Just be skeptical is all until we find out more about it.

Changing electoral legislation by a sitting government that applies to the next election is in my view undemocratic in principle. It's time to be skeptical regardless of who's doing it. If it's anything more than a few minor changes to make voting easier then make it an election issue with precise details.

Two people along with two civil rights groups (the 'Canadian Civil Liberties Association' and the 'Canadian Constitution Foundation') were the ones who applied for the judicial review of the proclamation declaring a 'Public Order Emergency'. In turn, they deserve our respect and support because they're the ones who keep watch while we sleep. Great posts by the way!

I thought it would go to the Supreme Court also. But someone here mentioned somewhere the next step would be the Federal Court of Appeals. But whatever, I doubt they're incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake.

Excerpts from the Court summary... 1) Was the proclamation declaring a public order emergency unreasonable? Yes. 1) The proclamation applied to temporary measures in all of Canada's Provinces and Territories, despite the lack of evidence that it was necessary. Apart from the situation in Ottawa, the Police were able to enforce the rule of law by applying the criminal code and other legislation. 2) The CSIS Act defines threats to the security of Canada as "activities... directed towards or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective." The emergency required reasonable grounds to believe that the standard set out in s.2 of the CSIS Act had been met. The evidence in the record before the Court did not support a finding that the impugned activities reached that threshold. 2) Did the special powers created violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so could they be saved under s.1 of the Charter? The Court found... 1) The regulations infringed the guarantee of freedom of expression under s.2B as they were overblown in their application to persons who wished to protest but were not engaged in activities likely to lead to a breach of the peace. 2) Found the economic order infringed s.8 by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank accounts and credit cards. 3) The infringements of s.2B and s.8 of the Charter were found to be not minimally impairing, and could not, therefore, be justified under s.1. *** In my unprofessional opinion, I can't really see how an appeal can change anything. Your thoughts or anything you disagree with?

The Judge was appointed to the court by Chretien. I think he got it right.

Experts are claiming the ruling sets a legal precedent that makes the government accountable for misuse of the act. Not a bad thing really if it makes future governments think twice before using the act for political purposes.

War, more than anything else changes things. The Ottomans were in fact occupiers when they conquered Palestine in 1516. The British became occupiers when they were handed the mandate to rule after WW1. Presently the Israelis have been occupiers since the 1967 war. More importantly, the religion of the occupiers has changed from Islam to Christianity, to Judaism. The Ottomans never treated those living in Palestine fairly (and there were revolts) especially over taxes that made land ownership almost impossible for the average Palestinian, and conscription. They lived under a feudal system where most of the land was owned by rich sheiks who lived in other countries. But the difference was that it was Muslims ruling over other Muslims. When the UN Commission on the Partition of Palestine laid bare their plans they offered something to those in that part of the world never witnessed before... sovereignty, democracy, economic union, and a whole host of civil and religious rights. But instead, war broke out and they let it all slip away.

That's a bit outrageous to say the least. Try reading the actual text of Resolution 181 and then tell me what you think. For example..... 1.Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

So how does rule of law or international law apply to Hamas? Israel and Palestine are both signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Hamas is the 'de facto' government of Gaza which is considered part of Palestine. Article 52 of the UN Charter recognizes the right of a country to defend itself and sets very few limits. Can Israel 'invade and conquer'? I doubt that, but it can do whatever has to be done to remove any threat to its sovereignty.

Based on latest RCP Poll averages, only 24% of Americans feel the country is headed in the right direction. As for Biden's handling the economy... 37% approve, inflation... 32 %, crime... 37%, immigration... 32%, Ukraine... 42%. Not exactly stellar statistics especially with an election coming up. But not surprising either.

That's pretty much it. A 2 state solution was exactly what the UN Partition Plan envisioned back in 1947. The Commission realized (as the British did) that there was little hope the two could live together in peace under the same roof and that partition was the only solution. Now it's become a question of whether the two can live together in relative peace in two separate states.

I supported Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and in hindsight have realized what a terrible mistake it was. It created a vacuum of power and allowed Hamas (and Iran) to move in leaving Israel and it's leaders in an untenable situation. It would be foolish to make the same mistake with the West Bank. Putting yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, what would you do? The logical thing seems to be if one wants to get rid of Iran, you get rid of Hamas. And if you don't then history repeats itself. So tell us, what would you do?

I've said many years ago when the Democrats were open to welcoming far left democratic socialists into the party that they would eventually take control (which they are well on their way of doing). I was told..... 'no way'. Why go through all the trouble and expense of starting your own party from scratch when you could simply take one over? As Bill Maher once said... 'I haven't changed, you've changed.'

My first impression was that Freeland could have stepped in and supported Menzies' journalistic rights. I think she may have missed a big opportunity.

Trump has such a wide margin on all GOP contenders what's to worry about (other than a surprise ruling by the Supreme Court)? And actually, according to RCP poll averages, Haley is further ahead of Biden (if they ran head to head) than either Trump or DeSantis. It could make a good ticket with Trump and Haley as VP.

More elected Independents in Congress (or even the White House) would help. Since U.S. elections are fairly close as a rule, it would be the Independents who would get the last say on what legislation gets passed and what doesn't. As for the Justices, why couldn't both parties come to an agreement that they take turns in the selection process? This could work in a predominantly 2 party system.

The amendment seems to imply that a conviction (of some kind) was required or else it would have been worded 'engaged in an alleged insurrection'. Which sounds a bit ridiculous. So far, not even one protester has been convicted of insurrection.

Is that you Vladimir?