Jump to content

daddyhominum

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

daddyhominum's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. http://tinyurl.com/j7uuh or http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html Read the actual speech that has angered Muslims around the world.
  2. Fact: Far from not mentioning it, I gave an URL so all could read the actual case decision! Fact: The majority of divorced fathers pay child support. Fact: It is technically impossible to be "fatherless" OTOH, it is very simple for fathers to be irresponsible about paying for the children's needs when divorced. Fact: Courts do not take homes for child support but the family home is part of the division of common property in marriage settlements. Fact: Custody decisions are determined by the court deciding who is the parent best able to provide for the child's needs. Custody can be appealed again and again as circumstances change. Fact: Fair is determined by a divorce court in assigning common property. Decisions can be appealed. That is fair. Fact: Canadian law requires equality of opportunity without regard to gender which is the aim of feminism so all Canadians are feminists by law, including you. Fact: There is no "Bradley Amendment" in Canadian law. As the USA is considerably more backward then Canada with respect to gender and other equality issues, I can't imagine learning anything from discussions about US law. Btw, why do you want your children to live in poverty without a loving and supportive father? Those kinds of restrictions are similar to the manner in which one raises puppies to be viscious watchdogs.
  3. You make so many errors of fact that it is hard to know where to begin. For the sake of brevity I will list some facts that you can research on the net to correct some of your errors. 1.The decisions of a court are not "bills". 2. Decisions of a court apply only to the case tried although the reasoning in the case may be offered to influence later court decisions. Usually called 'precedent' 3.In the case you cite, the decisions were based on the existing "Divorce Act" and the "Parentage and Maintenance Act”. There is no act or bill regarding retroactivity. 4. Child support payments are assigned to the caregiver to offset costs of raising a child and are not for the use of the caregiver. Payments made to a support former spouse are called 'alimony'. 5. Failure to follow a court order is a criminal act without respect to gender. 6. The laws of Canada apply equally to men and women with respect to court ordered child support. 7. An Internet search turned up zero cases of men jailed in Canada for failure to pay child support. (That needs to change) 8. Child-support payments are determined by the ability of parents to support their child so that as incomes rise so do child-support payments. After all the errors of fact you believe, it is no wonder you cannot reason successfully about the matter of child support. Perhaps after you have done some research and accepted the true facts about child support, the courts, gender neutral laws, we might be able to discuss the morality of society requiring parents to support their children instead of non-parental taxpayers. You may read the report of the court decision in the case you cite at: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006.../2006scc37.html After reading the case, any reasonable person would agree that the fathers in this case behaved abominably toward their children and their society. Punitive damages should be allowed to the custodial parent where the other parent is so irresponsible and unfeeling toward the children, IMO
  4. Harper was able to do this because the PC party _did_ melt down and most of the moderate right of center people joined the new party. This shifted the balance of power in the party away from the extremists that dominated the Reform party. Do you think Layton or Rae could manage a similar move to the center, shifting power away from the extreme ideologues and the unions? A move to the center might make the NDP a reasonable alternative to the Conservatives and grab some of the votes lost by the Liberals in the last election?
  5. The shooter's classmate, Brooke Brown, wrote a book in which he stated he believed bullying to be the motivation. Dr Elliot Leytons study on serial killings puts bullying as an first factor in a killers profile. Barbara Colorosso's book does the same. See: http://www.amazon.com/No-Easy-Answers-Behi...e/dp/1590560310 What has changed? When I was a boy guns were very common place but pistols were unknown. To get an automatic rifle, you bought a semi-automatic and filed a pin down on some guns. As it only held 16 rounds they were gone before you could hit anything. If you had trouble, academic or behaviorial, you left school and went to work Dr. Skinner suffered broad approbation for his seminal work on human behaviour and his ideas were not experimentally developed and proven until well into the 1970's and work is still progressing. Konrad Lorenz, Nikko Tinbergen and the study of animal behaviour was limited to a few unknown scholars and no attempt to relate evolutionary behaviour to man had been undertaken. Children who committed crimes were believed to be monsters, witches, or possessed and were treated like adults by the courts. Nonetheless outstanding murder trials captured the public interest as when Leopold and Lowe were tried in Chicago. Recognition of serial murder and/or mass murder as a special category of behaviour was not even speculated about. People died, disappeared and there was no national linkage of police or crimes. Criminal investigations lacked almost all the forensic tools they possess today. There was no sharing of records; no collating of data. No one knew what happened in the next province. I remeber when a young man killed his parents and siblings in Alberta in the fifties and all of the prairies trembled in fear they would his next victim. Hitchhikers regularly killed people who gave a ride to the wrong guy. Everything has changed about solving and treating murder. Not much has changed the numbers of murderers.
  6. Well, I'm relatively certain that's the case. Though the vice-regal almost always follows the advice of his or her ministers, this is simply a convention followed to ensure the stability of government. The Queen or her reps can refuse that advice in extreme circumstances, and have done so in the past: one example being Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta, John C. Bowen, who in 1937 refused to grant Royal Assent to three bills passed by William Aberhart's Social Credit government on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The passing of a new Quebec constitution would be regarded as a unilateral declaration of independence, which the Supreme Court has already decreed would be illegal. Thus, it seems very likely that, on those grounds, the L-G of Quebec would refuse Royal Assent to the bill, thereby thwarting Quebec's unconstitutional secession. Certainly the L-G is appointed by the Governor General (on behalf of the Queen, who is actually the Canadian head of state), but he or she acts as the representative of the Crown in the province, not as a rep of the federal government. It's also true that a Quebec ministry could (and most likely would) write in a clause eliminating the Crown (and thus the L-G) from Quebec. But, until that theoretical Quebec constitutional bill, regardless of its contents, receives Royal Assent from the Lieutenant Governor, it will never have effect, and thus the L-G remains representative of the Queen in Quebec. As I said, the Quebec cabinet could "declare" the constitution valid without the granting of Royal Assent, but such an act would still be illegal. The GG and all the LG's do represent the Queen but like the Queen they no longer have any effective power over the legislature. Can the Canadian courts make rulings about the legality of a province declaring its independence? It may breach some Canadian laws but doesn't international law recognize a right to self-government that would be a higher law then Canadian law?
  7. To read the same opinions from those who share your line of thinking is not evidence. If anything, the title of the first website you reference is, primae facia, evidence of prejudice and the last url you give has reason specifically omitted by its name. Facts that support your claim is the evidence we need. Not more opinion from angry people unable to observe or reason because of the hate clouding their intellect.
  8. As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s. As I pointed out in an earlier post, all Canadian parties currently support the same general social democratic principles the CCF, precursor to the NDP, first introduced into Canada. The most successful expression of those principles is the Canada Health Act, which has become a central focus for Canadian national goals and national pride. But it is seldom recognized that NDP governments have also been the most successful at managing provincial finances as well as being among the worst: Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan as the best and Glenn Clarke as the worst. (Note the difference in that Roy was a lawyer first and Glenn was a union official) So it is hard to understand your fear. There is no doubt that the NDP can govern successfully so what, specifically, in their platform gives you the willies? What about Bob Rae? If nothing else I hope he becomes leader of the Liberals. Will be much easier to win another round if that happens. Ontarians loathe the guy. That is a problem for him. But he has seen the light on balancing the tax rate and the social program equation so I would like to see him take another run at governing. Bu, like GlennClarke in BC, he won't ever be forgiven for his past stupidity. No reason why he should be. There is lots of talent in Canada.
  9. There is a big difference between provincial politics and federal politics - the BC Liberals have more in common with the federal Conservatives than with the federal Liberals. The NDP at the federal level is coalition of social activists who care more about ideology than policy. It simply does not attract the competent middle of the road people that would be required to form a sensible gov't since the NDP has zero chance of forming a gov't. Left leaning people who are competent enough to run a gov't will choose to enter provincial politics or join the federal Liberal party.That said, a complete melt down of the federal liberal party could bring a huge infusion of middle of the road people into the NDP that could make it a viable governing party. However, if that happened it would no longer be the same party since it would no longer be dominated by left wing ideologues. You are certainly correct. But such variations seem to exist within the other parties as well. In fact, Harper's success has been credited to his ability to stifle the element bent on social reform of the country. And I think that is one illustration of how leadership can make a successful government even when large parts of the party have agendas not shared by the majority of electors. I don't think Mr. Layton has the necessary skills to manage the extreme left of the party, present a delectable platform, and manage the country. But mostly I don't think he has a viable economic platform. On the other hand if Layton were to move closer to Bob Rae's position on the economy, he could look a lot more capable.
  10. The PA was an elected government that never put a single attacker of Israel on trial or in jail. Even after Israel caught them and turned them over the the PA, no action was taken. On the other hand, Israel even put General Sharon on trial to satisfy allegations about his behaviour in Lebanon. The rule of law works in Israel but not in the PA controlled territories so Israel must mete out punishment directly. What is illegal about a group of people buying up land in PA territories and establishing a community there? We let people do that in Canada and other countries. The PA accepted the proposals and then Israel complied and the PA didn't. The unreasonableness came from the hawks in the PA territories who refuse to stop using violence against Israel. People who truly fear for their survival would at least seek a just peace, don't you think? Israel does seek peace. A just peace is in the eye of the beholder. I would like to buy your car for $100. That would be a just price for me. Please forward the necessary paperwork. Fortunately for you I will not follow your reasoning and engage in violence to obtain your car for a just price.
  11. Your saying that the agenda is to shout slogans rather then attempt to understand the facts and base editorial opinion on those. Pointless waste of time, init?
  12. It can't be adopted, though, until receiving Royal Assent from the Lieutenant-Governor. The process by which that "constitution" lands on her desk, as described above, would be deemed illegal under the Canadian constitution, which Quebec is still bound by. Thus, it's very likely that the L-G would be forced to refuse Assent. If the PQ government went ahead anyway, and declared the Quebec constitution ratified, and Quebec independent, on their own accord, they would likewise be acting illegally. What the consequences of that would be? I don't know; but I imagine they wouldn't be pretty. I think the Clarity Act simply enhances the federal government's negotiating powers. The guidelines pertaining to the succession of a province from Canada were already pretty narrow, but the Clarity Act just makes them narrower, though more defined. Can one be certain that is the case? In most recent events involving the representative of the crown in disagreement with the elected commons, the commons has won. While the LG may have a formal constitutional role in approving legislation, I think that the common law requires that the LG take the advice of the government. Secondly, the LG in Canadian Provinces represents the Governor General, head of state for Canada. It is likely that any legislation passed by the Quebec legislature would include cutting the link between the Head of State for Canada (GG) and the Head of state for the province (LG). So the bill declaring independence would render the power of the LG as it exists null and void. The LG is just not a player in the separation of a province from Canada because the LG is Canada symbolically and Canada will be gone from the affairs of the province.
  13. Their only hope of getting a market for enriched uranium in Iran ?
  14. You continue to make claims that males are mistreated but never give any evidence of that actually happening. You cannot say that something is a true fact without presenting some factual evidence to establish that truth. Your statement is not proof and additional statements to the same effect are not proof. In one message, you posted that “they” are making laws that take away freedoms and rights. If that is true, you can find a copy of the legislation on the Internet and make a reference or a quote of the law to support your view. It seems that many of us believe you are wrong. Could it be that you have no evidence to support your statement? Can you be right if you cannot give any evidence to support your statements? It is if you are accusing your neighbour of a murder but are unable to demonstrate any evidence that a murder ever happened.
  15. As someone else has already pointed out there is a successful NDP government in Manitoba right now. There have been many successful NDP/CCF governments since the 1950’s. As I pointed out in an earlier post, all Canadian parties currently support the same general social democratic principles the CCF, precursor to the NDP, first introduced into Canada. The most successful expression of those principles is the Canada Health Act, which has become a central focus for Canadian national goals and national pride. But it is seldom recognized that NDP governments have also been the most successful at managing provincial finances as well as being among the worst: Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan as the best and Glenn Clarke as the worst. (Note the difference in that Roy was a lawyer first and Glenn was a union official) So it is hard to understand your fear. There is no doubt that the NDP can govern successfully so what, specifically, in their platform gives you the willies?
×
×
  • Create New...