SirRiff

if this second one is linked to canada, not only with US ranchers want to kill us because we cost them international grief, but no other country will look at canadian beef the same way again. we are pretty much screwed i think.

that may be right for you, and even i think thats the right way to go, but thats not reality. public policy must be based on reality, and its necessary to teach kids the realities of sex if they insist on having sex, which they do.

LINK ok..first the obvious... what the hell are 12 and 13 yr old girls doing having sexual relations with anybody....??? what the hell is a 19 yr old man doing with pre-pubescent girls...??? the parents should ABSOLUTELY be charged with child endangerment. well i want to hear responses. my personal opinion, he should have gotten more. at 19 you are considered an adult. he took advantage of this girls who are just children.

LINK what is really interesting is the argument being made, namely; this gets into the intent of the charter, which once again, states both; AND I think its reasonable to point out that while alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are permitted in Canada (under regulation) even when they contribute to the deaths of thousands each year, pot is completely prohibited even though it is nowhere nearly as dangerous. doesnt make sense, either they are all too dangerous, or they are all able to be regulated in a free society. i can understand why we dont want more pot in society, but is there any sound argument against pot that also would sutain our treatment of guns, smokes, and booze? incidently, from the SCC's own words, a description of the questions being asked;

morgan, half the stuff you are talking about is wacky a) what i posted was not aimed at bush or anybody, so i dont know how you got that. i simply pointed out the document is an obvious fake by anybody in the real world. in fact what i said was all you had to do is read it reading the actual document serves no purpose if its fake .once again if you read the actually article it says.. so obviously, if US officials think its false, its contents are just lies anyways. isnt it obvious? it could say saddam piloted the planes on 9/11, doesnt matter, its obviously regarded as a fake by american officials. once again, if you read the article you would see the content of the lies are of no matter if its a fake. c) actually bush has many times linked iraq and 9/11. many stupid americans have inferred this to believe that saddam was involved. poll after poll shows high numbers thinking that he was directly involved with 9/11. so its pretty obvious bush as tried to link 9/11 to iraq. even a child can see that. alot of his sidekicks have also made pretty vauge comments linking them. the fact that many americans believe the link shows bushs lies have worked. while maybe this year he said once saddam was not involved, for the last two years he has been linking 9/11 to iraq time and time again. d) it doesnt matter who knows its false, its still false. its the same intelligence system who knew that nobody had proof of WMDs in iraq are the ones who think this document is a fake. e) when you say there are periods that atta can not be accounted for, really what they say is f) considering the newsweek guys has GOVERNMENT OFFICALS who are willing to dismiss the document as a likely forgery, its obvious the telegraph article must have been written for a reason to ignore all these suspicious aspects. the only reason that a capable person would claim as proof this document is if he was a preconceived idea. in contrast, regardless of what newsweek thinks, the confirmation of real goverment officials makes any potenial bias a lame accusation. newsweek has the benefit of mostly disproving this article, thus its not unresonable to conclude this previous article must have ignored reality and been bad writing itself. there is no great bias in newsweek, they did thier job and got confirmation of real gov officials. after this, they make an opinion on how the telegraph got it so wrong. so its not a bias, its a conclusion, and a reasonable on, considering the information that has come to light. you cannot argu with the US gov even saying its likely a forgery. actually, i was more swayed by the goverment officials that newsweek cites as sources. what do you go by, how much you like the reporter? maybe you should read the article more carefully, the important part was the official sources cited, not the reporters themselves. uh no, they talked them both up to justify the war. believing anything else is just hiding your head in the sand. wow internet speculation with a large amount of uninformed guessing...you should work for newsweek. unless osamas fingerprints are found on teh bills, its makes little different. its not like the saudi royal family/bushs best friends/terrorist funders could get a hold of hot printed US cash...there are lots of rich people in the ME who can take baths in new US bills

newsweek looks at this "proof" and cites it as false. only a moron would believe this worthless paper as proof of anything. basically all the flaws that i addressed out of just common sense are signs of forgery. desperate people believe desperate things. http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0

thank you, thank you, thank you, i can assure you i have already forgotten all the little people that got me here.... i am actually so hard ass on spending i could never be a true liberal. its all about sacrifice...i am cheap as hell anyways... as my first act of office i herby appoint Craig as the Officer of the northern territories overseeing polar bear rectal examinations. He will be stationed in the new Crown Observatory and Laboratory of the Department of Artic Science and Study, also known as C.O.L.D.A.S.S. i also appoint Hugo as chief molecular biology advisor with jurisdiction over Chia pets, sea monkeys, PEZ, and cloning elvis. Prime Minister sirriff

hey if you want to send troops to hide out in a base, sure i guess we can do that. because obviously no other nation is crazy enough to really occupy iraq without an international agreement. spain lost 7 intelligence officers in an ambush, but besides that, you ever year poland or romania or micronesia loosing troops? nope. sending troops is a farce, they are combat engineer at most nad will never actually fight. if you want to send troops to study bridges fine. but look around and nobody is sending troops for combat. it would be stupid for canada to do so under the current situation.

translation= its obvious all the time you spent ranting about some phantom contradition were misplaced after its obvious my language was specific and targeted. please see the genetics thread....namely. a striking example of not asking people to take your world for it, citing your sources, and not needing qualifications. gotta love someone who questions the qualifications of others then runs when presented with a chance to prove his own. pretty pathetic hugo, question someones education, intelligence, yet shut up quickly when your turn comes up. oh wait, was that another contradiction? sirriff

hugo you actually think these contradict each other? do you even know what contradict means? the first one points out that judges are not elected so they dont have to appeal to the masses and can make unpopular decisions, like womens right, protection of minorities, and now gay rights. they are not at the 'whim' of politics because they dont need to appeal to the masses like politicians about tax cuts and all that crap. the second one simply points out that after the GOVERNMENT created the charter the courts MUST abide by it, which will result in greater protection of civil rights. their particular interpretation may vary a bit, but they have no choice but to comply with the charter. thus rights are more protected because of the charter, not of the opinion of judges. all this ranting and this is what you are so focused on? these two points are not mutually exclusive. the courts did not choose the charter, but they must obey it. thus simply doing thier job and obeying what the federal gov and provincial govs created. this in no way reflects thier actions. you seem to be confused about who made the charter and who impliments the charter. the government made the charter the courts must follow the charter. i dont know why you have a problem with these two very reasonable and rational statements. both are true, and they are not mutually exclusive. PS- we are all still waiting for your qualifications and lists of impressive credentials in genetics and law sirriff

i think you mean when they put some WMDs there... after all, with all thier specific and credible intelligence, you would think something would have been found. and of course the US army has already reassigned large parts of the WMD team because they have checked all thier sites and found nothing. i'm sure saddam has some nasty chemicals somewhere, just like the auto plant outside the city limits here. big deal. bleach and ammonia dont count. first they implied he was linked to 9-11. then they said he has huge stockpiles of WMD and they knew all abou them and they could be launched any minute. now its about how bad he was, of course, he wasnt bad enough to stop supporting, or stop selling equipment to, or stop giving weapons too, no not THAT bad. seriously, its a pathetic argument, made by dangerous people for dangerous reasons.

so you are saying that they have this iraqi intelligence officer in custody, they have been interrogating him for months, he has denied the prague thing, and they just forgot to ask about iraq meetings? do you really think this would be the story if they had confirmed an iraqi meeting? of course not, the proof is that you dont hear a peep from Bush & Co. about saddam being involved in 9-11 anymore, nor do you hear about WMD anymore, just that saddam was a bad guy. if there is all this proof why hasnt bush presented it when americans are desperate for support? they are trying to get loans forgiven, they are trying to get international troops, they are trying to generate some PR, yet you think they are just sitting on some proof of an iraq-911 link? basically what you are saying is that you have this proof, yet nobody in the US government has ever said a word about it in public, despite the horrible light the US is seen in throughout the world. man if you think that, you are delusional and need special help. tell them you know a secret that nobody else knows... so some handwritten documents that stupidly inplicate saddam with an international terrorism operation, were found years after the attack, by the american appointed iraqi national congress (who only care about thier own power as everyone knows). already the prague visit is proven wrong, but somehow atta secretly got into iraq, and instead of alqueda training, he went to saddam and abu nidel. all the while of course the american investigors think he spent his time in florida, and of course no american agency claims to have even circumstancial proof that this happened. yes. this is certainly an airtight case craig. you should be come a detective. you have beaten the FBI, CIA, and NSA because they have yet to claim this is even remotely possible. wow. good job. you are a regular columbo. basically every part of this story is suspect, from the source, to its timeline, to the lack of american governments interest, to the stupidy of documenting international terrorism. do you really think they found a handwritten note that links saddam to 9-11 yet all this massive stockpiles of WMDs are elusive? only a complete idiot would take this as credible in any way. the prague story was repeated by top american officials even after it was proven wrong. this is just as useless. ahh i knew you would redeem yourself. representing yourself like the true intellectual you are, taking as fact heresay from The Daily Telegraph which even the US governemnt wont touch. then of course, those of us who point out its completely worthless are misrepresenting information and should be kicked off. i think you pretty much destroy your own argument here. with your mindless belief of the unproven you call into question everything you claim as truth. did you call bush yet? i am sure he would be pleased to know some canadian found the proof that the entire US gov has been looking for....and it was right there on the internet... sirriff

Hugo, so much bark and so little bite. i am not sure if you are trying to make yourself feel better, or cheerleading for someone else again, but you cant even rant right. the charter is specifically designed to apply to gov-citizen interactions. courts have also interpreted it to be limited to this role. what exactly does the "means of government" mean anyways? how government operates? thats not what the charter applies to, it applies only to how citizens and government interact. it limits the actions of governments in truth, in how it deals with its citizens. in fact constitutions may not even be precise about the government as the original BNA 1867 act did not cite a PM, or cabinet, or supreme court, or even an ammending formula. much of the canadian constitution is of custom and convention, so what you said above that it is precise relating to government is not true as any student of constitutional law will tell you. so both those points are false. in fact the charter and other parts of the constitution ARE ment to be a broad framework which is rigid enough to sustain its principles yet flexible enough to stay relevant. the charter specifically applies to government-citizen interactions. and it is specifically broad to fulfill that role. i cant understand your perfect english and what the means of gov are, but i am sure you will explain. because in fact the charter is applied to gov-citizens interactions only, and is both broad and limited in that role. i was proven wrong? where, in your head? please explain for those of who who dont live in your head, where is this proof? well lets see...a slim majority of canadians oppose gay marriage, yet the SCC supported gay exclusion as discrimination. so we have the judges doing the right thing regardless of what the majority say at the moment. so i am right, they do not flip flop by the current poll of the day, and have consistently protected civil rights since teh charters inception. dont you find it odd to have such a simple example sitting right in front of your face? its so obvious its even hard to understand why it would need explaining. courts often make controversial decisions that lead the way for new rights, whether it is segregation, abortion, or gay rights. this is just obvious. each were not the majority decision when first tackled. the careful reaction of the canadian and US govs tells us clearly that the majority do not embrace gay marriage with open arms, even though both countries courts are finding exclusion discriminatory. thus its clear any claim that the courts are shown the way by the people is wrong. gay marriage is just one of many examples where teh courts lead the way. uh..i dont think i said the politics of the moment..try reading next time, what exactly did i say that so bothers you? this imaginary stuff has to end hugo, you just end up talking to yourself. if you think i have contradicted myself in error or otherwise, you probably read it wrong. i have said that courts need to reflect the changing constitutional landscape of society. example, after the charter, a new era was made. doesnt matter what side the public was on, teh courts had the power to enforce equality rights. this is simple stuff. if the majority agree is pointless, the charter trumps polls. all your ranting and raving about someones argument, yet you never really point out what you think is wrong you just refer to it vaguely and assume you are right. what is it about this i-didnt-get-it-so-it-must-be-you-and-i-win' philosophy? it seems rather childish. if you read things nice and slow....you will see....that there is no conspiracy and everything i say is real.... ONLY 1??? i cited the ONLY one that laid the foundation for all charter limitation cases. and i realize you dont know this, but i did cite actual judgement of that case, the so called "Oakes test" that every first year law student knows as teh definitive court framework for approaching charter rights. my god man, you dont recognize the most important case in charter rights history (its the Roe v Wade of charter rights), you dont recognize the most well known case precedent to come out of it, namely the test for charter protection. hugo, if you dont know Oakes, and cant recognize the Oakes test, you know NOTHING about canadian charter precedent and judgements. nothing. everything you copy and past after that is pointless if you have not read the entire oakes judgement. even if i posted 10 cases after that, they all rely on the oakes precedent, so that is why i focused on oakes becuase its 99% of what you need to discuss charter rights in canada.... i cant believe you think the number of copies and pastes of other cases are a better way to discuss this rather then a comprehensive look at oakes. charter law is not like checkers, the most dont win. adn every other case that could possibly be cited, cites oakes in its standard. you know its pretty pathetic when you resort to questioning 'qualifications', as if a qualification is needed for you to rant and rave vaguely about people without really responding to what they say. as above, i never said courts should respond to the 'politics of the moment' or whatever you said, this 'proof' of bending to the whim of the majority you speak of is news to me, i dont recall it (actually i showed it doesnt exist with gay marriage specifically). if you are so concerned about qualifications, i notice you have never proved your own, which it seems you would be proud to do if you have a genetics or law degree. very telling. well i can safely guess you are not a genetics professor or a lawyer, but if you are a brain surgeon or something please share. my head has been hurting of late and i may need some evil spirits removed... actually you misread what i said again, i said i have actually read SCC judgements in full, not just copy and past a line here or there from a google search. if fact i got a legal text right on my desk here which contains many majority judgements and dissenting opinions of the last 50 years. this is the kind of stuff you need to read before you make this wild claims about the charter. like i have said many times, teh fact that niether you or anybody els can even cite Oakes as the defining case of charter limitations tells me that nobody here has read anything of value on the subject, much like the genetics thread. and it is a complex subject, the legal terminology is hard to digest most times. my english is fine man, a few typos never hurt anybody, and i type really fast, so you will just have to guess what "teh" is supposed to mean. i wouldnt criticize anybody if i was you with your loosely associated rants. if you actually cared to read what i said it would make perfect sense, but you just read the first and last sentence, then post 4 paragraphs incorrectly interpreting what i said and how it must be wrong because you dont get it. what qualifications do you require exactly? i have a 4 year honors genetics degree from the university of western ontario and i am currently pre law. i have worked in genetics labs and the aerospace industry. want to know my shoe size? why exactly would you think the piece of paper makes a difference. try reading in complete sentences without proclaiming victory in your head every paragraph and it will all make sense. which law school did you go to harvard or something? i am sure when you cite your qualifications in genetics and law in your next post it will all be clear and i will be shown how superior your insight is. i await shock and awe. please list the degrees in chronological order with links to your tenor at each institution. PS- i would never let qualifications talk for me anyway. i can talk intelligently about genetics enough that anybody with a clue should be aware i have sound insight. having a clue is hereditary i think (that means genetically encoded and passed on through the generations for the genetically impaired.) PPS- this is my favorite quote of yours this time; yes i do agree that univerisites are dubious. i guess i can cross english professor off the list too eh? "hello kettle?" "yes this is pot, you are black" sirriff

wow, sending 3000 people that will never fight the real fight...fantastic... gee maybe we should sent some crossing gaurds. no other country is going to fight this war, only watch from the sidelines. sirriff

i get bored of pointing out ignorance but.... they have had time to make him crack, there was no meeting. this was reported just 2 days ago, citing real intelligence officials. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/13/internat...ope/13INQU.html any continueing denial of this is stupidity at its best....the US admin never cited this in public because they know it was some rumour started by thier PR machine. sirriff

just speaking the truth man... look at what you did, you copied and pasted a bunch of pointless information of what france and germany did. what was your point? you were trying to use arms sales data to somehow reduce or difuse or transfer the responsiblities of teh US. as i said, if i did 1 murder, and you did 12, does that make me any less of a murderer? of course not, its absolute unrelated to the level of my moral responsibility. and once again someone gets all hissy without trying to understand the perspective of another opinion. see..i never said facts are bad, i said without implications they are useless. as i said, all this data about europe is pointless because i was referring to the moral burden of the US. and helping dictators is not relative. because if you actually understood what i said, its not relavent to the discussion of US responsibilities. doesnt matter if france sold 2X, or 20X, or 200X as much as the US, the US chooses to support violent in iran, iraq, and afganistan. you keep pretending that complicity in oppression is relative. it aint. this is why everything you pasted is not relavent to what i said. 1 murder is not lessened by someone elses 12. someone elses wrong does not lessen your own as you incorrectly imply. after all your ranting you never never actually put forward a conclusion as to why you are posting these facts about france when we are talking about the US fault. you just spew them out there as if the clicking of the mouse is the achievement. see, that would be the implication, what exactly does it add to the perspective and why is it meaningfull in this discussion? now THAT would be useful

Morgan you are focused on the facts without realizing implications. everyone helped saddam. that is obvious. if you think you are the only person that can copy and past the weapons figures i think you give the internet folk too little credit. now ask yourself what this all means. who claimed a clear and present danger by saddam? The US who claimed specific intelligence that WMDs existed in many forms? the US who launched the war without UN approval? the US who has failed to find WMDs they themselves claimed to have known about? the US who is in line to influence oil policy in iraq? the US. who is suddenly calling saddam evil like they just discovered it? the US thus its fairly obvious, regardless of your copy and paste fiesta, that nobody is concerned with which specific nations sold him weapons. every nation involved has sold weapons to someone or someone else. certainly the US has given weapons to iraq, how they match to european weapons is meaningless, as one murder is not made any less immoral by comparing it to a dozen obviously. The US has also armied iranian terrorists, and afgan terrorists, not to mention supporting many other dictators. there is no question as to who is more guilty here, the US has far more blood on its hands in the last few decades then others. only one country cited WMDs, went around the US, is an occupying power, and has to defend its actions. the US. nobody else launched a war. the US has an evil record when it comes to afganistan, iran, and iraq. they have to now defend thier current actions against their previous positions. i would think this is all obvious supporting dictators is not a relative scale. its rather pathetic to try to lesson the criminality of it by pointing out others have done it. that entire logic does not work in any situation of normal personal responsibiity. sirriff

if anybody deserves the death penalty, its saddam. should be given to the iraqis and let them tear him to pieces on live television. unfortunately this changes nothing about iraq, its still war for profit, still built on a lie of WMDs, and still a danger to teh world unless it gets under control. whats really offensive is paul martin giving congrats to bush. bush didnt do anything. its the hardworking GIs on the ground who suffer every day who made this happen. anybody thinking it was politicians is beyond stupid. of course, saddam wasnt too bad to support against iran, or sell equipment to, or buy oil from, or give chemicals to. maybe he was just misunderstood unill the economy slowed down. sirriff

the war was a power grab plain and simple. excluding other nations is more to prevent influence in shaping teh political policy rather then just money. the oil reserves are massive and will flow for decades. precedent for this sort of action can be found in Iran 1953, when american and british intelligence assisted with an illegal coup to secure greater oil interests in iran. declassified documents at the time spell it out. so its obvious this is for long term oil interests out of some neo-con policy to increase american power at any expense. wmds are obviously a farse, as are concerns about human rights since the US has supported every major dictator of the last 50 years for its own interest. after it drives away the last of its allies it will find itself very alone in the world. america needs allies because its a very tough world as 9-11 showed, especially over seas. americans will feel as safe as israelis walking around. and no amount of $$ can buy back your peace of mind.

my perspective was its historical survival, some 225 years or something with the same constitution. not to mention canada spent decades haggling over its constitutional ammendment formula and personal rights. so its rather stupid to conclude the EU, facing nothing like the US or Canada faced, is somehow doomed because of 1 failed summit. canada has had too many failed summits to count and we came out smelling like roses today.

this thread has the most lack of insight into law since the gay thread had lack of insight into genetics. i will just point out on example of misinformation... the fact that the CCRF is a partial list of rights is specifically mentioned so that additional rights beyond the scope of the charter are not denied on the scope they are not enumerated in the charter. there is no conclusion to be made that this means common law is equal. there may be additional common law rights, but they are not equal to charter protection. people need to study the law in some matter before claiming they know what they are talking about. (same with genetics)

yeah its not like other great federations had problems... take america, its not like it ever had a bloody civil war...wait...it did....hmm..it seems to have survived... i got pity for this thread

ok Hugo, let me try to extract some common principles that run through this thread a) this idea of legal specificiy remedying need for interpretation. the fact is that the BNA act 1867, the constituatin act 1982 and the Charter, and the US constitution are all written in broad pinciple form. not to mention various other laws in both the US and Canada, IF in fact, your assertion that just being more specific would solve most of the need of judicial interpretation, WHY i ask you, did all the constutional law experts, prime minister legal representatives, provincial representatives, and interest groups who participated in the Charter creation not do what you think is obvious and put forwards broad pinciples of law? basicially, if you think you are right, why has no constitutional document in the US or Canadas history been written to resemble your view? in fact, all the experts in law who put together these documents, not to mention the PMs and premiers of opposing viewpoints, all agreeds broad pinciples were required. the fact that all the experts and professionals have consistantly written in broad constitutional principles tells me that what you advocate is wrong, and what has been done sucessfully is right. i see no other reasonable interpretation of why your desire for numbeous spedific examples to solve most problems has not been employed in the history of american and canadian constitutions. this idea of judicial interpretation changing with the idea of broad constitutional principles comes the idea of wide judicial review to reflect the current state of canadian society. after all a constitution is a timeless document that still needs to adapt to modern societies. Thus what you see as changing the law, is actually the powers specifically given to the judical branch by the executive in recognition that an independant (and they are independent, being secure in job till 75) interpretation is the best way to maintain some flexability as society changes. after all our constitution is 130+ years old. as to your supposed proof of some judicial conspiracy.. the obvious answer is that only recently have this post Charter rights been within the scope of judicial review in the first place. also, only recently have these civil rights been paramount in society. after all women have only been able to demand equality since the 20s, blacks since the 60s, and gays since the 90s. the courts tackle the subjects that are appealed in the courts. you would probobly use the same reasoning to say, why dont the courts cover bioethics before 2000? well , there were few concerns of genetic concerns before the last few years, so the legal system had few reasons to address them. the courts are there to interpret the constitution as a way of enriching canadian society. so obviously if gay rights become important in 2000, they are more likely to look at it different. that is the flexability that constitutions are supposed to have while still maintaining longlasting principles of equality. i dont see the problem here, it seems obvious to me why civil rights are more likely to be protected by courts in a equality conscious post Charter society. i know exactly how the SCC judges are nominated. i actually know about the history of provincial demands for participation in nominations too. do you really believe just because i recognize the high degree of judical independance in canada that i must not be aware of how they are appointed? that is a pretty limited and self defeating train of thought, which will impair your abillty to see and respond to the arguments of others. you should stop confusing acceptance of conflicting views with lack of knowledge. i dont see a political conspiracy seeing as how they are secure in thier jobs for decades. and you claiming they are at the whim of the politics of the moment is nonsense. they have no reason to be- they get no more money, they dont get parades, they are well into thier upper ages by the time they are sitting, their pensions remain secure and unchanged, they do not seek political appointments at 75 when they retire, and so on. its just nonsense to even suggest some evil influence. they are lifelong legal scholars who have no vested interest in pleasing the masses. they have secured positions and pensions and are among the brightest legal professionals in canada. you seem to be just crying foul because you dont agree with the new charter era of Canada, where most canadians actually want equality accross the board. as for 30-40 years ago, i dont have amnesia about anything. i dont recall denying that it happened either, so you must be confused once again. whatever they did before, regardless of how i feel about it, is how the system worked then. if society was not concerned as much about gay rights, then of course courts are not likely to focus or interpret them in that way. why are you even talking about them, i never mentioned them or denied them, man you are just all over the place on this. neither you or the other dissenters seem to know about the real decicions and real judgements the SCC has laid down in charter interpretation. as i have said before, Oakes is the definative cause taught in depth at every law school accross canada. if you did study it, you would see the thinking and perspective of the recent SCC. your examples of the vaugeness of law, of murder being argued as protected, of civil rights recently being high lighted, shows no understanding of how the SCC chooses its cases in the post Charter era, or how it itself has described the process of balancing compeling interest of goverment in limiting rights and the protection of equality. like genetics, i have spent alot of time reading the primary literative, namely SCC decisions, judgements, and dissents written by the judgements themselves, especially on charter cases. none of it supports your ideas of specificity and political interference. and a i mentioned above, even a reasonable look at everyday life doesnt support the idea that you know how to solve the problem with constituations better then every man who has written them in the US and canada. obviously broad principles have worked for two of the oldest and most successful constituations in teh world, the US and Canada. and this idea of recent political interference is horribly ignorant to the post charter legal environment and society, which speicifically promotes civil rights of gays and women, thus removing the whole political theory. for everything this is wrong with current Charter realities in Canada, they are 100 things right. Oakes is briliant by the way, and a necessary basis for discussions about what the framework is for deciding what is and is not protected by the charter. nothing can be discussed before taking that decision into account. sirriff

what kind of dumb example is that hugo? that is something that a 7 yr old would argue. do you really think that s15 would justify murder in canada? i posted a real example of how the SCC has decided what the charter protects and what it doesnt. if you had read it, you would know that your little excuse for a point that you describe as an "example" is not realistic. there are an infinate number of reasons why society and goverment would benefit from treating criminals different. the least of which is the benefit to society to prevent violent crime in any form. i hope you dont criticise anybody about the content of thier post on this threat after posting something like that.... next you will cover your ears and yell "NA NA NA NA I CANT HEAR YOU" i also pointed out that its obviously imposssible to try to predict every conceivable way that a situation can arise. the framers of the constitution even realized that and merely pointed out some examples to try to give insight into thier intentions. i recall a well known canadian legal scolar writing that if nothing else, even the example of exact precedents with exact facts changes in the dimension of time if nothing else. thus there can never be an exact predent or interpretation because time will always have passed from one interpretation to the next. it is just not conceivable to try to enumerate every possible situation that any constituational rights could be argued. its not even rational to suggest it. if you were truly a genius, and had figured out this before anybody else, why are there so many layers and legal framework in our system? why do we need so many courts. obviously, you have not discovered some lost secret, in reality, the actions of society can NEVER be predicted and since the beginning of recognized law to the present date, there have always been situations that need interpretation based on the current standards of society. first of all, judges do not change law. by definition they interpret it. they have judical review, they can invalidate statutes by interpreting the higher powered constituation. secondly, i am not sure if you accept the notion of judicial independance, but they are precisely not elected so they dont need to bend to the whims of the popular sentiment of the moment like politicians. these two principles are obvious. the only discussion is whether in democracy the trust of rights should at last resort left in elected members (the "supremacy of parliament" as in britian), or by independant judicial review of the consitutation (a "constitutional democracy" as we have here in canada) i was not refering to political parties, i was talking those protected and those not. like gays. regardless of what anybody thinks, Canada needs to protect gays against discrimation. similiar to what has been described as the "tyranny of the majority". it doesnt matter if the majority are too busy to care or notice or accept it, Canada as a nation protects the rights of minorites. uh, those are not garunteed rights. there is no constitutional right to not conform to highway laws. there is no constitutional right to smoke underage. there is no constitutional right to speak in urdo. i dont know why you are talking about non-charter rights, they are meaningless. charter rights are like gender equality. no matter what the majority think the charter protects equal treatment of men and women. please keep your eye on the ball and realize we are talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the rights garunteed within. seatbelts, smoking, and Urdu are not protected under the charter. get it? you will excuse me if your opinion of great arguments dont impress anybody, as i still recall the genetics thread. boydfish doesnt even recognize Oakes and the purposefull approach theory of the SCC. my response to him pretty much shows who has read about this stuff and who hasnt. similarly with your assertion that smoking and urdu are comparable to gender equality under the charter. not to mention that quote you posted of mine was responded to your assertion that its wrong for the courts to take a purposefull approach. it had nothing to do with boydfish regardless of how much you want to be his cheerleader. in fact i responded to him in a completely different post so i thought i was obvious that my response to you was complete and seperate. maybe that is why i put your name in capitals, so you can discern who i am talking to....seems like you need help. and i dont need any cheerleaders when i can tell what is charter protected and what isnt (smoking and urgo arent by the way), the real reasons behind the purposefull approach laid out by the SCC (go read it, you have not in fact discovered that all lawyers and courts are unneeded if you just write more examples), i actually know why murder isnt a valid subject for charter protection, and lastly i kept my responses to you and boydfish seperate. i am still baffled at how you can think that all the intelligent legal professionals in all advanced countries dont know what you know- just put more examples in guys! you should hold a press conference and tell the world the secret of examples. you could abolish and legal problems in the US and Canada overnight with your stunning insights. i am sure nobody ever thought of putting examples in. maybe we could even put every single example of every single situation that could possibly ever occur in every single law. thus we wouldnt even need courts anymore. groundbreaking.

all the anti-Liberals talk and talk and talk and talk, railing against gays and whatever. but when it comes down to it, the liberals have more support then any other party. IF PCs or CA's or whatever the new party is, would actually DO something to improve government in Canada, maybe people would care. but this lack of real substance that they can bring to the table is just going to bring more liberal majorities again and again. and as i have said before, that is not too good for democracy as a whole in canada. thus i would be happy to see a viable PC alternative, yet when i listen to supporters, all i hear is the same desperate liberal bashing that elicits no respect or credibility. brison is a great example, instead of realizing its a sign of weakness, they attack brison for not wanting to be in an anti-gay party, or wanting to be with a majority government. as if either of those are unexpected. for gods sake, if this is all the right has for an alternative to Liberals, they should disband, go home, and make better use of thier time. whatever happened to stockwell day?