SirRiff

the SCC specifically stated they need to take a "purposefull" approach to the charter several times. why? becuase the charter is specifically written in open and broad language to adjust to teh needs of society. imagine if it protected against privacy rights of written text but not cell phones. imagine if it protected discrimination against blacks but not gays. when society changed the judicial branch must interpret the framework of the constituation differently. if that is not what the people want, then they will elect an executive that will change the charter with the ammending formula provided in part 5, section 38, or 41. can you really define what "right to privacy" means in a way that covers every single instance that may arise? no. can you really list every single instance of discrimination that may occur in the charter? no. example. in the Constituation Act 1867 (formerly the British North America Act 1867) the framers of the constitution wanted a strong central goverment. When they layed out the division of powers between the provinces and federal powers, they listed some specific provincial powers, such as property and civil rights, natural resources, and local works. they then gave all "residual" powers to the central gov, but listed a few such as marriage and divorce, regulation of trade and commerce, as examples as to thier intentions. these examples are contained withing THE fundamental written document of the canadian constitution. but what the hell did property and civil rights mean in 1867? not a hell of a lot. it was specificaly intended not to be powerfull compared to the central gov. up till 1949 when the supreme court of canada became the final court of appeal, the british Judicial Committee of the privy council consistently ruled in favor of expanding the concept of property and civil rights to include more and more jurisdiction. by the time things got settled, provinces had claimed most of the expanded powers from technological and society change. thus Hugo, the constitution is obviously not meant to be a detailed exhaustive list of possible situations that may arise since 1867 or 1982. It is a reasonable framework reflecting the intentions of the time, but is specifically required to be interpreted by sucessive generations. there is an amending formula in the constituation for a reason. so popular consent can change it. there is an independant judicial branch for a reason, to interpret laws in terms of the current state of canadian society. as i said before the drug war would not have been "pressing and substantial" in 1867, or ever 1967, but it is now. and judges interpret how the framework of the constituation fits Canada at any point in time. so yes, obviously they have explicitly stated a "purposefull" approach is needed in order to deliniate what the intent and consequences of the protections of the charter are. as for teh case you cited, the decisions given by the court seem to support the perfect funtion of the courts, they discussed section 1 limiations on rights and whether s29 of the family law act was in violation of s15 of the charter. they found that it did violate equal protection for several reasons, and that a s1 argument against limiting the right failed for several reasons which i also cited in Oakes. no that is what teh courts are for. they stop abuse even if it may be popular by the majority because it is contrary to the canadian constituation. its possible that the moral and ethical answer has not been addressed by the parliament for seveal reasons, and the courts cannot allow this to continue. if parliament wants to ammend the constitation and alter s15, they certainly can. they just need to get broad support accross canada. the fact that this hasnt happened means that most canadians accept these protections, which justifies the courts in protecting them. this is a perfect example of what the courts SHOULD do, be a last line of defence against indifference of teh majority against a minority. IF, the majority feels absolutely to the courts, they have the power to change the charter. this hasnt happened. thus the courts were correct in thier role. thus that example shows teh charter and courts work fine. i dont see the problem. my example above demonstrates the purposefull approach is not only reasonable and rational, but necessary to interpret broad constitutional concepts that maybe decades or even centuries old and apply them to modern society.

no offence to anybody that doesnt deserve it, but has anybody here actually read supreme court decisions concerning charter interpretation? i have read many these past few months and they are very interesting if complicated. i recommend it, especially if you are going to try to speak intelligently on what teh charter does and does not protect. Michael Hardner, if you really looked at the charter and some of the issues around it you would have known thats not true. section 1 states The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. which specifically states that these rights are subject to limitations. anybody who has actually read about charter rights would know the Oakes case. the Oakes case is THE definative case when dealing with the supreme courts views of charter limitations and the burdern on limiting them. you cannot talk intelligently one charter protection without references to Oakes. in this case, a man was caught in possession of a small amount of narcotics. the police started using a policy which charged people in possession of narcotics with trafficking as well as possession. this was an effort to put the higher penalties of trafficking with more people to fight the drug problem. well this oakes fellow took it to the supreme court of canada in a landmark case that defined the requirements of charter limiations. The court found that using a default assumption of trafficking was a reverse-onus burden on the defendant, which caused him not to be presumed innocent of the trafficking crime. instead, he had to prove he was not guilty of traficking as well as possession. they found this unconstitutional under the charter protection of presumption of innocence. the truely important thing in this case is the specific methodology the court layed out for testing weather this infringement of rights would be constitutional in Canada. whether it met section 1 criteria as being "Demonstrably justified" in our "free and democratic society." well the first part of the Oakes test was whether the cause was "pressing and substantial". they ruled that the fight against drugs was a pressing and substantial issue for the government and could be considered for a reason to limit charter rights. the second part of the Oakes test was that the infringement of rights be 1) rationally connected to the goal, 2) minimally impair the target, and 3) be proportional in effect. they found that the reverse onus presumption of innocence did not meet the rational connection requirement because possession of a small amount did not rationally imply an intent to distribute. this is THE bedrock written principle on how government interacts with charter rights. so to all the self proclaimed experts on what a charter means and doesnt mean, its clearly written in supreme court of canada judgement that they have a specific recognition of how government can limit charter rights. i kept waiting for someone to reference a real supreme court case on this thread, since everyone seems to think they know what they are taking about when they declare the charter will authorize this or that, but nobody did. so finally i have enlightened some people about the actually factual, legal interpretation the SCC itself has taken on charter limitations. its all written down and just waiting to be read.... so to all those who claim the charter will protect all actions, let me inform you the SCC itself laid out rules for the government to act and what is required to limit the implied protections of charter rights. any social policy that the goverment enacts for the good of Canada, like keeping pedophiles on the wrong side of the law, falls well within the scope of limitations and judgements specifically written into and unto the charter. thus the charter explicitly recognizes the possibility of limitations on the rights contained within it. the supreme court explicitly catagorized the requirements, and recognized that there were many instances where these limitations could be implied if the rights were ever cited as protection against goverment laws. in summery, Oakes was the first SCC case to show that charter rights are no absolute, conditional on meeting the requirements of a "pressing and substancial" cause, a "rational connection" to the objective, a "minimum impairment" to the target, and a "proportional effect" of limitation to cause. thus anybody who says, like has been said here several times, that the charter will protect any deviant social behavior, is ignorant of the fundamental legal interpretation of the charter. next time, read up on real canadian legal realities before claiming to know anything other then what is on judge judy. sirriff

maybe he just wanted to be in a winning party for a change? else that or he had to undergo electroshock treatment to get rid of all those gay thoughts. cause we all know gay thoughts are what break up heterosexual families and cause people not to go to church at the same time i find it amusing the loony conservatives are getting even more hammered, it doesnt help democracy in Canada to have a dominant federal party. especially when Martin will attain God like powers in Canada soon. would the normal conservatives please stand up and contribute to society? sirriff

very ignorant statement. in fact canadians have already died in afganistan, a war fought because the US was attacked not, canada. they fought hard during the war, and are stuck in a very very dangerous situation. as has been published, the taliban are regrouping and there are not enough troops in afganistan to take them on properly. if you scorn the efforts of canadian troops, maybe you should sign up and show us all how its done. this contract limiting is the absolute sign of war for profit. any nation can now invade and then plunder the resources of a country under the guise of "liberation". i would love to see this principle work if north korea went into south korea then gave "reconstuction" contracts to China. this is the last bit of proof we need to seet his war was for profit and power. a true moral war of liberation does not require haliburton to make billions i contracts, and bribe the nations that go in. war for profit. truly americans need to stop this slide into tyranny else they will be treated like the nation they are by the rest of the world. war for profit

wow....talk about not knowing what you are talking about.... yes your are right, changing the charter is nothing. we will just get the house of commons, the senate, AND all provincial legislatures to agree, and presto, suddenly we can change the composition of the supreme court. better yet, lets just get 7 provinces with 50% of the population, and we can rewrite what we want to. back to reality... give me a break man, i just finished reading several supreme court decisions, including the supreme court reference regarding Quebec succession and the S.C.C. again and again cites rule of law, and entrenched codified principles of canadian constitution as thier judgements. i dont know why you think the magna carta would be the dominant legal document if you were in ontario court or something. or why some common law statue put forth by the province is what really matters. it doesnt. whever you get this idea from, its wrong and inconsistant with numerous supreme court judgements in both ratio decidendi and orbiter dicta. constitutional democracy is what we are now, and pretending that common law which can be legally changed on a whim is not the same as charter protection. really, read supreme court judgements to get expert perspective on the matter.

genIUs, MAYBE, just MAYBE, the US gov does its illegal war activities in secret. there is a concept. for example, could you please post the receipts from the stinger missles given to osamas crew? no receipts? go figure. maybe you can get them from the white house credit card statements. hey, do you have the cocktail napkins showing the sept 1973 coup in chile was assisted by teh CIA? got the invoices from the chemical weapons precursors sold to iraq by american companies? who points you astonishingly fail to comprehend 1. immoral and illegal actions by the US are NOT rendered null by equal or greater immoral and illegal actions by others. I am surprised i have to explain this to you. do you really think world can be alllowed to run on a "he started it" mentality? that all we need to do is find someone worse to justify our actions? 2. the US is the ONLY nation that went to war against against world opinion, is occupying iraq, and is lecturing others about morality as if they have divine intentions. THEY are the ones that have to justify their actions. would you really expect to hold russia accountable when they cant even feed thier population and keep thier country together when the US is galavanting around the world lecturing about terrorism and morality and democracy? i think its clear the US is the only actor with real power to endulge itself, and is currently implementing its will, thus it stands to reason they should be held to the highest standards right now. if they all pack up and go home and harm nobody anymore, then they need not be held to the standards they themselves proclaim. sirriff

i dont know how more clearly to say this... the charter is superior to common law, because common law is subject to change by simple legislation. common law and unwritten conventions can change and be eroded. teh charter sets a minimum standard, has clear ammendment and notwithstanding functions, and sets out the arena and interactions which the charter protects. there is no way you can compare charter protection to protection by convention. one is a clear written factual entrenched document that is specifically drafted to set out equalites and rights. protections before the charter, while functional, are not nearly as visible, absolute, limiting to goverment, and fixed in time.

the bbc covers more real news in a day then all the US networks combined. whatever 'bias' you think the bbc has, it most likely just a product of its international perspective. if you think that US media is the norm, you are taking a self obsessed, rarely critical opinion. since when have you seen questions about the US funding terrorism by buying oil from saudi arabia seriously addressed on network news? i have never seen any national news source even suggest that maybe the US knew it was funded terrorism in saudi arabia, iraq, and afganistan. have you seen mainstream US news address the whole missing WMD issue? nope, forgotten. the lies and hype of Bush? nope. so if you consider US to be fair or correct, your whole baseline of comparison is wrong. what exactly are you comparing the BBC against? certainly not what american "news" has become

the US supported saddam before the first gulf war genious, while he was killing his own people. they have him weapons to kill iranians, and gave iranians weapons to kill iraqis. while everycountry looked the other way, the US is the only currently currently occupying iraq while pretending to be shocked at how evil saddam was. fantasitic point though, that the US stopped supporting him after they attacked him for messing with thier oil....up till that point no problem at all, go figure.

if i was an opposition party facing a fourth liberal majority gov in the near future, i would be all yippidy about anything that got my face in the paper. does it seem strange to anybody else that who only reason mackay is even in the position to forwad the merger is because he lied to orchards face? while i welcome viable competition to make the whole process stronger, i hope mackay doesnt claim to be more moral or less corrupt then the liberals though, because it aint true. sirriff

are we still talking about the same US gov that gave osama $3 Billion? are we talking about the same gov that bought oil from saddam while he killed his own people, saudi arabia as they funded terrorists, and bribed iran with weapons? lets see...credility of the US gov...near zero... credibillity of this potential terrorist guy...unknown... if i see a picture of him with bin laden, he is fried. if he ran around in the desert when he was 14 with ak47s playing war, and DIDNY HURT ANYBODY AFTER THAT FOR HIS WHOLE LIFE, i will chalk it up to growing up in a rough part of the world. i have spent some time in pakistan, and there are some places that make the worst parts of detroit or new york look like a 4 star hotel. if you spent time with violent guys to gain protection, or make money, or pass the time, or join the army, whatever, thats one thing. to actually be a terrorist is another. the US has blurred the lines between terrorism and "national security" so many times they have no credability. its embarassing to hear american officials talk about the black and white of terorism when any high school essay can list numerous operations where teh US was only too happy to send billions to the very same people they are now accusing. the last person who should be labelling people terrorists by association is the US. the should turn that evil eye on themselves sometime.

since when did it become anti american to point out all the lies and inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the american gov? that sounds about as credible as the crazy Palestinians who think criticizing suicide bombers is anti-arab. when the US suddenly declares saddam and osama evil, after DECADES of supporting them, arming them, doing business with them, ignoring thier murders, being silent on thier violence, THAT IS COMPLICITY IN THE ACTS. so yeah, when the american PR machine comes out in suit and ties and pretends to be shocked at this, and blah about good and evil and freedom, its necessary to point out the amoral hypocricy that exists. the lies on WMDs are just a part of that. forgive us for not being impressed.

Boydfish dominant does not me it needs to replace everything before it. the charter doesnt cover land rights at all. but if a black man was forced off his land for being black, the Charter would protect him because it is dominant to any common law. it is "entrenched" because the charter rights are more important then any other. all the things that arent covered in the charter still exist, no need to reinvent the wheel. but the principles of the charter are dominant to everything else. so yes, it is dominant, but that does not require it to replace everything that existed before. when you say your rights didnt change, you are wrong. as soon as teh charter went into effect your rights DID by definition change and broaden. just because you didnt see the effect on your nose that very moment does not mean it didnt happen. as soon as the charter went into effect you acquired constitutionally protected rights. the rights are not physical products, so of course you didnt see them. but your conclusion that you gained nothing just because you didnt know you gained anything is not true. the charter became the highest law of the land and every citizen was protected from public discrimnation and inequality. it did happen. you gained rights. the manifestation of those rights might be hard to conceptualize, but it did happen. and good thing it did for we are a better nation for it. and when you point to common law or the other sources of law, they are NOT ENTRENCHED. that means they are not the same as the charter, there is only one absolute law of equality and that is the charter. obviously you can see the power because of the public law litigation that has stemmed from it in the last 20 years. so yes, it did add something, it added specific numerated concepts of equality and freedom and entrenched them permanently as the highest law of the land. nothing you compared it to is near as important as the charter. sirriff

well, i never claimed to be intellectually honest, in fact the other day a hot girl ignored me, and i convinced myself she was a lesbian. anyways... it is not gay marriage itself that is social progress. Social progress is two law abiding, productive, and responsible citizens of Canada being able to exercise free will without arbitrarily discriminatory and unreasonably intrusive restrictions from the a) government, fanatical minority, or c) tyrant majority. as the Charter says, the rights of equality are guaranteed "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." if you cannot meet that high standard, there is no moral, ethical, legal, or democratic basis for infringing on those rights. it seems pretty black and white to me when dealing with equality protection and the actions of private individuals. sirriff

its odd to hear people call the charter racist or sexist or whatever. obviously the ideas behind it have been embraced by canada for a long time, so calling it names serves no purpose. uh Boydfish, i am not sure what you have been smoking, but thats not what the charter says. not denying other rights is not the same as admiting inferiority. i would resist attempting to lecture anybody here on british common law before you figure out the difference between "denying" and "secondary" that qualifying clauses in the charter, just like the one put in for native indian treaty rights, do not indicate a lack of authority. look up R v Sparrow (1990) S.C.C. for a case that specifically looks at how the charter interacts with existing rights, specifically fishing rights of natives. the charter is specifically entrenched to make it dominant in its protections. arguments made against the charters limits can be made reasonably. arguments against its protections or intent, is generally the product of some arbitrary social philosophy inherited without much reflection i believe. sirriff

well that is just genious. i am sure the majority of old white men were jumping up and down to get women the right to vote nad give blacks equality. its beyond unreasonable to pretend that social progress need to be popular in order to be morally right or beneficial. the majority has consistantly been resistant to change, which is why martin luther king and little black girls in the southern US were the ones who had to fight for thier rights instead of the majority recognizing them and giving it to them. before all the gay rights stuff got into the press it was 55% supporting it. now its 55% against it is it? well maybe next year it will back the other way. regardless, equality isnt based on the flavor of the day. ask the taliban. sirriff

why do you guys assume the supreme court of canada would suddenly go stupid and let men stone thier wives or something? as i said, we alrady have a seperate system fo law in quebec, plus law from treaties that recognize native indian rights. the courts will never allow anything that contradicts the charter or established canadian law. all this would do is formalize the process of out of court settlements that either now waste court resources or go unreported. sirriff

what the hell are you talking about Morgan? my english was perfectly sound but i dont know how you came to conclude i was talking to you, about you, or why you think you have a great explanation for something. science 101 indeed. sirriff

http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/R...Story/National/ read the whole thing...its even more depressing... instead of blame, any solutions? we are talking billions and billions of $$$, where is it going to come from and are Canadians willing to pay for it?

people who ignore initiatives like kyoto are like the genius's who wanted more study on cigarettes. decade after decade, until it became so obvious nobody can deny it. same thing with killing the planet. we dont know everything, so some people hmm and hah. but it seems to me, if you are stranded on a desert island with a few bottles of water, do you drink them as you wish and plan to find more later, or ration them in case they are all you have? we are stuck on this earth, and its obvious that spewing out C02 and pollutants can only imbalance our atmosphere which will certainly harm our quality of life in the near future. if people were forced to back up their indecisiveness with consequences we would see far better action. for example, if you had informed the tobacco execs in the 60s that they and their children would be executed without if the scientific community ever concluded cigarettes were addictive and cancer causing, it think most of them would not stick to their lies. tobacco isnt addictive, evolution is just a theory so dont teach it, we dont know how industrial emmisions will effect us; some of the great "science can't prove it" positions that can only be made by those who choose not associate with the consequences of these alternatives. sirriff

is someone advocating 16 yr old having sex with 80 yr olds? can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 16 yr old boy? can a 16 year old girl have sex with an 18 yr old boy? can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 20 yr old boy? can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 22 yr old boy? do we treat girls different because they will be exploited more? why is it the age of the older person that matters and not the younger person. i would argue that once you consider someone informed enough to have sex, their choice of partners is meaningless isnt it? we cant go around doing personality tests of young girls to see if they have been influenced by 19 yr old boys. i would say its more reasonable to expect parents to protect their children up to some generally accepted age that society grants adult status at, like 18 or 19, and parents that dont do that nad let their daughters get knocked up at 15 should GO TO JAIL. hell you should have to write a government test in the first place titled - why in the hell do you want to have children? 1) to love and protect for life 2) to forget about and let society care for 3) cause he/she wants me to 4) what was teh question? sirriff

how do any of these problems have to do with political morality? it seems obvious to me that large populations through the history of time inevitably cause social inefficiencies which cause violence, poverty, and hatred. it has been this way in ancient egypt, in rome, the middle east, in america, everywhere. show me a 1st world industrialized nation with urban population that DOESNT have these problems. science 101- if you are proporting something to be a variable (ie- "liberal morality" or whatever lame excuse you came up with) you need to be able to point to a control situation which indicates this variable does effect the outcome. sirriff

as far as i know, kids these days are taking it on themselves to have sex around 15-16 yrs old anyways. so you could argu that very young children are already having sex at very young ages and thus we should accept that in society. seems way too risky to me for a 16yr old girl to have sex, but look at where the trend is going and in 10 years it may be perfectly normal. who knows. i suspect she would argu they are capable of making the decisions themselves. the response on this board is that she is advocating sexual exploitation. i doubt she is. you can argue exploitation would result from her proposal, but that still isnt what someone who makes this argument is proposing. sirriff

you dont give out equality based on public opinion. ask yourself what the poll would have said about women getting the vote or blacks getting discimination protection. all citizens deserve equality no matter what. anyways polls dont matter, we have the charter of rights and freedoms constitutionally entrenched now so no small extreme section of society claiming religion reasons can hold back the rights that are deserved by all canadians. sirriff

uh no, you dont go to them if all you do is stay there for 2 hrs, bring along journalists to plaster it all over TV so you can try to pick up your poll numbers to get reelected. leadership would be not lying about WMDs, ever hear about WMDs these days? apparently they knew exactly where they were, they knew they were these secret programs with yellowcake and alumimum tubes, they had defectors and secret labs and trailers and they had hundreds of specialists ready to go and find it. now? the WMD team has been mostly reassigned to the occupation, no bush official has mentioned WMD in months, bush is doing the photo op while he has actually INCREASED terrorism in the middle east and the US is now alienated from the world, something that is good for nobody. thus lying about wars is not leadership, no matter how many pictures of bush serving turkey for 2 hours you see. if he had patroled tikrit for a 12 hr shift and found some WMD THAT would leadership. some people must have really hated clinton to pretend bush is anything but a little man. sirriff