bk59

The law determines that you owe money. How much is determined by your personal situation filed in your tax return. If the amount is in dispute, you go to court. And the court will determine how much you owe. See how easy that is?

I realize that this may sound harsh, but so be it. For better or worse, this is the adversarial system that exists in both Canada and the US. Canada has a responsibility to its citizens. When advocating for it citizens, will the feelings of others be hurt? In some cases, yes. But Canada's job is not to look after these US citizens. Canada should be advocating for its citizens. Someone else, presumably the families themselves or their representatives, should be advocating for the families. It will then be up to the governor to decide. And it would appear that in this case he did decide. I believe that the families of the victims should have a say in the process. But that does not change the fact that Canada should be advocating for its citizens. It is up to the decision maker to balance those competing interests.

This is a very interesting perspective. What you are saying boils down to this: the government is willing to threaten to kill a person unless they cooperate. Essentially they would be saying, give us what we want or we will execute you. Confess or die. People can have their reasons for wanting the death penalty, but this should not be one of them. Using the death penalty as a threat to get confessions, etc., is no different than torturing someone to get similar information. In fact, I think that one of the reasons Canadian courts have stopped the practice of extradition when the person could face the death penalty is precisely because of this reason. People were being railroaded into confessions, etc., by authorities who would threaten them with death.

Trying to say the government does not have the authority to do something when it has been proven over and over and over again is pathetic. And shows how little you know. People did have the right to challenge that law. They did challenge it. There was a fair trial. They lost. Move on. They go to traffic court to try to weasel out of the fine they have to pay. Feel free to take your individual case to court. Show up at your local Canada Revenue office and tell them that you do not pay taxes. And when you go to court you can try to weasel your way out of your responsibility. If you want to ask what case proves that you as an individual have to pay taxes the simple answer is: follow my instructions above. But honestly, stop being stupid. The law is valid. Every Canadian does not have to go to court every single year just so that the court can tell them that yes, the law applies to you too.

You want to talk abortion now? OK, how many times was it proven to be the law? What did happen to that law? If you want to make a point then make it. Random questions are not helping your "argument".

It is a law that determined you owed money. A law that has been upheld in court. Get over it. You want cases that show that this is a legitimate power? Fine: R. v. McGrath in 2001 Hoffman v. Canada in 1996 Caron v. R. (not sure of the year) Reference re Excise Tax Act (Canada) (Reference re Goods and Services Tax) in 1992 Winterhaven Stables Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) in 1988 There are your cases. The Constitution gave the federal government the power. It legislated under that power. The legislation is valid and was upheld in court cases, including the court cases listed above. Canadians got their fair trial. Stop whining just because your side of the argument lost.

Why have you started multiple topics on the same issue? Would this be so that you can continue your rants once others start to prove you wrong? I'll give you the quick summary again: Constitution gives the federal government the authority to legislate income taxes. Government legislates income taxes. Courts hold that this is legitimate. End of story. Pay up and stop freeloading. Or move out of the country. Either way, your semi-coherent ranting is getting tiresome.

I'd like to believe this means that you're learning. That this means you have realized that the government has the authority to raise money through income taxes. Authority that it can exercise through legislation. Authority that has been challenged in court, and proven legitimate. Sadly I have the feeling that this is not the case.

What are you jabbering on about here? You got the author wrong. (FYI, the author was YOU.) What is this other nonsense? If you want to address something in the other topic then go to that topic. Don't jump around like an idiot.

Damn. I missed post #21. jbg, that was mine!

no queenslave, what you wrote in post #128 may be the most intelligent thing you have ever written on this board. Not the quoted part. The stuff not in quotes.

Oh yes. The Queen and I are best buds. We go for beers every Wednesday. Are you ever going to produce this case of yours? Or even tell us what this case of yours is about? If it is so easy to find, why can't you give it to us? Or even tell us the actual name of the case?

I have already shown you, multiple times, where in the Constitution the federal government has the authority to raise taxes. Your inability to read does not make that authority invalid.

I must say well done to you no queenslave. This is a new low. Are you referring to this post #21? Because if you are... well... YOU are the one who wrote that post. Not me.

How do you know how many tax cases I have seen? The answer: you don't. Where was the court case that determined you did not owe any money at all? It is not a court case that determined that you owed money. It was a valid law.

Of course he will. I mean, why should you offer anything helpful here. You should take a look at Court case ci 04-01-18673. That proves that judges are not corrupt. Ask your local crazy person for a link if you want. I am sure he or she will provide you with one.

Look at post #109 in this topic. Follow the link about s. 52(2). There you will see that the Constitution of Canada includes the BNA Act. (To see the schedule, scroll down on the page to the bottom and click on the "Modernization of the Constitution" link to see where the BNA Act is explicitly listed.) It must be hard being you, what with the crazy assertions that are easily disproved.

I am sorry ScottSA, but whenever an opening appears I just cannot resist the urge to create a new profile and start collecting that extra cheque. I definitely recommend sucking up to the Queen. She really is quite nice, once you can get past the fact that each misspelled word will cost you 10 lashes. She is getting on in years, so luckily the lashes are not as extreme as they once were. I will put in a good word for you though. Perhaps the next opening can be yours. You don't mind a union environment do you? We have been trying to organize a union, but the Queen is resisting. The floggings were quite terrible once she found out about our communist ways. But some seem to think it is a good idea so that once you pass your probation period then seniority kicks in and you are set for life. Like all good government jobs. That is one of the reasons why some of us government posters feel the need for a union. Our 75 cents per word is just not enough to buy the medical supplies necessary to deal with the floggings. The Queen has a terrible temper you see. Congratulations! You are much closer than I am. Luckily I have that second cheque coming in.

I can appreciate your perspective. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on where the line gets drawn between state responsibility and personal responsibility. It's just that in this case, the policy change does not make a lot of sense. All it can possibly do is weaken Canada's position both internationally and domestically. We are now a country that sort of supports a ban on capital punishment. Domestically it is illegal. Internationally, we now have backed away from co-sponsoring a resolution at the UN. This can only be seen as a retreat by other countries. To further confuse the matter, we will go out of our way to protect foreigners in our country from being extradited to face the death penalty. And yet we won't even ask to do the same for our citizens abroad. Canadians facing charges in other countries will now be left wondering, is this country democratic enough? Will my government just abandon me? (This is of more concern for those falsely accused, or railroaded through a system, but still applies to anyone faced with criminal charges in another country.) And to top it all off, whenever a Canadian citizen is facing criminal charges, Canada must make a public determination on how democratic that country is. Diplomacy and good international relations require more flexibility than this. Sometimes it is better to speak to a country privately, rather than this kind of messy public pronouncement. This is a very poor decision. One that should have been better thought out, and, given the nature of the topic, debated in Parliament.

I guess if you don't read any posts then you could come to that conclusion. First there is no preferential treatment. It has also been pointed out that this is something that had been done in the past by multiple governments, not just the Liberals. And it has been pointed out that this new policy is a hypocritical stance for Canada to take. It makes no sense that we now try to protect foreigners within our borders more than we try to protect Canadian citizens abroad. It weakens our position with other countries because we do not appear principled. It weakens our relations with other countries because it now involves a very public determination on what we consider to be acceptable democracies or acceptable forms of the rule of law. And it sends the message to Canadians that their government does not take its responsibilities seriously enough to even ASK that Canadian get treated according to the principles of Canadian law. While the death penalty is outlawed in Canada, Canada should be advocating against it, especially where Canadian citizens are concerned.

Exactly. You beat me to it.

No one said Canadians should be exempt from anything. My statement certainly does not say that. Both American and Canadian prisoners in the US have the same right to have their death sentences commuted. Given that this right exists for everyone, why shouldn't the Canadian government ask for it? Especially since the law in Canada states that the death penalty is illegal. No one is being treated differently. Besides, I have already pointed out an example where the USA has in fact ensured that its citizens get special treatment (Order 17 in Iraq). But there are numerous other examples where the US has at the very least taken the position that its citizens should get differential treatment. Take the outcry in the US when an American teenager was caned, I think it was in Singapore. Or the outcry that arises when those who express religious beliefs in a place like China are subjected to state action.

That is not what I am saying. Please don't misunderstand. I have said repeatedly that Canadian laws do not apply in the US. This is much different than saying that Canada should not advocate for what it believes in when it comes to Canadian citizens. Americans have no right to ask that US law be applied in Canada. But they can certainly advocate for their position. Look at what happened when Canada began discussing the decriminalization of certain drugs. The US made it very clear that they disapproved of any decriminalization. (In fact, I believe that the US implied there would be repercussions if Canada enacted such laws.) But the US has the right to speak its mind and ask the Canadian government to change its mind. Just as Canada has that right to ask when it comes to the US. Countries have the right to advocate for whatever they want. And they have a responsibility towards their citizens. These are the issues at play here. No one is saying that Canada should invade the US and enforce Canadian laws in the US. No one is saying that Canada should boycott US products if the US continues to use the death penalty. From this perspective, please look again at what I said: This is about the Canadian government advocating for its citizens when they face actions that would be illegal in Canada.

This is really stupid logic. So because there are people in this world who live in slums, we should turn our prisons into slums? Prisoners should not live in luxury, but I have yet to see where they do. Just people like you with your anecdotes and "look how soft Canada is on crime" statements. Is the system perfect? No. Do prisoners live in luxury? No. Actually, what you said was: "Just as we make foreign offenders serve their time here". That is much different than saying that they want to stay here and that they fight attempts to move them. Canada's responsibility towards its citizens has nothing to do with who sentences the citizen. That responsibility comes simply from the fact that the person is a Canadian citizen. You over exaggerate. It is true, this is done. But hardly every day. Many people refuse to do this, some because it is illegal, others because they are morally against it. That also does not change the fact that this argument of yours has no relevance to the topic. Even if it is done in Canada with terminally ill patients, that is not the same as killing a healthy person. Especially since those actions are considered illegal. Well I do appreciate your willingness to be subjected to treatment that would be illegal in Canada. I suppose you think that Canada should never speak out about behaviour that we find unacceptable. After all, why should we advocate for human rights in China when it's all their business anyway? I prefer a country that stands for something myself. And a country that is particularly willing to take that stand when it comes to their own citizens. Of course you do. I mean, it's much easier to judge me as uninformed than face the fact that this new policy is a hypocritical stance for Canada to take. You don't know me at all. The fact that I use google does not somehow limit the experience I have. You have no idea whether I have ever been to a palliative care unit or not. These attempts at diversion do not change the main issue in this topic: Canada has become a less principled player on the world stage because of recent actions taken by our government. We now think less of our citizens than we do of foreigners within our borders. Ironically, this perhaps does seem very Canadian.

No, you've got the issue wrong. Canada always respected the law of the USA. It's not like we were invading or anything. This is about the Canadian government advocating for its citizens when they face actions that would be illegal in Canada.