bk59

First of all, this is not a new government. This individual case has clearly been going on for years and I would bet that those government officials have been continuing to ask for clemency ever since the Conservatives got their minority. And I'm guessing that there was no policy change until now. It is up to the government to tell the bureaucracy what policies are changing. There is no point in having the government grind to a halt for a few months while a new government decides the policy for purchasing pens. After an election where a new government is formed, there would be some obvious changes in policy. But aside from those obvious changes, the bureaucracy does not need to stop what it is doing.

You are right about the sovereignty issue. The fact is, the US can do what it wants within its own borders. But when it comes to Canadian citizens, I do think that Canada should at least try to discuss the issue with the US. If we believe it is wrong, then we should fight for our citizens. Even if we are doomed to fail.

Which problems are you speaking of? Common law can be overwritten with regular statutes. Not only that, but the common law did not give such precise meanings to at least some of the rights in the Charter. By having those rights now in the Constitution it is much harder to violate them. This is better than having unwritten rights, or rights written into a normal statute. The state can't take those rights away without now changing the Constitution. This is much harder than what they had to do previously. (And yes, before the Charter they could still take those rights away.) Section 15(2) does not allow you to discriminate against others. It does not relegate people to second class status. But it does clarify that the government is allowed to help disadvantaged people.

Actually what is happening is that they are not going to bat for Canadian citizens facing a punishment that is against the law in Canada. And that is a problem. If we believe the death penalty is unacceptable then it is unacceptable to let our citizens face this punishment. That is nonsense. They didn't jump the gun. The previous policy was to seek clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty. Government employees would follow that policy until it was changed. Why didn't they give a heads up? Because government is slow enough as it is without every single bureaucrat going to his or her boss every time they need to do something. They should follow the policy in place until that policy changes. They do not need to check with the Minister every time they want to follow a policy just to see if it is still in effect. Everyone has much better things to do with their time.

See, this is why you need to read more carefully. I did not say that I was confused. I said that the links you post are confused. As in those links contradict themselves, selectively choose some facts while ignoring others, and misinterpret a number of things. I don't think that you have posted a single fact in any of your posts that I have read. Ramblings, yes. Misinterpretations, yes. Nonsense... definitely yes. But few, if any, facts.

Again... no. All laws that were in existence when the SoW came into effect remained in effect. But the SoW affected FUTURE laws. Meaning that in the future, when the UK passed a law it did not become a law in Canada. In the future, when Canada (federally or provincially) passed a law it would be valid even if it conflicted with a UK law. This is why Canada was no longer a colony - it could legislate what it wanted without UK interference. But that did not change the fact that all of the laws in existence BEFORE the SoW continued to exist AFTER the SoW and still have full effect. Which is why (for example) the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments is still governed by the BNA Act.

I just find it amusing that queenslave starts up numerous threads on the same topics and has yet to make any sense in any of them. What little "facts" are quoted are either distorted (read completely wrong) interpretations of legislation and cases, or they are random links that could best be described as confused ramblings.

I've already discussed that case on here. And shown that it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Of course you aren't actually making a point in your last post, so I'll just say that you need to go read what I posted & then hopefully you can see where you went wrong with your last interpretation. Wrong. So very, very wrong. I have already pointed out why this was wrong. I will do so one more time. From the Statute of Westminster: The Statute of Westminster did NOT repeal the BNA Act. The BNA Act was STILL VALID after the Statute of Westminster. In fact, the Statute of Westminster did not make ANY existing Act null or void (with the one exception in section 6 which was limited to section 4 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act). All of the laws in Canada at both the federal and provincial level that existed one minute before the Statute of Westminster came into effect still existed one minute after the Statute of Westminster came into effect. The only garbage on here is coming from you. This nonsense about being independent and a colony at the same time... where did that come from?

How to say this to perhaps get your attention... THEN POST A FACT. ANY FACT. JUST ONE. STOP SPOUTING BS AND PRETENDING THAT IT IS PROOF. I just think it's amazing that kengs333 has gone for so long without making a single post that was worth reading. Lots of assertions and subjective beliefs, but no facts. Judging from your posts and treatment of other people here I find that doubtful. It's very clear what you are up to. If it is common knowledge then it will only take you two seconds to provide a link. As for the onus... OK, let's take your approach. I claim that I just found a passage in the Bible that says that homosexuality is not a sin. According to you, I don't have to prove anything. It is now up to you to disprove that. Have fun with that.

You can't just pick and choose half of the sentence. You have to read the whole sentence. The subject class is: "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." It is not "direct taxation". The provinces cannot have a direct tax to raise revenue for federal purposes, therefore it is a federal power, as reinforced by section 91(3). It's no wonder you think you are right. You just stop reading when you find it convenient to ignore the facts. Quebec resolutions and British hansard will not help you read the actual text of the BNA Act. These are not relevant to interpreting a section in the BNA Act. The government cannot raise money by any and all means. For example, it cannot resort to torturing people to get them to pay taxes. (See the Charter.) But they can raise money "by any Mode or System of Taxation" as clearly stated in section 91(3) of the BNA Act. Give us a link or stop making stuff up. You haven't proven anything by giving a string of numbers. Amidst some of the ramblings on that link it would appear that whoever wrote this believed that the provinces never accepted the BNA Act, therefore there is no Canadian constitution. Of course, the provinces did accept the BNA Act and the Charter in 1982, so that kills that point. If there is a specific point you want to make, then quote it here. No sense sifting through that link just to find more incorrect statements. Once again you misquoted. What section 2(2) of the Statute of Westminster ACTUALLY says is: That does not give the provinces the power to say that federal laws do not apply in the province. Section 7 states that the BNA Act still applies, meaning federal laws still apply.

Actually, that quote from my last post was most of the first paragraph of section 91. But if you think there is something in those paragraphs that prove your point, then post them. Show me where. Because it seems pretty clear that the bold writing in my last post lets the federal government legislate everything that does not full under the classes in section 92 - even if it is not listed explicitly in section 91. The phrase "for provincial purposes" is not irrelevant. Without that phrase you could have provinces legislating direct taxes that they then spend on other provinces. For example, Ontario could legislate an income tax on Ontarians and all the money would go to Manitoba. Or the federal government. That phrase is just as important as the "within the province" phrase and the word "direct". Nothing in the BNA Act defines "direct taxation" as being exclusively for provinces. All it says is that provinces can only legislate "direct taxation" if they tax their own citizens and spend the money themselves. Please also post this Lord Canarvin quote of yours. I would love to see it.

At no time did anyone reject the constitution in force. Rejecting two proposed amendments is not the same as rejecting what was already there. The BNA Act is the large part of the Canadian constitution. It is "the source of their power" so to speak. The Statute of Westminster meant that the UK Parliament no longer passed laws for Canada. Likewise, Canadian laws could no longer be held invalid simply because they conflicted with UK laws. This did not erase all of the laws that previously existed in Canada - including the BNA Act. Canadians elect their MPs. Anyone can run as an MP. This makes us a democracy. We're not perfect, but we are certainly not a dictatorship.

That does sound familiar. But for some reason I seem to think that you can only do that if your income is below a certain level. Like you I suppose that I should look, but like you I did not. That being said, I am pretty sure that the government won't let you use the excuse "I didn't feel like paying taxes" to get out of paying the GST.

When you buy things, do you have a choice of paying the GST?

READ THE STATUTE. The BNA Act is still in effect. This limits what the provinces can and cannot legislate. The BNA Act does not allow a province to declare itself a sovereign province. I will quote this for you again from section 91: Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers. It cannot legislate when the subject is a section 92 matter. It also cannot violate the constitution. But ALL ELSE can be legislated by the federal government. I never said they had unlimited powers. READ THE CONSTITUTION. The provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation FOR PROVINCIAL PURPOSES (see section 92(2)). This means that the federal government has powers of direct taxation for FEDERAL PURPOSES. Direct taxation for federal purposes is covered by section 91(3): ANY mode or system of taxation. The only thing the federal government cannot do is collect income tax and then spend it directly on the provinces. You haven't shown that Canadian judges are corrupt. They did understand the term exclusive. But they also happened to read the ENTIRE subsection. If you only read half of it, then you will get your answer. Luckily they read all of it, and came to the correct answer.

Hardly. You have made numerous generalizations about homosexuality. And have yet to show a single fact. You have made generalizations about pedophilia that are not true. You did compare the gay rights movement to Nazism. It's all there in your posts. I wonder how many people have to call you on this before you being to look a bit more critically at what you have posted here.

I must have got promoted. I'm not just a paid government poster, I'm also a former government member of Iraq. Where do you get this idea that Canada's judicial system, and its judges, are corrupt? Any facts to back this up? (And no, you saying they are corrupt does not count.) Do you have a link for this file? Google was not helpful. S. 91 shows everything the federal government can do. S. 92 is really the limit on federal powers because it shows what the provinces can do. S. 91 isn't much of a limit at all. OK, let's read the Statute of Westminster... it says: So only laws PASSED AFTER the Statute of Westminster have no effect. The older laws, including the BNA Act were still applied. And just in case you missed it, the Statute even says that explicitly: You need to read your sources. They do not say the things that you want them to say.

Exactly. There is no reason to believe that an appearance within fire means that the one who appeared is in hell. Fire does not always connote evil or hell in the Bible. Yes, it was God who spoke through the burning bush, but there are other examples of fire in the Bible that are not associated with evil or hell. 2 Kings 2:11 Acts 2:3 Exodus 13:21-22 Daniel 3:25,28 2 Kings 6:17

Provided that the photo is authentic, the answer to both of your questions would be no. See Exodus 3:2 for why fire does not equal hell.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. I think it is actually quite true that Christianity has done a lot to advance morality. Much of that morality is still accepted by society at large today - concepts of love your neighbour, do not murder, etc. You may not think that Christianity originated these concepts, but it certainly advanced them. Of course Christianity has advocated other morals as well - no pre-marital sex, the "evils" of homosexuality, etc. These are less accepted in today's society, and perhaps that is the kind of morality you object to. Something as complex as religion, particularly one like Christianity with so many different denominations, cannot be painted with one brush as being "bad" or "good". Particularly when different followers will read the exact same passages of scripture and react in entirely different ways. This goes for secular society as well. Secular society itself is not so much "bad" or "good". Members of secular society can perform both "bad" and "good" in the same way that members of a religion can.

This link you have given is so full of mistakes it's not funny. It was altered slightly. Just look at how the Constitution can now be amended. And it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms NOT the Bill of Human Rights. Not a good start... Not true. The provinces have the right to legislate for "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes" (s. 92(2)). The federal government has the right to legislate for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation" (s. 91(3)). That includes income tax. No where in that case does it mention the word "income" let alone the Income Tax Act. Wrong. Especially given that courts have declared the Income Tax Act constitutionally valid many times. Since you are fond of cases, see Winterhaven Stables Limited v. The Attorney General of Canada, 1988 or Hoffman v. Canada, 2004. And that's enough of that. I don't need to waste any more time on an article written by someone who could not spend 10 minutes to check his or her basic facts.

But haven't you said on here that any money taken from your earnings is the same as slavery? So isn't all taxation slavery? If you are required to pay any tax, income or otherwise, is that not your definition of slavery? Don't you think that maybe there are a number of differences between Canada and the countries you listed? Some important ones being population and geographic area. Don't you think it is a bit more persuasive seeing that most countries have some form of income tax? (Interestingly enough, some of those countries that have income tax are not even ruled by a monarch!)

Oh no! You're on to me! I was just screwing up your computer yesterday, going around deleting your posts. Hilarious. First, that's not exactly true. The government could have done it in a press release rather than talking about it in the House of Commons. But even that is irrelevant. People are aware of their freedom & sovereignty. And no one is clamoring for major changes in how Canada is governed. Certainly not in the way you that you seem to be. You are partially right, and partially wrong. The case simply said that the federal and provincial governments cannot trade or share their section 91 and 92 powers written in the constitution by passing an ordinary law. That's it. And the SCC is enforcing that. It's just that neither level of government is currently trying to modify their powers, so there is nothing to enforce right now. At the time, there was a procedure for how the federal and provincial governments could change certain parts of the Constitution and how the UK Parliament could change the rest (including the part mentioned in the case). After repatriation in 1982 there is a method for amending the Constitution that does not require the UK Parliament. The case is not as important for your purposes as you might think, since there is a clear procedure for how the federal and provincial governments CAN change the Constitution. The Constitution is not, and never was, a document that can never be changed.

Allow me to rephrase then. By telling me to answer your questions, while refusing to answer mine, you are being a hypocrite. I wonder why it is that you feel the need to single me out. The question is valid, no matter who asks it. And one would think that if you really feel that homosexuality is an "absolute wrong" you would want the chance to show why. One would think that you would want the chance to explain all of the ways in which homosexuality is harming our society. Your refusal to do so indicates that you just want your religious beliefs to be adopted by society. Clearly you are allowed to hold that belief, but don't expect society to follow you just because you say so.

So what are your reasons? If homosexuality is an absolute wrong, then it should be easy to answer that question. Saying that you don't have to answer anything, but everyone else does is pure hypocrisy. You can believe all of that, and I have no problem with you believing that, per se. What I have a problem with is people condemning others who do not share their religious beliefs. You condemn JKR for making Dumbledore gay, but you only base this on your beliefs. Why should anyone refrain from writing or saying what they want just because of your religious beliefs?