Peter F

Cybercoma said, not 6 posts up the page, And you, Betsy, are claiming that is not a secular argument? You truly are willfully blind.

What is pseudo-citizenry?

...and then they go away and wait patiently for old age to arrive. Only then do they order their Canadian children to move the land the children cannot remember. Then those children, who are not immigrants will sponsor their parents to come here and live happily ever after. I don't actually see a problem here.

What values are threatened by these new citizens? Something to do with Pandas perhaps? Since when has an immigrant been required to fix their country of origin first? Never. That is new and cannot possibly be a claimed heritage or historical value. That is just a thought swirling around in your head.

And! Plus also too....These people (the parents) are fairly wealthy. They are not refugees or illegals. They pay their own way to this wonderful place and pay the costs of the birth and pay their own way back to wherever they came from. They have lots of money. Exactly the type of non-sucking immigrant we want!

But isn't that the whole moral point of this country? No matter what political party is in power, federally or provincially, the aim has always been the same: Canada is to be a wonderful place to live, All should be thrilled to be able to live here. We thank our lucky stars we are living in Canada and loudly brag about how wonderful it all is....then say NFW!

What? Babies being granted Canadian citizenship? My citizenship (which was granted for the very same reason: Birth) is losing its value? Can I write off the reduction on my taxes? Will my ability to use it as collateral be affected? What will become of us when children whose parents aren't Canadian are Canadians?

ok so a unilingual jurist is probably more competent than a bilingual one. A trilingual jurists probability of being more competent becomes vanishingly small.

So it is quite conceivable, then, that someone could be bilingual and a fine jurist? Its possible that your concept of 'probabilities' means squat in the face of " background of the applicants, read their written judicial decisions, speak to them, examine their CV, discuss them with present and former colleagues, and generally review their body of work." ?

...and like this: Of 10 applicants for a position one is hired. What are the odds that I have hired the most meritorious? 1/10. In all likelihood, the most meritorious was not hired.

...what Smeelious said. Consent can be withdrawn. The judge, it seems, didn't believe the testimony of the accused. Such things matter in non-jury trials.

It seems to me that Argus' logic goes like this: If a judge is bilingual then there must be more competent unilingual judges somewhere. Therefore to be bilingual is in fact to have less merit.

Manslaughter is when there is no intent to kill but killing is the result of the accused's action. Murder requires intent. The jury must have believed that Forcillo intended to kill Yatim when he fired the second round of shots.

Argus: Unreasonable fear would be rejected as a defence. The police are allowed to shoot people, in Canada anyways, only when they have 'reasonable' fear. Not unreasonable fear. According to the judge in this case, Forcillo had a reasonable fear that justified him shooting Yatim. But after Yatim was down and dying the judge saw no evidence to back Forcillo's claim to reasonable fear.

Agreed. He added the year because Forcillo's life was not in imminent danger for the 2nd volley. As a police officer Forcillo used his weapon when he knew he wasn't facing imminent danger. That, for a police officer, as the judge said, is a serious breach of trust . so 1 year added to the minimum. Good thing Forcillo has friends, family and a clean past to speak well of him to mitigate the judge or he would have got a few more years added on.

All that? Even without a pipeline through BC?

Wrong. BC has no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the oil flows. If Alberta and the Oil companies want the oil to flow through new pipelines in BC then it is the obligation of Alberta and BC to come up with a regime that is satisfactory to BC. Definitely NOT the other way around.

Exactly. Conditions not met then no pipeline gets built. That is precisely what happened. BC refused permission because their conditions were not met. Yet you argue that they have no right to refuse when clearly (now by your very own reasoning that somehow rides along with BC having no right to refuse and the Oil companies 'right of transport') BC does have a right to refuse as you agreed to in the quoted aside.

It'd be no shocker to me at all that some opportunistic politicians may hitch their wagons to Pro-life anti-abortionist campaign. No shocker there at all and is an entirely allowable thing in a democratic society. However, this has not yet happened and the only reason that I can think of for it not happening is that the Pro-life movement doesn't have all those religious and secular pro-lifers that you wish they had. Maybe someday they will. But for the last 25 years the pro-life movement has been chugging and belching a lot of smoke and is still stuck. Stuck even though those liberal supreme court justices who struck down the abortion laws came right out at the time and told everyone and their dog that the government could certainly legislate things in regards to abortions. And still nothing.

You are in a fantasy. Every nation on this planet, large or small, no matter the form of government, has undisputed right to inhibit, tax, seize, even forbid anything and everything being transported through its territory. I have no idea where you get the idea that governments cannot do such things. You've made such rights up. Probably a few minutes ago. Your example of Turkey being prohibited from interfering with goods transported through the dardanelles is completely false. Turkey can seize, tax, prohibit, regulate or forbid any goods whatsoever being transported through their country. The law of the sea prohibits Turkey from forbidding innocent passage through the Dardanelles - but that law applies to vessels and in no way applies to a vessels cargo. Plus the UN law of the sea requires Turkey to agree to that law - I have no idea if they have done so or not. Last I heard the USofA had yet to agree to the UN law of the sea. So why Turkey absolutely must adhere where the USofA doesn't is beyond my understanding and most certainly far removed from what you think nations must do. Hell no! I would never argue the UN was wrong on anything. I would love to see the enshrined Right to Transport Goods in its laws. Can you provide a link? or perhaps a reference in a library somewhere? Sure other countries can ship whatever Canada allows them to ship. See http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/debs-arctic-acts-regulations-asppr-421.htm or the Oceans Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-2.4/ . Canada has every legal power to stop them. Actual shooting power to compel them to stop may be another story entirely.

Broker in Shanghai: "We want to buy hundreds of thousands of litres of oil from you" Broker in Calgary: "Can do. Where do you want it delivered" Broker in Shanghai: " Shantou, China." Broker in Calgary: " hmmm, that could be a problem since we have no means of piping it to Shantou" Broker in Shanghai: " ah. well. Maybe you can have it stored for pickup somewhere? Vancouver?" Broker in Calgary: " Well, no, sorry. Getting that amount of oil to storage in Vancouver may take longer than you would like." Broker in Shanghai: " Oh. Maybe you can tell me where you can have it stored for pickup in a timely manner?" Broker in Calgary: "ummmmm...lets see here.....Montreal? Oh, Quebec city! Quebec city, we could have it there for you." Broker in Shanghai: " just a moment.....Ok we'll arrange to have it picked up there." Broker in Calgary: "Right. I'll get that going right away." Broker in Shanghai: " Excellent. I'll get the contract drawn up . Thanks very much" Unable to get their oil to market. Bullshit.

Civil obligation? The civil obligation that exists nowhere else but in your own mind? That one? If a self-centred jerk such as myself - amongst many others - can ignore such a 'real' civil obligation with impunity and no legal sanction whatsoever then your supposed real obligation is a meaningless mirage. BC can abrogate your supposed-fantasy obligation. BC isn't threatening to do such, They actually have done so. Already. No Deals. Forget it. Decision made - no pipeline. Other provinces can do the very same thing and even expand such denials even beyond pipelines whenever they feel the need and within the bounds of the law. The present pipeline proposal most certainly fits the criteria of felt need and legality. The morality of it is in dispute. Many believe it would be immoral to allow the pipeline You and many others believe its immoral to block it. Whose morality outweighs whose? We don't effing know and theres no way to tell. But! There are certain legal instruments that deal with such conflicts. Contracts for one. Is there a contract between the oil barons of Alberta and the government of BC to allow their product to BC ports via pipelines? No there is not. Was one proposed? Yes. Was it rejected ? Yes. Were the rejectors immoral? Who elfin cares? They didn't want the damn thing and the Oil barons failed to convince them to make a deal. BC is not being unreasonable. Your are, by demanding they acquiesce to the Oil corp just because the oil corp could conceivably increase profits. Cannot get it to market? What the hell have they been doing for the last 20 years? Making money hand over fist by getting their product to market

Not ludicrous at all. M/V Cap Theodora loaded oil in Quebec city and serenely sailed to China where it recently finished offloading. Millions of $$ profit collected from the sale of the oil - Albertan oil to boot. Happens all the time. Not ludicrous in any way whatsoever. Certainly not as profitable! but profitable nonetheless.

no law made abortion legal. A series of laws that made abortion a criminal act were struck down. The laws that made abortions illegal were removed from the books. Thus abortions were no longer illegal. Just for fun - Lifesite summarizes the position nicely: although I think their 'procedural reasons' claim is bogus since the learned judges held that 'security of person' in the charter made the laws against abortion invalid. That 'procedural reasons' claim is an attempt to make the courts decision sound like some sort of oversight that needs to be fixed. But the apparently confusing concept of something that was illegal now no longer being illegal and no law being passed to make it so is concisely summed up in the quote. http://​https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/morgentaler-decision-turns-25-a-day-of-shame-for-canada

Bullshit. I have once or twice sailed across the pacific from Montreal. Perhaps you mean 'cheap easy access' to the pacific. Perhaps you mean 'access to the pacific without going through American middlemen . I find it astounding that these oil companies spent Billions developing the oilsands yet never realized that there was no way they could get their product to market. Now that they have blown billions, somehow or other people in BC have to fix thier blind foolishness for them. The argument that BC has a monopoly on access to the goddamned Pacific Ocean is Bullshit. Bullshit, the oil industry functioned just fine all these years - is still functioning - and at no time, in the entire history of Albertan oil industry have they had pipelines through BC. Your contention that blocking the pipelines killed or is killing the industry is very obviously false. They do have transport to markets in the Pacific or elsewhere. Proven by all the oil that has been shipped out and transported.