charter.rights

They had no need to expand their territories since wealth was not a matter of greed or hoarding but of social status. Europeans (and now Canadians and Americans) have to over-produce to make more and more money. The over-production requires them to find more and bigger markets for their goods and in turn find more ways (like cost-cutting) to make their shareholder bigger profits. In an egalitarian society like the Haudenosaunee there is no need for those kinds of profits and where there were profits to be made they were aimed at a community benefit so that no one person held power over another. The Western and European expansion was ( and is) totally about imperialism - the expansion of corporatism to serve the benefit of the 5% cadre holding 95% of the wealth. In day to day life none of us need the kinds of over-production that we are enslaved to produce since our needs can be met close to home.

Thanks for making my point. Native people generally excreted away from their villages, far away from water and food sources and in an area that allowed for the rapid composting of human waste. At the time of contact the Haudenosaunee bathed daily and participated in cleansing steam baths once or twice a week (not unlike a "sweat lodge"but without the ceremony). In comparison (and generally speaking) The British crapped anywhere they felt like it, including close to their drinking water sources and amongst their crops, as well as only bathing once or twice a year. Yes. The Haudenosaunee were superior in hygiene at the time of contact and continued to be long after, until European sanitation laws made them start crapping close to their homes and drinking water. Today those laws are pretty much unchanged and our systems put much of our wastes into our food sources and into our drinking water. I though it does save us the cost of birth control and antibiotics medications since it never gets treated or filtered out of our drinking water.....

Ah so it is ok for you to ignore your own contradictions? Generally speaking Europeans were inferior people at first contact. In fact we have made a practice of pissing and shitting in our drinking water to this day. Native people had much better hygene then that.

From what I hear you might be up the creek without a paddle. But maybe if you begged a little someone might fund-raise for you. I hear that is something you do well.

I'll stop generalizing and referring to Europeans as a single entity when others (and yes that would include your general reference above) stop generalizing about "First Nations" as being the same people and culture. There is as a distinctive difference between any of the 500+ North American first nations as their are between the English, German and French. It would be common decency to speak on a particular nation in either case, however I don't expect that from most of the posters here.

Since it happened around the time that Jesus lovers were drinking his blood and eating his body, stretching women on torture wheels and burning witches at the stake, well....yes in comparison I would that is pretty civilized....

Ha ha ha ha....talk about ignorance is bliss. My Mohawk "chums" are more civilized because they hold the longest surviving participatory democracy on earth - The Haudenosuanee Confederacy at over 1000 years old. Their measures of equality still surpass anything we have today anywhere in the world. The Incas, Aztecs and Mayan were also civilized societies and not so far from Texas (which is really their territory). So I think that your contact is so limited and your opinions of First Nations are so myopic that it is easy to conclude, you don't know what the fucque you are talking about. But I do appreciate that you have revealed this since it explains a lot about your past comments. They really have no meaning, Dude. You can go now.

So you are admitting to over generalizing based on a very isolated small sample? Advancement was less important to most native societies than ensuring that their communities were peaceful and prosperous. The3 mark of a good Indian was how much he gave away, not how much he hoarded.

Harper is no longer looking for a majority...at least for the time being. So the safest thing for him to do is to play nice and get along.

Wrong! NA native peoples had a vast network between the high Arctic, Central and South America, Europe (Scandinavia) and even Asia via the Bering Strait long before Columbus ever bumped into the Caribbean. That would indicate a broader connection to world peoples than the British ever had....unless we include the number of times that Britain was conquered and squashed by invading forces....

Being crass and fatuous is Kengs333's full time occupation.

For the most part non-whites don't hold the power. However, the desire to hate which seems ingrained in your world view, IS a threat to equality and so racism against non-whites is must not only be eradicated in an institutional sense in order to obtain equality, but must be imbalanced in their favour in order to dislodge the racists from power and install partners of equal power. The point of the Charter isn't to erase prejudice and racism (so you are safe holding that opinion) but it is there to remove the barriers so that racism and prejudice cannot be used to deny access, or equal opportunity to people of colour, the disabled, women or gay and lesbians among others. The move towards equality is not a political objective. It is a societal one that is driven by our desire to all get along and treat each other fairly - something that Christ taught along time ago. That means that gays and lesbians are as welcome in God's world as are sinners and whores. Rich and vain men, however are to be rejected. I highly doubt that beggars and welfare bums fit very well into Christ's concept of the new generation, either since like sinners they make their choices and must live with them.

The only way for him to have sex is if his date is drunk......so he should try pouring beer on his other hand.

Wrong. It would be better for natural-born Canadians to have to take a test periodically to keep their citizenship. Few Canadians really have a clue about what our country is really about. They know more about the US than a lot of Americans but very little about Canada.

There is no imbalance of one's group over another. The SCoC said that gays could not be discriminated against over marriage because marriage is not an exclusive Christian thing to do. Kengs333 is upset because he considers gays to be immoral and evil sinners which is neither supported by the Church or the government. It is a neanderthal POV that was gone with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he abhors equality just like he abhors women being his equals. It is also necessary over a long time of people's rights being oppressed for the scale to be tipped in their favour for a while. That is the reason that equity laws allow the targeting of minorities to fill jobs. Equity must dislodge the racists' and prejudiced control of government and the workplace by the predominantly white male. Once the workplace is balanced then merit will be restored as a means to obtain jobs and promotions. However, as a long as the predominantly white males like kengs333 resist equality the exceptions will remain in place. His prejudice-hiding-behind-racial-equality is the problem in potholes of our society where inferior intellects cause the majority of problems. Just look at Gary McHale as an example. He is the dumbest and most racist white male in south western Ontario and he has caused more problems for Haldimand Region than a tornado through Kansas. Now that he is no longer a voice in the region things have quieted down tremendously.

dbl post

Parliament has never used the "notwithstanding clause" and never will to remove rights. It would only be reasonably used where one right conflicts with another. It can't be used as a convenience to over-ride a charter right. Charter Rights are subject to interpretation by the courts, it is true. However, rights can only be "balanced" between other competing rights under the Charter. They cannot remove or diminish a right in order to satisfy a law. The burden of proof lies with the police. They must prove "intent" to race in order to apply the racing law and obtain a conviction. However, stripping someone of their privilege to drive their car for 7 days without demonstrating that the public's charter right to security is being violated by allowing them to drive does nothing except violate the suspect''s right to justice before the courts. That is unconstitutional, period. Not only that but many of the charges never make it to court because the Crown drops them and in essence the punishment has been meted out without the defendant being able to be tried in a fair trial. "If there is such abuse, the courts would likely come down hard on the officers and I'm sure some lawyer will gladly launch a highly visible lawsuit". Of course that is what this thread is about. gullyfourmyle is launching the case to challenge the law and the OPP's application. The racing law is unconstitutional because "intent" cannot be proven in the simplistic way that the police are applying the law.

"God only knows that Alberta is filled with people of various fundamentalists outlooks..." But we all know the REAL kook lives in Binbrook.

It is a different situation since the Court has also prescribed that there is a level of 0.08 parts per million that determines who is legally drunk and if the person is drunk then they in that state they could be a risk to the public if they were allowed to drive. If the suspect is tested and found to be less than the legal limit then the he and his car are allowed to go back onto the street. The choice to refuse a breathalyzer carries with it a penalty prescribed by law and is only applicable IF the suspect is convicted in a court of law. Same thing goes with the penalty for impaired driving - it is only (and can only be) determined in Court AFTER the determination of guilt is made. In the case of someone going 50 over the limit there is no measure to determine "intent to race" simply by going fast. And not all speeders are a risk to the public once they are ticketed. In good weather on a straight highway with little traffic, a driver is usually in good control of his or her vehicle at speeds well above the speed limit. So if this same driver is doing 150 in a 100 how could that be considered "racing"? And that's the point. The police are not using the law as it was intended to target street racers who risk lives. They are using it as a convenience to pull anyone and everyone over doing 50kms over the limit, call them "racers" and then convicting and penalizing them by taking their vehicles for 7 days. It is illegal and unconstitutional. BTW in case you haven't noticed before that the enforcement of the Charter MUST come before the application of all law regardless of the perceived crime. MP's never considered the Charter when the law was prescribed. The never do. If they did they wouldn;t have created this law in the first place since their position is and always will be that it is up to the defendant to prove that his rights are being infringed. However, under Charter law the onus is on the law-makers to proved it doesn't BEFORE they prescribe such imposing law.

The relative fact is that YOU don't exist. You are but a theory in your own mind. And the God you have created lies there in that same empty space of thought, free from observation; he is your secret God and not the universal God of Creation. He cannot be proven because It does not exist anywhere else but in your personal thoughts. The God of All, the "Is" can be proven. However, you would have to give up your devilish thoughts; you personal vendettas and your racist hate that you try to keep hidden along with the image of your Anti-Christ in your mind. Your belief that your are powerful is what binds you to the Devil and makes you mortal and a sinner. Your ego is your savior and it will die along with you when your time comes. You do not know the Truth. For if you did your presence would invite Peace, Righteousness and Love. Instead all you bring is discord, chaos and disharmony - all of which are clear signs that you are of the devil and not of the God of All. Your hate brings the dry dust of choking and your burning eyes destroy relationships. Your lust sickens children and your gluttony starves the poor. When you give up all that you have stolen from others (though you like to claim they gave it to you) and when you humble yourself before the weakest of women - only then - will you begin to see what the real God of Love is all about. You are not a pacifist but are nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing waiting to slaughter the lamb. Jezebel is your mother.

You are using circular reasoning here my chum. "In science there is no such thing as 'proof....only, as Karl Popper said, conjectures and refutations." This applies to DNA as well. So to suggest that DNA proves that the "conjectures and refutations" of evolution are real becasue DNA proves it, is actually circular. "A proof is a proof because it is a proof!" DNA research also fits into its own theoretical category. What we have is 10s of bits out of billions of DNA being examined and decisions made as to the what the billions represent. While there are trends in DNA profiling they do not provide concrete proof of anything and with every certification of DNA genealogy comes a margin of error. There is still too much that is unknown about DNA to believe it is proof of anything - including ancestry. So the best we can do in science is to examine the theory being proselytized and weigh it out against other science that may support or dismiss the theory. Dont wait for Kengs333 to respond mind you because he isn't interested in discussion or even debate. He is only interested in breaking opposition to his myths so that he doesn't find himself questioning them and eventually dismissing them as we have. Its a classic textbook case of egoism /egotism contrasted against a lazy and socially depressed reality.

A speeding ticket is a summons (to court) where the court has previously determined a set fine as an option to appearing in court. When you sign the ticket and take the fine option, you are pleading guilty and short-cutting the court process by your own choice. The determination that over 50 = racing is an arbitrary decision by a police officer who then seizes you vehicle, impounds it and then issues a summons to appear without offering you any choices. The unreasonable seizure of your vehicle infringes on your charter right to be offered due process under the law and penalizes regardless if you are guilty, regardless if you admit guilt and regardless if you are convicted. The police have a very specific role in exercising justice however, determining guilt and issuing penalties at their discretion is not one of those roles. Only the court can determine guilt and issue punishment. And it is in everyone's constitutional rights to be protected from arbitrary punishment and seizure by the police. And no, not always if you are going 50 over the limit will you be subject to a hefty fine. That will happen only if you are convicted and there are lots of reasons why people don't get convicted of many criminal offenses. That is why the court is there to make that determination.

test

Do you have sex with Animals? You mean live ones? No! That's much too difficult! But I have been known to stuff a turkey and eat clams.....

Immorality and deviance just doesn't exist in the context you make it out to be. All that is is just an insane thought in your own mind. Who died and made you God?