charter.rights

Classic but most ineffective of all the fallacy arguments :Argumentum ad Ignorantiam Talk about being a 4th Grader. I bet you had trouble getting out of grade 2. And an American too. How is it that an American would come here to troll a Canadian political site. Certainly there is too much American conservatism to laugh at that we don't need your theatre here.

@William Ashley Your problem in defense of scrapping the registry is that you just supported the reasons why it is necessary, by suggesting that long guns are not just a tool of hunting but a means of defense (and by its argument, offense). Police need to know there are weapons in any home, or accessible to any offender they might have contact with. That does not infringe on the accused rights to own and use those weapons but it alerts them to their presence. Our officers should be fully informed with all the information available when they are called to the scene of a crime or domestic complaint. The Registry provides that information.

Again your Americanisms get in the way of understanding how Canada works. Our Constitution places reasonable limits on freedoms in order to preserve certain long-standing rights, equality (and equity before the law) and to maintain peace, order and goodwill. According to the Canadian epic that IS freedom, but unlike the US where freedoms are impinged on the whim of the CIA or Borderland Security, we have real freedom and not that masked by subversive agencies. The Honour of the Crown is a prevalent principle in the conduct of the Queen's officers of the Court, the Crown, and lawyers that swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and allegiance to the Queen. THE HONOUR OF THE JUDICIARY –THE HONOUR OF THE CROWN, Judge David Arnot,Saskatchewan Pages 11-71, Provincial Judges Journal, Volume 33, No.1 Summer 2010 You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. You goofed.

You are still way out to lunch. She has admitted that she knew about the pictures in 2003. She was appointed in 2005. As the story is unfolding, it is clear that Chapman was King's client and that he felt pressured by the lawyer to sleep with his wife, in return for favourable treatment. Go back and read all the stories and you will see what I see. And here you go convicting him because of his past. Lastly this has nothing to do with "Charter Rights. That is a simpleton's red herring thrown in to divert attention that you are wrong. This is about a judicial review, the conduct of a Queen's officer and the failure of a Judge to disclose injurious information. (An earlier accounting by a Liberal MP sitting on the selection committee stated that the information was not disclosed during the selection process). A Crown must not only be exemplary but must appear to be impeachable at all time.

It doesn't work like that. A lawyer says he will get you off if you just do his wife on the side. If you refuse he promises to let the court have their way with you. That is undue influence. Sure Judge wasn't a judge at the time her husband pressured his client. However, she knew of the pictures, and knew they were on the internet before she went before the selection board, and did not disclose this to the board, despite being asked by the board if there was anything in her past that might affect their decision. She said there wasn't. So not only did her actions make a potential problem, but she lied about it as well. And despite what BC thinks, the Honour of the Crown is a tacit principle of our justice system. Of course he thinks we are like the Yanks where paying off judges and hanging innocent men is common place. Not in Canada, eh....

Go back and read the full story. The Judges husband was representing him in a case and was using his influence to pressure him.

That is not necessarily true. While each of them is held to a slightly higher standard than say a dock worker or a grocery store clerk there are certain tolerances allowed by their licencing societies, and penalties and sanctions that can be invoked to correct inappropriate behaviour. However, judges go well beyond that level of expectation and must be beyond reproach. What you don't seem to understand is that judges represent the "Honour of the Crown" a term that provides that not only are they representatives of the Crown's fair and just system of law, but that their behaviour in public must always be above suspicion and doubt - honourable and exemplary. I see no problem with a judge that wants to engage in bondage or any kinky behaviors. As Pierre Trudeau often defended, the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. However, once her behavior reached beyond the bed - through her husbands solicitation for sex from a client, or from the publishing of the pictures on the internet - her behaviour became a public domain issue. And again if her husband did those things (sex advisor Dr. Sue Johansen says she probably initiated the requests) without her consent, she was obligated the minute she found out about it to disclose this information to the vetting board. She no longer has the public confidence required as a jurist. Time to boot her out of there officially.

Well it certainly could be an issue considering she was appoint to Family Court. I would certainly want to know that the Judge behind the bench considering the the welfare of children wasn't also thinking of a way to bring them into her chambers. There is a certain demeanor that we expect out of judges both in their public as well as private lives. She should be turfed.

KANAISCHER IS BACK PEDDLING.....he's practiced for sure but not very good at it

It is already happening. Migrant workers and immigrants are taking lower paying unregulated jobs and their employers are putting them at risk. And then of course we have Walmart......

You belong to inferior intellect, I see. Nazis - disorganized losers. Hey you have something in common.... Daddy get out of prison yet?

You must forgive the little reichtard. His barney helmet came off while I was banging his head against the wall.

You are still out of touch. It is a fact that the Nazis were disorganized. However, it is only your subjective opinion that they were organized at some point, since the fact was they were disorganized enough to cause their collapse. It is like your being just a little insane. Either you are fully insane or you are not. The Nazis were disorganized and if they had been organized at ~some time~ then it really doesn't matter to this discussion. You lose bucko. You aren't even close to the facts...and that is all that matters.

Argus said: You have every right to attend your local union meetings and express that viewpoint. However, unless you participate in the union process and volunteer your point of views, you don't get a say it what happens to the money they hold. That is just how democracy works.

Let's just think a bit about your poor attempts of rebuttal. Not only do you imagine things I didn't say, but your replies are filled with fallacy arguments and very little else. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee your freedom to say anything you want. That is "reasonably" limited in Canada by section 1. Secondly, while section 2 grants you some freedom of expression, it also guarantees MY freedom to say that you are full of shit and woefully ignorant on this subject (the moderators may at times modify our free expression according the rules set up, which over-ride the Charter under section 1). Lastly, you are trying to make a point that just cannot be made or defended. The Nazis ~might~ have been organized at one point (this is the full extent of your subjective case) but they were terribly unorganized near the end - that is a fact of history. You can't make your case. And just so your red-herring doesn't go unnoticed, I study the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for breakfast and can dance like a whirling dervish around you IF you have the balls to get into it. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is irrelevent to this discussion and you popped it in because you can't make your case and by throwing in invectives and red-herrings you really are lost....a loser as much....in this debate. So let's just restate the full conclusion of this discussion thusly: The Nazis might have been organized at the beginning of the Second World War, but their terrible disorganization at the end cost them the entire war,and the near destruction of Germany. The Nazis were terrible planners and not capable of winning.

There is nothing to chew about because your point of view is mush. Part of being "organized" in any war is to ensure that you have sufficient manpower and equipment at the front of the battles. Only poorly disorganized armies send troops to the the front with insufficient manpower, food or equipment. Only disorganized armies attempt to take on as many fronts as the Nazis did, pushing into regions and countries without the ability to maintain the occupations. Once the Nazis were pushed back they made disorganized retreats, eventually all the way back to Berlins, where they could not even hold the capital of Germany and the centre of their power. Of course your ad misericordiam argument is just another useless fallacy. Just because one to two people here support part of what you say does not give you license to own their opinions. You lose. The Nazis were disorganized and they were racists. 65 million Jews can no longer attest to it, but certainly we can on their behalf. Quit with your foolishness. You are on the wrong path.

They fell apart... i.e. there were not "organized" at the end. In fact there were many "disorganized" assassination attempts within Hitlers own ranks. It the Nazis were as organized as you fantasize about, then there would have been no disagreement, or assassination attempts on Hitler. Germany lost because their order (or lack of it) and their organization couldn't save them from the inevitable. They were poorly controlled, self-addicted racists that thought they could control the world. At the end of the day, the "multicultural" allied forces were MORE organized and MORE powerful than the last of the weenie Nazis...including Hitler himself.

Incorrect. Just before the US got their asses handed to them on the way out of Vietnam, they were still very highly organized. In fact that organization made for a very efficient and hasty retreat.

Man oh man. I am getting this image of a pecked over french fry being fought over by a bunch of seagulls in a McDonalds parking lot. Lictor is getting a licking.

If we are going to that extent then Europe was founded on paganism. Christianity was forced upon Europeans and expanded during the Crusades.

The Family Compact. While it is said to have been disbanded by about 1841, in actuality it lasted far longer and had far more influence on government than ever realized.

Right. WB spends more time apologizing for the provincial and federal conservatives than he does acknowledging their several misdeeds. You don't suppose they own him?

Actually this pattern has been going on for a couple of years. The more recent recession simply accelerated it. Full-time jobs have been on the decline for a number of years.

Actually these jobs were created as a result of immigration and exportation - both of which are unsustainable in their current forms. Increase the market and jobs and technology will naturally follow. The Problem: Not only is the workforce going to shrink, but the quality of jobs is shrinking as well. 130,000 jobs lost last month and only 126,000 part-time jobs created. That is a trend.

So that would be the typical Conservative reasoning. This isn't really about security, or immigration or refugees... It is all about the ~feelings~ of some disconnected Conservative party supporters and unsubstantiated fears that they are getting somethign for nothing. Glad you cleared that up for us.