charter.rights
-
Posts
3,584 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by charter.rights
-
-
As usual, you know nothing. First, the Senate is part of Parliament, and second, no.
Try again sophomore.
Consent also requires a majority of the provinces on ALL amendments.
-
I will repeat. The Parliament of Canada can in fact change most parts of the constitution on its own. When it can't, the entirety of Canada's sovereign legislatures (its parliaments) can definitely change anything they like.
The Parliament cannot change any part of the constitution without consent of the Senate and the majority of provinces having 50% of the population. Nothing.
And you are wrong, as always.
-
Parliament(s). Parliament can in fact unilaterally changed most parts of the Constitution.
Wrong again, as usual
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by(a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and
(
resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
-
Treaties and proclamations get broken all the time and are enforced at discretion.
In the early days, the Victorians never believed in anyone's rights. However, that all changed with the repatriation of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The last 30 years have been spent by the Supreme Court refining and defining what that means. So far "aboriginal title" means a "plenum dominum" title which stand above all else - including the government of Canada who is bound to consult with First Nations. Legally we have no right to the land that is reserved for Indians.
That is also why lower courts are now implementing those higher court precedents by issuing injunctions against third parties to prevent development without full and extensive consultation (which the SCoC has defined as negotiation, accommodation and reconciliation). It is also why there is a reluctance to stop Native protesters when they exercise proprietary estopple in stopping development on their lands. They have the backing of the Courts.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples warned of unrest and uprising by Aboriginal people if lands claims and rights issues did not get settled with some sense of urgency. That was 18 years ago and things haven't changed much. Is it any wonder there are more and more protests and occupations taking place today?
Here is a look at the issue. You should read it. It will mess your privileged attitude up a bit....if you know what I mean.
How to prevent native uprising
Keep in mind that last year in June 2010 the Queen recognized the nation to nation relationship the Crown continues to hold with First Nations in gifting Six Nations and Mohawk Chiefs with silver in commemoration of 300 years of the Silver Covenant Chain treaties. I heard at the time that there was a little poking by the Queen to remind Harper of our Crown duties towards the Mohawks. Any wonder why their tobacco manufacturing plants never get raided? That is it.....
-
Now you are being silly.
The First Nations can form whatever groups and alliances are permitted under Canadian law, and express their opinion, but they do not control the BC or any coast in spite of any proclamations.
Canada and BC have not ceded any territory either.
BC and Canada have no right to the land.
And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.And. We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.
Royal Proclamation 1763
The Supreme Court not only upholds this but has defined Aboriginal title of lands as a "plenum dominum" (absolute, over and above all others) That means BC First Nations hold all the cards.
-
-
In my home, it's all about the cat(s).
Do you par boil them first or just roast them whole like the Chinese?
-
The turkey just went into the oven...as fine a Tom as I have ever seen.
Now what to do with his neck?? Maybe the cat wants it.
Are you having salmonella stuffing with it tonight? Yum yum yeck.
-
You deny that fibreglass insolation is bad for you? The asbestos thing was a political move. Lots of stuff out there should have been "banned" before it. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease. That being said, asbestos still has its uses...much like DDT. Your car's brake system for example.
The problem with asbestos is that when it becomes air born then the fibres are so small they are inhaled and embed themselves in your lungs. Most home application of asbestos were sprayed on boiler piping as a fire-proof insulation. It was mixed with gypsum and then sprayed or hand applied over the pipes.
Over the years in damp conditions, the gypsum breaks down and becomes powder form. This powder is laced with asbestos fibres that become air born and inhaled. However, there are still lots of applications where the gypsum / asbestos insulation is still in good shape. It is better to leave it alone.
In commercial and industrial applications a cementous mixture with asbestos was used a a fire-proofing material for steel members. There are thousands of buildings in every city with asbestos fire insulation on the steel, and it is in good condition. However, if renovations are proposed where the fire insulation might be disturbed it must be removed by certified and trained companies.
Just like urea formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) when installed properly it was a good product. However, poor installations and poor maintenance on different buildings have made it seem more dangerous than it really is, primarily because there is so much public fear around it.
-
These are the kinds of people Occupy movement wants out of government:
He is tied with big corporation America, and has been bullying Republicans who disagree with him. He seems to be a right wing crook with the most power in the US.
-
my uncle builds houses and that is not what he told me
GH is correct. Asbestos in homes is sufficiently safe providing the surface of the insulation isn't broken or exposed to potential mechanical damage. Like coal, it is mainly just a dangerous material to mine.
-
Nope, asbestos doesn't screw ones mind up and make them unproductive, all it screws up is the lungs like coal mining, working in dust, etc. Although asbestos does it faster.
But if your comparing it to drugs, it still stands, the user is IMO more morally bankrupt than the supplier because without the user wanting to screw himself up, there would be no supplier to begin with.
So you just contradicted yourself.
It appears YOU ARE in favour of legalized heroin.
-
Last I checked the tents were on public property. How does that constitute a "home"?
Under Canadian law, places being used as a domicile regardless where they happen to be planted are protected under the privacy protections under the Charter. If you own an RV and it is parked in a parking lot but you are sleeping int the police (or anyone else) would require a search warrant to enter. Just like the tents. They are private places of residence regarless if they are in a public park or not.
Yes Levant is an idiot. The protesters should have him charged with break and enter, and sue him for invasion of their personal privacy.
-
Charter.....
Too bad the MSM is utterly useless.
Right:
Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street
Where do you think your conspiracy theory originated?
-
I just watched the Levant video. He makes a lot of points that the "Occupy" protesters would have trouble answering. Such as how a tent has Charter rights. In our country there would be an issue of "unreasonable searches and seizures". Some Justices take the view that the Fourth Amendment applies to people, not places. However, the issue in our country is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" of people in certain places; those expectations would be different in a home, in a public place, or in a car.
I would think that any rational court (not the Communist court system in some cities) would find that a person in a park has little or no expectation of privacy.
This isn't the US.
Invasion of privacy INCLUDES entering their home (which a tent temporarily is) or using infrared cameras to spy on them, whther or not they are home. In Canada it is a crime called "break and enter" even if the door is unlocked. (Although I suppose in the US it is called "Homeland Security" since they get away with anything.)
-
So you're talking about anarchy. No government. Which will mean, no taxes, no social programs, no welfare, no law, no fire dept. or ambulances. Sounds great.
More of your straw man fallacy arguments.
Go look up the meaning of "anarchy" and democracy. You are obviously confused in the difference.
You have an inflated sense of self I think. How do you know you're working twice as hard? I seriously doubt this. Inflation is a fact of life. Corporations are the ones who paid billions of dollars to build the technological infrastructure we now enjoy and you're using right now. You don't feel they should be paid for their efforts?Ad hominem fallacy argument not worth responding to.
Nothing is going to change. You people are very naive if you think it will. It's very simple. Create something great and you'll become rich. Toe the party line and be unoriginal and you'll make a normal living. Very simple.Genetic fallacy argument. You are obviously a very lost soul.
-
1. Our best strategy is having no strategy. We have no leaders because our movement does not need a leader.
They believe it is about having a single issue and can't understand that it is a discussion that is taking place all over the world. True participatory democracy doesn't have leaders. It has consensus.
2. We have no property - except our own stuff. We occupy a public place, and claim it as our own to oppose private wealth. They aren't opposed to private wealth.
3. We oppose authority - but we want more government spending. They neither oppose or authority or want more government spending. They want government to get out of bed with big corrupt corporations.
4a. We are American, and we claim to represent 99% of humanity. They are representative of people all over the world.
4b. As white young articulate North American kids, we defend the world's poor. They aren't attempting to defend the poor exclusively. The defend our human and civil rights, which are not exclusive to race or wealth status.
5. We oppose capitalism, free trade and the current world corporate system despite that in the past 30 years or so, capitalism and free trade have moved a billion or more people in the world beyond dire poverty. They do not oppose capitalism, they oppose corporatism and government corruption.
6. We object to consumerism, and use our iPads to make our message known.They object to rampant consumerism that builds in premature redundancy in order to produce more.
7. We are peaceful anarchists and oppose force - except when we protect ourselves. They are not anarchists, since they are highly organized and democratic in their messages. The problem is that the Right Wing sees democracy as a threat to their aristocracies and uses every means (Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street)to interfere with their democratic right to protest and send messages out to others.
I wonder why this message is threatening to Conservatives?
-
That's OK...the rest of the world knows exactly what to do....Germany's offense/defense ain't what it used to be!
The government is not in control, the banksters are.
Even if Germany manages to bail out other countries in the EU they are still just increasing their debt, depending on the investment markets to come through. There is a group of rich already in control of the world's economy. We're just waiting for them to pull the plug on the rest of us.
-
Is this (link to news clipping with video) about "restoring democracy"?
Do you mean allowing some jack-ass to invade the privacy of someone else and then post it in the media?
The use of infra-red cameras to invade peoples space has been struck down by the Courts.What kind of reaction to a violation of the law would you expect - especially since Levant was in violation of the by-law, and violating people's rights to privacy?
What an ass.
And yes. this is exactly the kind of entitlement, and misconstrued self-rightousness that needs to be eliminated in society.
-
To be in the park yes. To move in and make it a permanent residence? No. Just like Tent City 10 years ago this will be torn down. What's next they'll start building shanty's?
So these people are so self absorbed and care only for themselves that they'll take over a park that is for public use leaving no room for anyone else to use the park. What about neighborhood children who are forced to travel great distances over dangerous terrain to find the next place to play because some people want to whine about something.
If not then whats to stop me from building a house in a public park? Nothing. I could live their lease and tax free I guess is the message to be taken from these people.
I want to the police come in with water cannons and riot gear to drive these undesirables out of parks. Give the parks back to the families and children who use them everyday.
Another of your silly fallacy arguments. You should learn something about what is ACTUALLY happening, rather than making it up to suit your own prejudices and fears.
There are only 26 tents in the park, with plenty of room for others to come into the park and walk around.
Their use of the park is protected under the Charter. The Supreme Court has said before that the right to protest (free expression and right to assembly) must be protected even if it causes discomfort or major inconvenience to others.
The ONLY question before the courts is whether camping is part of the "Occupy" Movement's expression / message and if it is, whether the by-law can be seen as a minimal intrusion on that right. However, their absolute and overwhelming use of the park is not in question.
And NO. If the Court rules in favor of the protesters it doesn't mean that you can built a house and squat there. That is just more of your silliness. This is and "OCCUPY" movement and the question has to do entirely with the message.
-
These protesters think they are owed something by the most wealthy of society.
You are projecting your own sense of entitlement. That is not what the Occupy Movement is about, at all.
It is about restoring democracy and removing the power the the aristocracy now in place. Getting rid of the government - corporation corruption and putting power to make decisions concerning the country back into the hands of the 99%.
-
The Charter is what determines which laws are legal and which ones are not. You cannot make a law that infringes on people's right to protest, unless the limits are "reasonable in a free and just society."
In this case if goes further.
The reasonable limits must be a "minimal intrusion" in the Charter rights.
-
It leaves a lot of time for camping out and smoking pot between sending a message and receiving a reply.
That's because the receivers - government, banksters and corporations are pretty much vacant when it come to accepting responsibility.
-
The powers are getting anxious....
Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street
CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”
Seems the Occupy Wall Street has hit them in their Achilles heel....
First Nations ban pipelines to west coast
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by charter.rights
Wrong.
I spoon fed you the Amending requirements of the Constitution. ANY amendment to any part of the Constitution requires the consent of the provinces. The Government and Parliament are SUBJECT TO the Constitution, not supreme over it.