Alta4ever

http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=907 Supreme Court of Canada Allows Challenge to Québec’s Private Health Insurance Ban Dean Patrick Monahan on Supreme Court Bias Dean Patrick Monahan on Supreme Court Bias Supreme Court bias 'a problem': Study finds court chooses cases government can win National Post Wed 14 Apr 2004 Page: A7 Section: Canada Byline: Janice Tibbetts Source: CanWest News Service OTTAWA -- A University of Toronto study raises the extraordinary prospect the Supreme Court of Canada might be biased by hearing cases that ensure government victories so as to deflate widespread complaints judges are too powerful. "There is a potential problem of the Supreme Court's selection bias," says the academic paper. "In an effort to appear less activist, the court may intentionally grant leave to appeal in a few cases each year where governments will win, in order to enhance the perception that the court is deferential to government." http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ff...33;OpenDocument

Any charter callenge that has gone before the supreme court, in all cases the one parties rights were upheld over another.

Texas can secede.

The equal application of charter rights, which never seem to be applied equally.

Do you understand what conscience is? It is the first part of that right and it was linked in the document to religion. So again you are tring to argue one persons rights over another don't you understand this. And will you stop trying to link this to the marraige issue, I am not interested in it, because I don't care. What I do care about is that you are willing to take sides over rights that are suppose to be applied equally, which do not seem to be applied equally.

The CPC did not print what you are insinuating. What is actually printed on the brouchure “The Bloc prefers sweet deals for criminals. That's unacceptable,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1204745/ I thought you delt in the facts Dobbin.

The charter doesn't say churches, it is individual rights 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; My point is the Charter is a piece of garbage not worth the paper it was written on, yet you seem happy to see one individuals rights promoted over another, which is inherently wrong.

That 10% said nothing about the bloc supporting pedophiles, those are your words. I thought you were about attributing your words to those of others. What it is saying is that the bloc is voting against measures that will further protect children.

The government cannot force you to do something that infringes on your charter rights. Nor does a license for marring people come with a take all comers rule A pastor or priest will refuse to marry some couples if they do not decide to do any pre marraige councilling with them. Which again is not the point as I don't care about the marraige issue. Back to the issue at hand you refusal to admit that the charter is not applied equally to all citizens, your refusal to admit it is a flawed document, and your refusal to admit that you are quite happy that it is not applied equally to all citizens.

My reasoning is that in all charter challenges one persons rights are weighed against anothers, and then judges decide who rights trump anothers, in other words, the document is fundimentally flawed.

Yes

Quit tring to steer the conversation we are not talking about your so called hypothicals, leave them out we are talking about the application of the charter and as I said before you don't seem to care that it is not being applied equally to all citizens. So will you admit that the charter is fundimentally flawed and that you have no desire to see it applied equally to all citizens.

Really your going to try with this are you? I know for a fact that both NDP and Liberal MP's send out ten percenters as well to ridings not of thier own. Funny to see you try to spin the political game, this is Canadian politics, and what is being done today, is old news as it has all been done before.

I am not talking about law suits or about the issue posted, I have made the observation that you don't care to see the charter of rights equally applied to all citizens. You seem very willing to place one persons rights before anothers. So will you admit that this charter we have is fundimentally flawed.

Dropped what crap? Why don't you drop the crap admit that you have no will to see the charter equally applied.

Funny how the strongest supporters of the Charter like to cherry pick rights and put some ahead of others.

Nope, I like manitobans, I visit atleast twice a year.

we are a net contributor are you?

When is manitoba going to get off the dole?

Funny that it is a conservative government in power.

IF you compair to the provinces on either side and the liberal/NDP governments they had, it is without question.

Only if you want to vote for some crack pot.

There are?

There is the possiblity of one, but we'll see how that leadership race turns out (we'll see if the mainstream grass roots take sthe day). As for polling data, again we'll have to see when the leadership for that party winds up as the polling companies wopn't be inculding them until the leadership campaign is done.

Umm their are different factions with the PC party, not all "conservatives". Up swings and down swings through the political history of the province confirm what I have posted not just the recent history (last 30 years). If you insist on the last 40 years of history, the NEP raped the people of Alberta, yet Getty not a fiscal conservative compounded our problems, the tories at the end of his tenure were on tenuous re-election grounds, it was only klein that save the party from oblivion, now we have the cycle repeating, tories on tenuous ground with a very unpopular big spending leader.