Moonbox

This is like quick-sand! The more you struggle the dumber you sound! It doesn't matter if you were talking about Bill C-54 or just Mr. Li. Your 2/3 referenced Charter challenges were equally brainless! Good for you! If you think that makes your Section 9 challenge any less clueless, you're wrong! Keep digging yourself in waldo! The fact that I used the word 'primarily' when explaining that Section 9 of the Charter applies to doesn't excuse the fact that you had no clue what it was about when you 'invoked' it, or that it applies to this argument! When I say "primarily" focused on police conduct, I allow for the possibility that there might be others with the authority to make arrests or detain people (like Border Services, Military or Intelligence Staff). That's rich coming from you! How many snide labels have you collected in your months/years of lashing out in environmental debates??? It's not half-way there. Its 0/10 there. Section 9 is completely useless to the discussion, because its scope is directed towards an entirely different purpose. Your initial attempt at using it in our argument was to suggest that Mr. Li's detention was arbitrary, but we all know that he was arrested and detained by the police because he hacked off someone's head and ate him, and thus a Section 9 argument is dead right there, and you proved yourself full of crap. Going back to the CBA's Section 7 argument, which is solid, you then tried to dig yourself out of your original blunder by telling us that the Section 7 challenge, which was based on a critique of vague and arbitrary terminology (not arbitrary terms for arrest/detention which Section 9 covers), proves your Section 9 argument was good merely by word association. Thanks for showing us how full of crap you are and how far you'll go to avoid being called out on an incompetent argument! The 'high-risk' offender status indicates an increased perceived risk of danger to society because of the NCR's past actions, not because of their mental disability. A Section 15 challenge is therefore crap too, but this has already been explained to you. If the objective with NCR's is to treat and rehabilitate, however, and Bill C-54's scope is such that it detracts from treatment while providing negligible safety benefits to society, then a Section 7 challenge may be valid because the purpose of the bill directly conflicts with the purpose and objectives of an NCR designation, essentially doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. THAT'S the argument you want to be making here if you don't want to look like a fool. That's taken DIRECTLY from your CBA reference, so maybe you should try reading and understanding your own reference material. Noticeably, the CBA is not making Section 9 or Section 15 arguments! Keep on digging though waldo!

I was facetiously replying to Hudson's claim that Monsanto pays lobbyists. I know they do. People forget, however, that the organic and anti-GMO lobby is also huge. It also has the advantage of being able to play on people's fears (which it does regularly) to organize protests and uncertainty about GMOs without having anything scientific to base it on. Monsanto and similar companies can only defend themselves, and the only way they can do it is by spending money.

Really well said! Rathgeber has my respect for doing this. The salary threshold being above $400,000 is totally useless. There's likely only a handful (relatively speaking) of people in all of the federal public service that would make this much, but tons who make $120-400k, so for transparency purposes this achieves next to nothing and is just more lip service to hide that Harper was full of shit and his election promises were worth nothing.

No, I accept that the term 'brutal' is too vague and leaves a lot up for interpretation. That's it. THAT'S your argument? The fact that I used the word 'primarily'? That's pathetic waldo, even for you! The fact is that Section 9 is applied in the context of police officers abusing their authority to arrest/restrain/detain people without reasonable grounds (or arbitrarily). It has nothing to do whatsoever with Mr. Li's case post-arrest, but obviously you had no idea when you brought it up! Now you're in damage-control! Too funny! That's so sad that you're even trying to make this argument. You REALLY just can't handle being wrong can you!? Again, the CBA's use of the term 'arbitrary' to highlight the vagueness of the term 'brutal' in Bill C-54 is nothing more than standard legal terminology in a Charter/Constitutional debate. All you have to do to completely throw out your argument is pull out a thesaurus and change the term 'arbitrary' in the CBA's comments to "discretionary", "subjective" or "whimsical".The Section 7 challenge, on the other hand, has merits, as I've already stated. Section 7 would discusses how laws cannot be arbitrary (there's your pet word again) and that's where the CBA's concerns lie. The CBA suggests that Bill C-54 fails a couple of Section 7 tests in that it's too vague/arbitrary and that parts of it could be seen as "inconsistent with objectives" in the context of treating NCR's, since putting them in the prison system obviously isn't going to help. If you'd brought that up in the first place you wouldn't look so clueless, but you didn't. Your frantic efforts to support your brainless Section 9 and Section 15 arguments now are showing how desperate you are to not to be proven wrong. Sorry I bruised your ego! I know how important this is here to your self-esteem! Keep digging that hole Waldo! Keep showing us how good you are at Google searches, and how bad you are at discussing the results! Your quotation doesn't support your argument at all. You still haven't made a case that Mr. Li was discriminated against! If anything, keeping him out of the prison system in order to treat him is affirmative action! He certainly wasn't arrested because he was mentally ill. Nobody knew before that fateful bus trip!

A supervised walk to the beach isn't cheap. For a couple hours of leisure time you'd likely need to have at least 2-3 guards accompany him.

and my feelings, in the instance you quoted me, were directed specifically at Mr. Li's beaching rights, and whether the taxpayer's money should go towards it. Bringing the Charter into a discussion over such a mundane point was not only a goofy reach, it was not very applicable either. No, I think there should be a distinction between mentally ill NCR's who commit violent and dangerous crimes, and ones that do not. That's one way of looking at it, but that's ignoring that there may be other issues to consider. Does anyone have any statistics on how many NCR murderers end up going free, and how successful the rehabilitation rates are? I tried looking, but couldn't find any. Again, they're feared for having killed people. This isn't the same thing as trying to keep gay people out of straight changerooms, for fear of getting AIDS or something. This is because they've shown themselves capable of some really scary stuff.

You realize that farming/organic lobbyists pay millions for people to be their mouthpieces spreading completely unfounded fears, right? Mmmm! Bigger, tastier and cheaper corn!

Except that Hansen went a lot further than you did in this quotation, and the irrelevant rhetoric he adds to the discussion didn't help explain the incremental effect the tar sands have on world reliance on fossil fuels, but was rather meant to exaggerate the full impact of the tar sands themselves. I'm not arguing that burning the tar sands are going to help. I'm arguing that Hansen grossly exaggerated their overall impact any way you want to spin the numbers. Once again, you misquote me! I did indeed indicate that Ontario's GEA is a debacle, but I did not attribute our electricity bill increases exclusively to wind. I know there's more to the picture than that. On the other hand, I DID invite you to go over how much electricity demand is based on wind/solar right now, and how much that is costing us. If you're willing to go over that, I'd be more than happy.

Okay now that's just hilarious! Section 9 (it goes by Sections, not Articles fyi) applies mainly to police conduct in terms of arrest and detainment, ensuring that police aren't able to arrest and detain people arbitrarily. The CBA's criticism of Bill C-54 stated that some of the terminology and designations aren''t clear enough . The criticism is, specifically: "Vagueness and Arbitrariness – Subsection 672.64(1)(b)" regarding the term 'brutal' and its lacking clarity and specificity. The fact that they used the word 'arbitrary' in their argument, and that 'arbitrary' is a word used in Section 9 of the Charter, does not mean you made a successful Section 9 argument. What it does do, however, is make it clear that you're clueless, since Section 9 deals primarily with police conduct, and this entire discussion has nothing to do with that. What am I not substantiating here, exactly? Refuting your brainless "Article 15" (lol) challenge is child's play, because it once again has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Section 15 deals specifically with ensuring individuals are treated equally before and under the law, and that they all benefit from it and are protected by it equally. Right, so was it discriminative to have him placed in the mental health system? Wow! Too funny!

Yeah you brainlessly brought up Section 9, and then after having it thrown back in your face and realizing it for the failure it was, you went digging on the internet and gave us another stupid Charter argument (Section 15) and then got lucky finding the CBA criticisms of bill C-54 (which once again I was not defending). You're 1/3 waldo! Good job! If you swing enough times, you're bound to hit a couple! I gave credence to there being a sensible challenge to Bill C-54 as currently presented, not that eyeball presented a good explanation for his "Charter!" response, or any argument for Mr. Li's beaching rights (which is what we were talking about, after all!) Why would I retract it? Did eyeball come forward with anything? Nope! Let's see... First we have the thread title, then we have me specifically quoting Bubber on Mr. Li being allowed to go to the beach, saying, essentially, that aren't or shouldn't be required to give him that consideration, and then eyeball directly quoting THAT statement and getting into the Charter. If I misinterpreted him, there's been ample opportunity to clarify. I hadn't made any arguments on constitutional merit of Bill C-54, so I'm not sure why eyeball would quote me with the Charter argument....

except the flow of the discussion was: 1. I stated an opinion. 2. eyeball told me the Charter guarantees protections from my 'feelings and opinions' 3. I implicitly stated he did not, nor would be able to apply the Charter to this discussion in any worthwhile way. 4. He told me my position was 'unaccountable' 5. I asked him to explain his Charter argument (not even quote it, just make an argument from it), which he refused. 6. You mocked , and then attempted a challenge with a stupid argument from the Charter (at least better than eyeball managed) and refuting it couldn't have been easier. I know I've upset you by opposing your Green Crusade waldo, but nobody's interested in your baggage from completely unrelated environmental threads, okay? In terms of mental health issues, I'd lean towards treatment, but in someone like Mr. Li's case not for the purpose of re-integration, but rather because he doesn't belong in the prison system. Oh it's Article 7 now? Nice dig! At least here you've a better leg to stand on, but I wasn't arguing about Bill C-54. I was arguing about whether Mr. Li should have beaching visits! Even if we're talking C-54, the CBA's challenge isn't exactly a slam-dunk! Bill C-54 merely leans the balance further towards public protection for "high risk NCR's", instead of towards the preservation of the accused's dignity and liberty, which in cases like Mr. Li could have reasonably determined limits. The review frequency change still wouldn't arbitrary, so that's a swing and a miss. I agree with you on that this is a dumb idea, but that's still not really a Section 9 argument. Another dud. Stick to Section 7 for your Charter challenges. Mr. Li isn't being detained because he has a mental disability. He's being detained because he beheaded and ate someone. and... just why are Harper Conservatives pushing Bill C-54 forward? Anyone... anyone... anyone... Waldo you'll almost always get the last word in our arguments. I don't have the energy to keep going back and forth with you, nor does most of the board. I know you take that as victory, but boredom and exhaustion are your friends on this board, as I've indicated before. Perhaps I'll revisit the thread at some point soon, or perhaps not. It all depends on if there's more interesting things to discuss.

All the reason needed for him to be detained, thus disqualifying waldo's raising of Section 9 of the Charter. Alright, fine. If you're going to insist on pushing a stupid point, I'll play. Show me where it's indicated that paying for guarded/supervised leisure treatment trips to the beach is guaranteed by the Charter. I'll give you a hint so you don't waste too much time by suggesting that Section 9 merely indicates that detention has to be justified, not that we have to justify why we don't go out of our way to keep him happy at taxpayer's expense.

It didn't really matter in Port Elgin. The streets surrouding the CAW complex were, with zero exaggeration, filled with STOP (the turbine) signs at every single address. There are large billboards all over town, large parts of the community are boycotting CAW products. the town council rejected it (and were overruled by the Ontario Municipal Board) AND the 550 meter rules were superceded to allow it to go through. You would have a hard time finding stupider places to put the damn thing, but there you go - Green Activism at it's best! http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/01/26/caw_faces_boycott_over_port_elgin_wind_turbine.html

Hmm...I wonder. Oh there we go. He was mockingly referring to you, but you knew that. Maybe a change in attitude is in order, or maybe your caustic attitude to anyone who disagrees with you or questions your position is an attempt to continue earning sarcastic labels.

Bubber suggesting that Mr. Li's detention was arbitrary suggests that there was no reason for detaining him. The definition of 'arbitrary' in this context would be: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Would you agree that Mr. Li's detention MIGHT be based on the fact that he beheaded someone and proceeded to eat him, thereby providing all the reason we need to detain him? His mental condition doesn't erase the reason he's being detained, it just explains how and why the event happened and how the justice and mental health system is to deal with him. I realize we're on opposite sides of the debate here, but don't let yourself get drawn in to defending other people's dumb posts for that fact alone.

So you don't know then? That's what I thought! What am I supposed to be substantiating in this case waldo? Am I supposed to substantiate that the Charter does not guarantee Mr. Li's beaching rights, as I implicitly challenged eyeball? From my recollection, the Charter generally outlines what rights people do have, not which ones they don't have! In any case, your broken-record hypocrisy, is cute! You're all too happy to inundate people with charts, graphs and walls of quotations/re-quotations when not asked, but as we've all seen you're far more slippery when someone offers a direct and specific challenge! Brilliant! I love when your citations are this dumb! Would you care to explain how Mr. Li's imprisonment would be considered 'arbitrary' or how Section 9 pertains to his beaching rights!? Unfortunately for you, there's more to a good argument than the quantity of your reference material (which often sucks). Sometimes you're actually...required to...put a coherent...argument...together. Don't dodge now waldo! That would be pretty funny considering what you just wrote above!

Disagreeing with you on one topic, (or a number of topics ) does not mean I disagree with you on all topics, nor that two people can't have opposite (but still sensible) opinions.

Feel sorry for Mr. Li's victim's family first. After that, feel sorry for yourself. By now you've been around the forum long enough to know how lame the clichéd "Boo hoo! Charter!" defence is, and how it's usually employed by people who can neither make a compelling argument nor interpret how it applies to the discussion at hand. What's even more funny is that you (unsurprisingly) refused to explain how the Charter applies to this discussion when challenged on it, and pathetically dodged and went with juvenile name-calling instead!

You're weighing on the "Scales of Justice" Argus. It's probably true that a lot of deadbeat losers could sensibly be railroaded into prison a lot faster than is presently happening, but the cost of making this sort of thing systemic is that innocent people are not given a proper trial, and that's a cost that's too high to pay IMO. That's not to say that our judicial process couldn't be sped up considerably and that lawyers don't woefully abuse it and bog it down in order to collect legal fees, but it's never going to be a quick process.

Are you upset that I called you out on your doltish use of the Charter in the conversation? I'm soo sorry your feelings are hurt.

Can you give us a reasonable explanation as to why this is "outright stupidity" - preferably one that goes beyond vague granola outrage and indignation?

While I'm not sure about health effects, I can certainly say that these things negatively affect quality of living for people living nearby and make it harder to sleep for sure. As for 550 metres, some people don't even get THAT sort of consideration. This baby was just build a little while ago near my cottage and it's definitely not 550 metres away from us or some of the other cottagers and residents. http://london.ctvnews.ca/caw-turbine-in-port-elgin-starts-spinning-1.1213979 I would say that the stupidity behind building a wind turbine directly above a tourist beach in a tourist town defies comprehension, but I'd be lying. I'm surprised by very little nowadays in terms of green energy fiascos. Equally unsurprising are how many 'for sale' signs have gone up for properties in the immediate area, including my own!

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that supervised visits to the beach for murderer-cannibals was a right guaranteed by the Charter. My mistake!

Did you have an actual comment to make, or do you just really like using elipses for no reason?

Interestingly he felt eating it/him was also a good idea. No, killing the individual on the bus was not an accident. The fact that his perception of who/what that individual 'was' may be in question, but not whether the act of killing was an accident. I don't feel society owes Mr. Li that consideration or the taxpayer expense. What Mr. Li wants, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant.