Moonbox

You, me and almost everyone else in this thread have. I think charter.rights is a lost cause. His entire argument hinges on a court system, government and reality completely devoid of logic.

The next on a list of things the Tories have done lately that flat out disgust me. The census has been a hallmark of civilization for about 2000 years and pretty much every secular country in the world uses is for VERY good reason. It's a helpful tool for policy makers and helps people get a good idea of what areas and types of people need help the most. EDIT: It seems I was rather ignorant on the subject. Having read a little further about it, I feel like it makes sense. The current census as it currently stands is a fair bit more invasive than I had thought.

Logic can't be a delusion. That comment itself is the biggest delusion possible. Let's dumb it down for you even more. You are hungry. You want to not be hungry. Eating food would make you not hungry. What's the logical solution? No, what we have are some facts. We have a wound that looks like a bullet hole. We have a dead man. We have a bloody bullet nearby. Logic and reason take us the rest of the way to make an assumption. It is not a certainty, but it is a likelihood, and it's almost certain to be correct. With the given facts, and with even a sniff of intelligence, most people would be able to come to this conclusion. It makes SENSE to assume that man died of a gunshot wound. I'll grant that your imagination is pretty good with coming up with those other possibilities, but there was no mention of shrapnel in the area, no blood trail or other foreign object and no mention of the man having any surgery. You came up with that with pure imagination. Most of your arguments have worked that way as well, because, like I said before, you've been quoted about 50 times here with EASILY PROVEN falsehoods. Reason is not a delusion. To say so is absolutely insane. The phrase, "Beyond a REASONABLE doubt" is simple evidence that this is how a court of law operates. Logic is not a delusion, because it is the application of reason. The facts and evidence are things that HELP a judge make a reasonable decision. If, for example, you have a hundred witnesses and a video tape of a man killing a woman, the judge would use these facts to come to the logical conclusion that the man killed the woman. If logic and reason are a delusion, as you claim, the judge could just as easily decide that Winston Churchill came back from the dead, doctored the video tape and bribed 100 witnesses to testify against the man. This is the sort of lunacy your arguments have contained thus far. I'm finding it hilarious.

Wait...wait...I think I get it now. This is how it works: The man died of what looks like a bullet wound. Ah, there is the bullet. It's pretty clear he died of food poisoning. He must have eaten some bad meat. charter.rights I'm catching on now, right???? Logic is a myth right???

Since when is mocking an idiotic post called backpeddling? You just tried to tell us that logic (the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. That's your whole argument this entire thread broken down into one simple sentence. As far as your concerned, logic and reason have no place in the application of law in Canada. We've already learned that that you don't believe that the People have any influence over the Crown (patently false) and now we learn that logic and reason also have no influence over them. This is indeed what you've been saying the whole thread. As far as your concerned, the Crown's decisions will be based entirely on what YOU tell them. You've been caught in quotation about 50 times in this thread by various posters either telling us something totally false (and easily proven to be) or so childishly stupid and contradictory that even a 5th grader could point out their fallacies. My advice is for you to is to just stop embarrassing yourself. I only half-heartedly mean that, however, because every time I log on to the site I get to read something hilariously dumb.

And this, my friends, is by far the single most idiotic thing I have read in 2 years on this forum. I invite everyone in this thread to put their face squarely in their palm, and feel sorry for this poor wretched soul. log·ic (ljk) n. 1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic We need not look any further than your posts to get glorious examples of stupidity and shining examples of complete and utter ignorance in our search for comedy. According to you, logic (which by definition is the study and application of reason) has no place in a justice or legal system. Apparently reason does have a place in law, according to charter.rights, but not logic... I'm beginning to wonder if you even finished highschool with a comment like that.

The laws themselves are based on the concepts of cold hard logic, reason, justice and fairness. The judges make their decisions based on the law, precedence, and their interpretations of logic, reason and fairness. That's entirely true. Individual logic and reason are not how the laws were formed. They were formed with about 2000 years of precedence, experience and collective logic and reason which we continue to build on today. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're absolutely clueless. Section 1 was placed first because it was meant to limit the sections that came after it. Indeed, it's widely known as a limitations clause and that's the intent with which it was written. I dare you to google "Canadian Charter Limitations Clause" and tell me what comes up in your search results. Interestingly enough, the Charter is Part 1 of the Constitution Act. Another example of your pathetic critical reasoning skills. Your right. Aboriginal Jurisprudence is not precedence. I never said that, however, so the fact that you brought it up just shows how much you're flailing around here. I said that you don't understand what the word jurisprudence means. In legal terms, the concept that previous settlements and court cases determine how following cases will be viewed is called precedence. You were calling it jurisprudence. I was highlighting how little you know about our legal system. I have studied law and while I haven't gone to law school, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you've never opened a legal text book in your life. Again, I didn't say that. You're REALLY struggling here haha. I said that Natural Law is one the central pillars of jurisprudence and any worthwhile legal system in the world. It's the use of reason to analyze a situation and create rules and judgements. Section 1 of the Charter is an EXAMPLE of Natural Law in our legal system and is indeed PART of our Constitution. Are you starting to get it? You're flopping around like a beached fish. Actually, we were discussing how your use of the word jurisprudence in this thread clearly highlighted that you didn't have any understanding of EITHER.

Because we wouldn't allow it. I wouldn't allow it. Smallc wouldn't allow it. Anyone with a brain wouldn't allow it. Thus far it's only continued because the settlements have been relatively small and reasonable. If they started to get unreasonable, the Canadian people would start to care about it and do something about it.

It's a two way argument. So far small settlements here and there have been made with the government that are hardly noticeable on the provincial or federal books. That's what HAS HAPPENED and what will CONTINUE to happen. PRECEDENCE, not jurisprudence (you still don't know what that means but I'll forgive you because it's clear you've never read a page of philosophy or law), has already been set on what sort of land claim settlements we can continue to expect. They'll continue to happen as they HAVE been but not how you say (in your demented little world) they SHOULD. Keep using that word. The more you use it the less educated you look. The word you're looking for is precedence. Look it up in the dictionary. I DARE you to learn something from this discussion. Aside from that, you're right. Precedence has been set in settling native land claims. Cash and land settlements in the millions of dollars range have been made and will continue to be made. The more settlements happen like that the more that will reinforce the precedent for future rulings and the more it will ensure the hundreds of billions worth of settlements you so desire and wet your bed over will never happen. The Crown's job is to safeguard and promote the interests of ALL Canadians. I know it suits your infantile arguments to pretend that first and foremost its job is to promote only the interests of First Nations, but that's no reflection of reality. Subject to Section 1 of the Charter (BTW thanks for quoting it so I didn't have to). The whole Charter is subject to Section 1. That's why it's Section 1, and not 25. It was written first as a preamble to the entire document to ensure that people knew that any use of the Charter to support legal arguments would have to follow the standards of fairness and justice in a DEMOCRATIC society. If the arguments don't follow simple logic, reason and fairness, the Charter can't support them. The concepts of logic, fairness and reason are the fundamental principles of Natural Law (one of the pillars of Jurisprudence, a word you don't understand and continue to misuse) and none of your arguments thus far have passed those tests. Please keep trying though. I'm actually REALLY fascinated by how your mind works and how the jumbled messes in your head actually end up here in writing.

I don't think Pierre Trudeau is held in as poor regard throughout Eastern Canada as people here think. You have to remember, most people can't be bothered with the boring details of his tenure as PM (how we're still paying off the debt he accumulated 30 years later and will be for another 30 years). No, the majority of the sheep in Canada instead remember instead only the sensational. They remember his rockstar persona. They remember how he "stuck it" to the Americans, repatriated the Constitution, his floozy wife and how he spent lavishly. They don't care that he sold out Canada's future to finance his legend. They only care that they had something interesting to watch on TV and that life was easy for a couple of years. Justin Trudeau is, in my opinion, the scariest thing on the Liberal horizon and I wouldn't be at all suprised if he took over leadership over the next few years. He's young, decent looking, articulate and popular in his riding. It doesn't matter that he's not hugely educated or qualified. Look how that worked out for Ignatieff. All that matters is that he's something the Liberal brand might be able to 'sell'.

The argument is that, since the Crown derives its authority and legitimacy from the People, it is in fact beholden to the People to make fair and rational decisions. In the case that the Crown lost its mind and even TRIED to judge in favour of the idiotic claims you make, they would be removed from and replaced. Every single aspect of Canadian law can be rewritten. The constitution can be rewritten. New Supreme Court judges can be selected. We can remove the Queen as the Head of State. All it takes is agreement across the country. The Supreme Court knows this, and as such, rules accordingly. After all, it's the Supreme Court of CANADA -- not the Supreme Court of Give the First Nations Everything they Want. Revolution is a tool that can and has been used in the past when the Crown does not act in the best interests of its people. That's not going to happen, however, because nothing you say the Crown will do will actually happen either.

Biingo. charter.rights replaces facts and logics with his/her own desires, and thus creates an alternate universe where fancy and desire become reality.

Direct quotation: Aside from this, you and I were talking about the Queen, and by extension the Crown, and I provided official citations indicating that their power and legitimacy were derived ENTIRELY from the people. You've told me it's a myth, and I'd like you to provide a direct reference contradicting the ones I've shown you. Your arguments, thus far, have not followed any sense of logic, they've been blatently false and now you're lashing out at everyone here and spouting nonsense because we don't see things the way you want us to. Most people learn this in kindergarten, but I think you need a refresher: Things don't become true just because you want them to. It's a red herring. The question is not whether the Crown can seize land. It obviously can. The question is under what circumstances can it and will it do so. This is what you and I have argued about for the last several pages so the fact that Shwa's completely irrelevant question somehow supports your argument only serves to underline how bad you are at following an argument from start to conclusion. Your logic sucks.

This thread is just getting so comical. If I didn't know better, I would think we were all getting trolled.

The Monarchy believes it. It's on their own official website. If you're correct, then absolute power is vested in a dumb monarch who doesn't even know she actually has that power and thus it doesn't even matter. Regardless, you have no facts to back up that it's a 'myth', and I have direct quotation from the Queen of Canada's own website stating it is NOT a myth. Keep it up. Show everyone here how many more dumb things you can say.

It's not the system that's to blame. The system would work perfectly if people weren't stupid and apathetic about it. That's the whole reason the system works the way it does now. People are too dumb and too lazy to actually learn about individual candidates stand for and instead base their opinions on two minute commercials (from the parties themselves) while they're on the couch getting fat watching Survivor or something stupid like that.

It's because the VAST majority of Canadians don't share the views of the tiny minority that makes a career of complaining and protesting. Most protests are regarded with about as much respect as the drunks downtown in whatever city you live in. They're the unsuccessful and indignant part of society who blames everyone else for their failures. We don't listen to them because of who they are: Generally speaking...big losers.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out A myth? Hmm... As in all her realms, The Queen of Canada is a constitutional monarch, acting entirely on the advice of Canadian Government ministers. She is fully briefed by means of regular communications from her ministers, and has face-to-face audiences with them where possible http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Canada/TheQueensroleinCanada.aspx If it's a myth, then it's one the Queen is also unaware of. Keep digging that hole. The more you talk the dumber you look.

Your idiocy is highlighted in bold. It warrants absolutely no comment and the rest of the forum can judge it for what it is. No. The Supreme Court didn't order the government to do anything. It was a wrist-slap. The Crown as an institution holds all the power. It gains its power and authority from the support of the people. Without the support of the Canadian people, the Crown has no legitimacy whatsoever. "The Crown is the institution that represents the power of the people above government and political parties." http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=635,617,534,206,Documents&MediaID=752&Filename=2004Manual.pdf Your ability to think critically, I think, will never be corrected.

I am? Really? Let's examine your next sentence.... Oops. You f'd up again. You're talking about precedence. Precedence, I'll grant, is at least part of legal theory, but it's still pretty clear you don't understand jurisprudence. If you look at the size and nature of the settlements made thus far, take that as your precendence (not jurisprudence ) for what future settlements will look like. My god you're all over the place. What's your point? I understand what the Crown is. Where we differ is on how the government and court systems work. We seem to have different opinions on our understanding of who ACTUALLY holds power in Canada. It's not the Queen, or the Governor General. It's the PEOPLE of Canada who determine its fate. While the Queen does hold symbolic reserve powers, if the people, parliament and Senate of Canada passed a bill and the GG or Queen didn't consent, we'd write her out of the constitution. She knows this, and thus has no reason or ability to interfere.

Yeah that's pretty much exactly right. The apathy, ignorance and laziness of the average voter turns politics into a pageant and media circus.

Oh good for you! You can look up a definition in the dictionary! Unfortunately, this doesn't mean you understand it. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Having the definition of the world in your hand provides you with no better of an understanding than would having the definition of "particle physics". You don't seem to have even a BASIC understanding of how a legal system works and your critical thinking skills suffer even worse. I provided you with examples of how jurisprudence defeated your arguments and how you don't even know what it means. Your response was a dictionary definition. Oh my..... Your naivety on this issue is getting pretty tiresome. You and I have had this argument on a number of occasions. I understand what the Crown is. It's not a difficult concept, and I don't need you to explain it again. The Queen's power, just like the GG's, is almost entirely symbolic. The only time she has ANY authority whatsoever is in cases where you might have a hung parliament or something rare and obscure like that. As I mentioned before, NONE of her ACTUAL powers are relevant to our argument here. She has NO power to enact legislation nor can she in any way affect the Canadian Court system. If she tried to, she would indeed be laughed off the continent. We'd write her out of the Constitution so fast you'd barely know what happened.

No smallc, I'm not. The Queen has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enact, retract or enforce legislation in Canada. If she tried, the whole country would laugh. Other than ceremonial duties and VERY unusual circumstances where Reserve Powers may be warranted, she has absolutely no power at all, and certainly none in the context of this argument.

That's a pretty good argument I think.

Reading about treaties and understanding jurisprudence are two VERY different things. You may have read the treaties, but you have no idea how to interpret them in the context of law. You've used the word, 'jurisprudence' in a number of threads on this forum but you've made it VERY clear you don't know what the word means. I don't expect you to understand what legal realism is (you don't seem to understand anything else about the law) but the basic premise is that 'law' is determined by what judges etc do with it. Natural law, another pillar of jurisprudence, suggests that there are practical limits to any legislation. This is the key to our entire legal system. The law is interpreted in so far as it is reasonable. A really good example of Natural Law is Section 1 of the Charter: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. You and I have already been over this. It's the first Section of the Charter for a reason. "Rights" will only be guaranteed and unpheld in so much as they are reasonable. If we're to study jurisprudence,(or Natural Law) and Section 1 of the Charter, your beloved Section 25 actually has some limitations. Imagine that! I know from previous discussions that you've decided Section 25 is the most important and most unmalleable Section of the entire Charter (that's why it's #25 right?) but that's based more on your dreams and desires than any basis of 'jurisprudence' . The agreement you speak of in this thread was made 300 years ago by the English Crown. This was generations and generations before Canada even became a country. The power of the English crown these days is ENTIRELY symbolic in Canada and it has absolutely no influence on Canada's repatriated constitution. It's a myth that what the Queen says has any impact on Canadian law these days. She's a figurehead and she knows it. Nobody is arguing that. Can you even read? We're arguing that the settlements YOU say are inevitable are pipedreams. Billions in settlements will be made (over decades) in order to appease First Nations, but they'll never get the fairytale settlements you dream about. The fact that hundreds of millions worth of settlements get awarded yearly DOES NOT provide any reasonable support for your claims of $100's of billions of dollars. If anything, it suggests that those are the type of settlements we can continue to expect. only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society Are you aware that the declaration was not legally binding, which means it's purely symbolic and has no teeth whatsoever? Was there any backlash (other than from Hugo) internationally against Canada and the US for not signing? No? Okay well that kind of goes to show you how much interest the international community takes in such affairs. Keep proving my points please. That's what YOU would like to think. There is no evidence that these are happening nor any precedence for such negotiations. Such demands are so unreasonable that they would fall under Section 1 of the Charter and so be dismissed. Instead, aboriginals in Canada will receive such settlements as are deemed FAIR to both parties (First Nations and Canadians as well) which will NOT result in making every individual First Nations inhabitant instantly wealthy and impoverishing tens of millions of Canadians at the same time. Sure. They have to be settled. Eventually...as reasonable... I don't even think you know what a settlement is. Do you understand the difference between judgement and settlement? Maybe look that up.