g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
Now, almost 10 years of Harper, it's time for a change again. This isn't about Trudeau and what he believes, it's about Harper's time being up.
Harper's time could be over if the majority of MPs put their confidence behind another person. An election and change of governing party isn't necessary, as happened when Martin became PM.
The changes you're talking about seem more related to party than to person. Of course, Chretien--who'd been PM for 10 years--was gone before the Liberals lost their ability to govern in 2006.
[ed.: +]
-
Weren't most of those built by pharaohs bent on appeasing and demonstrating their faith to the gods and to cultivate the same sense of order, appeasement and faith amongst society, mostly in the pharaohs?
Mostly. But, like other monuments and sculptures, they were also propaganda tools. Some temple walls are carved to depict the pharaoh (colossally out of scale with the other warriors) winning a battle he actually didn't. They say history is written by the victor. Not in ancient Egypt, it seems.
-
Thanks for ruining my joke.
Meh.
-
Former liberal senators.
Oh. But, they aren't former Liberal senators; they're still affiliated with the Liberal Party. They just aren't part of the Liberal caucus anymore.
-
They should also be taught how much people politicize history in the present and especially why.
I was taught that, in grade 7.
It isn't a phenomenon of the present day only. You should check out some reliefs on the walls of Egyptian temples some day.
-
I wonder if these former senators get a 10% discount and barefax.
What former senators?
-
How can you enforce a nation to uphold this convention if they have not signed on to it.
From the wording I quoted, the convention obviously doesn't apply only to nations. Further, Common Article 3 outlines how the convention applies to non-international conflicts, including between government and rebel militia or even between two or more rebel militias. I don't believe a non-state militia can be signatory to the Geneva Conventions; yet, they appear to still be subject to its clauses. Apparently, the conventions can have "universal jurisdiction" via the UN Security Council.
-
Pretty much an impossibility due to the age and structure.
Not impossible, but very expensive. A cost no politician would want to be responsible for.
Its now (at least in part) part of a new hospital
The original, 19th century part, yes. I walked past it a couple of times during construction.
-
your correct Parties means parties to the convention...
No, she's not; the convention clearly says "parties to the conflict"; that covers any group involved in a conflict, whether a state army or rebel militia or terrorist organisation.
-
[T]hey should have ordered all prisoners out a long time ago.
Indeed. Or renovated the jail.
-
"Parties" with a capital P seems to refer to parties to the Convention.
It very clearly states "parties to the conflict", not the convention.
And what are we arguing now anyway?
Other than the above, your assertion that Khadr had no free choice.
-
Apparently neither is true:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
National armed forces can accept volunteers into their armed forces below the age of 18.
That doesn't contradict what I said, it aligns with it; though the above speaks of national armed forces, which the Geneva Convention does not; it refers to the broader parties to a conflict.
In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.
Practice Relating to Rule 136. Recruitment of Child Soldiers
The matter of whether Khadr was a child or an adult is thus irrelevant. All that's pertinent is that he was over the age of 15 when he went to Afghanistan and became immersed in al-Qaeda there.
"Omar volunteered"?That isn't allowed either as AlQuaeda/Taliban are 'non-State' forces.
Red herring. I said he chose to go to Afghanistan, contrary to your claim he wasn't able to make free choices.
-
Reading your link, all mentioned are adults making free choices.
Omar was neither.
The first isn't relevant and the second is untrue. Per the Geneva Convention, Khadr was, at 15, of an age when it was permissible for a party in a conflict to recruit him. He chose to go to Afghanistan; he appealed to his father to let him do it, against his mother's wishes.
-
It shows that the Liberal senators will have independance from the PMO if (when) he becomes PM. This has been a huge problem for the current PM... it has been shown that his office pulls the strings of his Conservative puppets in the senate. In one announcement, Trudeau has removed that issue and put it all on Harper.
Senators are no more controlled by the PMO when in the governing party's caucus than when out of it. Senators don't have to follow the prime minister's diktat; a number of Conservative senators have proven that to be true. Harper's "puppets" in the Senate voluntarily made themselves such, as much as any present Liberal senator can be Trudeau's puppet.
It shows that he has acted and taken leadership on the senate issue. Unlike Harper.Perhaps. But, he acted in the exact manner he criticises Harper for.
England appoints senators by committee.
It's the United Kingdom and the government there appoints lords.
[ed.: fix quote]
-
In what way was it horrendous?
It had the facilities of a 19th century prison and overcrowded to boot.
-
I don't think it should be used because there isn't any big screen TV or college courses available.
While it's probable nobody was regularly whipped at the Don Jail, the conditions were worse than simply the absence of high-end televisions and post-secondary education.
I'm not saying it's necessarily right that someone held in such a prison should be deemed to have served twice or three times the amount of time they actually spent there; but, I see the rationale.
-
"the monarch's laws" recognize existing Aboriginal rights.
They recognise the rights set out in earlier laws.
-
I personally do not feel that judges or juries should have their hands tied by minimum or maximum sentences. I especially distrust a judicial system that is prone, influenced or directed by the far left or far right leanings of the current dogma of a political party temporarily in charge of the government.
Are you classifying acts of parliament as influence or direction by the dogma of a political party temporarily in charge of the government?
-
The court's own terms for cruel and unusual punishment regarding prison sentences are "disproportionate" and "rare and unique". Neither of which apply to pre trial custody where extra credit is given out of hand...
I thought the prison where the person had been detained factored into the decision. The Don Jail, for instance, was regarded a horrendous place and judges gave people who'd been held there while awaiting and through trial double or triple credit.
-
I did not say that, we already know the facts that he did not have a chioce to where he went when he was a young boy, but when he was 15 he was no longer under his families care and control...
I know you didn't say it; I did, as illustration of just how far back his personal choices went. In early 2002, when he was 15, he was, in fact, still in his family's care, living with his mother in Waziristan. He hated the situation and asked his father to let him go to Afghanistan. His father accepted, against the mother's protestations, and off Omar went and in Afghanistan he stayed, in the fold of al-Qaeda, until he was captured.
-
t has also been proven that Omar had plenty of chances to leave and stop fighting for Al Qaeda, but he chose not to ...
He actually chose--asked--to go to Afghanistan in early 2002.
-
Yes there is. Parliament makes the laws and the judicial system is responsible for enforcing them as long as they don't violate the Constitution or Charter of Rights. There is nothing in either that says convicted felons are entitled to double or triple time off for time served. That is something that the judicial system has entrenched on its own.
The charter does grant the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Given that wording, what constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment is left to interpretation. Whatever interpretation becomes most commonly employed by courts becomes the convention. That is, until cabinet or parliament create a law stating otherwise.
-
Gay rights is not a trendy cause for those who are fighting for their human rights including the right to marry, anti-discrimination laws, anti-bullying of young people. It also isn't so simplified, not sure what you meant by that.
I don't see how your comment negates the trendiness of the cause; perhaps widen your view to take in more than just the activists. In the main-stream media, the cause is simplified (perhaps to fall in line with the current and common, generally simplified, bipolar view of human sexuality); the rights involved are those of more people than just those who self-identify as gay.
As I feared would be the consequence of my earlier post, we seem to be getting off topic.
-
If simply discussing your "non traditional" sexual orientation can get you thrown in jail isn't oppression, I don't what the heck else you could call it.
I don't think you read all of my post.
Justin Trudeau kicks all "Liberal" Senators out of Caucus.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
No. But, one isn't necessary.