DAC

Right on. That's in effect an application of the distinction we make between pre-meditated crimes and crimes of passion.

That's why I mentioned the context, that "an eye for an eye" is addressed to judges doing their job, not to inviduals. Individuals are taught in OT as well as NT to forgive those who hurt them, to turn the other cheek, to leave vengeance to God. Judges, on the other hand are charged to give a just respnse to cases brought before them. They are not there to give vengeance, but justice. And justice means that the penalty balances against the offence. Hence, "an eye for an eye". Yes. Anything less is not fair, and certainly not just. What other response is appropriate for someone who deliberately kills in an ugly way -- think of that long fall -- someone who has given her reason only for gratitude?

I think the Bible has a wonderful answer to that. People get all confused because they don't realize that "an eye for an eye" is direction specifically given to judges, to guide them to give just sentences. Harsh? Barbaric? In the eyes of some people. But if a husband who battered his wife was convicted and given an exactly equivalent battering, he would think twice before doing it again! In fact, if he knew he would get that as a sentence, he would think three times before doing it once. An added advantage is that the violent crime does not lead to costly imprisonment, then.

Well, are you ever an optimist!

Well, we can try to throw them out, anyway.

Yes, there is a pattern here. Historically our freedom has rested on the principle of rule of law instead of rule of people. The Stuart kings in England maintained that they had “divine right”. It meant they could make any law they chose and the law meant what they chose. Over centuries, we have rejected that approach. We have insisted on rule of law. We have also insisted that no unelected human body could have final authority higher than the elected body, parliament. Because the establishment of a constitution set up a situation in which unelected judges could overrule parliament, a guard clause was established. Parliament or the legislatures in their own areas of authority, could write a law, “notwithstanding” the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution. To avoid tyranny, such a law would have to be renewed at five year intervals, or it would lapse. Today, we are sliding back into the rule of people, not law. Many people, including Chantal Hebert in the article cited, are acting as though the Supreme Court’s judgments were the real meaning of the Constitution. That makes use of the “notwithstanding” clause an attack on the Constitution itself, instead of a fully constitutional override of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. Those who make such an interpretation are in fact attacking our Constitution. Use of the “notwithstanding” clause is explicitly constitutional. Denying it is contrary to the Constitution. Those who want to do this should not seek to subvert it, which is lawless tyranny, but to amend it formally and publicly. The pattern? To accuse falsely those who use constitutional means to deal with dubious Supreme Court judgments of being unconstitutional. Throw away truth; grab an emotional bat and swing it hard and hope nobody will notice that in fact the person swinging the bat is the one who is really unconstitutional. :angry:

Traditionally, I think, the deal is a mickey of whiskey, isn't it? Now, though, what they offer is "bread & circuses", bought with your own money.

We have the notwithstanding clause because people raised in the common law system in which parliament was clearly supreme, parliament could always trump the judges by writing a law, were concerned that the constitution would make the judges supreme. They believed that the elected body should still have the final power, and so provided a way in which the elected body could overrule the Supreme Court. The notwithstanding clause is a protection against a court that gets out of hand. In fact it is the only protection we have against the Supreme Court. In Canada there is no provision for impeachment.

I'm inclined to be a little dubious about constitutions because of the danger of judges legislating. But the issue is not so much constitutions as judges doing the job of the elected legislature. I agree with August1991 that the task of the Supreme Court is to rule on laws. Various pressures have encouraged them to be activist, but this is really a breach of trust. I wouldn't say the judges in the US are conservative, though they might move that way if Bush is re-elected, and the Republicans continue to hold the Senate. But in my opinion activist conservative judges are just as scary as activist liberal judges. I might like their decisions better, but they are just as big a threat to our freedom.

I’m not Roman Catholic, but share most of your pro-life convictions. I’d like to be ecologically conscious, too, but I find the Green party extreme. If I had the choice I would vote Christian Heritage Party, with the goal of beginning to build a voice for sanity in the country. Without that choice, I’d suggest you consider the Conservatives. Ecology may not be high on their agenda, but they are at least open to those who are pro-life. The other parties allow pro-lifers to be members, but really work to shut them down. And the Conservatives are committed to smaller government and government which is more local.

Harper is prepared, if necessary, to use the notwithstanding clause, to block the Supreme Court from taking over parliament’s job and legislating. That’s good, not scary. That’s protection for the people against 9 individuals who are appointed for life, and not subject to any other check on their decisions. The Supreme Court is supposed to apply the law, not make new law. It has no authority to invent new rights that do not appear in the law. When it goes beyond its authority to define a new right or legislate, it takes away our democracy. It is no longer government of the people and by the people, but government of the 9 and by the 9. A Supreme Court that nobody is prepared to challenge or limit is what is really scary. And a PM who will accept the Supreme Court taking over parliament’s rôle in making laws is not far behind in the scary scale.

For whatever it may be worth, the Christian Heritage party's aim is to be a party for the whole society. Their policy does not include legislating Christianity, but legislating from the Christian base which is our heritage. In order to keep the base, they require a Christian commitment to be a member, but they expect to show people that their Christian base leads to policies whichare visibly good for the country and its people. For example, being pro-family means that they target provisions to give adequate support to single parents, so they can care for their children, not desert them to some child care facility.

Actually, Bill C-250 protects religious speech, not religious HATE speech -- but I'm nit-picking. There is a double problem. The first part is that there is a strong element in the homosexual lobby which insists that any statement such as "Same sex intercourse is morally wrong" is hate speech. That means that any opposition to their choice is likely to bring criminal charges. The second is that the Supreme Court has already demonstrated a willingness to override the constitution on this issue. Religious freedom is explicitly protected in the constitution. Same sex issues are not even mentioned, and deliberately so. The issue was raised and refused when the constitution was being written. But in a court case a few years ago, a Roman Catholic College in Alberta was refused the right to fire a professor who came to be known as a homosexual. Their religious protection under the constitution was rejected in favour of a right of sexual orientation which did not even appear in an regular statute, let alone the constitution. When the SCC takes that liberty, tell me what value a statutory (not constitutional) protection will add, when now there are laws protecting sexual orientation explicitly, and particularly including it among things protected against hate crimes? Add a further factor. How do you prove, if accused, that you do not hate gays? This is a fundamental problem with all hate crime legislation. The accusation is exceedingly hard to defend against.

(Black Dog @ Jun 7 2004, 01:48 PM) Seems to be that's what I'd call homophobic behavior. It's not the bugbear of political correctness at work: It's common sense. By that strange reasoning, if I tell a joke about Scots, or about Presbyterians, I'm a hater of Scots or Presbyterians. [Homophobic is commonly interpreted as hating rather than fearing gays.] The idea that you cannot say something is wrong without hating the person who does makes every parent a child-hater. let's not be stupid. That's the problem with addition of sexual orientation to the hate crimes legislation. People today engage in the kind of illogic which makes disagreement into hatred.

I've come to the same conclusion.

No, it's not correct. Actually, Bill C-250 added homosexuality to the categories covered under hate crimes. The reason many conservatives oppose it is that today virtually any statement against homosexuality is called hate talk. That means that with this law, people will be prosecuted for a hate crime because they dare to say that homosexual action is wrong. While the law specifically protects those who speak on the basis of religious teaching such as the Bible's clear statements on the subject, the Supreme Court of Canada has already shown it is willing to override the constitutional protection of religious freedom on this issue. That makes it very likely that some Sunday a pastor will move from preaching that ugly gossip is a sin to preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and find himself charged and convicted of a hate crime. Surprise! those who do not hate homosexuals but do believe their choices are sinful do not like this provision in the present social situation. Actually, I don't think I like any hate crime legislation. it is too nebulous an issue. How do you prove you do not hate? I think we should stick to legislation about speech which does measurable harm to others.

I wish it were the case, but it's not. Something equivalent to this was proposed a few years ago (a declined ballot), but never implemented. But putting "none of the above" on the ballot is one of my choice constitutional amenments. Are you with me?

What would be wrong would be a leader, knowing the leanings of MPs, and the electorate, chosing to submit legislation under a "whatever will pass" system, using either free votes, public opinion, or - as a last resort - "showing leadership". I think we're sliding over an important point here. Perhaps important enough to be worth starting a new thread, but as newcomer to this forum, I'm a little hesitant to do that. Premise: ALL votes in parliament, without exception, should be free votes. Why? Because the design of our system requires free votes for the checks and balances to be effective. Unlike the US, in which the executive and legislative bodies are separate and therefore serve to check one another, in our system the executive, the cabinet, is embedded in the legislature. By design, the government (that is the executive) falls, if it cannot maintain the confidence of parliament, that is, if it loses a vote on a government measure. But that only works if votes are free. If the PM can command his majority troops to vote for any measure the cabinet proposes, he is functionally a dictator until he chooses to call an election or his term expires. The practice of party votes, votes in which the troops are required to toe the party line, undermines our whole system, because it removes the fundamental check on the power of the cabinet.

Sure, so long as she confesses that she's a heather and his child is a bastard, and is otherwise 'preyed' upon by having their believes shoved on her. Yes, it happens. Fundamentalist Christians are not free from sin. But far more often, women are helped with sympathy and love and generosity. I've been involved in Christian pro-life groups. It was interesting to observe that there was always more interest in caring for women struggling with problem pregnancies and women struggling with the aftershock of abortion, than in picketing and trying to persuade the government to change the laws. It's also interesting that those who engage in counselling women considering abortion report that more often than not, it is really the woman's boyfriend, husband or parents who want the abortion. She is under great pressure.

That's the first time I've seen "entropy" used as a euphemism to gloss over the fact of killing an unborn child. Accurate? Yes. but it is definitely an attempt to make the unpalatable facts look better. The problem is that the child in a woman's womb is not her body. in this day of growing understanding of genes, that should be clear. Every cell in your body except the ova or sperm carries same genes. The ova or sperm have genes entirely from your body, but only half the number. The cells of an unborn child have different genes. Any modern enlightened person who says the child is part of the woman's body is twisting facts he or she presumably knows. At least should know. If a person wants to get rid of a tumour, fine. It's part of her body, to do with as she pleases. If she wants to get rid of her next door neighbour, it's a different story. When the next door neighbour is the child in her womb, it is complicated by the relationship and the cost to her of carrying the child, but the child is still a neighbour, nor part of the woman. If you are "pro-choice", how about ensuring that the child gets a choice.

According to my birth certificate I'm a citizen. According to my bank statement and my income I'm far from wealthy - like retirement's coming and I'm wondering how I'm going to get by with very little beside OAS & CPP to live on. But I am a member of the NCC, and contribute their minimal membership amount each year - I forget whether it is $25 or $35 now. My father-in-law is another in similar circumstances. If you are so sure of your suspicions, I would REALLY like you to find my hidden millions for me! Wrong again. I'm not a corporation, but the things it supports help me - and you, whether you realize it or not. What you are saying seems to be the traditional left wing big lie. The theme is that only the wealthy and corporations are restricted, so you ignore individuals like me who are neither but are restricted.

Excuse me, but how do you adopt Islam and all its teachings and hold to no violence? Did you never hear of Jihad? and that's only part of it.

In that conflict, taking sides with either party is taking sides with evil. The best we can do is tell both sides they, or at least the groups in them that are pushing the conflict, are intolerable, and try to help those hurting on both sides. That's not to say we should not try to find means to stop the atttacks, encroachments and killing on both sides.

And I suppose that installing democracy and stealing oil and any left over WMD is preferable in your distorted right wing world that is fueled by the military industrial complex right? Well, yes, I do think that installing democracy is preferable to murdering those who disagree with you. Not that I'm convinced that the installation will be a success. But it is clear from the statements of many Iraqis that they are safer now than they were before. There is less murder, and there is actually an attempt to punish those who engage in torture. I'm not sure what imaginary world you get oil theft & "theft" of leftover WMDs. Actually, I guess I do know. It is the extreme left wing, one-sided, blind analysis of the Iraq war, I presume. Though the trip from accusations that there were no WMDs to accusations of stealing them is possible only when ideology becomes all important and truth meaningless. You see, I believe that a government should try to figure out what is right and what is wrong, and legislate accordingly, not just according to their ideology.

Sounds like a true Liberal -- totally unliberal -- cut off the heads of those who dare to disagree with you.