Bugs

In fact, there is no enforcement on the custodial parent, otherwise called the wife. The Courts don't have the stomach to find a mother in contempt of court. In fact, members of the legal profession who pretend to represent the non-custodial parent (otherwise known as the husband) are committing a fraud. The 'negotiations' take the form of a trade-off, in terms of payments vrs the remaining rights of the non-custodial parent. But the court will not enforce those rights, so it is a farce. Since the wife gets custody simply by wanting it, this bias is systematic. Canadians have every right to hold these courts in contempt.

You have to respect a few important aspects of leadership that Trudeau fils undoubtedly possesses. First, he can attract a crowd. Second, he can raise money. Third, he gives the Liberals their best chance to whip the NDP's butt in Quebec. He has a lot of demerits, too. First, he's more his mother's son than his father's. He's attractive, congenial, idealistic -- and a little dull. He has no real background in politics, though he did win a tough riding. But he shows no signs of his father's icy intellect, or his toughness. And he has no 'answers'. He doesn't even seem to know what the problems are. His most potent and immediate effect will will be felt mostly by the NDP, in my view. He will win -- if he does -- by 'uniting the left', by taking a big chunk of the NDP vote.

The land was bought from the government. Everything conventionally necessary to give clear title to the land was done, including having an archeologist/anthropologist clear it. The Six Nations Council passed on it. The bank cleared it before they authorized the loan. The various courts have made a mess of land claims. The protesters think that Canadian law doesn't apply to them because they have sovereignty. In fact, there was no claim on the land registered until well after the protests started. It never was a land claim dispute. When the developer went to the insurance company to get a settlement, they refused to pay because they claimed the problem was a civil insurrection, which they didn't cover. That's when the McGuinty gang spend an undisclosed amount of public money to buy the land from the developer, and to get the bank's money back to them. And God knows what else was thrown in the pot to pacify the natives. Only David Peterson knows for sure. It is a provincial responsibility. The province has to invite the Federal Government into the situation, but they preferred not to do it, at least partly because they were persuing a vendetta against Mike Harris, springing from Ipperwash. The protesters want to make the site into a casino, which, as you know, is a racial entitlement in Ontario -- or the next thing to it. I don't know how you can say it isn't racial on the native side. It suggests to me that you don't really know anything about it. In any case, if the Courts were doing their job, they'd know that the Iroquois do not have aboriginal right to the land because they immigrated to Canada after the American Revolution. But you're right about them -- the courts are racists. They don't acknowledge these legally relevant statuses due to the skin of the protesters.

Shortlives shouldn't waste his time. When has the Supreme Court defended the old common law rights? Seriously ... when?

We probably don't have a right to freely assemble anymore. That's a common law right, and isn't included in the Charter ... as if the courts pay much attention to the Charter.

You say it was patriated and amended. That means it wasn't simply patriated, but it was changed in the process into something that it wasn't before. It was imposed. The additions included the mess that the courts have made of aboriginal affairs, to the point that people in a large part of south western Ontario don't know if the title of their land is valid, and economic development has been crippled. Common law is more complex. Nobody will speak the truth, in simple terms, but would the rulings of those rogue Human Right Organizations have one iota of legal backing if we had the common law. In those proceedings, the victim defendant cannot cross-examine the evidence against him, and may not even know what it is. (S)he cannot face her/his accuser. In addition, one of the immediate effects of the patriation imposition of these new legal arrangements was to locate sovereignty in the Supreme Court rather than Parliament. It's the Supreme Court that has left abortion absolutely unregulated, and which compelled Parliament to make a decision on same sex marriage. For the most part, the Court has constrained itself, but it has no respect for common law, that part is for sure. (Could same-sex marriage been imposed on us if we had common law? If you respond, bambino, please use some examples and argumentation, not simply make assertions that you probably don't know are true or not.

Peter Kormos died. Maybe its that simple. He was probably the last 1930's type socialist in the party. The NDP is debating a constitutional amendment to replace the party's historic goal of creating a society based on the idea of " ... from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". You know, Communist Manifesto stuff. How outdated is that? The new goal is championing "a rules-based economy ... in which governments have the power to address the limitations of the market." (Thomas Walkom, NDP on yet another mission quest. Stay tuned. (Toronto Star, Saturday, April 6th, 2013, p. A8). What's the point? We are so far from free markets that it's a joke. This is all about getting elected, stupid! It isn't as if principles have much relationship to actual practice, anyway -- for any of our parties. But, for the NDP, the line might as well be removed, for the sake of honest expression of whatever the party deems to be useful in beguiling the politically unsophisticated -- university students and their ilk -- to the party of mid-level civil servants. It isn't as if they stand for anything beyond more jobs and bigger salaries in the public sector. The very idea of the NDP continuing to have 'socialist principles' is amusing. However, if in the NDP constitution remained the same, it would demonstrate to the world that ‘the party’ holds to an exotic, utopian philosophy with no real basis in Canadian life. My prediction: It will be replaced by unprincipled branding, focus-group tested buzz-words, new slogans, and a big marketing push, and the media will pretend that some kind of mystical renewal has taken place. Magic thinking.

The potential problem is that, by meeting in Jerusalem, there might be some slight hint that Canada recognizes that Jersusalem is the legitimate capital of Israel. Stress should be put on the word 'hint'. Joe Clark, in his brief and ill-fated stint as PM, agreed to put the Canadian embassy in Jerusalem, which caused quite a stink. Nobody ever said Clark was too bright. This case isn't like that. It's certainly not an embarassment. It may not even qualify as a 'signal' of where Canada stands on the issue. Who in the Moslem world cares about whatever signals Canada sends, anyway?

We lost a lot when we had this new constitution imposed upon us. We lost the common law, for example. (Some will argue, but let them put their evidence on the table.) In return, we got the so-called Charter. Canadians like it, because they imagine that it is a document like the American Bill of Rights -- the Amendments to the American Constitution. But they 'rights' it enshrines limits common law rights by writing them down, and it pretends that the enemy of the rights of citizens is other citizens, rather than the state itself -- which involves a weird misunderstanding of our history. As an example, the Charter gives Canadians the right to a speedy trial, but it simply isn't enforced. The trial of Robert Pickton is an example. He was held in jail for six years, waiting his trial, because the Crown lacked the evidence it needed to support their charge of murder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton) The first judge who tried to defend the right to a speedy trial was Judge Paul Cosgrove former mayor or Scarborough, and a Judge on the Ontario Supreme Court. For any of you who think the Judiciary is 'independent', it's an object lesson. He was essentially cashiered by the Attorney General and 'car rage' homicide perp. (http://injusticebusters.org/04/Cosgrove_Paul.shtml) In other words, the Charter is a sham. The patriation of the Constitution was anything but -- it was a successful attempt to impose a new constitution on us. This discussion is long overdue.

You talk like a North Korean ... I don't know why sending somebody to an institution of supposed 'higher learning' is a solution to the ignorance problem in this country. Those institutions regularly spread ignorance. They churn out a misinformed product that has more interest in Lady Gaga than in the issues of the day.

Outside of Quebec, what other provinces were there in 1774? Acadie is not Nova Scotia. Admittedly,there was a French colony in the area, but the Acadians weren't expelled until 1755 -- if I remember right. The American colonists considered themselves British when Governor Shirley mustered an army and attacked. The major reason? The metropolitan French government had placed a bounty on 'English scalps' with the result, a lot of Massachuetts folks were getting haircuts. The Quebec Act was mostly offensive because it prevented the American 'English' from expanding into the Ohio Valley. At least that's the way I heard it.

This money doesn't go to the homeless, silly. The biggest part of it is gobbled up by all the middle class 'experts' who work for organizations that are supported by public funds. You'll be equally amazed about how much public money is poured into things like co-op housing, and how important race is in getting into these developments. Again, not much of it gets into the hands of those who are the supposed beneficiaries.

The other major reason is addiction. Alcohol addiction, and drug addiction, mostly. The breakdown in the family is a major contributing factor. Not fashionable, perhaps, but true just the same.

Seriously? What religion requires polygamy? Not Christianity, that's for sure. This comes from a bunch of law students, who want to take marriage apart for ideological reasons. In other words, it is a part of a conscious program to destroy the family on the basis that forming one endows those married with rights that other people don't have! Example: Married people do not have to testify against each other in court. The study points out that unmarried people do not have this right. They actually propose that unmarried people get to choose someone who can't testify against them, simply to remove this heinous bit of discrimination. This is from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+conspiracy+to+abolish+marriage%3A+Martha+Bailey+and+the+Law+Reform...-a0151394664 If you want to look at the report, it's can be tracked down at: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/beyond_conjugality.pdf

What's their excuse, anyway? I thought I could read, at one time, but where in the Constitution, or the Charter, does it say that just anyone can come to live in this country? What is the imagined charter breech? Seriously. This was Mr. Dither's claim, about same-sex marriage -- it was required by the Charter!!! I never figured that one out, either. Perhaps it is a testament to the way law is practiced in this country. The real law-makers are the courts, and they do whatever they want. Maybe they're banking on the people being, by this time, so confused by this legal mumbo-jumbo that they just hold their heads when they hear the argument that it's in the Constitution ... as if the Constitution is there to protect the rights of illegal immigrants. Iggy ought to go back to the US, where the Dems are doing the same thing.