msdogfood

I bet the PMO will not comply with the Speaker's ruling if that is true than the opposition will not have to do anything! the Speaker will find PMO non compliant than its bye bye PMO & party no confidence vote reciord as i understand???!!.

any one making bets on wither the PMO will be taken down by all this!???.

Now that is very interesting!!.

they may try that but most poling indicates that we dont want to be there & a lot of people are starting to winder whats in the blackout documents now press included. If your the PMO do you really want to mess with that .. than there is the Speaker's decision. you do not want to mess with that!! you are going to have a lot of people asking .... what the hell is he hiding!!!???.

MY good it worked!!. I like the part of the speaker decision that stated if all party's can not reach a compromise than he will become involved agen Hmm do i detect a motion of contempt if you dont play nice .!

what would be the political advantage to doing that?? the Speaker's decision will still stand for the next parliament! as a standing president.

parliamentary power cancels out this posibelaty because of define the power of the parliament!!!.

I know i am agreeing with you!!!.

In this case the SC can not overturn the speaker his decision is well with in his powers!!

Yes The ICC has opened a file/ case on us already that is very big problem for the PMO.

The PMO will not take it to the Supreme court because they will say parliament is supreme comply with the decision!!!

MY good it worked!!. I like the part of the speaker decision that stated if all party's can not reach a compromise than he will become involved agen Hmm do i detect a motion of contempt if you dont play nice .

on that bases could you not make the case Bill C-232 violates the charter because of the direct mandates in it the riles of criminal procedure has Bean set out by Parliament but modified by the courts to be carter compliant is a judge not also a party to a case Thais engaging SECTION 14???.

So if i understand you correctly there is no need for Bill C-232 at all??? If that is true why the hell was it tabled in the first place???.

How is Bill C-232 legal if there is this??? Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section Fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last section under the "Legal rights" heading in the Charter. It provides anyone in a court the right to an interpreter if the person does not speak the language being used or is deaf. The section states: “ 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. Interpretation The rights implied by section 14 were defined by the Supreme Court in the case R. v. Tran (1994), which involved an interpreter for a defendant who spoke Vietnamese in an English language trial. The Supreme Court found that section 14 requires the translation to be of consistent quality ("continuity") and unbiased accuracy. However, not everything in the trial must be translated if it is not truly important to the defendant's rights.[3] The finding on the required quality came from the purpose of the right, which, based in natural justice and multiculturalism, emphasized that a defendant must fully understand the trial. Natural justice means a defendant can respond to accusations. The Court also stated that the quality of the translation must not be so high that the defendant is actually more informed than those who speak the court's language.[2] Usually a person who wishes to have an interpreter must ask for his or her section 14 rights to be fulfilled and carries the burden of proof that he or she actually does not understand the court's language. The court itself is also responsible for satisfying the right, and sometimes a section 14 request does not have to be made by a defendant in order for an interpreter to be provided under section 14.[2] Notes 1.^ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada. 2003 Student Ed. Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003, page 1149. 2.^ a b c R. v. Tran, 1994 CanLII 56 (S.C.C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951. 3.^ Hogg, page 1150. So how is Bill C-232 legal???.

Thanks! Everyone keeps saying he is going to hand down his decision this week than its next week so whats going on???.

OK no update or theory's yet??.

Has anyone seen an update on this.??

I winder if that will happen Canada!!

there is a rumor in the press that the decision will be handed down next week!!

very true!!

all very true!!.

The PMO did NOT want the at all!! but now the PMO has a new problem!! hes poll numbers will pelmet now!!.

Let the fun begin ... the press will go nuts with this!!.

This is going to get very interesting!!! one note about the Supreme Court this the Supreme Court seems to really respect the power of parliament so if your the PMO your very scrowd!!!for the most part!.