Bryan

No. On the meat of the stories that I've been following since before the bills in question were even tabled. The tougher sentencing ruling is just the latest example of that.

Absolutely not. They should be required to enforce the laws as they are written. If the voters disagree with their decision, by definition that decision is wrong and should be over-ruled.

This whole trial seems like an endless stream of: "Did he get permission to bill this expense?" "Yes." Is there anything in the senate rules that say those expenses are not covered?" "No."

It's an easy argument to make. "It's a Federal debate, parties who restrict themselves to one province shouldn't qualify".

I have no way of knowing what the percentage is. I've seen several of them make the news lately. There could be just as many if not more valid ones that don't make the news. It makes the judiciary accountable to the people who elect them. If people en masse believe in a given law, and vote for it, it should stand unless and until the public votes otherwise.

Even if you only represent one province, and have made no attempt to even pretend to be a national party? Besides that, it also still leaves the door open for the multi-person person shouting matches we've sen before. It's not a debate when it's structured like that. How would you structure the debate itself so that would actually work?

First, a much stricter standard as to what really qualifies as a legitimate violation of rights. Too many of the cases we do see are utter BS that should never have been heard. The one referenced in this thread is a prime example of that. Then, an elected judiciary, and a regularly invoked notwithstanding clause (that must be renewed every election cycle).

That's the key thing. The requirements can't skewed to allow one group in over another. It needs to be a universal standard. IMO, the BQ should never have passed any standard only because they were too regional. I don't know what the line should be, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if you run candidates in only one province, you shouldn't count as a national party (even if you win every seat in that province). What ever the line is, it needs to reflect an appreciable level of nation-wide support. The same should apply if the LPC had no support outside Ontario, or the Conservatives had nothing outside of Alberta.

If you revoke the Notwithstanding clause, you need to shut down the SCC too. The public needs protection of judicial activism.

They don't if they just want to do their own thing without getting in anyone else's way. They absolutely DO if they expect accommodation for that supposed "identity".

I'm talking about Canada, what does the US have to do with anything? This is a good point. The notwithstanding clause was supposed to be the protection against an activist judiciary. It was a very necessary addition to the Charter, and governments should not be afraid to invoke it.

"A" bill in the abstract is good. This one in practice is a disaster.

We're actually getting some progress here: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-removes-cuba-state-sponsor-terror-list-190658891--politics.html Only two more to go.

Forgive me if I laugh at all the nonsense you type on this forum. As usual, you're lying about what I did and did not say. All provinces ratifying it doesn't make it not a liberal charter. It absolutely is by any definition.

The problem is the liberal charter.

I have to wonder how much time Shady has spent in Cuba, and how many Cubans he personally knows. I used to think the same things he does before I ever went. The place is a real eye opener, it's nothing like the stories you read in western media. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I was told. It's actually quite comical now to read even seemingly neutral stories in the NP or G&M about "changes in Cuba" and to just run down the list of things that the reporter gets spectacularly wrong.

I see what you did there: Bloq doesn't even get an opening statement in your scenario! Well played, but perhaps a bit too harsh if the appearance of inclusion is the goal?

That's a good plan. have a tough threshold to actually debate such as the one ToadBrother suggested, but then have a lesser one that if you qualify, you at least get to make an opening statement before the debate begins.

At 4% of the vote, The Greens have not even come close to meeting any reasonable expectation of accommodation in the debates. The problems with the debate format right now is not that voices are not heard, rather than there are already too many included. It turns the "debate" into an unproductive yelling match.

It would be very interesting to know what part of that story Reuters is either taking out of context, or mistranslating, because the Red Cross themselves say they have over 4000 people working in Cuba right now. You'll note my links were not to someone else's story, but to the Red Cross' own sites.

Yes, it is weird that the US still requires them to do that. Cuba is perfectly fine with them living in Cuba, and playing in MLB. It's what they would prefer, because then the Cuban government could collect taxes on salaries. The US strictly forbids this.

I just finished listening to the latest Canadaland podcast. On one hand it's pretty obvious to me why Livesey was fired, on the other it's bizarre that he ever had the job in the first place. The guy seems like a far left activist masquerading as a journalist to push a personal agenda. He doesn't appear to be reporting on anything, rather than just trying to craft a specific narrative.

It takes a lot of work to make a video that long that features people talking throughout, yet never gets around to saying anything.

Cubans float to the US because the US will not just grant them the visa outright. But, if they arrive unannounced, Cubans (and no other nationality) are granted immediate residency. Once they have that, they then can go back and forth between the two countries at will. Cubans join MLB for the same reasons other pro athletes from all over the world leave home to go to the major leagues -- that's where the big money is. You mean the Red Cross that has a permanent Cuban office? https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/where-we-work/americas/cuban-red-cross/ Or the international affiliates that they welcome when they need help after things like hurricanes? http://www.redcross.ca/donate/your-donation-in-action/past-appeals/international/2008/hurricanes-2008/cuba-hurricanes-2008

Cuba is the one who has been giving in for over 50 years. It's time for the US to make amends for their economic terrorism.