fellowtraveller

"You keep saying that evidence wasn't heard which I agree wasn't heard. I keep saying that the Crown didn't think there was solid enough evidence to proceed. If they had evidence of underage marriage, I think they would have no problem going to trial. " What is it about you that prevents you from admitting you did not understand the situation? You should consult a physician aboiut this chronic condition, luckily Manitoba has a pretty good medical system provided to you by the gracious taxpayers of Canada. The Crown Prosecutors were going to trial, they had laid charges against two persons from Bountiful. They had in fact decided there was enough evidence to proceed, hence the charges. The process was short circuited by the judges ruling, the judge cited several times by myself and others, for non-evidentiary reasons. And all this yap apout 'evidence' is premature, it has not been presented in a court to be established or disproved.

Correct. Let us not forget what precipitated all the kerfuffle last fall. Was it national unity? Was it economic mismagament? Was it lack of cionfidence in Harper or the govt? Was it the public clamouring for the coronation of Dion, Duceppe and Layton as a Holy Trinity? Nope. It was the attempt by Harper to remove all parties, inclduing his own, from the public teat. The $1.95/vote/year is Cretiens legacy, his gift to a political party that would be crushed without it.

The judge cited is the subject of the OP. What other judge matters? I quote this t agree with your succnct summary and to give dobbin a final opportunity to understand how it relates to the OP.

To be accurate, he is not from Calgary or the West at all, having been born and raised in Toronto, living there until age 21. To be more accurate, he currently resides in Ottawa and has done so pretty much full time since 1993, with a four year break which he spent much of in Toronto. Out of 50 years, he has spent around 35 of them living in Ontario. Please enlighten me how that works out to 'most of his life out west'? (I know it is easier to hate and stereotype him if you think he is an Albertan, but you have to arm yourself with at least one fact.)

wrong again, he is born and raised in Toronto the Great.

No, the judge smacked them down before any evidence was presented because their prosecutorial appointment was deemed prejudicial. The Court never considered the volume , lack of volume or quality of any evidence.

No, he is neither except in the fevered brains of Calgarians who resent that he is not their man and those from the former Center of the Universe who hate Alberta and Albertans for not being their bitches. No, it doesn't represent anything except a bye election win, and it is not the least unusual for a sitting ruling party to suiffer byeelection defeats.Actions speak volumes, and consider how exactly Stelmach came to power..........When it looked like the ugly candidate, the one who looked and talked very much like the Wild Rose party -Ted Morton- was about to win via the back door Tories and Albertans spoke unambiguously and elected a centrist candidate, Stelmach. The smackdown of the right wing and Christian nutbars was brutal. It's a fact the Alberta haters love to ignore. In the bigger picture, Wild Rose is and remains a fringe party, winning back a single seat, which is the best they will ever do.

But that is not thee reason the judge in this instance booted the case was Lack of evidence may have come into eventually, but not yet. I doubt it too, but who has ever advanced that as a justification for change of the law or of polygamy itself?Marraige to minors and sex with minors is prohibited now, that would not change as the Bountiful crew would not attempt such a silly tactic. These are simply adminstarative details and come after the more basic question: why is marriage between more than two consenting adults prohibited?No, they'd approach it as being a human right, the right for consenting adults to cohabit as they choose. Much like same sex marriage. I cannot see a coherent argument aginst consenting adults being permiotted this.

Neither your quote or that of the OP refers at all to evidence, and indicates what I had said: there were other reasons for not getting to trial, they never got to the issue of evidence. And if they ever do actually get evidence, IMO they will lose a Charter challenge, which will mean the polygamy law is toast. Then they'll have to decide what to do: somehow create a law that bans polygamy yet respects the Charter(not easily done or they'd have done it already), change the Charter(won't happen) or just give up and bring in the necessary civil administration to regulate the practice. And really, as long - and this is critical- as the people involved are consenting adults- why should I care who boinks whom? The govt should have recognized this coming long ago, ten years ago when the discussion of same sex marriage entrenched the feds in defining marriage. Instead, they should have abdicated any defintion of marriage to religious organizations or individuals themselves, and just concerned themselves with the adminstration of whatever domestic arrangement two or more Canadians choose.

That is very funny. Part of the anger from some p[osters here is the reality that Calgary has dominated the PC Party and the govt for decades, and Stelmach defeated both the Calgary boys- Dinning the smoothy corpoarate favorite and Morton the horror show fundamentalist. People who shit on Alberta for being a redneck, right wing heartland forget how Stelmach came to power, in a visceral rejection of all that. Stelmach is a commie to them, while being a redneck Bushbot to the rest of Canada. Hilarious.

No, it was turfed because They didn't get anywhere close to 'evidence'. The feds have not been keen on prosecuting for 70 years because the Bountiful types kept a low profile. For the last few years, they recognize that discriminating against people with multiple marriage partners is no different than the discriminating against people with same gender partners. Even knowing that, the feds have pushed and spent money, knowing that eventually the polygamy law must fail a Charter test. There are no votes in this Pandoras box for anybody, and the can of worms will polarize a nation over what is a relatively small issue.

No, it was turfed because They didn't get anywhere close to 'evidence'. The feds have not been keen on prosecuting for 70 years because the Bountiful types kept a low profile. For the last few years, they recognize that discriminating against people with multiple marriage partners is no different than the discriminating against people with same gender partners. Even knowing that, the feds have pushed and spent money, knowing that eventually the polygamy law must fail a Charter test. There are no votes in this Pandoras box for anybody, and the can of worms will polarize a nation over what is a relatively small issue.

I don't think it got far enough in the process to determine if any law was broken, there was no evidence presented. The issue of the legality of the polygamy law was far from being considered. How would that have any different result than the three special prosecutors appointed by the BC govt, the last one of which resulted in the case being turfed?

I love this approach, the righteous arrogance it embodies ensures that the NDP will remain where it has always been, on the fringe and never able to form a national govt. It also overlooks that the 'younger' voters will soon become 'older' voters and abandon the lefty claptrap. It is also amusing to think of any national party in Canada as being 'right wing'. Centrist is about as close as we get to right.

if the feds pulled the pin on sending money to the North, it would be vacant and uninhabited three days later. The NWT has a bit of industry, but overall in the North the major industry by far is government. Yukon for example has 30,000 people with four levels of govt very well represented: federal, territorial, municipal and the new growth industry - First Nations. Yukon has 18 MLAs for 30,000 people.

It is not difficult to prosecute, it is difficult to prosecute successfully. And a defendant would almost certainly invoke their rights under the Charter, and most likely win, which would require that the law against polygamy be struck down. It is uncertain if they would attempt another law. The reason that polygamy law would not surviove is that the argument against it is simple numberism. There is no reason why any govt should deny 'married' status to anybody simply because it involves more than the usual two persons. We all agree that any combination of genders is OK, why not any combination of persons? The arguments against are rightfully about exploitation of minors, it is already law that no contract including a contract of marriage, is valid when made under duress. There are administrative arguments regarding divorce and inheritance, but these are petty and the favoured field of bureucrats and lawyers, they can sort it out as easily as tey have sorted it out for same sex marriage. This is the long and significant course that the BC govt (with concurrence by the feds) set upon, but could not get out of the starting gate. Note that no charges, none, have been laid under against polygamists since the 1930s in Canada. It is speculated that the reason the law existed at all was to prevent the arrival here of a Mormon fundamentalist diaspora where fundie polygamist elements spread from Utah to Mexico, BC, other US states and other countries. The law did not stop the colonies from being established here, and they have been quietly ignored since. Totally. If Harper said anything about a criminal case before the courts, he would be rightfully flayed for judicial interference.Where to now? The govt knows that the law is being broken, and cannot even get charges laid and a case to court so they can lose it. Maybe they will wait another 80 years before laying charges again......

As a taxpayer, I demand a larger deficit.

You can load up on strawmen like education all day, it has little to do with the topic at hand. Try again. Here's your homework: prove that universal day care is unquestionably of benefit to a) children b ) society overall. Try not to quote the NDP.

It is hard to tell why your debate is hampered, maybe it is the lack of substance in your posts. Just a guess.. Like any good steward, the Tories pay for the work when the municipalities have completed their work,and invoice them on completion. Your criticism should lie with municpalities for how long they take to get through planning and implementation, and how long it takes the feds to pay when work is complete. Would you have it some other way, or is this just the usual uninformed whine?? Would you have the Tories continue the Liberal method of spreading a few hundred million to ad agencies? Did you know that the main agenda topic at the G20 summit is how to wind down the stimulus projects in every country?

One of the most disturbing elements of this affair, other than the death of the visitor, was the discussion over the possibility that all four Mounties committed perjury when they testified they had not discussed Tasering the victim before arriving at the scene. That is unresolved, and it will be ijnteresting to see how far the RCMP brass and prosecutors take it.

I guess I am old fashioned in that I am willing to take responsibility for my actions for at least 18 years after birth, and not looking for others to assume that load.. I'm also old fashioned in that I'm content to give a hand up to those that need one, and not willing to give a handout to those that demand it.

It smacks of bigotry. "canadian values" are not exclusively those of white Christian Europeans. Immigrants from every place in the world are welcome in my country to work hard, enjoy their lives, rights and responsibilities as full Canadian citizens , pay taxes, obey our laws, and yes- have children. I guess that differs from your country, a land where newcomers know their place.

They are rumoured to have drained the tank in support of the NDP in Nova Scotia. That in itself should not stop them from arranging a line of credit in expectation of the govt gravy cheque in January 2010. Maybe the banks are paying attention and have decided they are a poor risk, or maybe the banks think that with a majority the Tories will act immediately to end the political subsidy.

Is this Clown Day at MLB? I gave you a specific example of a recession driven action by the govt -dumping zero down and 40 year amortization mortgages. It was done because it was recognized that were inappropriate in a dropping market and would contribute to deepening a recession. The govt has failed how? To preventing the collapse of world commodity markets? Of failing to regulate world banking systems? All little Canada can do is take care of their own business, and this govt- like all those before it that resisted substantial changes to the Bank Act, kept the greed of the banks under control, and used CMHC to control the lenders. Give credit (the other kind of credit) where it is due- Harper has both continued to keep what works as engineered by previous govts, and has done some specific things to help in the short term. Try and look past your ideological bias for a little perspective.

I don't believe that for a minute, that NDP are joining the Tories to spite the Liberals. The NDP are at war for many of the same votes as the Liberals, and the NDP is not doing so well, though to be fair neither are the Liberals.