The CHARTER should be scrapped.

[Oleg Bach]

One must as the question. Does our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms empower or dis-empower? Is this document, as it's preamble suggests, a charter that functions under rule of law and the perpetuated goodness generated by the supermacey of God? Does it as it should generate power and security for the average Canadian citizen? As you and I understand in this material world - money equals power, more so than personal human influence.

Recently I heard the Supreme Court Of Canada having one of their usual useless and self serving debates. Presentions by overly learned lawyers being petitioned with dull earnest to a group of supposedly honourable judges. I really was a bit taken back by the core of their argument that did not seem pro citizen in the least. In fact it seemed that the tone was anti-citizen and very disempowering in so far as the citizens of this nation are concerned.

The were having a discussion on whether MONETARY damages should be granted to litigants who had proven that their rights and freedoms under our wonderful charter had been breached. In other words the court was attempting to decide if real empowerment should be granted to those that had been disempowered via a breach of the charter - knowing that money for all intent and purpose is power in this world - it was strikingly stupid that they would even be having this discussion. It seems that our superior minded justices have taken it upon themselves to keep and enforce a policy in maintaining an elite and hidden status quo that will - no way in hell or heaven or on earth ever grant anyone any power other than themselves.

I have seen this personally where laywer representing an offending party are more than happy to have a plaintiff sign off in exchange for a letter of apology. A letter you can not spend or eat. It seems to me that the charter is simply a piece of useless paper that gives us a false sense of security and justice. Why would the court even debate such a matter regarding renumeration? Money is power - and if the court refuses to grant monetary damage to a person who has been dis-empowered then that document we hold so dearly is utterly useless.

[William Ashley]

One must as the question. Does our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms empower or dis-empower?

The charter isn't about empowerment, it is about protections from abuses of the law.

It establishes a number of previously existing laws, which were ment not to be changed without a majority Canadian political consensus.

freedom of peaceful assembly is a huge protection because otherwise any assembly of persons over two or more could be considered a riot.

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; is also important because it allows people to communicate without repression, while doctors can still consider thoughts to be "valid or invalid" eg. the ontario mental health act - overiding judicial process for a time and force treating people, which happens. The protection exists but it has yet to strike down laws which can deprive people of those freedoms.

While the notion of Democratic rights of citizens exists, it isn't exercised in electoral law, as not every Canadian citizen is allowed to vote - there are ID requirements, residence requirements, and age requirements for example. How is a homeless person suppose to vote? How is someone who doesn't have ID suppose to vote, if for instance they don't know anyone in the community they are in? Is a peice of paper suddenly citizenship rather than being a citizen? Why is the onus on the citizen to proove their citizenship? or why is a citizens right to vote allowed to be deprived of them without evidence rather than lact of evidence of it? Are peoples words not good enough or is everyone suspect in the innocent until prooven guilty falacious world Canada exists as?

no double jeopary etc.. are a bunch of others.. but the fact is that many charter rights are breached all the time, and it is commonly accepted practice within the law professions to accept those breaches, or even help cover up - lawyers appear to hold their professional credo more than the law of canada.

Is this document, as it's preamble suggests, a charter that functions under rule of law and the perpetuated goodness generated by the supermacey of God?

what else would be supreme, man?

Does it as it should generate power and security for the average Canadian citizen?

How so? Average Canadian citizen, there is no such thing. 2% are criminals, 10% are mentally ill 20% are conservatives, 20% liberals 10% NDP, 10% bloc, many work in other industries, 10% are unemployed soon 25% will be retired. The list goes on. There is no normal Canadian. What you should try to do is protect humans with universal rights. What the charter does is establish the rights and freedoms that exist with interaction in the state.

As you and I understand in this material world - money equals power, more so than personal human influence.

Money = cooperation not power.

MONETARY damages should be granted to litigants who had proven that their rights and freedoms under our wonderful charter had been breached.

Where is all the money coming from, the legal system fees? And upping the lawyers tax rate to 80%?

It seems to me that the charter is simply a piece of useless paper that gives us a false sense of security and justice.

Very little paper is useless.

Why would the court even debate such a matter regarding renumeration?

Something to do. Pecuniary damages and restitution are two modes of justice. Personally I think restitution for property damages are a way to go. The Geld and bloodlaw/danelaw establish that crimes can be compensated by monetary renumeration, also JudeoChristian religions establish that with eye for eye replacement. Eg. if you have taken away someones freedom or tortured them, should you be tortured and have your freedom taken away? The police would quickly find themselves in jail rather than guarding it.

Fact is that judges make up responses to situations they are presented, they often reflect noones, except for the judge's, sense of justice or even accurately present what really happened.

Money is power - and if the court refuses to grant monetary damage to a person who has been dis-empowered then that document we hold so dearly is utterly useless.

I'm all for monetary damages, it limits the governments ability to abuse the public through buying leatherheads. Of course while the government does these things and should be accountable, the public too should be accountable. However many of these breaches are priceless deprivations that cannot be compensated by money.

Edited January 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

A good goverment or judicary's primary reason for being is not to serve it self but to serve the community. Government is not about oppression or putting the will of a few above the many - it is about exerting a control a governance that maintains the general health of ALL of a soceity. The idea of privledge held by legalists is strickly a code of behaviour that states we are above the law.

Look at the family law courts that supposedly behave in a benevolent paternalistic manner - If the court was a mother or father it would eat it's own young saying it was saving them! For instance the freedom of mobilty in order to earn a sustainable living is breach constantly by this secretive group called the Family Responsiblity Office - where they take away the drivers licence from supposed dead beat mother and fathers...rendering them immobile and in effect force to either earn no living or less of one. If you ask a legalist IF this mobility issue has ever been tested by the Supreme Court they will say yes it has and it does not hold...which is a lie - they simply lie to the public..and if caught lieing and embarassed by it they hire a spin doctorish law firm to create a new illusion to detract form the actual real one.

It not that I suggest scrapping the CHARTER..That was a platform I was using to ask the true question - Should the highest court in the land be scrapped? If the people sitting in Ottawa on the high bench actually have to have a discussion on whether a common person fighting for his rights should be rewarded real money or not - then that mindset is cause for concern. It seems with litigation in this nation that there is a rule _ If a person has great wealth already then they will be rewarded more. If they have nothing they will continue to get nothing. AND if you are self represented even with a lawyer advising secretly in the back ground...and you have NOT paid into the club funds by formally hiring one of their own..No matter how well the case is presented you will never recieve monitary damage..It is as simple as this - you don't pay in - then we don't pay out..It's a damned club of exclusion. Its so corny to see those twits peering over their reading glasses looking as if they are contempling law..the out come is cared in stone to begin with and they simply go through the theatrical movements.

[Oleg Bach]

The charter isn't about empowerment, it is about protections from abuses of the law.

It establishes a number of previously existing laws, which were ment not to be changed without a majority Canadian political consensus.

freedom of peaceful assembly is a huge protection because otherwise any assembly of persons over two or more could be considered a riot.

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; is also important because it allows people to communicate without repression, while doctors can still consider thoughts to be "valid or invalid" eg. the ontario mental health act - overiding judicial process for a time and force treating people, which happens. The protection exists but it has yet to strike down laws which can deprive people of those freedoms.

While the notion of Democratic rights of citizens exists, it isn't exercised in electoral law, as not every Canadian citizen is allowed to vote - there are ID requirements, residence requirements, and age requirements for example. How is a homeless person suppose to vote? How is someone who doesn't have ID suppose to vote, if for instance they don't know anyone in the community they are in? Is a peice of paper suddenly citizenship rather than being a citizen? Why is the onus on the citizen to proove their citizenship? or why is a citizens right to vote allowed to be deprived of them without evidence rather than lact of evidence of it? Are peoples words not good enough or is everyone suspect in the innocent until prooven guilty falacious world Canada exists as?

no double jeopary etc.. are a bunch of others.. but the fact is that many charter rights are breached all the time, and it is commonly accepted practice within the law professions to accept those breaches, or even help cover up - lawyers appear to hold their professional credo more than the law of canada.

what else would be supreme, man?

How so? Average Canadian citizen, there is no such thing. 2% are criminals, 10% are mentally ill 20% are conservatives, 20% liberals 10% NDP, 10% bloc, many work in other industries, 10% are unemployed soon 25% will be retired. The list goes on. There is no normal Canadian. What you should try to do is protect humans with universal rights. What the charter does is establish the rights and freedoms that exist with interaction in the state.

Money = cooperation not power.

Where is all the money coming from, the legal system fees? And upping the lawyers tax rate to 80%?

Very little paper is useless.

Something to do. Pecuniary damages and restitution are two modes of justice. Personally I think restitution for property damages are a way to go. The Geld and bloodlaw/danelaw establish that crimes can be compensated by monetary renumeration, also JudeoChristian religions establish that with eye for eye replacement. Eg. if you have taken away someones freedom or tortured them, should you be tortured and have your freedom taken away? The police would quickly find themselves in jail rather than guarding it.

Fact is that judges make up responses to situations they are presented, they often reflect noones, except for the judge's, sense of justice or even accurately present what really happened.

I'm all for monetary damages, it limits the governments ability to abuse the public through buying leatherheads. Of course while the government does these things and should be accountable, the public too should be accountable. However many of these breaches are priceless deprivations that cannot be compensated by money.

IF the court asserts that the breach is a priceless deprivation that can not be compensated by money...at least they could give some to at least empower the person offended to some degree. - - - But NO...if the offence is priceless you walk out with ZERO...Which might seem fair to those sitting on the bench were money is not a personal issue because most of them are millionares...who can not put themselves in the shoes of someone who is not because they come from very privledged families who have never known want or offence...or insult.

[William Ashley]

A good goverment or judicary's primary reason for being is not to serve it self but to serve the community.

Different levels of the judicature serve different purposes. Overall I would agree that public interest should be served. The public interest will not always rest with a the public though. Otherwise there would be no need for a justice system, as lynching and vigilantism would reign. This is not necisarily a bad thing, but in order to serve public interest the government needs to mediate and insure that people have an oppourtunity to present the facts. This is why I favor an inquistional system which is open to the public rather than the government running both the prosecution and the judging. The governments role should be in hearing facts not in getting the bad guy. Correction of issues within social function are what the judicature should concentrate on, not punishment. Not all courts or judges hear public interest, some hear private law issues, or family court issues. Court and judges essneitally hear contract, or legal bindings and resolve to correct legal issues. They alone do not serve the community unless you consider the law the community establishes as the community. The law ought to go beyond the law and involve the community though, and allow individuals an oppourtunity to present how business transactions and divorces effect themselves as members of society, especially if their marriage or estabilshing the place of business itself incorporates an element for someone to voice that same idea either in a public sanctioned place of oaths or at town hall. Sadly Canadians have a mostly private court system, where courts make rules on public viewing and interaction and can remove individuals from public awareness. Some cases are outright secret, and that is unfortunate. I think the judges responsibility should be in serving the law, that involves all people before a court, not just the prosecution or a victim but also the accused. With media senationlism and victims who lie, serving only popular sentiment won't always correct things but could actually serve to divide and stratify society more gravely, especially when there is a majority to oppress the minority.

Government is not about oppression or putting the will of a few above the many - it is about exerting a control a governance that maintains the general health of ALL of a soceity.

While government does denote governance, the means of establishing this is often by repressing a segement of the population who is against their goals. The idea of health of society is pretty good, in addition to health we ought to take into consideration of the individual wishes of members of society. What good is health for someone who doesn't want to be healthy? Is it good to force them to be healthy, no. Health as a biological factor is only part of existence, we arn't just atomic doughboys we are also spirtual individuals, who have a right to practice our beleifs and live our lives as long as they don't do damage other members of society. If not then it is a totalitarian state, and I hope that isn't your goal for government. Government should help improve the standard and quality of life, and make it available to the public, but it shouldn't force it on the public by means of mandatory treatments or social activities like morning exercise in school. Frankly though the government has even overriden parents rights over their children to enforce mandatory treatment. With the mental health act in ontario for instance it overides individuals rights and empowers right to treatment to the doctor rather than the individual if the doctor decides the individual can't decide to treat themselves and needs to be done. This is a very totalitarian mechanism.

The idea of privledge held by legalists is strickly a code of behaviour that states we are above the law.

The problem that subjects the legalists is that they are subjected to the law, and the law has one major issue, time. Anything within that time is subject to abuse. This is why the charter and constitution ought to be respected by tribunals, commissions, and lower courts, but they arn't. They are local political manisfestions and do not respect the authority of the state and state law.

The issue is further agravated by the second issue, money, because you can't be heard by higher courts without paying.

Which means you need to be stayed from endangerment and have resources, essentially you are put to trial just to have hearing, rather than justice being a right. But the English Constitutional Documents which Canada inherited give the right to redress, yet within the justice system tenents of access to justice have been removed or become unfavored due to "legitimacy of claim to redress"

For instance the freedom of mobilty in order to earn a sustainable living is breach constantly by this secretive group called the Family Responsiblity Office - where they take away the drivers licence from supposed dead beat mother and fathers...rendering them immobile and in effect force to either earn no living or less of one.

Sadly drivers licenses are considered a provincial administration. Provincial = civil jurisdiction. While the Transport Ministry does oversee transport it tends to be only commercial in nature that they tend to oversee. Not having a car doesn't make you less mobile but it does mean you won't be taking certain routes -eg. you can't walk on highways, or private lands that would deem you tresspassing, if pronvicial laws of the jurisdiction prohibit tranit by those means. So while that mobility right exists, there appears to be a swath of limitations of that by stating how one can go about travelling from one province to the next? Is the mobility right an absolute one? Or does move simply mean able to stop residency in a province?

Railways are often federal land though, and while an indictable offence, if to insure your mobility rights would it still be tressassing?

Sad thing is, the reality does exist where people are so poor they can't afford a bus ticket let alone a plane ticket to another province.

Rights by capacity for money is just part of the harsh reality of the world we live in. It is possible to live without money, but it is much easier to die without money.

If you ask a legalist IF this mobility issue has ever been tested by the Supreme Court they will say yes it has and it does not hold...which is a lie - they simply lie to the public..and if caught lieing and embarassed by it they hire a spin doctorish law firm to create a new illusion to detract form the actual real one.

When?

It not that I suggest scrapping the CHARTER..That was a platform I was using to ask the true question - Should the highest court in the land be scrapped?

Why? Who will hear all the royal perogative of mercy appeals? and/or cries of mercy to god?

If the people sitting in Ottawa on the high bench actually have to have a discussion on whether a common person fighting for his rights should be rewarded real money or not - then that mindset is cause for concern. It seems with litigation in this nation that there is a rule _ If a person has great wealth already then they will be rewarded more. If they have nothing they will continue to get nothing. AND if you are self represented even with a lawyer advising secretly in the back ground...and you have NOT paid into the club funds by formally hiring one of their own..No matter how well the case is presented you will never recieve monitary damage..It is as simple as this - you don't pay in - then we don't pay out..It's a damned club of exclusion.

who cares. If people don't get soothed then their support is lost. Whether that matters or not is a different matter completely.

Edited January 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

The super rich and super powerful and influential have one sacred rule - Take all you can consistantly and realize you own the population -never under any circumstance ever give anything to anyone especially money - because money is your only true power and handing it over to those lower down the monitary food chain will deminish your material strangle hold on humanity..so the bottom line with the Supreme court who are appointed by the unbelievabley rich and powerful - is a policy that states - HOLD ON TO ALL THE POWER AND MAINTAIN IT AT ALL COST...which means if a person is injured by this system - said system pays out nothing...Its really that simple - It's similar to Palistine and Israel...as long as one has a billion in aid and the other has next to nothing _ Israel rules supreme.

I call it the hunger factor..of all the addictions and human weakness that we all have - the depriving of money which is food is the most effective - a hungry man is a stupid and weak man.

[William Ashley]

IF the court asserts that the breach is a priceless deprivation that can not be compensated by money...at least they could give some to at least empower the person offended to some degree. - - - But NO...if the offence is priceless you walk out with ZERO...

I wouldn't say that, what I'd say is that the idea is winning support with the mechanisms that exist for justice, while correcting the issue, so while giving compensation can't fully remedy all instances, eg. a police officer raping a woman he confined in his squad car, some other mechanisms might be able to be taken to compensate the woman for her cruel and unusual treatment. (during the english occupation of scotland this behaviour might not be wholely unusual, except for the fact they didn't have squad cars back then.) This might involve mechanisms to prevent further rapes, eg. use of chastity belts by police, or in some other cases policy to prevent sex offenders from serving in police forces. While perhaps a bad example, it is the idea of monetary compensation and restitution to be the begining of compensation. In some cases money might be offensive.

Which might seem fair to those sitting on the bench were money is not a personal issue because most of them are millionares...

This is the problem with only one class of citizens juding the public. Often though justice of the peace come from political backgrounds and often social backgrounds.

who can not put themselves in the shoes of someone who is not because they come from very privledged families who have never known want or offence...or insult.

I'm not going to call these people ignorant but you should have well rounded people to hear cases.

Edited January 25, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

You mention the idea of a woman being confined to a squad car where she is raped by a law enforcement officer. It sounds like a situation created by poverty and is also a class issue. If the officer beleived it to be that the woman had no social or economic weight and was white or black trash - then he would be more confident to have his nasty way with her...NOW if that woman was safely cacconed in a protective coating of hard currency that can buy protection then the chances of being raped again are nil. She could put her self in a postion of safety where she would not be victimized by those above or below her socially..money is power..But as it is said - money can not buy diginity or class...Some woman and men are so poorly educated and accustomed to abuse that all the money in the world will not offer protection. I guess it is about the person and not the money - But in the alternative money does buy privledge and safety to a great degree...a preditor is more likely to attack a poor person than a rich person with power privledge and teeth!

[Oleg Bach]

"I don't want to hear your sorry.

Give me the money or give me the glory."

The charter should at least grant a win (glory) for the just and the just cause. If it can not grant the glory then quielty let it grant the money...but a letter of apology is cheap - an admission of guilt....is worth nothing and helps no one unless it is backed up by the gold and the tribute.. My father as a war hero and an immigrant to Britian and then to Canada could never understand the Anglo mind set of "I'm sorry" - He would say if they were sorry they would not have done what was offensive. I suppose it all gets down to insecurity and self worth..that those that appoint judges in this nation at all levels, feel that their only true identity - self worth..and reason for being is the artifical self importance that money supplies their being...and the last thing they are going to give up is this idea of monetary power...because they believe that money is power...and in truth I DO NOT .

[maple_leafs182]

what else would be supreme, man?

Depends on how you look at it. I believe god didn't create the universe god is the universe, so technically we are God.

Why would God give different people in different countries a different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that God is weak in math skills? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words...business as usual. -George Carlin

Money = cooperation not power.

What do you mean by that, like when lobbyist pays for a politicians cooperation?

Money is power, if you haven't noticed, money runs the world.

And we gave control of issuing and regulating money to private hands.

As for the charter of rights, I think George Carlin again said it best

Rights aren't rights if someone can take em away, they're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.

In our case, the Charter of privileges.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes that is exactly it. Those that are privy to the workings of this conspiratorial machine are the CALLED THE PRIVLEDED..LAWYERS HAVE PRIVLEDGE - AND THEIR PRIMARY REASON FOR BEING IS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE OTHER THAN THE BLACK ROBED CLASS HAS PRIVLEDGE - IT THEY GRATED PRIVLEDGE TO ALL - THEY WOULD HAVE NONE.

[William Ashley]

You mention the idea of a woman being confined to a squad car where she is raped by a law enforcement officer. It sounds like a situation created by poverty and is also a class issue. If the officer beleived it to be that the woman had no social or economic weight and was white or black trash - then he would be more confident to have his nasty way with her...NOW if that woman was safely cacconed in a protective coating of hard currency that can buy protection then the chances of being raped again are nil. She could put her self in a postion of safety where she would not be victimized by those above or below her socially..money is power..But as it is said - money can not buy diginity or class...Some woman and men are so poorly educated and accustomed to abuse that all the money in the world will not offer protection. I guess it is about the person and not the money - But in the alternative money does buy privledge and safety to a great degree...a preditor is more likely to attack a poor person than a rich person with power privledge and teeth!

Not always.

[William Ashley]

"I don't want to hear your sorry.

Give me the money or give me the glory."

The charter should at least grant a win (glory) for the just and the just cause. If it can not grant the glory then quielty let it grant the money...but a letter of apology is cheap - an admission of guilt....is worth nothing and helps no one unless it is backed up by the gold and the tribute.. My father as a war hero and an immigrant to Britian and then to Canada could never understand the Anglo mind set of "I'm sorry" - He would say if they were sorry they would not have done what was offensive. I suppose it all gets down to insecurity and self worth..that those that appoint judges in this nation at all levels, feel that their only true identity - self worth..and reason for being is the artifical self importance that money supplies their being...and the last thing they are going to give up is this idea of monetary power...because they believe that money is power...and in truth I DO NOT .

I think sometimes people do things without fully understand what will result. Afterall are we all fortune tellers. People are individuals if we were one mind offenses wouldn't exist unless we liked being offended.

The reason people do things, or what they invisioned as a result may not match.

This is another reason why victimization isn't a good thing, even if for revenge, and outright death over torture is more humane retribution. Even the guilty are sometimes innocent.

[William Ashley]

Depends on how you look at it. I believe god didn't create the universe god is the universe, so technically we are God.

You only live in a universe? Join the quanta get with the times.

What do you mean by that, like when lobbyist pays for a politicians cooperation?

Money is a cultural token that enables trade, or the faclliation of goods or services for a reserve which can be used by those who recognize and value it.

Money is power, if you haven't noticed, money runs the world.

Personally I think inclination runs the world, not money. People couldn't pay me to blow a head off a little baby, but some nut might just for the hell of it.

And we gave control of issuing and regulating money to private hands.

versus?

As for the charter of rights, I think George Carlin again said it best

In our case, the Charter of privileges.

law is like that.

[Oleg Bach]

Could not stand George Carlin for his aggressive pro abortionist stance..good bye George and great that the universe finally aborted you. Others similar to Carlin are guys like David Susuki who when after his father died became a supporter of death with dignity...He's a chump! Not that this has anything to do with the topic...other than making it clear that LAW is not justice...and those who practice law are specialists in the art of deception and maintaining wealth and power for a few other chumps who think Carlin was funny and Susuki is Jesus.

[ToadBrother]

Good grief, other countries have bills of rights. Why do some people say hate liberty?

[punked]

The Charter is not a document which is designed to give power in fact it is written to rein it in. What I mean it is designed to protect our rights and freedoms no matter the majorities ideas of the time. There are certain things which should never be taken away by the majority such as freedom of peaceful assembly which is in section 2 f the charter. I am glade we have it.

[William Ashley]

Yes that is exactly it. Those that are privy to the workings of this conspiratorial machine are the CALLED THE PRIVLEDED..LAWYERS HAVE PRIVLEDGE - AND THEIR PRIMARY REASON FOR BEING IS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ELSE OTHER THAN THE BLACK ROBED CLASS HAS PRIVLEDGE - IT THEY GRATED PRIVLEDGE TO ALL - THEY WOULD HAVE NONE.

Nah, frankly I think a lot of people would rather deal with a lawyer than do it their own so I don't fully agree. I just feel that the public should have access to justice without price tags attached to their access to it. People should have access to public record, and to have their greivances heard.

Edited January 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Oleg Bach]

The Charter is not a document which is designed to give power in fact it is written to rein it in. What I mean it is designed to protect our rights and freedoms no matter the majorities ideas of the time. There are certain things which should never be taken away by the majority such as freedom of peaceful assembly which is in section 2 f the charter. I am glade we have it.

Often I have said that RESPECT is the transphere of power. I don't believe that our judicary want to or can respect the citizens of Canada. If you say that it was written to rein power in then let it rein in the power of the Supreme Court when they disrespect the charter. The charter is a very simple and easily understood piece of drafting..It does not take a supreme court justice to translate it or to interprete in in any manner shape or form...They should use the damned thing instead of trying to figure out what it is...for god's sake I can figure it out and I do not have a formal education.

[maple_leafs182]

You only live in a universe? Join the quanta get with the times.

The universe is made up of energy just like we are. We don't just live in the universe we are part of the universe.

My question to you is what is real?

Is real what you can see, taste, touch, feel and smell, for those are merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

Matter is just energy's vibration slowed down to be perceptible by our senses.

To your brain a dream is no different then the "real" world, so is that dream world real?

some say no but you could argue it is real only as long as it last, but then again you could say the same for life.

So what is real, is consciousness the only thing that is truly real?

Money is a cultural token that enables trade, or the faclliation of goods or services for a reserve which can be used by those who recognize and value it.

Thanks, I know what money is.

Do you know how money is created?

Personally I think inclination runs the world, not money. People couldn't pay me to blow a head off a little baby, but some nut might just for the hell of it.

Money runs the economy and the economy controls society.

versus?

In the hands of the government would be better.

Truthfully I would like to say lets scrap the money concept but I've noticed many people think that society cannot function without money and if we did scrap money we would all live like Neanderthals.

Guess what, the economy isn't real, we made it up like we made up Santa.

law is like that.

Laws are societies answers to problems it can't solve.

Every problem has a solution.

Could not stand George Carlin for his aggressive pro abortionist stance..good bye George and great that the universe finally aborted you. Others similar to Carlin are guys like David Susuki who when after his father died became a supporter of death with dignity...He's a chump! Not that this has anything to do with the topic...other than making it clear that LAW is not justice...and those who practice law are specialists in the art of deception and maintaining wealth and power for a few other chumps who think Carlin was funny and Susuki is Jesus.

Don't stereotype. There are lawyers out there with good hearts that are trying to make the world better for us. And as for George Carlin, I will disagree with you on that, I find him funny. As for abortion I feel it should be up to the parents, not the courts. I understand why many find it immoral, but the decision should be left to the parents.

[Oleg Bach]

Nah, frankly I think a lot of people would rather deal with a lawyer than do it their own so I don't fully agree. I just feel that the public should have access to justice without price tags attached to their access to it. People should have access to public record, and to have their greivances heard.

Law firms - highly respected ones will take one of their younger crafty lawyers - and give them full rein to win a case - They are instructed to win even if it means committing fraud..conspiring with other lawyers including the opposition...and making quiet illegal undetectable deals with suck hole judges about to retire...Then through what can only be described as crimminal means..they win the case - THEN the happy law firm simply fires them .....removes them from the firm along with a send away buy out package...more than enough to set up that dream practice of their own _ it's a win win for these guys. They break the law and come out on top...as for the charter..what lawyer actually cares about rights and freedoms? None..they are bad for buisness and are ignored.

[Oleg Bach]

The single common person should be able to use the Charter with ease when it comes to reining back power that is in a state of abuse. Just as well government which is the people as a governing mass - must be able to use the charter also to rein back power that is in a state of abuse also. I repeat _ The CHARTER is a very simple straight forward document and it's implimentation must be done in a timely fashion..in other words it's effect should be rapid. What kills the charter is that virus called the not withstanding clause - where a privledged crook can make the charter null and void with the wave of a hand...law is law..and it is not as they say an evolving and living document...frinking lawyers want to make it so - so as they can abuse it and toy with it...THE CHARTER IS CARVED IN STONE.

[Oleg Bach]

As my old music teacher would scowl aloud...USE IT OR LOSE IT! The Charter must be used as often as possible at all levels of government and within the judicary sy every level also..If a person goes into the lowest of courts..for instance small claims court..and a contract was signed by a weaker party...again for instance. The party has already paid three times what an appliance is worth...and a low level judge orders the garnisheement of a donut shop girls wages to pay for a wash machine that with the force of the courts will now become FOUR TIMES the price of the machine...then there should be no bickering about what is an unconscionable contract. IF

[William Ashley]

Law firms - highly respected ones will take one of their younger crafty lawyers - and give them full rein to win a case - They are instructed to win even if it means committing fraud..conspiring with other lawyers including the opposition...and making quiet illegal undetectable deals with suck hole judges about to retire...Then through what can only be described as crimminal means..they win the case - THEN the happy law firm simply fires them .....removes them from the firm along with a send away buy out package...more than enough to set up that dream practice of their own _ it's a win win for these guys. They break the law and come out on top...as for the charter..what lawyer actually cares about rights and freedoms? None..they are bad for buisness and are ignored.

unhappy people do. or people who think they may be unhappy. Rights and freedoms are a buffer from fundamental climax. Violent uprising or self destruction. The less rights a society has the more likely it is to attack the system as they have nothing to loose.

People need to have the air to beleive they have free will else when they are faced with actions they don't want to take, they are either enslaved or at war.

Facilitating and carring for ones people, what the government ought do, is a means to pacify an otherwise detractive and dangerous population.

While technology is reducing this issue, it still exists. One can expect fewer and fewer rights and freedoms to exist as the power of technology falls into the hands of the few. That is why it is important to defend those rights, as even if you yourself are one of the few, so many with powers fall ingorant of their own conduct, it is hard to see your failings if you don't have to, there is no reason to if there is no opposition or repercussions of error or use of others as less than yourself.

It is a show if you don't value it, it ain't the end of your world, maybe someone elses. You might say, who cares what happens to them, so few are empowered to act regardless.

Desensitization of society is really its own decay. If society fails perhaps you will to. Perhaps another form of use, but if you can see societies use, perhaps you can see why learning to care and nurture those within society is also a valued use of time.

If society itself is your enemy you only serve to be my own. If I am yours, your right. But who would care at that point, thus the inaity of any other argument. I'm not out vandalizing and murdering people in their sleep so perhaps its not to that point yet as far as meaningful corruption of peace to hellspawn.

Edited January 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

The universe is made up of energy just like we are.

I'm not energy, I'm text and an Observance of emotion. Emotion comes before manipulation of that energy.

We don't just live in the universe we are part of the universe.

Why the barrier, ease of science?

My question to you is what is real?

You are holding two fingers right? Who cares what is real, is my fist real? Everything is real, it just has different meaning. Your dreams are real. My dreams are real, the real world is real, and that fantasy is real, it is just what it does to your interactions, and what it causes, and what those effects are, but there is more. IN the real world, god is real, and if god is real, anything is real. In that real there are things that don't mean what you'd like or not like them too. Who cares? What use is it, what goals do you have? it is all application, if you can use that unreal thing to your advantage why not? If you have no advantage in doing, who cares?

Is real what you can see, taste, touch, feel and smell, for those are merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

there are more emotions than the five senses. I don't need an apple to feel the taste of an apple. Perhaps you favor the real thing over the unreal? Perhaps the feeling isn't the reality? Who cares? You have many many options for your day, and why choose what you choose, because it is ideal for your day. Better to take the elevator than the balcony? I am not an atomic playboy, my biological existance is not the extent of my reality. Who cares, it is all just sentiments. You want more pleasure and less pain or is it something else, is it more than a complex set of sentiments. God provides, who cares about the rest. Acceptance of your being is all that is required to be known in life.

Matter is just energy's vibration slowed down to be perceptible by our senses.

It is much more than that. It isn't vibration it is direction (energy in space) light/energy is bidirectional and composes all time. our focal point is moving in spacetime as part of that light.

It is all nonsense anyway, unless you make it. What is the point? What is your goal? Live that is life. Entertainment and facilitation fills life. Needs exist, even if they are all provided, and if not you experience and you dream? Can you control your dreams or is the show so much less prevalent of control. It is experience - I see an apple you see a bunch of energy... maybe energy is better for you, I'm looking for bruises and rotting on the apple, I don't like their taste too much.

To your brain a dream is no different then the "real" world, so is that dream world real?

Within a context of real sure. Cultural sentiment is all about hierarchy and ontology of values. To some sure, to others nope. It depends what your objectives are. If communication and mutual cooperation or understanding then perhaps you can see it that way. Personally in some context everything that is known is somehow real, its physical value to a specific environment say in temporal space reality say the system that is linear and predictable. It makes it easier to use that realness to an application. People feel a sense of security in applications of life, because their thought becomes occupied in the application. Otherwise they seek application. Re: ceasation.

some say no but you could argue it is real only as long as it last, but then again you could say the same for life.

how long what lasts?

So what is real, is consciousness the only thing that is truly real?

what is perceived is real in whatever environmental case that exists at that given time. the application of such perception is entirely different. Normally people put will into results based application of perception - for meaningful occurence.

Thanks, I know what money is.

Do you know how money is created?

Let me guess little green men make money.. or in canada multi colored women.

Money runs the economy and the economy controls society.

All I need is money to control your society... really? Personally I need ceasation to be controlled.

In the hands of the government would be better.

what?

Truthfully I would like to say lets scrap the money concept but I've noticed many people think that society cannot function without money and if we did scrap money we would all live like Neanderthals.

Guess what, the economy isn't real, we made it up like we made up Santa.

Money is a utility when managers run out of it, they need to think of something else, like, say survival without a paycheck. So sure money may cease to exist before humans, but the trigger to goad may not.

Maybe it is that cave woman who knows a neat trick to warm up that chunk of meat.

Laws are societies answers to problems it can't solve.

Every problem has a solution.

Right it would be inevitable if it didn't have a solution not a problem. I might say though that solutions have problems not the other way around.

Don't stereotype. There are lawyers out there with good hearts that are trying to make the world better for us.

{{fact}}

Edited January 26, 2010 by William Ashley