.

[Argus]

Because perhaps you enjoy having rights?

I had rights before the Charter. A piece of paper does not give me rights, nor does it protect them.

[eyeball]

You have something against democracy?

In the manner you'd apply it? Definitely

[ToadBrother]

I had rights before the Charter. A piece of paper does not give me rights, nor does it protect them.

If a constitution doesn't protect rights then nothing will.

We are a country founded on the rule of law, and as such, yes the Charter far better guarantees rights than previous Acts ever did.

[On Guard for Thee]

I had rights before the Charter. A piece of paper does not give me rights, nor does it protect them.

Oh yes it does, and the highest court in the land enforces them.

[Argus]

In the manner you'd apply it? Definitely

What manner is that? I don't believe I've suggested some sort of 'manner' to democracy.

[Argus]

If a constitution doesn't protect rights then nothing will.

We are a country founded on the rule of law, and as such, yes the Charter far better guarantees rights than previous Acts ever did.

Drivel. Courts and pieces of paper are worthless in protecting rights. All around the world we have brutal, autocratic countries with high sounding constitutions. Even the Soviet Union had a great constitution. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

The only thing which protects rights is the approval or disapproval of those rights by the population at large. To try and divorce democratic will from the process of how we govern ourselves is ludicrous. If the people of this country decided tomorrow that they strongly wanted to execute all redheads then political parties would begin to echo them, and the constitution would simply be changed. Or the governments involved would start appointing judges who would do as judges do in autocratic countries, which is whatever the government tells them to.

Put nine communist judges on the supreme court, or nine nazi judges, and that piece of paper you hold so dear would have an entirely different interpretation.

[WIP]

Turns out, we're not in Singapore. I also note that when Singapore attempts to lash a Canadian citizen, there's a huge outcry against it. So, this not very smart remark is just because you feel you are losing the debate, hmmm?

132 pages on, and it's pretty clear that the harpies here just can't shut up about niqabs! And, since Singapore sometimes gets mentioned by social conservatives out to ban everything that some people do for fun, I'm reminded that chewing gum is banned and criminalized in Singapore. That's enough reason for me to stay away and never reference them as an example of how we should do things over here.

[eyeball]

What manner is that? I don't believe I've suggested some sort of 'manner' to democracy.

You've made it pretty clear it should operate according to the wishes of an angry mob incited by the government. It's a particularly disgraceful disgusting manner of democracy. Of course you don't believe it.

[Argus]

You've made it pretty clear it should operate according to the wishes of an angry mob incited by the government. It's a particularly disgraceful disgusting manner of democracy. Of course you don't believe it.

I've made no such suggestion.

[On Guard for Thee]

Put nine communist judges on the supreme court, or nine nazi judges, and that piece of paper you hold so dear would have an entirely different interpretation.

Speaking of drivel.

That's why we don't put those kind of people on the SC, and why we put a number of them.

[eyeball]

I've made no such suggestion.

Whatever you say chief.

[Argus]

Speaking of drivel.

That's why we don't put those kind of people on the SC, and why we put a number of them.

You're missing the point, as usual. The document you laud is wide open to interpretation. Whoever is put on the Supreme Court gets to say what it does and does not protect, based on any justification they care to make use of. Therefore, the document itself is worthless. It's the judges that matter. And the judges are controlled by the government, which is controlled by the will of the people. Harper has already replaced enough of the SC that if he'd wanted to put in rigid ideologues, and if the people would have supported that, the SC would be a fundamentally different creature.

So again, the only thing which protects our rights is US, not some bewigged judges or a rag written by some mostly dead politicians.

[eyeball]

You're missing the point, as usual. The document you laud is wide open to interpretation. Whoever is put on the Supreme Court gets to say what it does and does not protect, based on any justification they care to make use of. Therefore, the document itself is worthless. It's the judges that matter. And the judges are controlled by the government, which is controlled by the will of the people. Harper has already replaced enough of the SC that if he'd wanted to put in rigid ideologues, and if the people would have supported that, the SC would be a fundamentally different creature.

So again, the only thing which protects our rights is US, not some bewigged judges or a rag written by some mostly dead politicians.

It's the law that matters, that's what controls the judges. The law protects individuals from us by means of the bewigged judges with the rag which you'll have to get rid of if you want to have things your way.

How do you propose to do that?

[Argus]

It's the law that matters, that's what controls the judges.

No, it demonstrably does not. The law is whatever the judges say it is.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're missing the point, as usual. The document you laud is wide open to interpretation. Whoever is put on the Supreme Court gets to say what it does and does not protect, based on any justification they care to make use of. Therefore, the document itself is worthless. It's the judges that matter. And the judges are controlled by the government, which is controlled by the will of the people. Harper has already replaced enough of the SC that if he'd wanted to put in rigid ideologues, and if the people would have supported that, the SC would be a fundamentally different creature.

So again, the only thing which protects our rights is US, not some bewigged judges or a rag written by some mostly dead politicians.

It's obvious who is missing the point as usual. The judges are not controlled by the government. (perhaps you have missed the numerous Harper bills the SC has nixed) The judges are required to have the legal experience to apply what is written in the document most Canadians laud, even if they are bewigged.

[Argus]

It's obvious who is missing the point as usual. The judges are not controlled by the government. (perhaps you have missed the numerous Harper bills the SC has nixed) The judges are required to have the legal experience to apply what is written in the document most Canadians laud, even if they are bewigged.

Judges are only required to be lawyers, and as I stated, IF Harper had the public support and wanted to put ideologues on the SC be they a pack of communists or nazis, that document of yours would avail you little. I can just see you holding it up pitifully, and the learned judges of the supreme court telling you that no, it doesn't protect what you think it does after all. Oh, it used to? Well, they've changed their minds. The SC is allowed to do that, you know.

[Peter F]

Many government departments have all manner of policies that are not specified by law. If you're told to take a number and sit down, you do it. If you're told to uncover your face, you do it.

You don't seem to understand...

The government tells this woman that she must remove her mask if she wants citizenship.

The government tells the court oh no she need not remove her mask at all.

You don't see the obvious deceit of this government? The two-faced bullshit?

Bend over backwards to not change the law and you blame the court for not ignoring the law that your own lovable party wrote.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Peter F

[On Guard for Thee]

Judges are only required to be lawyers, and as I stated, IF Harper had the public support and wanted to put ideologues on the SC be they a pack of communists or nazis, that document of yours would avail you little. I can just see you holding it up pitifully, and the learned judges of the supreme court telling you that no, it doesn't protect what you think it does after all. Oh, it used to? Well, they've changed their minds. The SC is allowed to do that, you know.

Now you're getting delusional. If Harper even sniffed at trying that he would be out of office so fast his, and I suggest your, heads would be spinning. The paper you speak of will outlast Harper, the current SC bench, and exist o into future generations. So let's see,that seems to be science and law off the list for now. But keep trying.

[dre]

Drivel. Courts and pieces of paper are worthless in protecting rights. All around the world we have brutal, autocratic countries with high sounding constitutions. Even the Soviet Union had a great constitution. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

The only thing which protects rights is the approval or disapproval of those rights by the population at large. To try and divorce democratic will from the process of how we govern ourselves is ludicrous. If the people of this country decided tomorrow that they strongly wanted to execute all redheads then political parties would begin to echo them, and the constitution would simply be changed. Or the governments involved would start appointing judges who would do as judges do in autocratic countries, which is whatever the government tells them to.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of constitutional democracies.

There are literally hundreds or even thousands of cases where the top courts in various constitutional democracies have protected peoples rights from being trampled by the government.

Put nine communist judges on the supreme court, or nine nazi judges, and that piece of paper you hold so dear would have an entirely different interpretation.

Sweet! Little bit of godwins law is always nice. "Our judicial system is bad because it could be staffed entirely with Nazzis!!!!" ROFLMAO.

The only thing which protects rights is the approval or disapproval of those rights by the population at large. To try and divorce democratic will from the process of how we govern ourselves is ludicrous.

Government by existing popular sentiment is much much worse. The population is fickle and their opinion swings wildly in response to hot buttom issues. This is the entire reason we dont have direct democracy.

If the people of this country decided tomorrow that they strongly wanted to execute all redheads then political parties would begin to echo them, and the constitution would simply be changed. Or the governments involved would start appointing judges who would do as judges do in autocratic countries, which is whatever the government tells them to.

If a significant ammount of Canadians decided to execute redheads it would be shot down by the courts, and even if a party that campaigned on this policy managed to win a majority government, it would take decades for them to change the balance of the courts. By that time Canadians probably would have realized its a really stupid thing to do.

The system isnt perfect... but its a hell of a lot better than direct democracy and you have no other ideas.

[dre]

Judges are only required to be lawyers, and as I stated, IF Harper had the public support and wanted to put ideologues on the SC be they a pack of communists or nazis, that document of yours would avail you little.

Yes, the courts are democratically influenced, and a sitting government can appoint justices to the top court. However, it takes quite a few appointments to change the balance of power, and those appointees often dont do what the government hoped they would anyways. Harper would have to win a series of elections to staff the court with Nazis (good grief ) and if people kept voting for him, then I guess they would get the nazi court they wanted.

Are we really have a discussion about the efficacy of the judicial system in a case where it was staffed entirely by Nazis? Really? ROFLMAO.

Since your posts are full of more Nazis than the Nuremburg Trials, lets expand on that a little. As I said it would take a long time for a government to create a "nazi court" if it was even possible (its not with our current citizenry). But democracies CAN fall prey to extremism, and on thing that COULD happen is that an government with extremist ideology is able to get elected based on some sort of knee-jerk reaction to some kind of galvanizing event on the part of voters. And this is exactly the kind of thing the constitution helps to prevent. A government would have to stock the court with Nazis which as I said is a non-starter or it would need to amend the constution (also extremely unlikely), or it would have to completely disregard the law, and stage a coup with the hopes the military would support them.

The system as I said is not perfect, but its pretty good which is why every single modern country on the planet uses some variation of it.

Edited September 29, 2015 by dre

[ToadBrother]

No, it demonstrably does not. The law is whatever the judges say it is.

No the law is not. You really have little understanding of either constitutional or legal matters.

[ToadBrother]

Drivel. Courts and pieces of paper are worthless in protecting rights. All around the world we have brutal, autocratic countries with high sounding constitutions. Even the Soviet Union had a great constitution. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Good grief. The USSR was a successor of Czarist Russia, and neither regime was known for the executive viewing its role as limited by the rule of law.

Canada is not the USSR, and is a country that respects the rule of law. The legislative and executive branches do indeed recognize courts' rulings and powers. They may not like it, but the only time I'm aware of that any Canadian government tried to defy constitutional limitations was the Aberhart government in Alberta in the 1930s and 1940s, which pushed through anti-Press legislation, and that's when another safeguard; the Lieutenant-Governor, delayed giving the legislation Royal Assent.

The only thing which protects rights is the approval or disapproval of those rights by the population at large. To try and divorce democratic will from the process of how we govern ourselves is ludicrous. If the people of this country decided tomorrow that they strongly wanted to execute all redheads then political parties would begin to echo them, and the constitution would simply be changed. Or the governments involved would start appointing judges who would do as judges do in autocratic countries, which is whatever the government tells them to.

WHich is patently absurd. China's population has largely no say on their rights, so clearly it's a lot more complicated than you imagine.

Put nine communist judges on the supreme court, or nine nazi judges, and that piece of paper you hold so dear would have an entirely different interpretation.

Why would anyone do that? And even if they did, the Government has the authority via the Governor General to dismiss any Supreme Court justice.

You're ignorance of our system of government is absolutely jaw dropping.

[Black Dog]

You have something against democracy?

You're confusing democracy with straight up mob rule. Also not sure why you're banging on about the SCC and the Charter when neither features in this case as yet.

[cybercoma]

You're missing the point, as usual. The document you laud is wide open to interpretation.

One should point out that it's also utterly irrelevant to the case at hand. The niqab policy violated the Citizenship Act. Nothing was interpreted through the Charter in this case. You've got me on ignore, so unless you click "view post" you'll continue to do just that. However, I'm really curious, what do you do when there is a statute that regulates what you can do on your job and a minister passes you a policy that complete contradicts the law. Do you break the law and follow the policy or not?

[ToadBrother]

You're confusing democracy with straight up mob rule. Also not sure why you're banging on about the SCC and the Charter when neither features in this case as yet.

It's fed by Reform's longstanding hatred of Pierre Trudeau and anything associated with him. The Supreme Court has, in fact, had the power to strike down legislation since that power was devolved to it from the British Privy Council in the 1940s.

One would think conservatives would be far greater champions of individual liberties and limits on the State's ability to interfere with those liberties. In reality I don't think people like Argus are actually conservatives in the traditional definition, but rather reactionaries who view any obstacle to their team's dominance as wrong and unjust.

I can't even sort out what it is most Conservatives don't like about the Charter. We have protections of civil liberties, democratic freedoms and individual rights. The most egregious aspect of the Charter is the Not-withstanding Clause.