PIK Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 It is beginning to when someone can show up and demand ,demand and demand. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 I just wish Harper could be as forthright as his constituents when speaking in public. You mean like the forthright messages we get from all other politicians across the political spectrum? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 No I clearly said as forthright as his constituents. Who cares what anyone out of power has to say? They may as well be howling at the moon for all the effect they have. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 No I clearly said as forthright as his constituents. Who cares what anyone out of power has to say? They may as well be howling at the moon for all the effect they have. No politician is forthright, in or out of power. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 Yeah well I'd probably make that a crime. And I'd double the mandatory sentence for those in power. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 A relevent piece from today's Globe. What is currently the greatest threat to our democracy and Parliament? My candidate: the Supreme Court of Canada. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/who-is-judging-the-judges/article23069380/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 A relevent piece from today's Globe.With lots of holes in it. Parliament still makes the laws. The SCC never has. If they were doing so, the Parliament could invoke the NWS clause...but they dont invoke it because they know that would be a PR disaster. And the Nadon part of the aricle is particularly cringe inducing . That was a horrible choice to use for making a point. But it comes from the Fraser Institute, so we know pretty much what that means. He did not disappoint. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 With lots of holes in it. Parliament still makes the laws. The SCC never has. It does in the way it can 'read into' existing laws, and change them in ways not intended and not supported by the legislature. It also does so by erasing laws passed by the government. In effect, the Supreme Court just passed a law allowing assisted suicide. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) They still don't create laws. Edited February 19, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
guyser Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 Sorry Argus, no they dont make laws. Never did in fact,and if you feel otherwise, post a law they made . But more succinctly the guy right there ^ is right. Quote
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Sorry Argus, no they dont make laws. Never did in fact,and if you feel otherwise, post a law they made . But more succinctly the guy right there ^ is right. They just did make a law that says physicians can assist people to commit suicide under certain conditions. Last year they passed a law which continued to allow insite to operate outside the law in BC. They also passed a law recently which said gays can marry. Let's see, they passed a law which banned the government from deporting illegal immigrants except after multiple years of court hearings - which it ordered the government to pay for. They also passed a law legalizing abortion a while back. They passed a law giving prisoners a right to vote. I believe they also decided that Metis should be considered natives and get the same benefits. And for you lefties, they passed a law ordering the teachers collegs to recognize TWU as a legitimate teaching college regardless of how much they don't like homosexuals. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Hudson Jones Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They're not passing laws. They are upholding the law and the constitution. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They're not passing laws. They are upholding the law and the constitution. But the "Constitution" is anything they say it is. And they don't even have to be consistent. They can change their mind and say it is black today and white tomorrow. The Assisted Suicide ruling is a complete reversal of what they said last time they were asked. So were they failing to uphold the constitution then, or have they simply changed the constitution as they see fit? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Hudson Jones Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) They are judges. It is their job to interpret what the law is. If they feel like not allowing a gay couple to get married goes against the charter of rights and freedom, then it's our duty to accept it. Their decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and are binding. If you don't like how the system works here, then I recommend you move to Mother Russia or Saudi Arabia. Edited February 20, 2015 by Hudson Jones Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
guyser Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They just did make a law that says physicians can assist people to commit suicide under certain conditions.Categorically false argus. They struck down the law, and they gave 12 months for Parliament to craft legislation to respnd top the ruling. Last year they passed a law which continued to allow insite to operate outside the law in BC. They also passed a law recently which said gays can marry. Let's see, they passed a law which banned the government from deporting illegal immigrants except after multiple years of court hearings - which it ordered the government to pay for. They also passed a law legalizing abortion a while back. They passed a law giving prisoners a right to vote. I believe they also decided that Metis should be considered natives and get the same benefits. And for you lefties, they passed a law ordering the teachers collegs to recognize TWU as a legitimate teaching college regardless of how much they don't like homosexuals. I'll make this easy for the last quote. No they didnt No they didnt No they didnt No they didnt No they didnt No they didnt. The thing is , youre well read. Hell, a self described political junkie who reads numerous sites everyday. And not ONE of those sites ever said ' The SCC struck down the law on X?" You want us to believe that? I guarantee you , not one of them ever said...' The SCC made a new law today" Smarten up, you know they dont make the laws Quote
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They are judges. It is their job to interpret what the law is. If they feel like not allowing a gay couple to get married goes against the charter of rights and freedom, then it's our duty to accept it. Their decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and are binding. If you don't like how the system works here, then I recommend you move to Mother Russia or Saudi Arabia. Really? Because in a democracy if you don't like how the system works you're allowed to complain about it and even agitate for change. Is it not like that where you live? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Smarten up, you know they dont make the laws Clearly they do. They might not outright write legislation, but they are clearly creating laws which neither the legislature of the day, nor the people who wrote the constitution ever intended. The right to strike is now enshrined in the constitution! What parliamentarian outside the NDP ever wanted to do that? I guarantee you that if you read the constitution it won't say people have the right to strike. The reasoning in associating this newest of our 'rights' with the right to association isn't as threadbare as the one associating the right to death with the right to life, but it's one they just 'discovered'! They certainly never knew it existed over the last few decades, nor did the rest of the court system. They just decided to create it. Edited February 20, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They just did make a law that says physicians can assist people to commit suicide under certain conditions.Post the text of the law they wrote. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Clearly they do. They might not outright write legislation, but they are clearly creating laws which neither the legislature of the day, nor the people who wrote the constitution ever intended.They're not "clearly creating" anything. Stop it posting garbage that is completely wrong. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of what gives our laws legal validity. Laws are not valid simply because they are written. People have rights and a valid law must respect those rights. When legislation does not, it has no legal validity. The SCC did not CREATE anything. The legislators created a law that had no right being a law in the first place because it violates people's rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms were written by legislators, ratified by the provinces (except Quebec), and given power by the Crown. The Supreme Court "created" nothing. Quote
jacee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Clearly they do. They might not outright write legislation, but they are clearly creating laws which neither the legislature of the day, nor the people who wrote the constitution ever intended. The right to strike is now enshrined in the constitution! What parliamentarian outside the NDP ever wanted to do that? I guarantee you that if you read the constitution it won't say people have the right to strike. The reasoning in associating this newest of our 'rights' with the right to association isn't as threadbare as the one associating the right to death with the right to life, but it's one they just 'discovered'! They certainly never knew it existed over the last few decades, nor did the rest of the court system. They just decided to create it. Argus the constitution doesn't give us rights. We have them ... until the state restricts them or takes them away. But since WE PAY THEIR SALARIES! THEY WORK FOR US! We can disagree, say no, refuse, organize to prevent, etc. There are no bosses. WE ARE THE BOSS! . Quote
eyeball Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Some people find that terrifying. Power to the people? Oh the humanity. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 The SCC did not CREATE anything. The legislators created a law that had no right being a law in the first place because it violates people's rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms were written by legislators, ratified by the provinces (except Quebec), and given power by the Crown. The Supreme Court "created" nothing. What patent silliness. The rights and freedoms were never written by legislators, but created by unelected justices 'reading' them into the Charter, sometimes against the expressed decision of those who wrote the Charter to exclude them. The dissenting judges in the Saskatchewan right to strike case, Rothstein and Wagner, said as much: “[T]he majority also says that the right to strike is protected simply because ‘the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process.’ This must mean that the right is indeed derivative — a right to strike is protected only because it derives from the right to collective bargaining, a right which was itself derived from the protection of freedom of association. As earlier noted, the result is to inflate the right to freedom of association to such an extent that its scope is now completely divorced from the words of the Charter themselves.” Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Tell me this, Argus, why haven't the legislators used the notwithstanding clause then? You know very well that they have the final say. Even that was written into the constitution. Quote
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Tell me this, Argus, why haven't the legislators used the notwithstanding clause then? You know very well that they have the final say. Even that was written into the constitution. The notwithstanding clause is not a get out of jail ticket. It's only valid on certain issues. And of course, it's a public relations issue which a government as timid as Harper's is wary of going near. I think the issue of essential services, however, would be one they could use it on and get away with it. I think they ought to, but it's not their case, as yet. Saskatchewan was the province affected. It ought to use the notwithstanding clause. If the CN rail has a strike, which the union is threatening, and if the courts stand in the way of legislating them back to work, I would hope they would use the notwithstanding clause. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
marcus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Really? Because in a democracy if you don't like how the system works you're allowed to complain about it and even agitate for change. Is it not like that where you live? Besides being part of the Canadian Constitution, the supreme court is part of our culture and part of the fabric of our society. He's right. If you don't like it, perhaps you should go live somewhere else. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.