Thank you Trudeau...

[cannuck]

The nitwit politicians who spewed more of their thoughtless blather could not interfere with the trial that was concluded, but COULD be considered to have prejudiced both juries and courts (don't doubt it, courts in Canada are EXTREMELY political - refer to Ralph Goodale managing to have Canadian citizens jailed for commiting no crime at all - Andy McMechan and 12 other Western farmers) that may have to deal with an appeal or the weapons charges that Stanley still must face.

[Queenmandy85]

20 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The nitwit politicians who spewed more of their thoughtless blather could not interfere with the trial that was concluded, but COULD be considered to have prejudiced both juries and courts (don't doubt it, courts in Canada are EXTREMELY political - refer to Ralph Goodale managing to have Canadian citizens jailed for commiting no crime at all - Andy McMechan and 12 other Western farmers) that may have to deal with an appeal or the weapons charges that Stanley still must face.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, McMechan  did commit a number of crimes. He was convicted of exporting wheat without a permit and then in default for not paying the fine, was tossed in the slammer. It was the court, not Ralph Goodale, that convicted him and he went to jail of his own volition. He could have paid the fine and more importantly, obeyed the law. It was McMechan who had himself jailed, not Goodale.

If he didn't like the wheat board, he should have  chosen another crop or another occupation. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Queenmandy85
spelling correction

[PIK]

Now this non answer on the question of who is investing 270m dollars into a quebec weed business run by a ex liberal, is getting pathetic, and this is very important that organized crime is not involved in this. Even the NDP said the even harper answered questions.

Edited February 16, 2018 by PIK

[cannuck]

13 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but, McMechan  did commit a number of crimes. He was convicted of exporting wheat without a permit and then in default for not paying the fine, was tossed in the slammer. It was the court, not Ralph Goodale, that convicted him and he went to jail of his own volition. He could have paid the fine and more importantly, obeyed the law. It was McMechan who had himself jailed, not Goodale.

If he didn't like the wheat board, he should have  chosen another crop or another occupation. 

Andy grew barley, not wheat.  He had farms on both sides of the border  So, he hauled it to his farm in the US and sold it there.  On the way back, Canada Customs (I think it was then) seized his tractor at the border, and Andy simply got in and drove it home.  He and Cairns had, however, moved several cargos of wheat into the US for neighbours.   Here is an excutive summary:  http://www.farmersforjustice.com/access/1998-07.htm

After getting a similar case cleared up in Winnipeg (Sawatsky), another farmer (NOT a lawyer) Dan Creighton stepped up and halped Andy represent himself far more effectively than any lawyer had managed to that point.  In his research, Danny discovered that barley (and oats) were brought under the Wheat Board Act by an order in councing in IIRC 1952.  However, no further order-in-council was issued since that time - thus EVERY sale of oats and barley since 1953 was illegal - as the CWB had no such jurisdiction or right (Charley Mayer testified to that).  To make it worse, that '52 order extended only the sections of the Act concerning pooling and licensing - not penalties, so even if it WAS legal, there would be no penalty.  That is, if we lived in a country where there was rule of law.

It was these three trials that finally (or I should say eventually) took down the CWB.

 

Goodale was the Minister when the final McMechan trial was conducted...with different results from exactly the same charges from which Sawatsky was acquitted.   You will never convice me there was not a serious amount of influence applied.   Rember, we don't elect judges, we appoint them by politicians.

Edited February 17, 2018 by cannuck

[Queenmandy85]

Mr. Goodale is a man of integrity. 

Did McMechan violate the law? If not, why were they arrested? As I recall, they were trying to circumvent the CWB. I am not a farmer or a lawyer, but I have a lot of faith in the Courts.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[cannuck]

You clearly don't know much about Goodale and surprisingly the whole business of the government of Canada imposing monopoly on wheat (barley and oats) on farmers.  Did Sawatsky, McMechan, Cairns (and Ken Dillen, but being a former NDP MLA and aboriginal, never charged for his participation - see the Jay Treaty to understand why) break the law?  Yes, no question.  Were those laws in ANY way written in the interest of anyone but government?  Clearly since they are all struck down now (thanks to Sawatsky, McMechan, Cairns, Dillen and especially Creighton) it should tell you the answer.

I get it: you are from the extreme left and believe the state should have control over every facet of the lives and business of the people.  SK is the perfect example of the good things and the bad of socialism.  To begin with: there is no such thing as functioning government anywhere in this world that does not use some of the elements of social policy, some originated right here in Sunny Saskatchewan (universal sick care, for example).  Where it breaks down is when the state goes from social policy into Marxist economics and that simply doesn't work.  SK had the same population from 1925 until roughly 2005.  Results of the Depression and the "cure" - i.e. Marxist economics.   As soon as this fell apart, the big "boom" that we experienced over the last 15 years was simply catching up to the rest of the world that had the sense not to dabble is such things.  The fallout is that SK was left with no value added industry and no culture of investment and development of value added processing.  (think of the Crow Rates and the companion legislation for CWB).

Economies are built upon the productive work of entrepreneurs and their employees.  Kill that and you cripple the country.   The CWB was one of the most egregious examples of that failure - and farmers are some of the most freedom conscious and independent people in the country.   Saskatchewan needs to be more like (and for the last 15 years IS more like and more part of) the Western world and shed its fascination with Russia and Eastern European ideologies.  I am not exaggerating, read the Regina Manifesto and understand that is exactly what hobbled this place for 1/2 a century.

BTW: just to help you appreciate how ridiculous the CWB was: it was actually illegal (and subject to imprisonment) for a MB/SK/AB farmer to take wheat from his own harvest and bake bread to feed his family.  Meanwhile, no such idiocy was inflicted upon farmers from the rest of Canada.   I can guarantee you there were literally thousands of other farmers who broke the ridiculous laws that support the subjugation and beggaring of Western farmers.

Edited February 17, 2018 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

Creating a single bargaining entity to manage prices isn't "socialist" economics, it's monopoly.  Private businesses are banned by law, for the most part, from doing this.  I never understood why there was such resentment for this entity.  If they weren't responsive to farmers, what were the political triggers in place to improve things ?

Dairy farmers have a marketing board too.  It's not compulsory, but virtually all farmers join it and the Americans and others are trying to break it up.

The analogy is a bunch of workers in a union trying to break up their own union to effectively lower their wages.... because they don't like unions.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Dairy farmers have a marketing board too.  It's not compulsory, but virtually all farmers join it and the Americans and others are trying to break it up.

 

The Americans in Minnesota ran the socialist and communist bastards out of the Democratic Farm Labor Party last century once they tried to collectivize.  

Some Scandinavian immigrants brought their communist ways over with them.   Buh-Bye !

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The Americans in Minnesota ran the socialist and communist bastards out of the Democratic Farm Labor Party last century once they tried to collectivize.  

Thanks for that bit of off-topic American trivia.  "Collective farming" is not the same as setting up joint marketing boards to represent a group of individual farmers.  An airline, oil company or auto company would love to have the monopoly that these boards represent.  In the most capitalist times in America, the courts even told Standard Oil they had to split into different companies.  

So why do Western farmers resent this entity ?  

If you don't mind, I would like to hear from a Westerner on my question as I'm genuinely interested in what they have to say.

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some Scandinavian immigrants brought their communist ways over with them.   Buh-Bye !

How is the American farmer doing these days ?  Answer: he's a Mexican paid a day wage.  Americans won't even take the job of "farmer" anymore.  And yet the government is going to use their own (not Mexico's) money to build a wall and force Americans to work cheap !

Anyway, the shit show that we're describing deserves another thread.  Thanks.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thanks for that bit of off-topic American trivia.  "Collective farming" is not the same as setting up joint marketing boards to represent a group of individual farmers.  An airline, oil company or auto company would love to have the monopoly that these boards represent.  In the most capitalist times in America, the courts even told Standard Oil they had to split into different companies. 

 

Hey, you had to mention the Americans first, as usual.   Our experience with the socialists/communists was spot on with what was attempted in SK, driven by Great Depression economics, power, and immigration.    Hubert Humphrey had a helluva time getting them out of the party.

 

Quote

How is the American farmer doing these days ?  Answer: he's a Mexican paid a day wage.  Americans won't even take the job of "farmer" anymore.  And yet the government is going to use their own (not Mexico's) money to build a wall and force Americans to work cheap !

 

Pretty well once they sell out to corporate ownership.   

 

Quote

Anyway, the shit show that we're describing deserves another thread.  Thanks.

 

Maybe, but could just as well fall under Justin Trudeau's "Sunny Ways" shit show.

Edited February 17, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Hey, you had to mention the Americans first, as usual.   Our experience with the socialists/communists was spot on with what was attempted in SK, driven by Great Depression economics, power, and immigration.    Hubert Humphrey had a helluva time getting them out of the party.

My mistake to mention it.  America ended up with a much better result than other countries because of concessions to collectivism, but mostly because of democratic institutions that they wisely designed themselves.

 

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Pretty well once they sell out to corporate ownership.   

Ok.

 

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Maybe, but could just as well fall under Justin Trudeau's "Sunny Ways" shit show.

Although it's a different 'shit show' the 'as well' part remains to be seen.  We have to wait until the cloud of confusion clears, and likely until the present administration has been replaced.

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Mr. Goodale is a man of integrity. 

[Rue]

On 2/15/2018 at 7:02 PM, ?Impact said:

You clearly ignored reality. Trudeau did NOT question the verdict of the jury.

Unfortunately when a native Canadian is on trial, they are not represented by a jury of their peers either according to that criteria

.

In regards to your first comment of course he did.

In regards to your second comment it makes no sense. A jury is not selected solely on the basis that it be the same "race" or "ethnicity" or "creed" of the accused. Think before you respond. Using your logic only blacks should be appointed to juries where a black is accused and on and on. Horse crap.

 

[Rue]

On 2/15/2018 at 7:02 PM, ?Impact said:

You clearly ignored reality. Trudeau did NOT question the verdict of the jury.

 

Speaking about reality and ignoring it try read this:

“Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” said Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto."

source:http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/0212-na-stanley

Next your comment:  "You don't sound like a very open minded lawyer, but then you tell me that the first thing a lawyer learns is that they are better than the rest." was stupid.

It is precisely why I am open minded I do not want a politician undermining a neutral non partisan legal system. Legal decisions should be based on non partisan  principles not your personal political biases and bigoted assumptions that only people of the same race as the accused must be on a jury as you have argued.

You are the actual closed minded bigot suggesting juries should be selected based on race. What a crock.

Trudeau is an inexcusable idiot. He deliberately made comments intended to undermine the jury and the entire legal system, what the hell do you think the following words meant:

"Canada has come to this point far too many times." What the hell do you think he was prattling on about.

Our Justice Minister said "Canada must do better" in direct response to the not guilty verdict. How fare she claim to speak for  me when undermining this jury. Who the hell did she think she was undermining the jury as Justice Minister. Its probably the most politically inappropriate thing a Minister could have done.

As for  your childish comments that I think I am better then others as a lawyer that's your insecure projection on me and lawyers. No we are not better than anyone BUT we have a higher standard of care when we open our mouths in public. No lawyer, not me, not the Justice Minister, no lawyer has the right to openly undermine the legal system we took an oath to uphold.

We don't get to practice law and sheeyat on it at the same time. Its one or the other. Using the office of the Justice Ministry to piss on the entire legal system because the Justice Minister could not separate her own aboriginal identity from the outcome of the decision is as unprofessional as it gets.

You clearly don't get it trying to make this about me or by insulting lawyers or pretending Trudeau and this idiot of a Justice Minister didn't act out of line. They both should resign.

Do you really need to be explained why politicians should not try undermine, intimidate or influence legal decisions? Do you need to be explained the legal system to work must be impartial and free of the appearance of partisanship?

You now have repeated racist concepts that you feel only aboriginals should Judge themselves. How would you feel if WHITE SUPREMACISTS come on this board and say the same thing? Well? Think man before you try turn this into some imagined attack on lawyers.

As Bush Chaney said, Trudeau engaged in political partisanship to undermine the jury's verdict. Politicians like lawyers under no circumstance should engage in behaviour that undermines the integrity of the legal system. That is not because we are better than you, but precisely because if we do that, we are acting better than you.

 

 

 

[Rue]

On 2/16/2018 at 12:05 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 

Based on Canadian history, there is no reason to believe that a majority of Canadians will "fight" for such a change.   "Peace, order, and good government" are more important to more Canadians than American style liberty (and resulting conflict).    Canada never had a civil rights movement, and the very poor substitute called "multiculturalism" only adds fuel to an existing "aboriginal" fire that has burned for more than 150 years.

Canadians are supposed to just politely grumble under their breath and wait for the next election.

It is true what you say. The US was created by rebellion and uprising and had a civil war and its constitution has clauses such as the right to bare arms we would never agree to-not to be confused with some of our new Canadians and their fundamentalist religious beliefs that maintain that no part of a woman's arms' should be bared.

 

[Scott Mayers]

I tried to look up a lawyer I saw here in Saskatoon who basically said the same things. [Brayford]. I couldn't find it without extensively watching each story since CTV does not enable us to do so without requiring us to watch all commercials embedded. 

However, I found this with both him and another lawyer which sums it up:

http://www.ckom.com/2018/02/12/239320/

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

"you need to be explained"??? 

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to your second comment it makes no sense. A jury is not selected solely on the basis that it be the same "race" or "ethnicity" or "creed" of the accused. Think before you respond. Using your logic only blacks should be appointed to juries where a black is accused and on and on. Horse crap.

Yet Stanley was judged by only whites, natives need not apply. That started with a 50/50 jury pool, and ended up white only.

Your self righteous rant later says only a closed minded bigot would do that, yet you support the practice.

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Speaking about reality and ignoring it try read this:

Thank you for the perfect example of ignoring reality.

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Creating a single bargaining entity to manage prices isn't "socialist" economics, it's monopoly.  Private businesses are banned by law, for the most part, from doing this.  I never understood why there was such resentment for this entity.  If they weren't responsive to farmers, what were the political triggers in place to improve things ?

Dairy farmers have a marketing board too.  It's not compulsory, but virtually all farmers join it and the Americans and others are trying to break it up.

The analogy is a bunch of workers in a union trying to break up their own union to effectively lower their wages.... because they don't like unions.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

It is indeed VERY socialistic when the state requires that farmers participate.  It is also an incredible distortion to markets and screws up our ability to trade.   BTW: it is illegal to sell dairy unless you own a quota, period.  I don't think there is ANY option available.  Not sure about eggs and chicken.

The CWB started as a voluntary deal during the depression, and that was fine.  Participation became mandatory during WWII to guarantee supply to England.  However, once government realized that they could play the politics of food, they just left the mandatory part in place.

The original idea was adopted during one of the bleakest periods in the history of modern economies.  Canadians were looking at all kinds of political, monetary and economic alternative systems in the hope of getting out from under their problems.  BUT: when the Wheat Board was in its younger years, the average farm was tiny by today's standards.  Viable grain farms are at LEAST one section today, but normal is several.  Someone with tens of millions of dollars invested in land and equipment is not likely to want to entrust their business to a bunch of bureaucrats.   When this was tested by vote ten years before it was wrapped up, the problem was that it was one vote for one farm, when it really should have been one vote for one acre.  The little farmers and hobby farmers tended to want someone else to handle the sales, but the people that actually produced significant quantities as a real business wanted no part of it.

If the laughing stock of "constitutions" was ever applied, the forcing of someone to do this and especially the discrimatory application of location would keep anything so stupid from lasting a minute.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

when the Wheat Board was in its younger years, the average farm was tiny by today's standards

You are right, the family farm is gone; bought out by corporate executives.

[cannuck]

50 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are right, the family farm is gone; bought out by corporate executives.

You obviously have not been around agriculture.   Big agribusiness is deeply involved in supplying services and consumables, and even deeper into the value added side of crops once they leave the farm.  Not very many large farms belong to corporations that are not simply the farmer himself who has incorporated his enterprise.  Since 50% of all farmers and 70% of all farmland under cultivation in Canada is in Saskatchewan, pretty much ANYTHING to do with ag has to do with SK.  Land ownership IS a big deal here, and there is some controversy, but by and large, it is very difficult for non-residents to own it.  Here is a good summary:  http://www.albertabeef.ca/content/saskatchewan-changing-farm-ownership-laws

Single (cultivated) farms of 10,000 acres and up are not uncommon here at all, but they very much belong to the farmer who farms it.  I am a small farmer, really a hobby farmer but it is hard not to know what is going on in the mainstream of agriculture if you live here.

BTW: to get closer to the thread topic - I used to manufacture ag equipment, principal market was aboriginal.

Edited February 18, 2018 by cannuck

[Argus]

19 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yet Stanley was judged by only whites, natives need not apply. That started with a 50/50 jury pool, and ended up white only.

Cite?

[?Impact]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Cite?

The Toronto Sun article that is being used to excuse the event.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The Toronto Sun article that is being used to excuse the event.

You mean this part? How can any even slightly fair minded person read this and then pretend it was "No natives need apply"?

Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool.
However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.

Edited February 19, 2018 by Argus

[?Impact]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

You mean this part? How can any even slightly fair minded person read this and then pretend it was "No natives need apply"?

You are right, the views of a white racist listening in on a couple of natives means all natives are guilty. Besides, we know that white jurists are the only fair ones, it is part of their DNA.