Is Canada a full democracy?

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That is not a right, it is a privilege, just like a driver's license.

It just depends how you look at it.  It may be a matter of semantics and point of view.  To millions of gun owners, they would say that is their right.  The anti-gun lobby would say it is not a right.  But ownership is an historic established practice which cannot be arbitrarily taken away.  I guess you could say it is a privilege in the sense there are hoops one must jump through to own guns, but the right to do that exists in reality and cannot be arbitrarily taken away.

[TreeBeard]

43 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Maybe that is the box that you created in your mind? and maybe others find it interesting? Is not just about your dogmatic bubble. 

The man gets disarmed by logic + specific text, not just arguments of perspectives as many are happening here, and all he has to say is: 

"I don't really care, is uninteresting". 

?

---> The ability to not admit you were disarmed in your face says a lot about why people like you, I hope never get in a position of power is my final take on this. Stay a soldier (not the military term), sir, I hope nobody makes you into a general in some institution. ?

When you say “the man is disarmed by logic…” , I take it you’re talking about me?   
 

I was disarmed?   

I honestly thought we were discussing laws against speech.  If you want to chalk up a win when the topic turns to cancel culture, ok.  You win.  I don’t really have much to say about media generated outrage over someone being fired.

[TreeBeard]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

To millions of gun owners, they would say that is their right.

Except, where it really matters in Canadian courts, there is no right to own guns.  
 

Call it whatever you wish, if you tried to argue that you have a legal right to own a gun, you’d lose.  

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Call it whatever you wish, if you tried to argue that you have a legal right to own a gun, you’d lose.  

Not necessarily.  Did you read what I wrote?  The historic right to own long guns is well-established in Canada within the framework of training, passing an exam, and receiving a permit.  That cannot be arbitrarily taken away.  You seem to have a problem in admitting certain facts.  Courts are not going to arbitrarily take away an historic right like that.  That's not how the legal system works.

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

It just depends how you look at it.  It may be a matter of semantics and point of view.  To millions of gun owners, they would say that is their right.  The anti-gun lobby would say it is not a right.  But ownership is an historic established practice which cannot be arbitrarily taken away.  I guess you could say it is a privilege in the sense there are hoops one must jump through to own guns, but the right to do that exists in reality and cannot be arbitrarily taken away.

No it doesn't, there is no right to own a gun in Canada any more than there is to drive a car or fly an aircraft. 

[blackbird]

Just now, Aristides said:

No it doesn't, there is no right to own a gun in Canada any more than there is to drive a car or fly an aircraft. 

If you pass the necessary exams, are medically fit, you can drive a care, fly an airplane, or own a gun.  That is just how the system works.  It is silly to argue about whether that means it is a right or not a right.  The thing that matters is how the system works.  That's all that matters.  Whether you want to say it is a right or not a right is a mute point.  Means nothing.  The reality is what counts.

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Not necessarily.  Did you read what I wrote?  The historic right to own long guns is well-established in Canada within the framework of training, passing an exam, and receiving a permit.  That cannot be arbitrarily taken away.  You seem to have a problem in admitting certain facts.  Courts are not going to arbitrarily take away an historic right like that.  That's not how the legal system works.

I read your post.  You’re wrong.  The law, as it stands currently, is that there is no right to own a gun.  This comes from the Supreme Court.  
 

If the SC says there is no right, then that is the law of the land.   If you need the citation to the decision again, let me know.  

[Aristides]

Just now, blackbird said:

If you pass the necessary exams, are medically fit, you can drive a care, fly an airplane, or own a gun.  That is just how the system works.  It is silly to argue about whether that means it is a right or not a right.  The thing that matters is how the system works.  That's all that matters.  Whether you want to say it is a right or not a right is a mute point.  Means nothing.  The reality is what counts.

Yes but it is not a right, it is a privilege you must earn to get and obey certain laws to keep. It is not a right.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

If you pass the necessary exams, are medically fit, you can drive a care, fly an airplane, or own a gun. 

That doesn’t make it a legal right. 
 

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

It is silly to argue about whether that means it is a right or not a right. 

Then stop claiming that it’s a right, when it’s not.  
 

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Whether you want to say it is a right or not a right is a moot point.  Means nothing.  The reality is what counts.

“Moot” point. 

However, it’s not a moot point.   The only thing that matters in law is what the Charter says, legislation says, and the courts say.  

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

I read your post.  You’re wrong.  The law, as it stands currently, is that there is no right to own a gun.  This comes from the Supreme Court.  
 

If the SC says there is no right, then that is the law of the land.   If you need the citation to the decision again, let me know.  

You obviously missed what I posted.  The point I am making is it is irrelevant to argue about whether it is a right or not a right.  The historic practice is that you can do certain things like drive a car, own a gun, if you meet the requirements such as take a course, pass an examination, and get the permit.  That's the bottom line.  Arguing whether or not it is a right is meaningless.  It is just a simpleton trying to create an argument for no reason.  Governments cannot arbitrarily abolish something like driving or owning a gun in Canada because it is an historical practice, or established precedent.  The actual practice is what matters, not what some judge or individual proclaims as a right or not a right.  That means little to nothing.  Reality is what counts.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Yes but it is not a right, it is a privilege you must earn to get and obey certain laws to keep. It is not a right.

The government can also take it away.  Look at the handgun manufacturing ban.  No more handguns made, or imported, into Canada.  Where is the “right” now?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The historic practice is that you can do certain things like drive a car, own a gun, if you meet the requirements such as take a course, pass an examination, and get the permit. 

No one argued otherwise!  LOL

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

That doesn’t make it a legal right. 
 

Then stop claiming that it’s a right, when it’s not.  
 

“Moot” point. 

However, it’s not a moot point.   The only thing that matters in law is what the Charter says, legislation says, and the courts say.  

 

Just now, TreeBeard said:

The government can also take it away.  Look at the handgun manufacturing ban.  No more handguns made, or imported, into Canada.  Where is the “right” now?

Yes, but that was not an arbitrary decision.  The government made that decision based on what they believe is public safety, not on the basis that "it is not a right".  They had to have a good reason to outlaw the purchase of handguns.  So the bottom line is decision still have to be supported by reason, not arbitrary claims that they can do it because they can do it.

[Aristides]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

Yes, but that was not an arbitrary decision.  The government made that decision based on what they believe is public safety, not on the basis that "it is not a right".  They had to have a good reason to outlaw the purchase of handguns.  So the bottom line is decision still have to be supported by reason, not arbitrary claims that they can do it because they can do it.

I don't believe they do have good reason to ban them but glad you agree that gun ownership is not  right in Canada.

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I don't believe they do have good reason to ban them but glad you agree that gun ownership is not  right in Canada.

I don't accept the words "not a right" because it is misleading and deceptive.  That's not how decisions are made.

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't accept the words "not a right" because it is misleading and deceptive.  That's not how decisions are made.

It’s only misleading or deceptive to someone who doesn’t understand what a right is in Canada, and how they’re determined on a legal basis.  
 

No one says you can’t own a gun, within the law.  Everyone knows theres not a legal right to own a gun.   Why is this so difficult? 

Edited February 23, 2023 by TreeBeard

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

People are fired for what they say all the time.  I don’t really care, to be honest. If it’s unfair, there are unions or labour laws that can deal with it.  

It’s wholly uninteresting and mundane.  And media will often only cover one side, or not tell the entire story.  The readers are left with the impression that, in this case the NP, wants you to have.  “That’s terrible to be fired for what he said”.  Meanwhile, the guy was probably an awful teacher, which isn’t mentioned of course.  
 

I just can’t generate any outrage.  

Well first off - i see we're changing the channel again   Fair enough.

Secondly that's a little like saying people get shot all the time, i can't generate outrage.  Fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that people getting shot all the time is a really bad thing from an objective point of view

Or saying racism happens all the time, i can't work up the outrage. etc etc

And fair enough. If you're outraged at everything that's outrageous you're going to spend your entire life outraged and who wants that.

But - you should care enough to agree it's a bad thing and should be stopped even if you're not 'outraged'.  After all - you can hardly expect anyone to give a damn about the rights you care about if you don't care about others' rights. Right?

[TreeBeard]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well first off - i see we're changing the channel again   Fair enough.

Secondly that's a little like saying people get shot all the time, i can't generate outrage.  Fair enough but that doesn't change the fact that people getting shot all the time is a really bad thing from an objective point of view

Or saying racism happens all the time, i can't work up the outrage. etc etc

And fair enough. If you're outraged at everything that's outrageous you're going to spend your entire life outraged and who wants that.

But - you should care enough to agree it's a bad thing and should be stopped even if you're not 'outraged'.  After all - you can hardly expect anyone to give a damn about the rights you care about if you don't care about others' rights. Right?

As I said, the NP wrote the article to generate some outrage.  We have no idea what the real story is. So, unlike someone being shot for no apparent reason, I just can’t even muster an ounce of giving a damn.  

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

As I said, the NP wrote the article to generate some outrage.  We have no idea what the real story is. So, unlike someone being shot for no apparent reason, I just can’t even muster an ounce of giving a damn.  

Well that's another lie isn't it.  You have zero evidence in the slightest that they wrote the article just to 'generate outrage'.

That's just an excuse for you to pretend that there's a reason you shouldn't care about it. But the fact is you simply don't want to have to defend human rights if they're not being used for something you approve of. So it's this "gosh i just can't work up the outrage" routine,

So the next time you "claim" to consider someone's rights to be important, expect to be called on your hypocrisy.

[myata]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

The only thing that matters in law is what the Charter says, legislation says, and the courts say.  

All the right words but why does repeating them automatically and mindlessly make me uneasy? Maybe this: words, are just words symbols on paper or in the air. Anybody can say the same word, a professor at Yale and a caveman thousands years back (OK, with a bit of practice). Putin has some charter. Un has legislation. No, words don't mean or decide anything just by themselves. And then we're back to square one: what does? What fills words with the meaning, Un-way or a modern democratic way?

Edited February 23, 2023 by myata

[RedDog]

On 2/17/2023 at 9:50 AM, Aristides said:

California is also on a coast. What international bodies?

Um, duh, the World Court which has rules on this very thing in places like Africa. Alberta could not be land locked.

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, RedDog said:

Um, duh, the World Court which has rules on this very thing in places like Africa. Alberta could not be land locked.

 I don’t think it would be a good idea anyway but no country has free reign to pass anything it wants through someone else’s country.

[RedDog]

18 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 I don’t think it would be a good idea anyway but no country has free reign to pass anything it wants through someone else’s country.

[RedDog]

History proves you wrong. The World Court will also adjudicate what Canada owes Alberta in extorted funds.

canaDUH, as always, is on thin ice.

[blackbird]

On 2/22/2023 at 7:23 AM, Aristides said:

Humans only have the rights they give themselves. Nothing to do with atheism or religion. 

This is why atheists, Communists, and heathen are dangerous people to allow into Canada.  Since they don't understand basic human rights are God-given, they don't respect humans have inherent rights.