Jump to content

Is Canada a full democracy?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

The religious would like to define rights according to how they see their own doctrine. The don’t even agree among themselves. Rights are a human invention, as varied as humans themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2023 at 4:13 PM, 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.  

No,  you got it wrong in this case. There have been a number of cases where people took the police or gov't to court and the courts agreed that they could NOT take their guns away outside the framework of the current law. He was very specific about that.

That's what the law says. Here's a recent case but there are dozens and dozens and the judges say the same thing - if you can't prove why you should take the guns, then he has the right to them:


As you say - it's the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The religious would like to define rights according to how they see their own doctrine. The don’t even agree among themselves. Rights are a human invention, as varied as humans themselves.

Your argument is false.  Human rights have been recognized in Judeo-Christian society for ages.  That is how western Parliaments came to be, how slavery was abolished, how the west developed fair justice systems, how people are innocent until proven guilty, and how basic freedoms were established.  These rights did not just appear out of the blue.  They developed because certain people believed in God and believed God would hold them accountable for how they treat their fellow man.  There was that motivation.  Communists and atheists don't understand it.

"No. 1: There is one God. That God is the God introduced to the world by the Hebrew Bible — the source of one universal morality.

No. 2: The Hebrew Bible (the only Bible Jesus knew and which he frequently cited) introduced the most revolutionary moral idea in history: that there are objective moral truths just as there are mathematical and scientific truths. Without God as the source of moral standards, there is no moral truth; there are only moral opinions.

No. 3: Because there are moral truths, good and evil are the same for all people. 

No. 4: God — not man, not government, not popular opinion, not a democratic vote — is the source of our rights. All men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” declares the American Declaration of Independence."

Dennis Prager: What are Judeo-Christian values? (bizpacreview.com)

Your argument is baseless and as an atheist, you have no foundation for claiming human rights

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TreeBeard said:

LOL   There are no arbitrary seizures of legally owned property in Canada.  That’s not exactly a earth shattering revelation!  

Really? Because you argued otherwise until a second ago :)   

Seriously if you don't feel a little stupid for not figuring that out until  right now there's something wrong with you :)

We do have a right to firearms subject to reasonable restrictions (as i believe i told you some time ago). We don't have an absolute right as they do in the states, not to be infringed. But we do have a right.  As these police found out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Because you argued otherwise until a second ago

No, this was another one of your strawmen.  No one said your legal property can be arbitrarily taken away. 

That doesn’t mean gun ownership is a right, any more than owning watermelons is a right.  

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No, this was another one of your strawmen.  No one said your legal propert can be arbitrarily taken away. 

I suppose if you don't have an intelligent argument then lying and buzzwords is always an option :)

You very literally did. You said you have no right to that property. I and others pointed out you do - the federal gov't cannot deny you ownership of a thing without lawful excuse. You cried to the heavens NOOOOOO NOOOOOTTT TRUEEEEE

now it's like 'oh yeah, everyone knows that' :)  LOL  - tell me you haven't got a clue without telling me :)

Now - as to arbitrary removal of property, you're actually wrong there as well. The feds can arbitrarily take your lawful property at any time provided they first pass a law.  That's what the charter of rights says. They can literally say "as of today, treebeard's house and stash of inappropriate anime and dope belongs to the gov't. Poof!"  And you no longer own it.

So in fact they can take literally anything they want from anyone if they follow the procedure and can do so arbitrarily. The gov't is not really beholden to your rights. They can make it illegal for you to practice your religion, they can make it illegal for you to be married, they can do whatever they like. So 'rights' in Canada are a little bit more fluid than some other places.

iF you doubt that - ask the japanese about it.

Edited by CdnFox
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Nope.  You’re making things up in your head and arguing against yourself. You win again!  LOL


Lying to yourself is one way to cope i guess :)

I bet any money if i post what you said you'll still try to claim you didn't say it or you meant to say something else but lets try.

Me: It has been upheld many times by the supreme court that a thing doesn't have to be specifically enumerated in the charter or the constitution to be a right. And generally people have the right to do anything except where restricted by the gov't specifically and such restrictions are not to be unreasonable (there's actually a recognized test for that).

Blackbird: 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 in reply: I read your post.  You’re wrong.  

You literally directly replied to him and replied the same to me elsewhere that even tho we were very specific about the framework and that it wasn't a primary right WE WERE WRONG.

So there you go.  Looks like I really do 'win again'.

You should feel pretty ashamed of your performance, and you owe both of us an apology.

Id' be willing to bet you aren't that good of a person tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...