Jump to content

Why do Canadians accept this joke that we commonly call "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"?


Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

image.jpeg.c0ea87036ef8640db103d8badfde8b39.jpeg

you  "this is what you said"/

Me "that is not what i said. I would agree with that if i were asked now but i didn't say it"

you "HA HA - that means you said it before!!!"

everyone else"???????"

well it's nice to see you kept up with the liar and retarded part of your personality as well  :) 

Posted
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So a province could execute it's prisoners despite federal laws against capital punishment?

It's always fascinating to watch you try and lie your way around things. You can't make an intelligent argument so you just make shit up at random.

Criminal laws the federal government's responsibility. It would be their responsibility to make any changes to the criminal law to allow for executions, which they have done in the past. Are you suggesting that the federal government has never allowed executions? You seem very confused.

Why do I have to explain grade 5 level understandings of how the government works to you every time we talk?

Posted
4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Criminal laws the federal government's responsibility.

Okay, but if the Notwithstanding Clause gives provinces the right to tell the feds to go pee up a rope...

It's like watching a kitten chase a laser dot.

  • Haha 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Okay, but if the Notwithstanding Clause gives provinces the right to tell the feds to go pee up a rope...

 

Nobody has ever suggested that.

The notwithstanding clause, or more accurately the real claws that this refers to, gives the provinces the right to tell the charter of rights and freedoms to go pee up a rope. It doesn't give a provinces the right to tell the feds anything.

Quote

It's like watching a kitten chase a laser dot.

Sadly you're not as smart as the kitten. Or the laser dot. 

This really isn't complex. A charter of rights and freedoms applies to both federal and provincial governments. Both the federal and provincial governments can set the charter of rights and freedoms aside by using the somewhat misnamed  notwithstanding clause. But that does not grant the provinces the power of the federal government, or the federal government the power of the provinces.

I warned you that sniffing glue that often would wind up catching up to you one of these days. Now look at your brain

Edited by CdnFox
Posted
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There's no restrictions on its use other than it must apply to the charter.

Please, show me where in the charter of rights and freedoms which is the document that creates the notwithstanding clause that it lists the so-called Very clear circumstances when it can be used

Yes and??

Section 33...read it. LOL

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Posted
23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It doesn't give a provinces the right to tell the feds anything.

Not according to the OP you're posting in support of or according to what you've argued.

On 11/29/2024 at 11:34 PM, CdnFox said:

And yes the government absolutely can pass whatever laws it wants to stomp on your rights.

Don't forget it was Mulroney who tore up the Charter when the provinces insisted on Notwithstanding Clause.

  • Like 1

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
21 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

That's nonsense.  Sometimes the courts are right and the provinces can still use the clause.  The purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to something that limited their power, including Quebec, who still didn't.

Sure, but the whole problem is, who decides when the courts are right and when they are wrong? Yes the purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to the constitution, but there is a reason why provinces argued in favour of such a clause. Peter Lougheed, who proposed the notwithstanding clause is quoted as saying that it 'allows effective political action on the part of legislators to curb an errant court'.

Posted
53 minutes ago, BlahTheCanuck said:

Sure, but the whole problem is, who decides when the courts are right and when they are wrong? Yes the purpose of the clause was to get the provinces to sign on to the constitution, but there is a reason why provinces argued in favour of such a clause. Peter Lougheed, who proposed the notwithstanding clause is quoted as saying that it 'allows effective political action on the part of legislators to curb an errant court'.

Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough Canada's Bill of Rights (1960) which is a Federal law and not applicable to the provinces, may have been the precedent for the Charter's Section 33.

From the Bill of Rights....  

Construction of law

2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to

  • (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person;

  • (b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

  • (c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained

    • (i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention,

    • (ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or

    • (iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful;

  • (d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards;

  • (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

  • (f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or

  • (g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

 

Posted

The government just have to say that it's in the interest of people to not follow it. As protesting is protected by the charter, if the protesters are protesting with trucks in Ottawa, it is not allowed, according to them. Striking is protected by the charter but striking a train company is not, according to them.

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Gaétan said:

The government just have to say that it's in the interest of people to not follow it. As protesting is protected by the charter, if the protesters are protesting with trucks in Ottawa, it is not allowed, according to them. Striking is protected by the charter but striking a train company is not, according to them.

As for the striking part, I believe the government can order essential workers back to work as long as they agree to some type of independent arbitration process to take affect. Anyways, the limitations clause clearly spells out that no rights are absolute. Nor can they be for a democracy to function properly.

Edited by suds
Posted
4 hours ago, eyeball said:

So you buy into the notion any government in the land could temporarily suspend the law and Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it could murder people?

OK, that was your takeaway eh? 

 

4 hours ago, Venandi said:

instead of being content with the good natured support on offer from well meaning people who (at the time) wished them the best and wanted to see them live their lives in peace, they morphed into a mob of ugly monsters bent on forcing their views down the throats of the old school liberals who (initially) supported their quest.

Sort of like this.

Weaponizing "rights" (I'm using rights for lack of a better word here) and spitting them in the face of the goodnatured people who helped in achieving them strikes me as a guaranteed recipe for backlash.

Why not take the win and accept yes as an answer?  

Why turn the reasonable, easily supportable quest for equality and acceptance into something that previous supporters now want crushed? And crushed is exactly the right word here iMO...

It just strikes me as unnecessary, inappropriate, and manifestly foolish.  All ya had to do was not be bat sh%$ crazy and I'd still be on your side.

Other than schools and universities, WOKE has suffered (and will continue to suffer) heavy broadside volleys and the boarding party is standing by. Speaking personally, I now want schools and universities cut off at the knees, just above the woke line to prevent further infection.

Since you worked hard to achieve that, I'm wondering why because it takes me back to my original question:

WTF did you think was going to happen? 

 

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Venandi said:

OK, that was your takeaway eh? 

No, it's the posters I mentioned...until his argument runs over itself...you can see this plain as day yourself.

Like a cat chasing a laser pointer.

34 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Since you worked hard to achieve that, I'm wondering why because it takes me back to my original question:

I'm not one of those lefties. You must have me mistaken with someone else. I'm pretty sure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have are plenty strong enough to  address social inequalities. Maybe if more minorities saw more support and respect for the Charter they'd be less fearful and convinced they need special rights to protect them.

But what's missing most is the means to address systemic economic inequalities. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that resulted in everyone in feeling more confident about themselves, less fearful of others and less need to forever be on the attack.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, it's the posters I mentioned...until his argument runs over itself...you can see this plain as day yourself.

Like a cat chasing a laser pointer.

I'm not one of those lefties. You must have me mistaken with someone else. I'm pretty sure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have are plenty strong enough to  address social inequalities. Maybe if more minorities saw more support and respect for the Charter they'd be less fearful and convinced they need special rights to protect them.

But what's missing most is the means to address systemic economic inequalities. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that resulted in everyone in feeling more confident about themselves, less fearful of others and less need to forever be on the attack.

Do you ever do anything but lie?

 

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

image.jpeg.c4035296a8a5157a96c0fc12a9bf2015.jpeg

So what you're saying is you don't know how to use the quote feature and you just realized that there is no list like you suggested and now you feel stupid in our slapping yourself in the face.

Sounds about right  :)

You know you wouldn't look so stupid if you actually took the time to look this stuff up . It's not like I was the only poster who warned you

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Do you ever do anything but lie?

 

So what you're saying

I don't lie... I only use facts... You have it all wrong, the one being called out by everyone for lying is always you LOL.  You lie so much your lies get caught up in your lies LOL

So, what I am saying is a belligerent person like you will always try very hard to deflect their ignorance and deceit. Some can do it but you are so transparent, it only makes you look dumber and more deceitful.

You are one sad individual when I am the only thing that you have in your life. I have really been occupying a big part of your brain. So sad that is all you got LOL

Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LOSER like you LOL.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor baby...

Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine

Sad Sad Sad

Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw 

Ha Ha Ha 

LOL LOL LOL

image.jpeg.151cf8537a48929b0754fa796b1bb266.jpeg

Lie to cover lies???

 

Edited by ExFlyer

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Posted
18 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm not one of those lefties. You must have me mistaken with someone else. I'm pretty sure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have are plenty strong enough to  address social inequalities. Maybe if more minorities saw more support and respect for the Charter they'd be less fearful and convinced they need special rights to protect them.

But what's missing most is the means to address systemic economic inequalities. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that resulted in everyone in feeling more confident about themselves, less fearful of others and less need to forever be on the attack.

Not sure where your going with this one, social inequalities...very few of the freedoms and rights deal with social inequalities...https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/rfcp-cdlp.html

I'm sure our charter of rights and freedoms could be expanded to include a few more paras say like property rights, which include land, objects, pets, fire arms, etc.  to name one i'm sure there is a lot more that could be added....and some of the others could be strengthen, and others just well just enforced to say they are a perfect document is not true, there is plenty of work that could be done on it...

In the charter it does state that provinces may introduce programs  provinces with an employment rate below the national average may create programs that are only available to its own socially and economically disadvantaged residents. These programs encourage the residents to stay in the province and contribute to the workforce.

 

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure where your going with this one, social inequalities...very few of the freedoms and rights deal with social inequalities...

You say our Charter only deals with the relationship between people and the government? I doubt it.

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

In the charter it does state that provinces may introduce programs  provinces with an employment rate below the national average may create programs that are only available to its own socially and economically disadvantaged residents.

Excellent, provinces should tax the snot out of the rich in their jurisdictions and seize their assets if they try to leave. We can just invoke the Notwithstanding Clause if Ottawa tries to interfere.

Edited by eyeball

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I don't lie... 

 

The two things you do constantly are lie and make bizarre weird little passive aggressive submissive posts endlessly when you know you've lost an argument and want to roll over and yap like a beaten dog 

Which I see is the point where we're at now :)  LOL

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Posted
24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The two things you do constantly

 

The two things I do constantly ...is shut you down to the level you deserve...bottom of the barrel. LOL

Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LYING  LOSER like you LOL.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor baby...

Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine

Sad Sad Sad

Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw 

Ha Ha Ha 

LOL LOL LOL

🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

image.jpeg.7733195bda6b131fdcaf5ae8faa3dd73.jpeg

64 Liars are Losers ideas | me quotes ...

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Posted
8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The two things I do constantly ...is shut you down to the level you deserve

Oh look, a lie followed by a bizarre weird little passive aggressive submissive post  :) 

 

ROFLMAO!!!  :)   well i guess that's one way of admitting i was right :) 

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

 

ROFLMAO!!! 

 

 

I am so glad you are finally able to laugh at yourself and your behaviour, limitations and failures.

Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LYING  LOSER like you LOL.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor baby...

Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine

Sad Sad Sad

Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw 

Ha Ha Ha 

LOL LOL LOL

🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Sad Little Man" by Five Times August ...

 

Short Man Syndrome – speedracer.ca

Edited by ExFlyer

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Posted
1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

I am so glad you are finally able to laugh at yourself and your behaviour, limitations and failures.

Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LYING  LOSER like you LOL.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

Poor baby...

Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine

Sad Sad Sad

Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw 

Ha Ha Ha 

LOL LOL LOL

🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Sad Little Man" by Five Times August ...

 

Short Man Syndrome – speedracer.ca

Sure kid :) 

🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Posted
7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Seriously though, Canadians should demand much better than these weak rights, particularly on free speech.

Will you see those demands from the right side of Canada, but to be honest ontario who still controls a significant portion of our political fortunes is still radically left and believes that free speech should be significantly curtailed. And Quebec only believes that people should have the right to speak freely in french.

Overtime things may change. The west is gaining strength in comparison slowly but surely. But in the near future a shocking percentage of canadians simply don't believe that speech should be free

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.

Guest
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
      10,858
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    onegroupholiday
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Tony Eveland earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dick Green earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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