Federal & International Law Compliance

[beatenwoman2005]

I am confused can you someone explain why provincial laws do not have to comply with Federal Law compliance, and Laws with the United Nations?

Now I thought I understood that all people in the world, or rather, who's Country has signed an agreement SPECIFIC to a particular WORLD law were covered by THE UNITED NATIONS, irrelevant of federal, and provincial regulations.

It is my understanding that if a region is not in compliance with these laws (actively pursing their application) they can be found guilty at world court? If so, what does it take to PROVE a region is not in compliance or actively seeking resolve?

[geoffrey]

There isn't such thing really as international law. Violating it brings absolutely no consequence.

[Smallc]

Oh, what useful information. Thank you so much.

[Alta4ever]

Why is these types seem to come out of the wood work this time of year.

[Bugs]

I am confused can you someone explain why provincial laws do not have to comply with Federal Law compliance, and Laws with the United Nations?

Now I thought I understood that all people in the world, or rather, who's Country has signed an agreement SPECIFIC to a particular WORLD law were covered by THE UNITED NATIONS, irrelevant of federal, and provincial regulations.

It is my understanding that if a region is not in compliance with these laws (actively pursing their application) they can be found guilty at world court? If so, what does it take to PROVE a region is not in compliance or actively seeking resolve?

I can feel your disappointment.

Let's talk about the way it really is. For a nation to gain entry to the United Nations, it has to swear to uphold the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Check it out for yourself. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Does it ever strike you as strange that the so-called World Court wants to arrest George W. Bush, but they don't even look at Rwanda and Burundi? (the Rwandans have run a 'Truth and Conciliation Commission', and have oodles of evidence, and they are trying earnestly to get the World Court's attention. It's futile. Think of all the people they ignore. Why does Mugabe get a pass? Or any of the unimpeachably piggish tyrants that blight Africa?

It's worse than that. The UN Human Rights Commission, before it was reformed, elected the Sudan to its Chairmanship. And, you know, the Sudan is one of the last places in the world where you can buy a human being, as a slave, and it's all kosher. That's what the 190-whatever member states of the UN General Assembly think ... and almost none of them comply to the UN Universal Declaration as well as we do.

If they took that requirement seriously, how many nations would be members of the UN? The only nations that think the Universal Declaration applies to them are North America, western Europe, and a smattering of other nations around the world such as India. Maybe 15 nations.

The rest don't even come close!

In realpolitik, these courts have NO JURISDICTION. What makes these 'human rights' legally enforceable in Canada? It's a serious question -- if American law were enforceable in Canada, you'd shit a brick. What is the source of legitimacy for the UN's intrusion into our sovereign space? None of these requirements were in our criminal code. It comes from a foreign place, in the form of a requirement that we conform to a foreign practice.

But put that aside -- in fact, Human Rights zealots routinely violate existing legal procedures rooted in common law and ancient practice. When Pinochet was arrested, it was on warrants submitted in a Spanish Court, that held him in England for 'crimes' committed in Peru while he was the head of state. None of that could have happened before -- in fact, Pinochet was a precedent-setting case. It's clear that the idea of 'jurisdiction' has disappeared. Until now, what an elected head of state did to his own population was a domestic matter, and would never be a crime.

On the very same weekend that Pinochet was arrested, another dictator, Fidel Castro, was actually in Barcelona, being honored. Castro is worse that Pinochet in every respect, and he lacks Pinochet's decency in turning a prospering economy to an elected government, and retiring. (Perhaps it's because the economy got nothing but worse all the time Fidel was in control.)

What I am getting to is that International Human Rights only apply to us. Nobody expects Afghans not to commit war crimes. Nobody expect Bashir not to torture. Nobody expects honest elections in Zimbabwe. Nobody expects the Chinese to presume people's innocence in their trials. Nobody expects the rights of property to be secure in Russia.

It's a weapon.

[bloodyminded]

On the very same weekend that Pinochet was arrested, another dictator, Fidel Castro, was actually in Barcelona, being honored. Castro is worse that Pinochet in every respect, and he lacks Pinochet's decency in turning a prospering economy to an elected government, and retiring. (Perhaps it's because the economy got nothing but worse all the time Fidel was in control.)

Castro was no saint by a long shot, but you say he "is worse in every respect." How so? Number of citizens murdered by the regime? Not as far as anyone knows. Numbers tortured? That we won't know until and unless Cuba opens up, but we DO know that the "decent" Pinochet's regime was absolutely notorious for the amount of torture that went on.

This is not a defense of Castro, by the way (the only defense of a brutal dictator here is coming from...you!)

[Wild Bill]

I am confused can you someone explain why provincial laws do not have to comply with Federal Law compliance, and Laws with the United Nations?

Now I thought I understood that all people in the world, or rather, who's Country has signed an agreement SPECIFIC to a particular WORLD law were covered by THE UNITED NATIONS, irrelevant of federal, and provincial regulations.

It is my understanding that if a region is not in compliance with these laws (actively pursing their application) they can be found guilty at world court? If so, what does it take to PROVE a region is not in compliance or actively seeking resolve?

When push comes to shove, laws only work if someone is there to enforce them! Laws without police or soldiers are just ink spots on papers. In themselves they mean nothing.

Every sovereign nation develops its own laws and its own legal system to enforce them. Some countries do a better job at this than others. Some third world countries have very corrupt police and courts.

The United Nations was never set up to be a world government. It was simply a meeting house for member nations to talk and make agreements between themselves. These agreements are political agreements. No country is willing to give up its sovereignty and allow itself to be ruled by the United Nations.

This is especially true because as a political body often corrupt nations outnumber nations that have a respectable rule of law! So countries that oppress their people can politically ram through laws and try to apply them to western nations for their own ends, either to prevent other nations from punishing them for mistreating their own people or to make claims for foreign aid, trying to force countries like the USA, Britain or Canada to give them more money.

The UN also has no police service. When they vote to perform a military action against a member state, such as to stop a war or innocents being murdered, they have to form a military made up of soldiers donated by member countries. Sometimes, for various reasons, countries may not offer enough military help, hoping other countries will pick up the tab for them. Afghanistan would be an example, IMHO.

So if you understand that the UN is not a world government then hopefully things make more sense.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Here is one of the problems of our time. Where does the buck stop?

[Wild Bill]

Here is one of the problems of our time. Where does the buck stop?

Well, I guess it depends on what you expect when you have a problem. If you're more of a libertarian, you would prefer to work within your own country. That's assuming you live in a democratic country with a reasonably fair justice system. If things aren't to your liking you would have political channels to try to effect change. You can get an MP or whatever to get a new law passed or amend an old one. If you are successful you would then have the power of the state behind it to make sure its enforced.

I hate to say it, but if you're more of the cliche Canadian you would probably want to be able to appeal to higher and higher levels of power, until you get one that finally gives you your own way. If the Supreme Court of Canada is not enough, then you would want to appeal to some World UN court, if you felt it was likely to support your claim.

Of course, no Canadian citizen gets to vote for any UN representative. In effect, it would be a dictatorship. However, if you are of a leftwing persuasion and your values tend to agree with much of what comes out of the UN these days, with all the anti-Israel sentiment and countries like Libya being put in charge of human rights commissions! then this wouldn't bother you at all. You would only object to a dictator if the dictator disagreed with you!

Me, I would find a world dictatorship equally frightening if it were left or right. Even if it agreed with me on one issue it would be guaranteed that sooner or later I would suffer.

It's like the old song "They came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew. They came for the communists but I wasn't a communist..."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, I guess it depends on what you expect when you have a problem. If you're more of a libertarian, you would prefer to work within your own country. That's assuming you live in a democratic country with a reasonably fair justice system. If things aren't to your liking you would have political channels to try to effect change. You can get an MP or whatever to get a new law passed or amend an old one. If you are successful you would then have the power of the state behind it to make sure its enforced.

I hate to say it, but if you're more of the cliche Canadian you would probably want to be able to appeal to higher and higher levels of power, until you get one that finally gives you your own way. If the Supreme Court of Canada is not enough, then you would want to appeal to some World UN court, if you felt it was likely to support your claim.

Of course, no Canadian citizen gets to vote for any UN representative. In effect, it would be a dictatorship. However, if you are of a leftwing persuasion and your values tend to agree with much of what comes out of the UN these days, with all the anti-Israel sentiment and countries like Libya being put in charge of human rights commissions! then this wouldn't bother you at all. You would only object to a dictator if the dictator disagreed with you!

Me, I would find a world dictatorship equally frightening if it were left or right. Even if it agreed with me on one issue it would be guaranteed that sooner or later I would suffer.

It's like the old song "They came for the Jews but I wasn't a Jew. They came for the communists but I wasn't a communist..."

I must agree. Less government equates to more freedom.

[bloodyminded]

I must agree. Less government equates to more freedom.

It sounds right...and in the right conditions, it sounds excellent. But how much "less" is the proper "less"?

People have agendas...and, I hope it's pretty clear to see, people crave power. A de facto government, of some sort, will very quickly replace an "official" one. And it's not axiomatic that it would be a good government.

Edited December 29, 2009 by bloodyminded

[M.Dancer]

Oh, what useful information. Thank you so much.

That was a spambot...

[Smallc]

And that was sarcasm

Edited December 30, 2009 by Smallc