Harper hails opening of grand Hindu temple

[guyser]

Then tell me what a delegate is?

The elected representatives.

You think the people voted? Uh oh.....

Congress would never unilaterally rubber stamp a contentious piece of social engineering legislation such as Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms amendment to their constitution. You would have riots in the streets.

If they did it by convention individual States would never ratify that racist, discriminatory, biased piece of legislation.

Well they did, on their own version that is.

But only more so after the Charter was implemented with unearned, undemocratic, rights and privileges applicable to certain groups that cannot be granted in a unilateral fashion when it affects all Canadians, but was nevertheless.

Specifically who has "unearned undemocratic,rights and privileges applicable to certain groups? Be specific now, since you brought it up.

So undemocratic and arrogant.

You werent asked , we get it , now get over it. The Americans didnt vote on it either and I dont hear them whining about it.

Why was there not a mass outcry, not only over the Charter that neglected to protect property rights but the rest of the Charter to alter or change rights whenever the 'government of the day' decides to and to declare special rights to certain groups.

How does..."because it seems to work okay?" sound to you. Of all the posters on here, you are the only one who advocates this AFAIK , and uses it as the whipping post for everything in this country.

Put a penny on the needle, the record keeps skipping over and over and over .......

Dream on Canada is not the U.S. and we are a banana republic.

<insert pic of monkey here>

Banana republic eh? Methinks one has no idea what a banana republic is. But it sures sounds groovy and makes your arguement look good.............well almost.

[Renegade]

Then tell me what a delegate is?

Sure, a representative. Kind of like we have MPs who are representatives. Kind of like Trudeau was a representative of his riding.

So, how does that make it a referendum?

Yes it does.

Prove it. Quote the statutes or paragraphs in the amendment process which proves it. Otherwise your statement is BS.

Congress would never unilaterally rubber stamp a contentious piece of social engineering legislation such as Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms amendment to their constitution. You would have riots in the streets.

How do you know with any certaintity what Congress would or would not do? Are you their desgnated spokesman? I'm guessing this is simply your opinion without any evidence.

If they did it by convention individual States would never ratify that racist, discriminatory, biased piece of legislation.

Again, how do you know? Are you a designated spokesman for the individual States. Another statement pulled out of the air without evidence.

Plenty was spent , primarily on Quebec prior to the Charter.

But only more so after the Charter was implemented with unearned, undemocratic, rights and privileges applicable to certain groups that cannot be granted in a unilateral fashion when it affects all Canadians, but was nevertheless.

As you said plenty was spent before the Charter. Do you have some evidence that much more was spent after the Charter and that it was due to the Charter or is this just another guess and rant on your part.

Obviously that is not possible.

What is not possible? I asked a specific question. Do you or do you not agree that some kind of protection of individual rights is necesary? This is a "yes" or "no" question.

Why was there not a mass outcry, not only over the Charter that neglected to protect property rights but the rest of the Charter to alter or change rights whenever the 'government of the day' decides to and to declare special rights to certain groups.

Probably because the majority of the population is in favour of the Charter.

There is a lot I find fault with in the Charter, but at least I acknowledge the reality that the majority of the Canadian population looks at the Charter favourably.

It is like provincial human rights legislation, it varies province to province with no controls.

Given that it varies, don't you see a need for national set of standards defining uniform rights across the country?

Governments never offered Canadians to be part of establishing human rights legislation or a 'Bill of Rights', it would interfere with their social engineering.

Then go complain to your "delegate".

Dream on Canada is not the U.S. and we are a banana republic.

Since you so strongly believe that, what does that make you since you are still in Canada. It seems you freely make the choice to live in a country you consider a "banana republic".

[Leafless]

Sure, a representative. Kind of like we have MPs who are representatives. Kind of like Trudeau was a representative of his riding.

So, how does that make it a referendum?

Dude, I am not your mentor.

Prove it. Quote the statutes or paragraphs in the amendment process which proves it. Otherwise your statement is BS.

How do you know with any certaintity what Congress would or would not do? Are you their desgnated spokesman? I'm guessing this is simply your opinion without any evidence.

All amendments in the U.S. Constitution that were unilaterally implemented by Congress, virtually have nothing to do with social engineering or playing with peoples lives. U.S citizens don't take the crap Canadians do.

I did give you an example relating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, which resulted in:

"A second joint session of the State Legislature meeting in a constitutional convention was held on June 14, 2007. The marriage amendment was defeated by a vote of 151 against to 45 for. At least 50 "for" votes were needed for the measure to move on to a PUBLIC REFERENDUM."

As you said plenty was spent before the Charter. Do you have some evidence that much more was spent after the Charter and that it was due to the Charter or is this just another guess and rant on your part.

How about you hunting down your own evidence to prove me wrong instead of continually asking me for evidence.

This is the last time I am doing this as it is obvious as it seems you are oblivious to common knowledge who to damn lazy to do your own research.

Here is a link:

http://www.languagefairness.com/Inequities...t_of_Canada.php

Probably because the majority of the population is in favour of the Charter.

Do you have evidence that Canadians are truly informed about the Charter and don't onlt think it is one big 'Bill of Rights' good for all Canadians.

There is a lot I find fault with in the Charter, but at least I acknowledge the reality that the majority of the Canadian population looks at the Charter favourably.

Do you have evidence why?

Given that it varies, don't you see a need for national set of standards defining uniform rights across the country?

Then go complain to your "delegate".

Firstly a 'demand for a change to our constitution by population demand' has to be initiated and in this 'banana republic' no such thing exist and neither do delegates.

Since you so strongly believe that, what does that make you since you are still in Canada. It seems you freely make the choice to live in a country you consider a "banana republic".

Well, I am not like you probably as you describe yourself as a libertarian sitting in your mothers basement exercising your computer.

I have family obligations and responsibilities and cannot just pack up and leave, although I would love to.

But if I was single, I would be out of here 'toute suis'.

[Renegade]

Dude, I am not your mentor.

Dude, damn right you're not. I hope you aren't anyone else's mentor either. How does that have anything to do with your allegation that US Bill of Rights was adopted by refrendum?

All amendments in the U.S. Constitution that were unilaterally implemented by Congress, virtually have nothing to do with social engineering or playing with peoples lives. U.S citizens don't take the crap Canadians do.

So then you agree: 1. The US congress can unilaterally implement amendments if they so choose 2. That those amendments were done without a referendum.

I did give you an example relating same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, which resulted in:

"A second joint session of the State Legislature meeting in a constitutional convention was held on June 14, 2007. The marriage amendment was defeated by a vote of 151 against to 45 for. At least 50 "for" votes were needed for the measure to move on to a PUBLIC REFERENDUM."

All you are pointing out is that changes to state constitution can be made by public referendum if the state legsilature chooses to let it happen. So what? They have their procedure for constitutional amendment, we have ours.

How about you hunting down your own evidence to prove me wrong instead of continually asking me for evidence.

This is the last time I am doing this as it is obvious as it seems you are oblivious to common knowledge who to damn lazy to do your own research.

Here is a link:

http://www.languagefairness.com/Inequities...t_of_Canada.php

The onus is on the poster who makes a statement to back it up, not reverse onus to prove you wrong. The reason your claims are so suspect and require evidence, is that time and again you have made statements, in this very thread, and have been proved wrong. I an enumerate them if you so wish. From what I've see your general source of evidence is your obversations, talk radio, and web content from known racists. I'm trying to determine which of this "reliable" sources you have used to formulate your latest opinion.

As far a your link. it seems to be nothing but a list of gripes against the French language and peoples by disgrunteld civil servants. Some of the gripes are legimiate issues whch I agree ought to be addressed. Many are noting but whining about trivial issues and incidents. Regardless the link doesn't at all prove your point that the Charter was the cause of undue spending on Quebec and the French Language. In fact your cite shows considerable spending as a result of the Official Bilingualism Act in 1969, legislation well before the Charter. So yet again we have a cite which is irrevelant to your point.

Do you have evidence that Canadians are truly informed about the Charter and don't onlt think it is one big 'Bill of Rights' good for all Canadians.

No I don't. Maybe they aren't well informed. Maybe they just dont' care enough about it to be informed. Regardless, they seem to have made a determination on whether they favour it or not based upon the infomation they have.

Do you have evidence why?

No, nor have I particularly cared. Do you have any such evidence?

Firstly a 'demand for a change to our constitution by population demand' has to be initiated and in this 'banana republic' no such thing exist and neither do delegates.

Actually the process is documented in Part V "PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA". All you have to do is elect enough representatives (ie delegates) who agree with you. Apparently very few, save you considers it enough of a priority to do so.

Well, I am not like you

Yes pity you are not, but I am thankful that I am not like you.

probably as you describe yourself as a libertarian

Yes, I am that.

sitting in your mothers basement exercising your computer.

Is this another one of your silly wild ass guesses again as to my background? LMAO. Amusing.

I have family obligations and responsibilities and cannot just pack up and leave, although I would love to.

But if I was single, I would be out of here 'toute suis'.

Well, apparently your family doesn't feel the same as you or they would be packing up and leaving with you. I guess that makes you the odd man out in your family. Tell me, does you family consider you as tolerant as I do?

Note that although my bad spelling makes me the last person to correct anyone's language use, in the name of protecting one of our official languages, I feel compelled to act. What you refer to as 'toute suis' should really be "Tout de suite". Should we add remedial French to the remedial English and Math? Afterall how can we maintain the culture of Canada when people can't speak the language properly.

[Leafless]

Dude, damn right you're not. I hope you aren't anyone else's mentor either. How does that have anything to do with your allegation that US Bill of Rights was adopted by refrendum?

I am tired of your personal insults and cheap talk. This will be my last or any future posting with you.

What is a 'Convention'? Just because decision (by the majority) reached by delegates relating to the U.S. Bill of Rights and has not proceeded to a public referendum does not mean it is not 'a direct vote' and equals a plebiscite.

So then you agree: 1. The US congress can unilaterally implement amendments if they so choose 2. That those amendments were done without a referendum.

You are talking apples and oranges.

The lack of democracy in Canada is appalling as compared to the U.S.

The Amendments made by Congress were mostly technical by nature, or additional rights for all U.S States.

Trudeau's Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms lies in it's very description, as being 'Rights and Freedoms', suggesting all Canadians benefit from these Rights, when it turns out most of the Charter is devoted to Quebec and the Aboriginals in the worst form of undemocratic social engineering I have ever seen in Western society.

In the U.S. all States have their own constitution and that is why in 200 years individual States had no real need in amending the federal constitution.

The 'Tenth Amendment' reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendme...es_Constitution

For instance here is Missouri's Constitution: NOTE ITEM #3

"1 Source of political power--origin, basis and aim of government.

2 Promotion of general welfare--natural rights of persons--equality

under the law--purpose of government.

3 Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of

government.

4 Independence of Missouri--submission of certain amendments to

Constitution of the United States.

5 Religious freedom--liberty of conscience and belief--limitations.

6 Practice and support of religion not compulsory--contracts therefor

enforceable.

7 Public aid for religious purposes--preferences and discriminations on

religious grounds.

8 Freedom of speech--evidence of truth in defamation actions--province

of jury.

9 Rights of peaceable assembly and petition.

10 Due process of law.

11 Imprisonment for debt.

12 Habeas corpus.

13 Ex post facto laws--impairment of contracts--irrevocable privileges.

14 Open courts--certain remedies--justice without sale, denial or delay.

15 Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of

warrants.

16 Grand juries--composition--jurisdiction to convene--powers.

17 Indictments and informations in criminal cases--exceptions.

18(a) Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions.

18( Depositions in felony cases.

19 Self-incrimination and double jeopardy.

20 Bail guaranteed--exceptions.

21 Excessive bail and fines--cruel and unusual punishment.

22(a) Right of trial by jury--qualification of jurors--two-thirds verdict.

22( Female jurors--optional exemption.

23 Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

24 Subordination of military to civil power--quartering soldiers.

25 Elections and right of suffrage.

26 Compensation for property taken by eminent domain--condemnation

juries--payment--railroad property.

27 Acquisition of excess property by eminent domain--disposition under

restrictions.

28 Limitation on taking of private property for private use--exceptions

--public use a judicial question.

29 Organized labor and collective bargaining.

30 Treason--attainder--corruption of blood and forfeitures--estate of

suicides--death by casualty.

31 Fines or imprisonments fixed by administrative agencies.

32 Crime victims' rights.

33 Marriage, validity and recognition.

[M.Dancer]

What is a 'Convention'? Just because decision (by the majority) reached by delegates relating to the U.S. Bill of Rights and has not proceeded to a public referendum does not mean it is not 'a direct vote' and equals a plebiscite.

I haven't seen a contortion like that since cirque de soliel......

In other words what leafless is saying that every law passed in Parliament in Ottawa is the same as a plebiscite.....

....lucky lucky Renegade

[Renegade]

I am tired of your personal insults and cheap talk. This will be my last or any future posting with you.

You keep promising to stop posting. This is the third time in ths thread you had said you would do so. You even said goodbye. Yet you still post. Pesonally I couldn't care one way or another. Post or don't post it's up to you.

What is a 'Convention'? Just because decision (by the majority) reached by delegates relating to the U.S. Bill of Rights and has not proceeded to a public referendum does not mean it is not 'a direct vote' and equals a plebiscite.

Well a convention is not a direct vote if it involves the use of representatives or delegates. Note that use of the word "direct" explicitly states that there are no intermediaries involved. A referendum and a plebiscite are essentially the same thing (See Plebiscite) and can in no way be equated to a "convention". Dancer is right, quite a contortion you're trying to pull in order to save face.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Actually I'm not comparing any two systems so I can't be talking "apples and oranges". I am specficly taking about amending procedure. By your own admission I have shown that the amedment process for the US doesn't REQUIRE a direct vote by the people.

The lack of democracy in Canada is appalling as compared to the U.S.

You don't like it, then go blame the English parlimentary system which we inherited. You boast so proudly about the language and culture handed down from British ancestors. Go criticize them then for your percieved lack of democracy. Further, if you don't like it, convince about 16 million other Canadians and elect representatives to change it.

The Amendments made by Congress were mostly technical by nature, or additional rights for all U.S States.

What does "technical by nature" even mean? I have asked you to show that there is a different process for amendments which were "technical by nature" over other amendment types. You have been unable to show any such difference.

Trudeau's Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms lies in it's very description, as being 'Rights and Freedoms', suggesting all Canadians benefit from these Rights, when it turns out most of the Charter is devoted to Quebec and the Aboriginals in the worst form of undemocratic social engineering I have ever seen in Western society.

So you are suggesting that the majority of Canadians were taken in by this "misleading" title, and that the media, opposition parties, and nobody sounded the alarm that the content was different than the tite. Further you are suggesting that Canadians were too lazy or stupid to read the contents themselves and come to their own conclusions. Moreover, after living with this document for more than 20 years, you are suggesting that Canadians are still being fooled by the document title?

In the U.S. all States have their own constitution and that is why in 200 years individual States had no real need in amending the federal constitution.

You mean the way provinces like Quebec have their own Charter? Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Hmm, it would seem that your attempts to prove that the US is so much more democratic are falling flat.

The 'Tenth Amendment' reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

So? that only deals with the separation of powers between federal and state governments. We too have explicit definitions on what falls under Provincial juristiction and what falls under Federal juristiction.

For instance here is Missouri's Constitution: NOTE ITEM #3

I don't see the point you are tryig to make. The separation of powers between federal and state governments is different in Canada vs the US. I agree with that. The US states in many ways have juristiciton over more issues that Canadian provinces. All of this is besides the fact. You still need to mobilize support across the juristictional area be it state, provincial, or Federal in order to amend the constitution or bill of rights.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I meant to post this last time but forgot. You keep bemoaning the fact that Trudeau never put the Charter to a referendum. In fact he offered to, but it was provincial premiers who stopped him from doing so.

Trudeau pitched one last proposal.

"Why don’t we get patriation first, nobody can object to that-then give ourselves two years to solve our problems over the amending formula and the charter, and failing that, consult the people in a referendum?"

The other premiers were horrified. The last thing they wanted was a referendum because they knew Trudeau had Canadians on his side.

"The Night of Long Knives"

[Leafless]

I haven't seen a contortion like that since cirque de soliel......

In other words what leafless is saying that every law passed in Parliament in Ottawa is the same as a plebiscite.....

No certainly not.

What I said was relating to the U.S. 'Bill of Rights'.

What is a 'Convention'? Just because decision (by the majority) reached by delegates relating to the U.S. Bill of Rights and has not proceeded to a public referendum does not mean it is not 'a direct vote' and equals a plebiscite.

U.S. system is different and can result in a direct vote or referendum if results from a convention fail. Canada has nothing like this. We are led by dictatorial decisions from parliament period. It never goes to the provinces for any form of direct democracy.

Definition of convention from Concise Oxford Dictionary- primary definition " a general agreement esp. on social behavior etc. by implicit consent of the majority."

This was an agreement between States relating to the acceptance of the 'Bill of Rights' and was accepted by all States involved in that process, which basically is a form of direct democracy the same as what a referendum, direct vote , or plebiscite would provide.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Leafless