|
Looks like Canadians are finally getting it.... (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Its always funny that you do it on purpose to assimilate me with muslims just because I have a syrian flag, you are a ing racist and you should get banned from this board for good!
Edit: even tho I told you a million time i'm not muslim. |
I was asking you as a Quebecer not as a Muslim, you crazy Syriac! :toothless
edit:
http://www.walnet.org/ppp/
 |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Perhaps you haven't read the decision. It specifically says the FEDERAL PARLIAMENT has exclusive jurisdiction.
|
I've read the decision quite thoroughly... it was the subject of a major term presentation I made in a public law class about three weeks ago.
Exclusive jurisdiction ONLY in the sense of federal parliament vs. provincial legislatures. This is not a jurisdictional matter between parliament and the courts. Just because the power to define marriage has been assigned to the Federal Government does not mean they have the right to totally ignore the Charter. Courts always have the authority (jurisdiction) to review legislation, whether provincial or federal to determine if they are consistent with the Charter / Constitution.
They CAN override it if they want, but as some 130 or so legal experts stated in a news release in the past day or two, to do so requires the implementation of the notwithstanding clause. They are certainly within their power to do so, but invoking that brings with it a number of consequences they'd have to face. (Basically explain to the citizens of your country why you're choosing to trample fundamental rights you had previously extended to them.) |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
I was asking you as a Quebecer not as a Muslim, you crazy Syriac! :toothless |
no one is for this in our double plus good country |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
They CAN override it if they want, but as some 130 or so legal experts stated in a news release in the past day or two, to do so requires the implementation of the notwithstanding clause. They are certainly within their power to do so, but invoking that brings with it a number of consequences they'd have to face. (Basically explain to the citizens of your country why you're choosing to trample fundamental rights you had previously extended to them.) |
Under the CPC proposal, people in a civil union would have the exact same rights as people in a marriage. The law wouldn't be discriminatory for treating difrerent people differently as long as the end result (in this case marital-like contracts and state entitlements) is, in pith and substance, equal. Section 33 need not be used because there is no dictum from the high court that calls for the change to the definition of marriage.
Those profs are playing politics and being dishonest about the issue. Note the following donations:
1. Professor Jennifer Bankier, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University - $880 to the NDP
2. Professor Jeff Berryman, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor - $150 to the Liberal Party of Canada
3. Professor Susan Boyd, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia - $700 to the NDP
4. Professor Robert J. Currie, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University - $1000 to the Liberal Party of Canada
5. Dean Ronald Daniels, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto - $436.84 to the Liberal Party of Canada
6. Professor Donna Greschner, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan - $500 to the NDP
7. Professeure Nicole LaViolette, Common Law, Université d'Ottawa - $225 to the NDP
8. Professor Patrick Macklem, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto - $200 to the NDP
9. Professor Kathleen Mahoney, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary (Kathleen Mahoney Consulting Ltd.) - $362 to the Liberal Party of Canada
10. Professor Brian M. Mazer, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor - $1160 to the NDP
11. Professor Errol Mendes, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa - $4366.19 to the Liberal Party of Canada
12. Professor Armand de Mestral, Faculty of Law, McGill University - $369.39 to the Liberal Party of Canada
13. Professor Mayo Moran, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto - $460 to the NDP
14. Professor Jennifer Nedelsky, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto - $1,450 to the NDP
15. Doyen Daniel Proulx, Faculté de droit, Université de Sherbrooke - $1,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada
16. Professor René Provost, Faculty of Law, McGill University - $365.18 to the Liberal Party of Canada
17. Professor Denise Réaume, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto - $3525 to the NDP
18. Professeur Alain Roy, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal - $624.15 to the Liberal Party of Canada
19. Professor Daniel Soberman, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University - $400 to the Liberal Party of Canada
20. Professor Claire Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia - $180 to the NDP
21. Professor Margot Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia - $250 to the NDP |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Under the CPC proposal, people in a civil union would have the exact same rights as people in a marriage. The law wouldn't be discriminatory for treating difrerent people differently as long as the end result (in this case marital-like contracts and state entitlements) is, in pith and substance, equal. Section 33 need not be used because there is no dictum from the high court that calls for the change to the definition of marriage.
|
...Where are the 130 lawyers providing legal support for Mr. Harper's position, and the disclosure of their donations to the CPC/Alliance?
So... you were able to find 20 out of a total of 130 individuals that donated to EITHER the Liberals or the NDP. A whopping 15%... There's a group with an obvious hidden agenda! By the way, the group that released that news report also stated that they reflect "differing opinions on the underlying issue".
You should also quit "playing politics and being dishonest" regarding the donation figures you provided. I looked up some of those numbers you posted, and the figures quoted in many cases represent aggregate donations going back as far as 1997... rolling up 7+ years of donations in to one number may look great for effect, but in reality, for most people you listed, that means an average annual donation of less than $50. Certainly not an influential amount. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
| Getting what:conf: |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Trudeau? From Quebec.
Mulroney? From Quebec.
Bouchard and Duceppe? From Quebec.
Chretien? From Quebec.
Martin? From Quebec.
Chuck Guite? From Quebec.
Gagliano? From Quebec.
Sponsorship scandel? IN QUEBEC.
You're only partly right about Ontario: it's mostly Toronto's fault. |
Isn't Paul Martin from Windsor? Anyway your extremist views would likely make people less likely to vote conservative. Also what is the conservative party's views on Iraq, didn't that help them loose the last election? I don't think the conservative party would be enough for you; you should be a fasciast.
As for Liberal vs Conservative; Bush will likely end up being the most incompetent president in U.S. history, and HE WILL BANKRUPT THE U.S.
Someday the U.S. will have to pay off the debt it owes the world. Any political party that gets too cozy with the Bush administration would make a big mistake. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| ShadoWolf, I think you should start your own political party. The Canadian Nazi Party. |
|
|
| pinkphantasm |
"Racist Reform? The party that advocated radical egalitarianism? The party that elected more MP's of Indian heritage than any before? "
The party that aligned themselves with the Heritage Front at their onset? The one that opposes immigration from anywhere other than Europe?
Yeah that's the one, ignoramus. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by pinkphantasm
The party that aligned themselves with the Heritage Front at their onset?
Yeah that's the one, ignoramus. |
Never happened. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
Isn't Paul Martin from Windsor? Anyway your extremist views would likely make people less likely to vote conservative. Also what is the conservative party's views on Iraq, didn't that help them loose the last election? I don't think the conservative party would be enough for you; you should be a fasciast.
|
Whoa now... let's not start throwing the word fascist arround without firt recognizing what fascism is about. A) Nazism and Fascism are two very different animals... Fascism has no element of racism or creation of "the superman". B) Although often described as a right wing ideology Fascism spans the entire political spectrum and fascist ideology is in many ways at odds with the Canadian right wing. Remember, at the heart of any fascist system is a wide spread and universal social wellfare system including universal healthcare, education, labour relations (state mediated collective barganing and state funded labour unions), economic assistance to the poor, and a quasi-command economy. All these are things that the Canadian right wing would not support and put them at odds with fascists. The best way to think of fascism is as a communist system with a strong central government (as opposed to anarchy as Marx describes) and private property rights. DO NOT confuse Fascism with Nazism! Personally, I think a real Fascist government would do great things to unite our country and further Canadian values. IF you want to understand fascism look at the EU and Argentina... the two best examples of neo-fascist political systems.
Martin is from Montreal.
Let's not limit the Conservatives failure to win wide spread support in Ontario to the Iraq war. They also oppose gay marriage, abortion, universal health care, more power and autonomy to the provinces (which equals a less powerful central government... which equals further disunity) and most areas of social spending that is not specifically earmarked for their grass roots supporters (it would seem that we can't do enough to help the farmers in Alberta), not to mention bilingualism. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
Honestly, I'm thinking of getting myself assimilated by the BORG so that I don't have to worry about all these politics ;) :D
-Jem'hadar of Unamatrix 005- |
|
|
|
|
