I have no idea really why I'm starting this thread, other than It annoys me that the news is carrying all these stories about how this is going to be an issue in parliament again.
I think this is one promise Harper made that he'd be smart to keep: Not re-opening that can of worms.
CBC just had a bunch of anti-abortion (kudos to the CBC for not using the disingenuous term "pro-life") protesters (marching at parliament where there are so many abortions done) who were going on about how this should be on the floor of "Congress" which struck me as odd. why would a Canadian be wanting the issue brought up in the states. Especially when it's actually a provincial mandate.
Personally I think since I'm not a woman, I don't really get a say other than to offer my support to a friend, family member who chooses to have an abortion, or (as is mostly the case, not to)
ignore thread, or fill it with your rational/insane opinions, please. I'm trying to be a bit more proactive at Languish in the wake of well, not liking it much in the last few months.
[comment about the importance of keeping Aryan birth rates up]
If someone shoots a pregnant woman and kills the baby 30 seconds before he/she is born, I consider that an act of murder.
If a woman wants an abortion the moment a sperm enters the egg, that harms no one and is no one's business to interfere.
The line whether abortion is acceptable or not should be drawn somewhere in between. Decide on a line and stick with it.
Reproductive rights are universal rights.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:32:14 AM
Reproductive rights are universal rights.
So men can demand abortions from their baby mommas? Good to know, Irrational Sloganeer of the People.
It's just like the world's foremost expert on modern economic slavery, who thinks that the right to bear arms is not a human right. The logical result of that thinking is that the right to self-defense is neutered.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2011, 06:32:14 AM
Reproductive rights are universal rights.
But not really. That's just your poisoned American thinking kicking you in the ass again.
Now, as much as abortion is absolutely essential to a modern society, I dislike the idea that only women should have a say in this area of public policy. Of course, most people fall to the civilized centre of the issue and so aren't especially vocal on the issue, but still.
That's the leftist media trying to make a spin out of nothing, again. The Conservatives won't re-open this issue unless they want to end up 3rd opposition with 60 mps.
Quote from: viper37 on May 13, 2011, 10:35:05 AM
That's the leftist media trying to make a spin out of nothing, again. The Conservatives won't re-open this issue unless they want to end up 3rd opposition with 60 mps.
Megapulses? Meters per second?
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2011, 11:02:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 13, 2011, 10:35:05 AM
That's the leftist media trying to make a spin out of nothing, again. The Conservatives won't re-open this issue unless they want to end up 3rd opposition with 60 mps.
Megapulses? Meters per second?
You, a Nazi?
Two SCC judges just announced their retirement. We shall see now see if the dreaded hidden agenda fear has any merit.
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:29:34 AM
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
It was like that before the former Tory party, and now the Liberals, died: Two big catch-all parties with some differences in ideology, but similar in government management - except that one party went at it way longer than the other.
Until now, the Liberals were considered the "natural governing party" and the Conservatives the alternative to have from time to time when tired of the Libs. Now it's all down the drain.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:29:34 AM
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
:huh: Pretty much the same? Really?
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
:huh: Pretty much the same? Really?
Sure. The only real differences are over political football issues like abortion and gay marriage. Both American parties stand for corruption, big spending, and fiscal recklessness AFAICT. :)
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
CBC just had a bunch of anti-abortion (kudos to the CBC for not using the disingenuous term "pro-life") protesters (marching at parliament where there are so many abortions done) who were going on about how this should be on the floor of "Congress" which struck me as odd. why would a Canadian be wanting the issue brought up in the states. Especially when it's actually a provincial mandate.
:lol: Is there a shortage of fundies in Canada so they have to import them or something?
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:29:34 AM
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
During many elections that has been the case as between the Liberals and Conservatives. One exception to that was an election held in the 80s over free trade. That is the only really election I can recall when there were fundamental differences between the two parties. One is a bit right the other was a bit left but when the win they do so because the occupy most of the middle.
The NDP is a different matter. Although the NDP supporters here would attempt to say that nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power they are much further left than the Liberals.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2011, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
CBC just had a bunch of anti-abortion (kudos to the CBC for not using the disingenuous term "pro-life") protesters (marching at parliament where there are so many abortions done) who were going on about how this should be on the floor of "Congress" which struck me as odd. why would a Canadian be wanting the issue brought up in the states. Especially when it's actually a provincial mandate.
:lol: Is there a shortage of fundies in Canada so they have to import them or something?
Not really... I think that a lot of the anti abortion crowd is very excitable and like to go to all the rallies they can, like Grateful Dead fans back in tha day. ... damn now I want some acid and a grilled cheese sammich ... :p
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:33:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
:huh: Pretty much the same? Really?
Sure. The only real differences are over political football issues like abortion and gay marriage. Both American parties stand for corruption, big spending, and fiscal recklessness AFAICT. :)
I see. I assumed, erroneously, that you were not just reciting a slogan from Ron Paul tards.
What about issues of regulation, taxation, safety net, and income distribution?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:38:27 AM
Not really... I think that a lot of the anti abortion crowd is very excitable and like to go to all the rallies they can, like Grateful Dead fans back in tha day. ... damn now I want some acid and a grilled cheese sammich ... :p
Or like WTO protestors.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:35:14 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:29:34 AM
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
During many elections that has been the case as between the Liberals and Conservatives. One exception to that was an election held in the 80s over free trade. That is the only really election I can recall when there were fundamental differences between the two parties. One is a bit right the other was a bit left but when the win they do so because the occupy most of the middle.
The NDP is a different matter. Although the NDP supporters here would attempt to say that nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power they are much further left than the Liberals.
you've heard this before from me, but I think a lot of fundamental things would change with NDP on charge ... that said I don't see it happening anytime soon. People in the boonies whose votes are worth much more than us city folk voters are afeared of Commie Orange
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2011, 11:39:51 AM
What about issues of regulation, taxation, safety net, and income distribution?
Aren't those just details of how to run a system of governing that everyone already agrees upon. The disagreements in the US, as in Canada, are mainly in the details. There are few big issues anymore. Although the US healthcare debate is more transformative in nature.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:40:09 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:38:27 AM
Not really... I think that a lot of the anti abortion crowd is very excitable and like to go to all the rallies they can, like Grateful Dead fans back in tha day. ... damn now I want some acid and a grilled cheese sammich ... :p
Or like WTO protestors.
Also true. but then that is an International issue the World Trade Organization. Still I bet you couldn't get a decent grilled cheese at that rally either, better chance of scoring some weed though :p
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2011, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:35:03 AM
CBC just had a bunch of anti-abortion (kudos to the CBC for not using the disingenuous term "pro-life") protesters (marching at parliament where there are so many abortions done) who were going on about how this should be on the floor of "Congress" which struck me as odd. why would a Canadian be wanting the issue brought up in the states. Especially when it's actually a provincial mandate.
:lol: Is there a shortage of fundies in Canada so they have to import them or something?
That is probably the case here. I seem to recall a few years ago a story about american groups holding protests in Ottawa. I don't remember what the issue was though.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:41:52 AM
People in the boonies whose votes are worth much more than us city folk voters are afeared of Commie Orange
Most people are afraid of commie orange both in cities and in rural ridings. The NDP generally only do well federally in relatively lower income areas of cities and in rural areas that have a high percentage of unionized workers.
Quebec of course is a separate case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:09:08 AM
Two SCC judges just announced their retirement. We shall see now see if the dreaded hidden agenda fear has any merit.
Surely those judges were conservatives who've been waiting for a conservative majority. There's no change.
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2011, 11:39:51 AM
What about issues of regulation, taxation, safety net, and income distribution?
I'm not sure. I'll have to check with Ron Paul and get back with you. :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2011, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:09:08 AM
Two SCC judges just announced their retirement. We shall see now see if the dreaded hidden agenda fear has any merit.
Surely those judges were conservatives who've been waiting for a conservative majority. There's no change.
Nope. We dont have the same phenomenon as you folks have in the US. Which makes the whole "hidden agenda" concept a bit laughable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:51:56 AM
Nope. We dont have the same phenomenon as you folks have in the US. Which makes the whole "hidden agenda" concept a bit laughable.
Not really, especially given that the judges are nominated by the Government, usually from judges well within their party membership, with no oversight from Parliament, compared in the US in which SC judges must be interviewed and approved by the Congress first.
Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2011, 11:48:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:09:08 AM
Two SCC judges just announced their retirement. We shall see now see if the dreaded hidden agenda fear has any merit.
Surely those judges were conservatives who've been waiting for a conservative majority. There's no change.
Why would they wait for a majority? There's no confirmation process for Canadian judges. Whoever the PM wants, he is constitutionally obliged to get, so long as 1/3 of the court is from Quebec.
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 11:54:14 AM
Not really, especially given that the judges are nominated by the Government, usually from judges well within their party membership, with no oversight from Parliament, compared in the US in which SC judges must be interviewed and approved by the Congress first.
Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership? I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens. I am asking you to name just one.
Quote from: Caliga on May 13, 2011, 11:29:34 AM
:hmm:
Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes? I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.
Pretty much, yes.
Nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power who aren't really any further left than the Liberals.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?
The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time. If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles. One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2011, 12:04:51 PM
Nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power who aren't really any further left than the Liberals.
Point 1. I knew you would say that;
Point 2. You are going to have to convince people that is true to get the NDP into a position to form government. If elected on that basis would the NDP really not be "any further left than the Liberals". To answer that question in the affirmative would be to deny the whole history of the NDP which has been to position itself to the left.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership? I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens. I am asking you to name just one.
Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.
Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.
Drakken, not all Judges are named by Jean Charest.
Re: CC's post:
I actually only wrote that to tease you. :P [it was actually a modified cut and paste.]
That said, I still believe nothing fundamental would change. But I guess what fundamental means might be different to you and me. I see "fundamental" changes as being revolutionary in nature. There would be some changes to the way corporations pay taxes, i imagine; and probably--hopefully-- some increased government spending on social issues, but I can't see radical "socialist" changes. Certainly not in one term. Over time, under a longterm NDP gov't, i see us going closer to European social democratic countries. Minimal changes, nothing major. We'll never have workers owning the means of production and all that marxist jagron.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?
The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time. If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles. One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.
Oh yeah I forgot about that one. I don't think it is a federal issue. It's a local place that has been very successful in keeping people off junk and or dying. But I don't think the Fed cares about that at all, all they see is an opportunity to make hay from people's fears of crime. To me it's sad that that it's even an issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:41:52 AM
People in the boonies whose votes are worth much more than us city folk voters are afeared of Commie Orange
Most people are afraid of commie orange both in cities and in rural ridings. The NDP generally only do well federally in relatively lower income areas of cities and in rural areas that have a high percentage of unionized workers.
Quebec of course is a separate case.
high percentage of unionized workers - check.
relatively lower income - check.
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
This is well-known.
If it is so well known perhaps you could tell me when it has happened.
QuoteName me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.
The false presupposition in your question is that party affiliation plays any role. I cannot name a judge who was appointed despite party affiliation because party affiliation is not an issue.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?
The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time. If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles. One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.
Oh yeah I forgot about that one. I don't think it is a federal issue. It's a local place that has been very successful in keeping people off junk and or dying. But I don't think the Fed cares about that at all, all they see is an opportunity to make hay from people's fears of crime. To me it's sad that that it's even an issue.
The arguments on both sides are more complex. BTW not all the drug treatment side of the issue believe Insite is a good idea.
If you really want to learn about it you should read the BCCA decision. The majority held that evidence that Insite reduces harm to the people using it essentially justifies its existance however the Minority reasons thought that was too narrow an analysis and that the question was related to harm to society as a whole not just reduction of harm to the junkies who used the clinic. The Minority was concerned that allowing addicts to continue to service their addictions did not reduce harm at all but rather encouraged people generally to continue using drugs.
I think this decision is going to be a tough one for the SCC.
Congrats to Canada for being fiscally responsible enough to actually be worrying about stuff like abortion right now. The rest of the developed world is too worried about keeping the roof from collapsing.
CC is right on the nomination of SCC judges issue. In Canada, there is a long tradition of appointing serious jurists to the bench on a non-partisan basis, by all parties. The real issue is always stuff like representation from the regions.
It would create an uproar if a gov't appointed an openly party-partisan judge. It just isn't done.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:41:17 PM
The false presupposition in your question is that party affiliation plays any role. I cannot name a judge who was appointed despite party affiliation because party affiliation is not an issue.
Are you really trying to sell me that no SC judge has ever been nominated because either of his party affiliation or donation to a party? Really?
Like I said, I'm not questioning their competency, but arguing that it has never, ever, ever been a factor is asking too much.
American media has poisoned the ability of our young people to identify what's happening around them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 11:55:55 AM
Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?
The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time. If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles. One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.
Oh yeah I forgot about that one. I don't think it is a federal issue. It's a local place that has been very successful in keeping people off junk and or dying. But I don't think the Fed cares about that at all, all they see is an opportunity to make hay from people's fears of crime. To me it's sad that that it's even an issue.
The arguments on both sides are more complex. BTW not all the drug treatment side of the issue believe Insite is a good idea.
If you really want to learn about it you should read the BCCA decision. The majority held that evidence that Insite reduces harm to the people using it essentially justifies its existance however the Minority reasons thought that was too narrow an analysis and that the question was related to harm to society as a whole not just reduction of harm to the junkies who used the clinic. The Minority was concerned that allowing addicts to continue to service their addictions did not reduce harm at all but rather encouraged people generally to continue using drugs.
I think this decision is going to be a tough one for the SCC.
I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision. I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.
and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2011, 12:49:12 PM
Congrats to Canada for being fiscally responsible enough to actually be worrying about stuff like abortion right now. The rest of the developed world is too worried about keeping the roof from collapsing.
You should note that nobody is worrying about this. Buddha posted about a non event that appears to be a bunch of yanks holding sings outside our Parliament for some reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2011, 12:49:12 PM
Congrats to Canada for being fiscally responsible enough to actually be worrying about stuff like abortion right now. The rest of the developed world is too worried about keeping the roof from collapsing.
You should note that nobody is worrying about this. Buddha posted about a non event that appears to be a bunch of yanks holding sings outside our Parliament for some reason.
Really, we should be praising the Americans, for having an economy so robust that they can spend their vacations doing that. :D
There was a pro-Life rally outside parliament yesterday, but A) I don't think anybody was actually in Parliament and B) I think it's an annual event that buses in a lot of Catholic school kids and isn't supposed to mean that the debate's heating up again or anything.
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:50:45 PM
Are you really trying to sell me that no SC judge has ever been nominated because either of his party affiliation or donation to a party? Really?
Yes really. Again can you can name anyonethat has been appointed to the SCC because of party affliliation. Also your suggestion that SCC judges have been appointed because of some kind of donation is silly.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2011, 01:20:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 01:17:46 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2011, 12:49:12 PM
Congrats to Canada for being fiscally responsible enough to actually be worrying about stuff like abortion right now. The rest of the developed world is too worried about keeping the roof from collapsing.
You should note that nobody is worrying about this. Buddha posted about a non event that appears to be a bunch of yanks holding sings outside our Parliament for some reason.
Really, we should be praising the Americans, for having an economy so robust that they can spend their vacations doing that. :D
They're actually unemployed not on vacation. :lol:
If jailing scumbag addicts is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2011, 01:23:26 PM
If jailing scumbag addicts is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Not to worry. You are not.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2011, 01:46:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 13, 2011, 01:23:26 PM
If jailing scumbag addicts is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Not to worry. You are not.
Go away.
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2011, 01:21:43 PM
They're actually unemployed not on vacation. :lol:
Then we'll praise America for not employing people like that. USA! USA!
;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 01:21:37 PM
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:50:45 PM
Are you really trying to sell me that no SC judge has ever been nominated because either of his party affiliation or donation to a party? Really?
Yes really. Again can you can name anyonethat has been appointed to the SCC because of party affliliation. Also your suggestion that SCC judges have been appointed because of some kind of donation is silly.
I've got one, you ain't going to like it. Télesphore Fournier.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
I've got one, you ain't going to like it. Télesphore Fournier.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
I've got one, you ain't going to like it. Télesphore Fournier.
:lol:
Right? Dude only got the job because he was a Liberal.
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership? I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens. I am asking you to name just one.
Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.
Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.
Drakken, I've known some superior court judges (i.e. trial court) who were fairly obvious political appointments. But for the Court of Appeal and higher both parties have been pretty careful to appoint only well qualified candidates - most of whom have no obvious poltical connections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 03:01:08 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 02:58:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 02:51:46 PM
I've got one, you ain't going to like it. Télesphore Fournier.
:lol:
Right? Dude only got the job because he was a Liberal.
Oh, you were being serious.
Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision. I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.
and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.
It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.
You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 03:03:16 PM
Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.
A couple of points.
You had to go to a founding appointment of the SCC to find a potential flaw and you have selected someone who was likely one of the most able people in the Country at the time available for appointment to the Court.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership? I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens. I am asking you to name just one.
Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.
Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.
Drakken, I've known some superior court judges (i.e. trial court) who were fairly obvious political appointments. But for the Court of Appeal and higher both parties have been pretty careful to appoint only well qualified candidates - most of whom have no obvious poltical connections.
Also, federal court judges. That's a well-known Liberal retirement pension. :D
But yeah, the consensus is - appellate/SCC judges ain't chosen for political affiliation. Just isn't done.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2011, 04:49:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
Quote from: Drakken on May 13, 2011, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 12:01:34 PM
Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership? I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens. I am asking you to name just one.
Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.
Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.
Drakken, I've known some superior court judges (i.e. trial court) who were fairly obvious political appointments. But for the Court of Appeal and higher both parties have been pretty careful to appoint only well qualified candidates - most of whom have no obvious poltical connections.
Also, federal court judges. That's a well-known Liberal retirement pension. :D
But yeah, the consensus is - appellate/SCC judges ain't chosen for political affiliation. Just isn't done.
Well not that their politics / world view isn't taken into account. Governments do want to try and make sure that the 'right kind' of judges are appointed. It's just that the appointments are almost universally well regarded in their own right.
By the way I'm starting a whiskering campaign for Justice Moldaver to the SCC as of today. :ph34r:
Why not start a campaign for Justice B. Boy?
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 05:09:58 PM
Well not that their politics / world view isn't taken into account. Governments do want to try and make sure that the 'right kind' of judges are appointed. It's just that the appointments are almost universally well regarded in their own right.
By the way I'm starting a whiskering campaign for Justice Moldaver to the SCC as of today. :ph34r:
A whiskering campaign? :hmm: Tell me more.
:P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2011, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 13, 2011, 03:03:16 PM
Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.
A couple of points.
You had to go to a founding appointment of the SCC to find a potential flaw and you have selected someone who was likely one of the most able people in the Country at the time available for appointment to the Court.
Right! :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 03:05:21 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision. I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.
and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.
It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.
You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.
:sigh: I'm really not sure why I bother. It's something that actually saves lives, reduces crime, and helps create a community in a place where most of the community is fucking each other over. But I guess there's not ever any bend to the law to change with the times. Not all junkies are stealing your stereo. some of them are nice people who made some poor choices and are actually trying to change their lives, but hey if it offends people, we had better not look to anything other than putting the offending parties in jail.
I really don't understand why it's a bad thing to help people, communities (I live in East Vancouver... this is the only effect it's had on the area, reduction in harm, crime. end of story... everything else is partisan nimby smoke.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 10:25:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2011, 03:05:21 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 13, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision. I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.
and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.
It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.
You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.
:sigh: I'm really not sure why I bother. It's something that actually saves lives, reduces crime, and helps create a community in a place where most of the community is fucking each other over. But I guess there's not ever any bend to the law to change with the times. Not all junkies are stealing your stereo. some of them are nice people who made some poor choices and are actually trying to change their lives, but hey if it offends people, we had better not look to anything other than putting the offending parties in jail.
I really don't understand why it's a bad thing to help people, communities (I live in East Vancouver... this is the only effect it's had on the area, reduction in harm, crime. end of story... everything else is partisan nimby smoke.
I'm saying it isn't a tough
legal decision (or at least it shouldn't be).
It may well be a tough
political decision - or depending how you look at it, an easy political decision.
BB, you are mistaken. In addition to the division of powers issue there is also a Charter issue if the Court holds that this is within the Federal jurisdiction. Btw Buddha does a not bad job summarizing the section 7 argument.
Here is a link to the BCCA decision fyi. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/00/2010BCCA0015cor1.htm
In my opinion, if this is within Federal jurisdiction the Charter issue is going to be a tough decision because it will make the Court choose between the rights of the drug users themselves against the rights of society at large (at least that is how the dissenting opinion saw it).
The Charter has got to go.