Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graystone who wrote (2902)	8/6/2003 12:17:25 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37548

Seems the performance of our courts has not been stellar either. Unfortunately making new law can often be disguised as interpretation. We are just in the infancy of this dilemma. 32 million people are smarter than the supreme court Or supreme court is smarter than 32 million individuals A sticky wicket at best..

To: Graystone who wrote (2902)	8/6/2003 12:19:22 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 37548

Well Sheila had no honour in the GST affair. How can you vote for that ? Honour is like virginity... you only lose it once. Edit ... You think their personal faces are the same as their public ones LOL.

To: Graystone who wrote (2902)	8/6/2003 12:38:51 AM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37548

The Alliance policy is the problem. Some Alliance policy is a problem, some is absolutely necessary if we want to preserve our economic and cultural life. Since we have only one choice to make at election time, we have to weigh our various policy desires and match them to the nearest party. Do you take issue with actual Alliance policy, or with the perceived policy as presented by the CBC? Like any party, the Alliance includes a wide spectrum of opinions, experiences and knowledge. To hear the Alliance reps speaking of ranking native governments at the level of municipal governments, for example, makes me shake my head. Not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that particular arrangement, but it is impossible to achieve within our system of law. There is no way I would condone a man like Day as PM (although I still voted Alliance - after all, he was just one man among many). As far as gay marriages go, I could care less. There are lots of words used in the legal field that have different meanings to laymen. If the legal definition of marriage is changed, it doesn't mean lay people will be forced to use it that way. And there is absolutely no risk that the state can force, or even pressure, churches to perform gay marriages. Church marriage and legal marriage are distinct. One needs a legal marriage license to take on the state-sanctioned marriage. If a couple has such a license, they can go almost anywhere (justice, court, church) to exercise it. -g

To: Graystone who wrote (2902)	8/6/2003 11:14:30 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 37548

The Charter of Rights or Minoritarionism If you're familiar with the BNA Act (now properly called the Constitution Act, 1867, the overriding principle was Parliamentary Supremacy. IIRC, Bagheot observed that "Parliament can do anything but make man a woman, or woman a man." Trudeau's Charter was an irreconcialable break with Parliamentary supremacy, wholly in keeping with his utter disdain for Parliament. Did the Canadian electorate have an opportunity to pass judgement on the Charter before it was enacted? No. Was there a comprehensive debate on the implications of the Charter? No. Did Canadians vote to give appointed judges the power to remake Canadian society? No. From 1867 to 1982, the role of the Supreme Court (prior to 1932 the JCPC) was to interpret laws as ultra vires, that is, within their Constitutional purview. That was the limited role the founders gave them. Since 1982, the Charter has been an excuse for the Court, and those who appoint them, to socially engineer a "new Canada". Perhaps that "new Canada" is the vision of Toronto and Montreal liberals. You excoriate the early Reform MPs for saying things that didn't sit well with the Eastern Intelligncia. Perhaps you have no idea how refreshing it was for many chroncically disenfranchised "Westerners" for those things to actually have been raised in Parliament, after years of "representation" by sheep MPs. Perhaps the "tolerance" for "diversity" of political and societal views is more limited than you care to acknowledge. I question the overriding concern about the "tyranny of the majority". Frankly, I'm seeing real "tyranny of the minority".