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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hank2010 who wrote (167588)	7/1/2009 1:53:43 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 313012

We don't use the term 'independent', as that would connote a former period of dependence, which was never the case, in fact quite the contrary, brits were able to depend on us in numerous crises - en.wikipedia.org 'Autonomous' is used, but long before it was formally the status [statute of Westminster 1931], there was a high degree of autonomy in practice ... even before the BNA act of 01 july 1867, the average canadian/canadien had far more control over his life than did the average brit, largely due to being spread out in a roomy country with space to grow, also partly due to rights of self-government given to quebecois in the mid-1700s [one of the Intolerable Acts to which catholic-hating USian rebels objected] ... if the french had self-rule [well actually the priesthood and nobility], theory was you couldn't deny a degree of it to upper canadians, fact was though that you simply can't govern people the same as you can a large population packed into those little british isles ... Whitehall never came into it much, from the first disputes tended to be mild and settled in favour of canucks, who saw themselves as a british people anyway, with political divisions following the same lines, tory whig reform radical etc ... quite distinct from what is now the US, where the term 'independence' connotes a bloody-minded us-vs-them split on nationalistic lines, it was never like that here, canadians subscribed more to an overall empire-wide political split between liberals and conservatives and the various other whacko factions of any group

To: hank2010 who wrote (167588)	7/1/2009 3:39:38 PM
From: E. Charters	1 Recommendation Respond to of 313012

Canada did not become independent of GB until 1987. See the BNA Acts. There was a constitution act passed in 1982 but I view it as illegal as only an act of BP could undo, or do what had been originally done by them. In that they did not consult the citizenry to change these acts, they did not have the assent of the governed. It would be ok in a political sense to allow a petition to pass and get a majority viewpoint as they forced Quebec to do during their referendum. There was no such referendum, so in my view, they did meet the elementary criteria that all people's must be involved in their own constitution. Since we inherited a popular-will-constitution from Britain, and their rule of court precedence, which is adjudicated law (fair by constitution), the various charters of the commons, (Magna Carta etc) and their petitions, as was evinced by the Supreme Court under traditions, etc, being the most important part of that law, unwritten.. as it were, then we inherit still all the rules and practices of English law. (We certainly did not inherit them from Somalia.) Napoleonic Code in what is now Quebec, meaning Lower Canada, (All Ontario and Quebec was called Quebec at that time.), was subordinate to English law and precedence. You could still petition to the Court of the privy council all charges or complaints. It is a fact that Canada was militarily governed and the rules of law evolved into freer practice slowly. The various governors while broad minded were not experts in law, and the citizens of Canada, actually British Subjects until 1951, did not enjoy the proper practice of the rights they inherited. Thus, as it developed in the USA, a sister group of colonies, the rights of the people were not as well protected as they were in the mother country. This inequity was not that broad, as the courts of Britain, while fair in most respects, suffered from a distinct bias in favour of those who could afford a proper defense. To this day, no person before a court in Canada has a guarantee of a lawyer. Legal aid and the duty counsel are not it. When they say the court will appoint a lawyer, they lie. Fact. Lie. Believe it no lawyer will be appointed, ever. (Unless it is a high profile case where a serious charge is laid and it makes the papers.) Countries whose courts lie routinely and pay only lip service to the true constitution cannot be trusted to protect the rights of their citizens. The Magna Carta protects the Fr. too, as in 1215, all citizens of France were citizens of England as well, since they had the same King, John. So the "English" Magna Carta was inclusive of them as well. Quebec's (supposed) argument that were never protected by British Law is in fact false. Fr. was always protected by what became British Law. Their kings just chose to ignore it. better that they should revisit its provisos. It took until their revolution to enshrine some but not all of its precepts. They missed some of the vital parts of inclusion of the governed in the governing. My main problem with socialists is that are always telling you what you think. Some rights we lost in the new constitution: 1. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure and seizure/arrest without (a) warrant. 2. guarantee of the nature of the rights inherited. The phrase "rights you can expect in a free country as this one" invites circular reasoning, i.e. begging of the question. 3. right to pass law by petition. Petition was the main form of governance in Britain for 800 years. 4. rights to have actions of the government or its constabulary a priori to charge, bear upon the right of trial and the right of arrest. right to resist, within reason, false arrest, and right to sue for false arrest with impunity. After all a judge in hearing the case has already admitted prima facie principles. 5. absolute guarantee of representation and counsel from moment of charge. absolute guarantee of continuity of counsel. 6. right of back benchers to question the availability of money within the budget for any law. subordination of backbenchers means ridings have no real representation in Parliament. The house of commons, so to speak becomes an autocracy of cabinet. 7. freedom from orders in council as being a system of regulation. review of acts by parliament must be a standard of legislation. 8. consent of the governed at large (not just the provincial governments who sought to arbitrate and represent them at the various consitutional accords) to discuss, support and ratify the constitution. Quebec's insistence on referendum was fundamentally politically 'correct', as they were not consulted as a people on the new laws. 9. harmonization of all law across all provinces. Opting out or notwithstanding allows unconstitutional constitutionality. Laws and constitution mean nothing unless they may be obeyed or defend in kind everywhere. 10. right of revolution when tyranny arises. The fact that tyranny does not seem likely is not the point. It never does. This right was implicit in the Magna Carta, as what lead it to become law was in fact a rebellion in arms. This principle was enshrined in the US constitution and declaration of independence. Until a people govern themselves they are never free of tyranny or the possibility of it. Canadians do not govern themselves. They are governed by an elected mafia who get the right of tyranny every so often. EC<:-}