Justin Trudeau to remove senators from Liberal caucus

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

So the government of the day could say make a law that police could search you and seize your property and a court couldn't reverse it ? I say good thing we don't live like that anymore if that's true.

English common law would not allow for such behavior and any government that tried bringing in such a law would be sent packing. Unlike judges who are appointed after being vetted for their political beliefs. As for the police searching and stealing from the citizen, Google "High River" we're already living your nightmare.

[260 Rem]

Conservative vs Liberal ..... Justin vs Stephen ..... Reading these threads always reminds me of all the John Deere vs Massey Harris arguments we had as kids. Passionate believers willing to overlook the faults of our favorite and deamonize what we opposed. It seems to me that Canadian political debate much more resembles arguing favorites between Chevy and GMC trucks ... Other than the chrome, not really much different.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Conservative vs Liberal ..... Justin vs Stephen ..... Reading these threads always reminds me of all the John Deere vs Massey Harris arguments we had as kids. Passionate believers willing to overlook the faults of our favorite and deamonize what we opposed. It seems to me that Canadian political debate much more resembles arguing favorites between Chevy and GMC trucks ... Other than the chrome, not really much different.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on politicians, we've been screwed by the Cons for the last 8 years and the time before that the Libs. The last election almost gave us an orange crush but thin k the Libs are lining up next.

Don't matter who gets in, we still get screwed. Its just that some enjoy being screwed by one over the other on any given 4 year period.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

And the courts often interpret or ignore the constitution as they see fit.

Just look at how the courts interpret divorce and custody laws. We are all supposed to be equal before the courts, but 90% of custody cases end up with women being the custodial parent. Can't do that if they followed the constitution.

There are divorce and custody laws in the Constitution???

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

English common law would not allow for such behavior and any government that tried bringing in such a law would be sent packing. Unlike judges who are appointed after being vetted for their political beliefs. As for the police searching and stealing from the citizen, Google "High River" we're already living your nightmare.

So what's the new powers that judges got ?.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

There are divorce and custody laws in the Constitution???

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights.

Rights under section 15 include racial equality, sexual equality, mental disability, and physical disability. In its jurisprudence, it has also been a source of gay rights in Canada. These rights are guaranteed to "Every individual," that is, every natural person. This wording excludes "legal persons" such as corporations, contrasting other sections that use the word "everyone," where "legal persons" were meant to be included. Section 15 has been in force since 1985.

But with the divorce and custody laws, this is truly not the case in many courts.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights.

Rights under section 15 include racial equality, sexual equality, mental disability, and physical disability. In its jurisprudence, it has also been a source of gay rights in Canada. These rights are guaranteed to "Every individual," that is, every natural person. This wording excludes "legal persons" such as corporations, contrasting other sections that use the word "everyone," where "legal persons" were meant to be included. Section 15 has been in force since 1985.

But with the divorce and custody laws, this is truly not the case in many courts.

It would be a pretty big stretch to apply those equality rights to custody cases. If it was otherwise mens rights groups would have taken it to court by now and challenged sole custody to either partner as being unconstitutional.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Conservative vs Liberal ..... Justin vs Stephen ..... Reading these threads always reminds me of all the John Deere vs Massey Harris arguments we had as kids. Passionate believers willing to overlook the faults of our favorite and deamonize what we opposed. It seems to me that Canadian political debate much more resembles arguing favorites between Chevy and GMC trucks ... Other than the chrome, not really much different.

Exactly... the only difference between thse guys is the colour of the flag they wave.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

There are divorce and custody laws in the Constitution???

Sort of... the Charter of Rights is the basis of all law in Canada...or at least it is supposed to be.
The Charter is supposed to supercede any other law and that is why laws that are found to unconstitutional are rejected by the courts.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

English common law would not allow for such behavior and any government that tried bringing in such a law would be sent packing. Unlike judges who are appointed after being vetted for their political beliefs. As for the police searching and stealing from the citizen, Google "High River" we're already living your nightmare.

BS.

The government managed to sieze lawfully owned firearms and other property through forcing people to "voluntarily" surrender them long before 1982.

Fact is that if people look further than the last couple years or further than 1982... they might learn that their faith in the Conservatives to uphold their "right" to own arms... is largely annecdotal and not supported by historical fact.

Quite a few of the laws we currently have to deal with are as a result of seeds sown by Conservative governments and... take a look at who supported the current laws.
Not everyone that said yeah was a Liberal and not every Liberal said yeah.

[cal33]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Conservative vs Liberal ..... Justin vs Stephen ..... Reading these threads always reminds me of all the John Deere vs Massey Harris arguments we had as kids. Passionate believers willing to overlook the faults of our favorite and deamonize what we opposed. It seems to me that Canadian political debate much more resembles arguing favorites between Chevy and GMC trucks ... Other than the chrome, not really much different.

Maybe in a sense yes, but in a sense no. Liberal, or left wing, represent a larger government as in more spending, more regulation, and more taxes to pay for it all. Conservative, or right wing, is smaller government, less spending, less taxes, fiscally responsible, so to speak. Guidelines only. However, if you were to believe that as a society we should pay taxes to help culture (artists, maybe), downtown programs (homeless, low income, etc.), you would lean left. If you believe as a society, infrastructure, health care (in the case of Canada, anyway), fiscal responsibility (low taxes, balanced books), and let artists, athletes, etc look out for themselves (user fees apply), then hou would lean right. Very general, I know, but I laugh when die-hard liberals complain about taxes for example. As a side note, with regards to Justin, let's not forget the household (father) he was raised in. With regards to gun control, just research some of Pierre's proposals, central lock-ups, annual justification for each of your guns are just to examples. No wonder Wendy is quiet right now, things are shaping up nicely for her.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

BS.

The government managed to sieze lawfully owned firearms and other property through forcing people to "voluntarily" surrender them long before 1982.

Fact is that if people look further than the last couple years or further than 1982... they might learn that their faith in the Conservatives to uphold their "right" to own arms... is largely annecdotal and not supported by historical fact.

Quite a few of the laws we currently have to deal with are as a result of seeds sown by Conservative governments and... take a look at who supported the current laws.
Not everyone that said yeah was a Liberal and not every Liberal said yeah.

Pure B.S. What guns were required to be surrendered before 82? Even the firearms act of 1977 came in slowly and didn't grow teeth until after gamil gharbi went shooting. Those who owned machine guns were grandfathered and got to keep them (Oh the horror!)

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

So what's the new powers that judges got ?.

The charter of rights and freedoms. Pay attention, there'll be a test later.

[draft]

This certainly detracts fr the scandal j.t. himself got into, i mean about expenses and false claims. I wonder how that fits in w/ this move of his.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

The charter of rights and freedoms. Pay attention, there'll be a test later.

So more rights for the people is giving judges more powers ? I'm confused.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Pure B.S. What guns were required to be surrendered before 82? Even the firearms act of 1977 came in slowly and didn't grow teeth until after gamil gharbi went shooting. Those who owned machine guns were grandfathered and got to keep them (Oh the horror!)

Translation: In an effort to remain ignorant of the history of firearms laws in Canada...so I can blame Liberals for everything... I refuse to educate myself.
Besides...I already know it all.

You never checked... and I'm not your secretary.
Look it up... then investigate the results of all those votes.
Do that and then come back here and tell me that all Liberals are antigun and that all Conservatives are Pro-gun.
Do that and tell me that gun control has not been used as a tool to divide public opinion and secure votes by both sides.
Do that and tell me that if it suited the Conservatives of the day politically...they would not turn on you and I in a heart beat.
Do that and then convince me that the abolishment of the LGR was not merely lip service...especially in light of the other changes that occured immediatley upon that abolishment.

People in this country have been handing guns over to the government since the 1800's buddy....and not just Liberal ones either.

[hal53]

So we are back to 'I am not your secretary" after you again post something with no back up?, please post some links.....Thank You

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by draft

This certainly detracts fr the scandal j.t. himself got into, i mean about expenses and false claims. I wonder how that fits in w/ this move of his.

Good question.
Now...for the record its not like he "got caught".
What he did was claim things that he should not ahve claimed and when questions arose he said fine... if the results of a review declare that I was in the wrong...I'll pay it back...which he did.

But again...good point.
Knowing that regardless of what really happened he will still have some mud on his loafers... it might have been a good idea to distance himself from a source of endless controversy and scandal.

Much the same way the PM did when his pets stained the carpet...only before it was too late.

[From The Hip]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Claiming "Best interest of the child" is only hot air. It really is not about what is best for the kids in courts. It is what is best for lawyers, and then moms get custody by default, because it ensures a fight for the kids. The stats on custody divisions don't lie. If it was truly about the best interest of the kids, then we would have a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting. Children love and are entitled to have a relationship with both parents.

There is a new movie out called "Divorce Corp" and it is all about the divorce industry, and who profits from the misery of parents fighting for custody.

OK how did this thread about the BS move by Trudeau kicking the Liberal Senators from caucus degenerate into an arguement over parental divorce rights?

If you want to whine and complain about divorce rights then start a thread about it and see how many people show up.

And also more blah blah blah about gun registry and the like....cripes you guy are like zombies.....the only thing worse is brain dead NRA members like Charlton Heston who repeats the mantra of "you can take this gun out of my cold dead hand"

FTH

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

So we are back to 'I am not your secretary" after you again post something with no back up?, please post some links.....Thank You

I have posted them in the past Hal and I think that should be good enough.
I made the effort once... now its someone elses turn.

Google it.
You'll certainly find the information that way and in about as much time as it took you to type a retort that serves no purpose and provides no additional information.

[hal53]

Dear Pesky,
Good answer ...thanks
Signed "hal-itosis

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

So more rights for the people is giving judges more powers ? I'm confused.

You got it bassackwards.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Translation: In an effort to remain ignorant of the history of firearms laws in Canada...so I can blame Liberals for everything... I refuse to educate myself.
Besides...I already know it all.

You never checked... and I'm not your secretary.
Look it up... then investigate the results of all those votes.
Do that and then come back here and tell me that all Liberals are antigun and that all Conservatives are Pro-gun.
Do that and tell me that gun control has not been used as a tool to divide public opinion and secure votes by both sides.
Do that and tell me that if it suited the Conservatives of the day politically...they would not turn on you and I in a heart beat.
Do that and then convince me that the abolishment of the LGR was not merely lip service...especially in light of the other changes that occured immediatley upon that abolishment.

People in this country have been handing guns over to the government since the 1800's buddy....and not just Liberal ones either.

You can't answer that question without lying. There were no mass confiscations before ecole poly and you know it. Before 77 guns were classified as hand guns or long guns, and then by their action, e.g. semi auto, full auto, single shot, repeater etc. nothing else. The confiscation agendas came later. Yes I know the conservative parties have been lousy to gun owners, I have no faith in any political party, hence my membership in and financial support of NFA.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

I used your words, in your order, without changing the context.....just highlighting what your doing........

Complain much????!!! Lance Corporal or is it CFL. And I can see that rank is well earned.

Oh, and not that it's going to change your outlook, but you did forget to mention the monthly allowance for clothing/PT gear that you get.

Your so blind to reality and have such a distorted version of the truth, it's pointless to even try to untangle your "massively edited version of the truth"!

Read the whole thing.
It wasn't whinning and your post tells me that you have never been in uniform and know diddy about your military now.

It was comparing notes to put something into perspective for another AO member and nothing more.

Also... I have not been a Corporal for a very long time...but not so long that I do not remember what it was like to be the backbone and legs of every military and struggling to pay the bills.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Claiming "Best interest of the child" is only hot air. It really is not about what is best for the kids in courts. It is what is best for lawyers, and then moms get custody by default, because it ensures a fight for the kids. The stats on custody divisions don't lie. If it was truly about the best interest of the kids, then we would have a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting. Children love and are entitled to have a relationship with both parents.

There is a new movie out called "Divorce Corp" and it is all about the divorce industry, and who profits from the misery of parents fighting for custody.

You may be right.
I'm just saying...that is how it is supposed to work.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by hal53

Dear Pesky,
Good answer ...thanks
Signed "hal-itosis

You have a talent for stating the obvious sometimes.
I am glad that you agree.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

You got it bassackwards.

I think you are against the constitution and your not exactly sure why.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

It would be a pretty big stretch to apply those equality rights to custody cases. If it was otherwise mens rights groups would have taken it to court by now and challenged sole custody to either partner as being unconstitutional.

Several different issues have been taken to the Supreme court on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. However for many men who end up having issues with divorce, don't have the funds to fight the issues.

There was one case in Quebec that was taken to the Supreme court over spousal support for unwed parents. The guy was a millionaire, and he still lost. Our courts are very biased in favor of women. Just look at the pathetic sentence given to the woman who tossed 3 of her babies in the trash only got 18months, or the woman who drowned her children in Millet got 15 months.

There have been some very prominent judges coming out lately saying how unfair and dysfunctional the whole court system is, yet there still has been few changes made.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

OK how did this thread about the BS move by Trudeau kicking the Liberal Senators from caucus degenerate into an arguement over parental divorce rights?

If you want to whine and complain about divorce rights then start a thread about it and see how many people show up.

And also more blah blah blah about gun registry and the like....cripes you guy are like zombies.....the only thing worse is brain dead NRA members like Charlton Heston who repeats the mantra of "you can take this gun out of my cold dead hand"

FTH

Actually what this thread has done, is discussed all kinds of issues. Just because it started off with Trudeau and the senate, it has morphed into a general political thread. Topics bounced all around. What does gun rights have to do with Trudeau and the senate?

If you actually read what I had posted, I was making a direct comparison to how our courts don't follow the constitution, which was in response to the way laws are made and then interpreted by the courts. Just because I compared it to divorce is because I know first hand and can provide direct comparisons where our courts violate the constitution.

If you don't like the fact that the thread has discussed so many different issues, don't open it.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

If you want to whine and complain about divorce rights then start a thread about it and see how many people show up.


FTH

There has been several threads about it. And many people showed up. Far more than many other threads in fact.

The issue happens to affect many people on the forum.