Member
Posts: 71 
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 12th, 2006, 04:38 PM
The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!
Quoting
One point that seems to be missing is that Section 33 of the Charter (NWC) does not apply to all laws or even to all sections of the charter. For instance, freedom of religion specifically cannot be overridden by the NWC.
Take as an example The Patriot Act down here, why do you think there is so much fuss about it? It is primarily the precedence it sets. The Supreme Court has already struck down a number of provisions, but there is still some ways to go. Imagine we had the NWC down here, what could be done? The answer is nothing as it would be the law of the land.
Your Constitituion specifically states that all Canadians are entitles to "good government". Can you honestly say that has been the case in Canada? I don't think so. And I'm not knocking Canada by saying this, it's the way I see it.
Your Constitituion specifically states that all Canadians are entitles to "good government". Can you honestly say that has been the case in Canada? I don't think so. And I'm not knocking Canada by saying this, it's the way I see it.
The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,495 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
January 12th, 2006, 04:45 PM
Quoting
I realize that, I also realize it's pointless to compare the two political structures as they are vastly different.
One point that seems to be missing is that Section 33 of the Charter (NWC) does not apply to all laws or even to all sections of the charter. For instance, freedom of religion specifically cannot be overridden by the NWC.
The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!
The NWC only applies to specific sections of the Charter. It is not all powerful. Only judges are!
Member
Posts: 71
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 12th, 2006, 04:52 PM
Her gist was this. With sex clubs now legal, there is nothing illegal with parents or guardians bringing their children (14 years old and up) to sex clubs and encouraging them to participate. As long as the parent or guardian is not involved (with those specific children anyway) there is nothing illegal about the situation.
She said she had heard of some pedofile groups readying plans to organize trips to Canada to take advantage of the clubs, the age of consent at 14 and the legality of it (as long as one is not in a position of power, sex with minors 14 and older is okay.)
Now, this is particularly the Canada I want, or a Canadian value I might want to defend. Might even be a ruling where the application of the NWC would be useful. Or a law.
I think time will tell what the fall out from this, and perhaps other judicial decisions are. Sometimes they aren't as simplistic as we think.
I carry a can of bear spray every time I go hiking. I don't ever intend on using it. But I'll tell ya, that one time a grizzly bear came up to me on the trail, I was sure glad I had it available. And I used it.
Quoting
I suppose as an interesting aside to this discussing, I listened to an American law professor on the radio discussing our latest Supreme court 'Sex Clubs" decision.
I disagree with you on free speech, at least to a small extent. NAMBLA has manuals on how to effectively rape young boys (including what professions to seek out to garner the greatest unquestioned access to children).
Her gist was this. With sex clubs now legal, there is nothing illegal with parents or guardians bringing their children (14 years old and up) to sex clubs and encouraging them to participate. As long as the parent or guardian is not involved (with those specific children anyway) there is nothing illegal about the situation.
She said she had heard of some pedofile groups readying plans to organize trips to Canada to take advantage of the clubs, the age of consent at 14 and the legality of it (as long as one is not in a position of power, sex with minors 14 and older is okay.)
Now, this is particularly the Canada I want, or a Canadian value I might want to defend. Might even be a ruling where the application of the NWC would be useful. Or a law.
I think time will tell what the fall out from this, and perhaps other judicial decisions are. Sometimes they aren't as simplistic as we think.
I carry a can of bear spray every time I go hiking. I don't ever intend on using it. But I'll tell ya, that one time a grizzly bear came up to me on the trail, I was sure glad I had it available. And I used it.
Member
Posts: 179
January 12th, 2006, 05:20 PM
KanBob - I see your point. Nonetheless, it's a tricky issue. I strongly dislike the idea of it being legal for anybody over the age of 20 to have sex with a 14 year old.
On the other hand, I don't see the government having any place in sex that is engaged in by two 14 year olds.
Age differential is important when you're younger than 16, I think, but a 14 year old having sex with another 14 year old doesn't strike me as something we should have the government outlawing.
KanBob - I see your point. Nonetheless, it's a tricky issue. I strongly dislike the idea of it being legal for anybody over the age of 20 to have sex with a 14 year old.
On the other hand, I don't see the government having any place in sex that is engaged in by two 14 year olds.
Age differential is important when you're younger than 16, I think, but a 14 year old having sex with another 14 year old doesn't strike me as something we should have the government outlawing.
Member
Posts: 222
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
January 12th, 2006, 07:13 PM
Beware the old political game, open an act to change a small item and once opened it can be re written in its' entirely with no debate.
That is Mr. Kleins favorite trick in Alberta.
He sends out a red herring, Move the Red Deer River to Drumheller AB. Open the water act to do so.
His real target is the northern Peace River where he already has fully engineered plans in place These engineered plans were started the same time NAFTA passed!
The game: Tell the people in Red Deer you listened to them (after the act us open) gaining their warm support. Then, legislate the Peace River move with no oppostion.
I would hate like hell to see Harper open the carter of rites for any reason. He has a huge industrial agenda behind him!
Beware the old political game, open an act to change a small item and once opened it can be re written in its' entirely with no debate.
That is Mr. Kleins favorite trick in Alberta.
He sends out a red herring, Move the Red Deer River to Drumheller AB. Open the water act to do so.
His real target is the northern Peace River where he already has fully engineered plans in place These engineered plans were started the same time NAFTA passed!
The game: Tell the people in Red Deer you listened to them (after the act us open) gaining their warm support. Then, legislate the Peace River move with no oppostion.
I would hate like hell to see Harper open the carter of rites for any reason. He has a huge industrial agenda behind him!
