Electoral Member
Posts: 84 
August 26th, 2007, 04:48 PM
The so called Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst amendment to the Constittution and should be abolished.
It limits police and government power.IT allows illegal immigant criminals to stay in
Canada, It is redundant and is totally unclear.It has mired the supreme court in trivial decision making.
It brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the pre charter days if you had a warrant for your arrest the police could enter any residence at any time and get you.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
Canada worked fine prior to 1982.
Nowadays if a person is arrestable but they are in a home you have to apply for a "Feeney " warrant. Sorry. But I don't agree.If you are wanted by the government They should be able to come and get you.Anywhere. Anytime. I don't care how trivial the charge is. Accountability is accountability.Do the crime expect the police to come and get you.
Too many criminals and immigrants have "gotten off" as a result of a Charter argument.
Do you think the same applies for countries like Singapore?
Get rid of the Charter and you get rid of our weak Justice system.
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry. The Charter is not necessary.
The so called Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst amendment to the Constittution and should be abolished.
It limits police and government power.IT allows illegal immigant criminals to stay in
Canada, It is redundant and is totally unclear.It has mired the supreme court in trivial decision making.
It brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the pre charter days if you had a warrant for your arrest the police could enter any residence at any time and get you.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
Canada worked fine prior to 1982.
Nowadays if a person is arrestable but they are in a home you have to apply for a "Feeney " warrant. Sorry. But I don't agree.If you are wanted by the government They should be able to come and get you.Anywhere. Anytime. I don't care how trivial the charge is. Accountability is accountability.Do the crime expect the police to come and get you.
Too many criminals and immigrants have "gotten off" as a result of a Charter argument.
Do you think the same applies for countries like Singapore?
Get rid of the Charter and you get rid of our weak Justice system.
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry. The Charter is not necessary.
House Member
Posts: 3,167
August 26th, 2007, 04:53 PM
I was around when the Charter was passed in 1982. There was huge public debate in the dailies about it and many condemned it as less an instrument of freedom than a chain. Trudeau wanted it and pushed it through. All that legacy crap in play. It should have gone to a public vote, much the same as is done in Europe with EU countries and their participation in the organization. Shame on Canada for bullying and shortchanging its people!
I was around when the Charter was passed in 1982. There was huge public debate in the dailies about it and many condemned it as less an instrument of freedom than a chain. Trudeau wanted it and pushed it through. All that legacy crap in play. It should have gone to a public vote, much the same as is done in Europe with EU countries and their participation in the organization. Shame on Canada for bullying and shortchanging its people!
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 6,272 
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
August 26th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Actually, almost note-per-note and word-per-word, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is UN Resolution 217 A (III) - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a document born of the Nuremburg trials. How loudly will you cry "foul" should you happen to be unjustly arrested in the night and held against your will in a place nobody can find you?
Wolf
Actually, almost note-per-note and word-per-word, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is UN Resolution 217 A (III) - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a document born of the Nuremburg trials. How loudly will you cry "foul" should you happen to be unjustly arrested in the night and held against your will in a place nobody can find you?
Wolf
House Member
Posts: 3,167
August 26th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Charter hearings went on and on and special interest groups paraded in to give testimony as to what the Charter should include or forbid. Trudeau couldn't have been happier. The culmination of all his Just Society dreams. That's the way it was. From this consultation the final copy arose.
Charter hearings went on and on and special interest groups paraded in to give testimony as to what the Charter should include or forbid. Trudeau couldn't have been happier. The culmination of all his Just Society dreams. That's the way it was. From this consultation the final copy arose.
House Member
Posts: 3,167
August 26th, 2007, 05:23 PM
Trudeau wasn't on good terms with his own province during this period. And it still rankles with sovereigntists there.
Roy McMurtry, Charter warrior and longtime Trudeau insider, recently retired as Chief Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court. He almost cackled when recalling the Charter and his participation in it and Trudeau's grand slam. He crowed that the Charter had effectively championed minority over majority rights. And he might have added: and by having hamstrung majority interest in the country he had along with his buddy effectively bankrolled a new era in legal profession fortunes.
Trudeau wasn't on good terms with his own province during this period. And it still rankles with sovereigntists there.
Roy McMurtry, Charter warrior and longtime Trudeau insider, recently retired as Chief Justice of the Ontario Supreme Court. He almost cackled when recalling the Charter and his participation in it and Trudeau's grand slam. He crowed that the Charter had effectively championed minority over majority rights. And he might have added: and by having hamstrung majority interest in the country he had along with his buddy effectively bankrolled a new era in legal profession fortunes.
House Member
Posts: 3,378
August 26th, 2007, 08:25 PM
The Charter of Rights and freedoms does not constrain the government in anyway.
It only applies if the government chooses to have it apply in a case. So no, it doesn't let criminals off. Politicians (elected by the people) choose to let the criminals off because those who elect them, want it that way. Democracy in action, even if unpleasant to the rest.
If the government wanted to pass a law bringing about Death Camps the Charter allows that too. So its obvious you haven't read it if you claim it somehow binds people. The not-withstanding-clause is the big exception that makes the whole document worthless.
The Charter of Rights and freedoms does not constrain the government in anyway.
It only applies if the government chooses to have it apply in a case. So no, it doesn't let criminals off. Politicians (elected by the people) choose to let the criminals off because those who elect them, want it that way. Democracy in action, even if unpleasant to the rest.
If the government wanted to pass a law bringing about Death Camps the Charter allows that too. So its obvious you haven't read it if you claim it somehow binds people. The not-withstanding-clause is the big exception that makes the whole document worthless.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 634
Location: Quebec
Location: Quebec
August 26th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Also if you are not aware we will soon begin the process of public consultation on what needs to be changed or updated in our Charter. This should be done with all documents used in governing our country, what is ok one day is redundant the next.
Quoting lone wolf
Sorry to disappoint you but by 1982 Quebec had their own Charter of Rights and Freedoms that had been passed in 1975 as well as establishing a commission as overseer. There may have been points that needed to be harmonized but that is all.
If I remember it right, the biggest special interest group who had to be accommodated was la belle province....
Wolf
Wolf
Also if you are not aware we will soon begin the process of public consultation on what needs to be changed or updated in our Charter. This should be done with all documents used in governing our country, what is ok one day is redundant the next.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 519
August 26th, 2007, 09:38 PM
The police are far from perfect. Mahar Arar was sent off to Syria with the knowledge and help of the RCMP and got a multi-million dollar settlement because of the year of torture he suffered. Some of the highest officials of the RCMP were implicated recently in looting their own members retirement fund and the commissioner lost his job for participating in the cover-up. Then we had Montebello the other day. It's getting hard to tell the police from the criminals now.
I guess we could set up a multi-billion dollar fund to pay off all the inevitable claims against police abuse. Or going by your sort of philosophy just do away with all rights and not have the inconvenience of freedom. Go live in North Korea, Zimbabwe or someplace like that come back and talk about how we have too much freedom. If you survive the experience of course.
Quoting Lithp
You're joking right?
The so called Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst amendment to the Constittution and should be abolished.
It limits police and government power.IT allows illegal immigant criminals to stay in
Canada, It is redundant and is totally unclear.It has mired the supreme court in trivial decision making.
It brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the pre charter days if you had a warrant for your arrest the police could enter any residence at any time and get you.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
Canada worked fine prior to 1982.
Nowadays if a person is arrestable but they are in a home you have to apply for a "Feeney " warrant. Sorry. But I don't agree.If you are wanted by the government They should be able to come and get you.Anywhere. Anytime. I don't care how trivial the charge is. Accountability is accountability.Do the crime expect the police to come and get you.
Too many criminals and immigrants have "gotten off" as a result of a Charter argument.
Do you think the same applies for countries like Singapore?
Get rid of the Charter and you get rid of our weak Justice system.
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry. The Charter is not necessary.
It limits police and government power.IT allows illegal immigant criminals to stay in
Canada, It is redundant and is totally unclear.It has mired the supreme court in trivial decision making.
It brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
In the pre charter days if you had a warrant for your arrest the police could enter any residence at any time and get you.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
Canada worked fine prior to 1982.
Nowadays if a person is arrestable but they are in a home you have to apply for a "Feeney " warrant. Sorry. But I don't agree.If you are wanted by the government They should be able to come and get you.Anywhere. Anytime. I don't care how trivial the charge is. Accountability is accountability.Do the crime expect the police to come and get you.
Too many criminals and immigrants have "gotten off" as a result of a Charter argument.
Do you think the same applies for countries like Singapore?
Get rid of the Charter and you get rid of our weak Justice system.
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry. The Charter is not necessary.
The police are far from perfect. Mahar Arar was sent off to Syria with the knowledge and help of the RCMP and got a multi-million dollar settlement because of the year of torture he suffered. Some of the highest officials of the RCMP were implicated recently in looting their own members retirement fund and the commissioner lost his job for participating in the cover-up. Then we had Montebello the other day. It's getting hard to tell the police from the criminals now.
I guess we could set up a multi-billion dollar fund to pay off all the inevitable claims against police abuse. Or going by your sort of philosophy just do away with all rights and not have the inconvenience of freedom. Go live in North Korea, Zimbabwe or someplace like that come back and talk about how we have too much freedom. If you survive the experience of course.
House Member
Posts: 3,167
August 26th, 2007, 10:10 PM
So if we're so free why didn't we have a vote on something that was obviously the mould for our future?
Look at the EU. Now there's an organization that takes freedom seriously. Citizen input is important and it's used. In the grand democratic manner.
So if we're so free why didn't we have a vote on something that was obviously the mould for our future?
Look at the EU. Now there's an organization that takes freedom seriously. Citizen input is important and it's used. In the grand democratic manner.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 519
August 27th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Why don't you take a closer look at the EU. It doesn't even have a constitution because member nations can't agree on one. It was also created mostly behind the scenes with little or no input from its citizens and many are unhappy to be part of the union. Corruption is also a problem, former EU president Romano Prodi being a good example.
There are a lot of other places to live in the world, but few have our freedom or living standards.
Quoting tamarin
We have a lot more freedom with the Charter than we did without it, Canada couldn't even enact its own laws without approval from the British Commons before 1982.
So if we're so free why didn't we have a vote on something that was obviously the mould for our future?
Look at the EU. Now there's an organization that takes freedom seriously. Citizen input is important and it's used. In the grand democratic manner.
Look at the EU. Now there's an organization that takes freedom seriously. Citizen input is important and it's used. In the grand democratic manner.
Why don't you take a closer look at the EU. It doesn't even have a constitution because member nations can't agree on one. It was also created mostly behind the scenes with little or no input from its citizens and many are unhappy to be part of the union. Corruption is also a problem, former EU president Romano Prodi being a good example.
There are a lot of other places to live in the world, but few have our freedom or living standards.
Electoral Member
Posts: 84
August 27th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Who said the police were perfect?
What does the Charter have to do with Maher Arar?
Why are you so quick to believe that Arar is innocent or guilty? DO you know the details of his life personally?
What does the torture he suffered have anything to do with the Charter? Did Canadian Police Torture him?
What does a retirment fund have to do with the Charter?
Who said we should do away with all rights?
What post are you responding to?
Who said the police were perfect?
What does the Charter have to do with Maher Arar?
Why are you so quick to believe that Arar is innocent or guilty? DO you know the details of his life personally?
What does the torture he suffered have anything to do with the Charter? Did Canadian Police Torture him?
What does a retirment fund have to do with the Charter?
Who said we should do away with all rights?
What post are you responding to?
House Member
Posts: 3,167
August 27th, 2007, 09:17 AM
Cobalt, you have to be under 45. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such silly statements. There's far less personal freedom today than in years previous to the Charter. We are a country now grossly overregulated and each and every regulation that we pass limits or restricts our choice.
I'm 56. Canada worked perfectly fine before Mr. Trudeau and his gang got hold of it and gave it a workout it hasn't recovered from.
Cobalt, you have to be under 45. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such silly statements. There's far less personal freedom today than in years previous to the Charter. We are a country now grossly overregulated and each and every regulation that we pass limits or restricts our choice.
I'm 56. Canada worked perfectly fine before Mr. Trudeau and his gang got hold of it and gave it a workout it hasn't recovered from.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
August 27th, 2007, 09:22 AM
Yeah, none of the member states wants to sign anything that doesn't put the emphasis on them. Also, there is always somebody trying to tell somebody else how to do something right. Like they told Italy not to cook with wood stoves. Italy said, "Are you insane, you don't know anything about cooking pizza do you?" to which the legislators replied, "Ok, we will back off, but there can't be any chunks of burnt wood on the pizza."
Ah freedom.
Yeah, none of the member states wants to sign anything that doesn't put the emphasis on them. Also, there is always somebody trying to tell somebody else how to do something right. Like they told Italy not to cook with wood stoves. Italy said, "Are you insane, you don't know anything about cooking pizza do you?" to which the legislators replied, "Ok, we will back off, but there can't be any chunks of burnt wood on the pizza."
Ah freedom.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 519
August 27th, 2007, 11:10 AM
Quoting Lithp
Who said the police were perfect?
Quote:
Sounds to me like you think they never make any mistakes you moron. Our laws protect us from the imperfect authorities that are supposed to represent us. You want to take us to the sort of situation we're supposed to be fighting against overseas where people have few rights and protections against politcal and police abuse of power. Why don't you use your brain before you speak.
In the pre charter days if you had a warrant for your arrest the police could enter any residence at any time and get you.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
No. That doesn't mean that the police would destroy the property of Canadian citizens in the process. Historically, the police would knock on the door and say to a homeowner that there is a wanted person inside and the homeowner would either give him up or the police would come in by force(and then possibly bash a door or two) if the homeowner refused to cooperate.
Quote:
Maher Arar as a Canadian citizen is protected under the Charter, our rights don't just happen as you so bizarrely seem to think, they are codified in our law.
What does the Charter have to do with Maher Arar?
Quote:
Did you miss the official government apology, even it admits he's innocent of participation in terrorism and is paying him $10 million in compensation for his torture.
Why are you so quick to believe that Arar is innocent or guilty? DO you know the details of his life personally?
Quote:
The Charter is a codification of our rights, without it how do we determine where those rights begin and the states end.
What does the torture he suffered have anything to do with the Charter? Did Canadian Police Torture him?
What does a retirment fund have to do with the Charter?
What does a retirment fund have to do with the Charter?
Quote:
Who said we should do away with all rights?
Quote:
Where EXACTLY are those mechanisms located, besides your tiny little brain. It's the Charter that guarantees our freedoms since we brought the right to enact our laws to Canada in 1982. You're just another one of these complete nutjobs here that want to give total power to the PMO.
Get rid of the Charter and you get rid of our weak Justice system.
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry
And yes this argument applies to the sections covering gay rights, immigration, marriage, etc.. There was and is still in place mechanisms to prevent and address prejudice and bigotry
Clever Clogs
Posts: 519
August 27th, 2007, 11:27 AM
Trudeau did a great thing bringing our rights home to Canada, it protects us from complete nutjobs like you and your reform/alliance/conservative party.
Like I've been saying there are plenty of authoritarian states out there, if you're not happy living in freedom in Canada. Go live there instead of trying to bring their way of life here.
Quoting tamarin
You're full of it, under the British system we didn't have as much freedom as we do now. British citizens are subjects of the crown and don't even enjoy the codified freedoms we have under our Charter.
Cobalt, you have to be under 45. Otherwise, you wouldn't make such silly statements. There's far less personal freedom today than in years previous to the Charter. We are a country now grossly overregulated and each and every regulation that we pass limits or restricts our choice.
I'm 56. Canada worked perfectly fine before Mr. Trudeau and his gang got hold of it and gave it a workout it hasn't recovered from.
I'm 56. Canada worked perfectly fine before Mr. Trudeau and his gang got hold of it and gave it a workout it hasn't recovered from.
Trudeau did a great thing bringing our rights home to Canada, it protects us from complete nutjobs like you and your reform/alliance/conservative party.
Like I've been saying there are plenty of authoritarian states out there, if you're not happy living in freedom in Canada. Go live there instead of trying to bring their way of life here.
