It's time to bring the death penalty back!

[SirJosephPorter]

YOu are not catching on fast Countryboy :lol::lol::lol::lol: The courts are the only ones qualified to make complicated decisions, BUT when it comes to applying the death penalty they are not qualified.

Sure they are qualified. But Parliament has decided, no death penalty. If Parliament passes death penalty law and it goes to the courts, the courts will probably say, no death penalty. So sure they are qualified to rule on it.

 

[EagleSmack]

YOu are not catching on fast Countryboy :lol::lol::lol::lol: The courts are the only ones qualified to make complicated decisions, BUT when it comes to applying the death penalty they are not qualified.

Exactly. :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

Quite so Francis, but that is how decisions are reached in a representative democracy. People elect the legislature to make tough decisions like that.

Particularly when it comes to something as complicated as constitution and the Charter, I don’t think it is right to leave it to ordinary person to interpret it. These are very involved legal documents and only legal mind will be able to interpret it properly. That is why it is left up to the courts.

As to the MPs, they should be able to reach a proper decision without people trying to second guess them. If people don’t like a particular MP, they can always vote him out at the next election. But they voted him in, let him do his job.

Plus, there is no provision for binding referendums in Canadian constitution anyway. Courts are perfectly free to ignore any referendum results, so it will be an exercise in futility, in addition to it being wrong.

Spoken like a true totalitarian, authoritarian, absolutist, autocratic type dictator. "Screw the peasants, they haven't a clue about anything". lmao

 

[Northboy]

YOu are not catching on fast Countryboy :lol::lol::lol::lol: The courts are the only ones qualified to make complicated decisions, BUT when it comes to applying the death penalty they are not qualified.

Yep. no one, you have to let nature take its course, but there has been much inspiration provided on the subject of medicine that has been witheld.

I will say no more on the subject of Death in any form as it is all just a change.

That, my friend, has been written many times over and over. You wouldn't

Read. So maybe now you'll listen.

Now, off you go, hard to the Book in the manner of Christ, because that's how judgement is handed out. In the manner of Christ.

God's Law of Cause and Effect now firmly in place.

Off, you go and learn from each other.

 

[AnnaG]

Ordinary people have the right to vote. But to say that they must have the final say in complicated constitutional matters is absurd.

It works in Switzerland. You don't seem to have a very high opinion of people; yourself excluded, of course.

 

[EagleSmack]

It works in Switzerland. You don't seem to have a very high opinion of people; yourself excluded, of course.

Badabing.

 

[AnnaG]

So let me get this straight. You want to hold a referendum among drunks to decide if killing during drunk driving should be legal. You think that is equivalent to gays voting on whether homosexuality should be legal.

A typical conservative view.

roflmao spin, spin, spin, spin, eggs and spin, ham and spin, spin with spin, beans with spin, .....
"Come on baby let's do the twist
Come on baby let's do the twist
Take me by my little hand and go like this
Ee-oh twist baby baby twist
Oooh-yeah just like this
Come on little miss and do the twist "
It was your suggestion that only people involved should have a say in the issue that concerns them and no-one else.

So in your mind, homosexuality is tantamount to a drunk driver killing?

There's nothing like projecting your addled thoughts into what people say.

 

[AnnaG]

Average citizen may have any opinion he wants, he is not allowed to be the final arbiter when it comes to constitution. He is not qualified to interpret the constitution.

Yup. don't bother trusting the regular public to hire the right people to interpret it for them. Just withhold it all from public view.
Gawd, I dislike autocratic pinheads.

 

[Northboy]

Words people, words.

"homosexuality" Hmmm. the common folk coined the word fag.

hmmmm. fag Forgotten and Gone????

Use your minds.

 

[AnnaG]

Yep. no one, you have to let nature take its course, but there has been much inspiration provided on the subject of medicine that has been witheld.

I will say no more on the subject of Death in any form as it is all just a change.

That, my friend, has been written many times over and over. You wouldn't

Read. So maybe now you'll listen.

Now, off you go, hard to the Book in the manner of Christ, because that's how judgement is handed out. In the manner of Christ.

God's Law of Cause and Effect now firmly in place.

Off, you go and learn from each other.

:tard:

 

[lone wolf]

Why bother posting if all you're going to do is talk to yourself then? roflmao

He can't get that post count up to the superhuman level to which he seems to believe he's entitled without posting.

Hmm... Doesn't an exaggerated sense of entitlement and self worth go hand-in-hand with narcissism?

 

[AnnaG]

He can't get that post count up to the superhuman level to which he seems to believe he's entitled without posting.

Hmm... Doesn't an exaggerated sense of entitlement and self worth go hand-in-hand with narcissism?

One and the same.

 

[DaSleeper]

Spoken like a true totalitarian, authoritarian, absolutist, autocratic type dictator. "Screw the peasants, they haven't a clue about anything". lmao

It's the liberal way:lol:;-)

 

[JLM]

You got it; ordinary people are not qualified to judge complicated legal or constitutional matters. Thus it is OK to have the average person as a juror, but no way can he serve as a judge, that would be a disaster.

Indeed, what you are saying is complete nonsense. Are you saying that ordinary people must be regarded as experts in law, experts in economics, expert in finance, experts in international politics? That way lies chaos, confusion, disaster.

So should we then employ ordinary people as economics experts, as scientific experts, as doctors, as lawyers, as judges? What nonsense.

Ordinary people have the right to vote. But to say that they must have the final say in complicated constitutional matters is absurd.

Complicated for who S.J.? Just because you don't have the wherewithall to understand something, definitely doesn't mean that I don't.

 

[countryboy]

Really? My, my aren’t we being progressive. You believe that women should be involved in politics? No!!!! You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you accuse me of not wanting women in politics. You continuously accuse me of assuming what you are thinking (which I rarely do, I base my opinion upon solid evidence), yet you have no problem concluding that I don’t want women in politics.

Anyway, a conservative like you accusing a liberal alike me of being against equal rights for women, accusing me of wanting to subjugate women like they do in Saudi Arabia is like the Devil quoting the Bible. Conservatives opposed vote for women, they consistently opposed equal rights for women.

Even today, there are very few female MPs in conservative party. There was only one prominent female cabinet minister, Rhona Ambrose; Harper replaced her with a man. This is the conservative party you idolize; think that it is the greatest thing on earth. And you have the nerve of accusing me of treating women as second class citizens? I must say I admire your chutzpah.

You conservatives have as much credibility when it comes to women’s’ rights as Dracula would have when it comes to guarding blood bank. The more extreme of your party wants to put the clock back at least 50 years on women’ rights. The more extreme wing of your party hates women, there no other way of putting it. If you are accusing me of being against equality for women, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I wonder you didn’t accuse me of wanting to bring back the slavery.

Or how about accusing me of wanting to carry out slaughter of Jews, a la Hitler? That would be as colorful and as true as claiming that I want to reduce women to second class citizens.

This tells me that you have ran out of arguments.

MY GAWD! When you get finished restoring your blood pressure to something within a safe range, perhaps we could continue. Dracula? Hitler? The Devil? Is this a live demonstration of the "liberal way" of dealing with people in a discussion?

 

[TenPenny]

...blah blah blah...
Even today, there are very few female MPs in conservative party....blah blah blah...

Number of Liberal female PMs is...?????
Number of Conservative female PMs is...1

Case closed on women in politics.

 

[countryboy]

You got it; ordinary people are not qualified to judge complicated legal or constitutional matters. Thus it is OK to have the average person as a juror, but no way can he serve as a judge, that would be a disaster.

Indeed, what you are saying is complete nonsense. Are you saying that ordinary people must be regarded as experts in law, experts in economics, expert in finance, experts in international politics? That way lies chaos, confusion, disaster.

So should we then employ ordinary people as economics experts, as scientific experts, as doctors, as lawyers, as judges? What nonsense.

Ordinary people have the right to vote. But to say that they must have the final say in complicated constitutional matters is absurd.

Aw shucks, I always thought the mark of a good expert was one smart enough to analyze all the complicated stuff, read it back to the decision makers in simple terms, and then answer clarifying questions. Kind of a "one-up approval" process, just to keep everything honest and on track.

Now that you bring this up, it may explain why there is a growing disconnect between the experts and the real world - we're letting them analyze stuff, make all the decisions that affect a wide number of people, and then present it as a "done deal." I think we'd better set about changing that incredibly dangerous behaviour right away.

 

[countryboy]

Referendums seem to work for the Swiss. Maybe the Swiss don't have emotions.

Maybe not, but they seem to be smart enough to understand all the difficult stuff that we delegate exclusively to "experts."

 

[countryboy]

Average citizen may have any opinion he wants, he is not allowed to be the final arbiter when it comes to constitution. He is not qualified to interpret the constitution.

This is not the first time that conservatives have claimed that the ordinary citizen knows better than the expert (judges in this case). Religious right routinely makes the argument that since a majority of American people believe in Creationism, it is right, that scientists are wrong in believing in evolution, and that Creationism must be taught in public schools. Your argument is on par with that.

The courts are the final arbiters when it comes to constitution and it will stay that way. If ordinary people don’t like what courts decide, they have the very difficult avenue open to them of constitutional amendment. But an average citizen is not competent enough to judge complicated constitutional issues.

I wouldn’t want to judge such issues. Now if you think you are a constitutional expert, try to become a judge yourself, but don’t try to make every Canadian a Supreme court judge.

I think where you are confused here is that you believe that every issue has to be a confrontation between experts and citizens. Being a very tolerant and objective person, I disagree with your radical thoughts on that.

I believe that it is quite possible to have the experts examine any subject under the sun, "play it back" to us "ordinary people" (that would be the citizens that pay the salaries of the experts), and have us say "yes" or "no" to the big decisions...such as the death penalty.

It's kind of like a form of teamwork. Are you familiar with that concept?

When you begin to suggest that citizens collectively have no freedom, influence, or authority to change anything that may be amiss in "the system", you're sounding pretty scary.

Remember the old adage: You can delegate the task, but not the responsiblity. Let me help you with a practical application of it...the task of judging must of course lie with the judges, but the responsibility for the outcome of their decisions on society rests with society. Got it?

 

[countryboy]

Close but no cigar- only when ALL the parties with a valid interest have the ability to vote. So with abortion that would be the women of child bearing age X 3.

Abortion involves pregnancy. Pregancy involves men (or at least their seed). So now you have to include men (OK, maybe just the fertile ones) in the ability to vote.