World class culture is trash talk invented by the internationalist class, "pop" that's the culture most of us adhere to in the west, cheezburger platters sit coms and cheap booze. The world will decide who's got class or not.
Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I didn't say I was safer. I said I didn't have fear....despite not having property rights enshrined in my constitution. Obviously "the law" is only one aspect of the issue
I can't speak to the B.C. Hydro situation because the last time I was aware of a situation was 55 years ago when Hydro needed an easement across my parents' property, whereby Dad received some compensation and he got first option to clear the R/W for them for which he was also paid. More recently as a Highways employee I do have some knowledge of expropriation, which does happen in the situation where an existing R/W has to be widened and the property owner can be required to donate up 5% of his property for the sole purpose of widening in front of his property. Where property is required for new R/W. the owner was compensated "fair market value". This is as much for the protection of the tax payer as the property owner as lots of people have unreasonable expectations due to emotions and sentimental value and all property acquisition ends up being paid for by the taxpayer.
Really? Perhaps it is because of your location? I have no issue with the government taking my property either.
Sons of Liberty took the position in another post that "almost ALL" First World countries have constitutional property rights. The context was that they have US style property rights and Canada has no such rights. So I chose one - Denmark. No. Nein. Nyet. No entrenched property rights in Denmark. But they have a constitutionally entrenched national church. See Constitution of Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There is a reference to what Wiki called “private property rights” in section 72, which states:
Section 72 [Inviolability of the House]
The dwelling shall be inviolable. House searching, seizure, and examination of letters and other papers as well as any breach of the secrecy to be observed in postal, telegraph, and telephone matters shall take place only under a judicial order unless particular exception is warranted by Statute. ICL - Denmark - Constitution
Canada’s Charter says essentially the same things. This is not a constitutionally entrenched property right like America’s. It simply says that a court order (a warrant) is necessary for a search “unless particular exceptions warrant”. Hardly an iron clad right.
Then I decided to look at Norway next. No. Nein. Nyet. Norway’s constitution refers to a state church. It refers to property in about the same way as Denmark – that is to say not a complete constitutional entrenchment of property rights. It refers to property of the national royalty. About property of the people it states: ICL - Norway - Constitution
§ 104 [No Forfeiture of Property]
Land and goods may in no case be made subject to forfeiture.
§ 105 [Expropriation, Compensation]
If the welfare of the State requires that any person must surrender his movable or immovable property for the public use, he is to receive full compensation from the Treasury.
§ 106 [Charitable Purposes]
The purchase money, as well as the revenues of the landed property constituting ecclesiastical benefices, is applied solely to the benefit of the clergy and to the promotion of education. The property of charitable foundations is applied solely to the benefit of the foundations themselves.
Section 104 refers to no forfeiture. It doesn’t say what forfeiture means but section 105 says that expropriation must be accompanied by payment, so obviously the state can take away property. Section 106 refers to church property. So there you have it – a constitutionally entrenched property right like America’s doesn’t show up in Norway’s constitution either. Land and goods may in no case be made subject to forfeiture.
§ 105 [Expropriation, Compensation]
If the welfare of the State requires that any person must surrender his movable or immovable property for the public use, he is to receive full compensation from the Treasury.
§ 106 [Charitable Purposes]
The purchase money, as well as the revenues of the landed property constituting ecclesiastical benefices, is applied solely to the benefit of the clergy and to the promotion of education. The property of charitable foundations is applied solely to the benefit of the foundations themselves.
I decided to go for three and looked at Sweden’s constitutionally entrenched property rights. It is in a pdf found at http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...J9n5Ajl7s3S5x_x6g&sig2=0mRIA2_L5NPuAy3vmDZw6A.
Art. 18. The property of every citizen shall be so guaranteed that none may be compelled by expropriation or other such disposition to surrender property to the public institutions or to a private subject, or tolerate restriction by the public institutions of the use of land or buildings, other than where necessary to satisfy pressing public interests.
A person who is compelled to surrender property by expropriation or other such disposition shall be guaranteed compensation for his loss. Such compensation shall also be guaranteed to a person whose use of land or buildings is restricted by the public institutions in such a manner that ongoing land use in the affected part of the property is substantially impaired, or injury results which is significant in relation to the value of that part of the property. Compensation shall be determined according to principles laid down in law.
A person who is compelled to surrender property by expropriation or other such disposition shall be guaranteed compensation for his loss. Such compensation shall also be guaranteed to a person whose use of land or buildings is restricted by the public institutions in such a manner that ongoing land use in the affected part of the property is substantially impaired, or injury results which is significant in relation to the value of that part of the property. Compensation shall be determined according to principles laid down in law.
Sweden is essentially the same as Norway. Government may expropriate but must pay for the property.
Read it and weep. Three strikes and you’re out, to use an Americanism. The first three European constitutions I pulled up do not have entrenched property rights like America. All three have national churches. All three are constitutional monarchies that enacted protection for royal property. So much for your claim that all constitutions have American style property rights.
Canada doesn’t feel it is necessary to constitutionally protect “property rights” per se. Our charter’s full name is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Giving ourselves personal rights and freedoms against government was seen by Canadians as being more important and effective than mere “property” rights. Back in the 1980’s in a parliamentary debate the opposition Conservatives were taunting the Liberal government, daring it to enact constitutional property rights. The Liberals surprised them by replying okay. As soon as the conservatives wanted, a parliamentary committee would be set up to do that. Most MP’s were lawyers and they knew what a destructive element property rights had become in the US constitution. The conservatives backed down and Canadians had a laugh about it.
Yes, government has to pay. Fair market value is what they pay and it is a well established legal principle. Expropriation laws are generally under provincial jurisdiction.
Incorrect again. Sometimes people get sub-surface rights. You always have to look at the state of title certificate.
When's the last time you read a gun rights thread. Americans, especially conservatives, are always crowing about being armed to protect themselves against despotic government, and argue that they must be armed to protect themselves against government. Americans are the most frightened people in the First World.
??? Along with growing up?
Except for that pesky 'notwithstanding' clause that makes all other clauses about as helpful as used toilet paper.
Sec 2 is where the basic rights are and sec 7 - 15 is more specific legal rights
Of course Sec 1 also allows limits....
So really the whole damn thing might as well be fire-starter for all the good it will do you against the govt.
In the short term maybe, but any law passed "notwithstanding" expires after five years, and the opposition gets another stab at stopping it if it is tried again. It is seldom used. Quebec used it for their language law once that I know of.
Section 1 is often used. It is where the courts get to say, "Yeah, yer technically right but take yer argument an' stuff it."
.
Not at all. Courts use the Charter all the time to control rogue cops. There is more of that than most people credit. All of a sudden cops have to obey the law too. The worst cops resent it and whine like babies.
Look again genius - you made the self description ... oops, the assertion.
Except that the delusional right wingers fail to understand that our Founding Fathers said we need to disarm government first by eliminating the standing army. Having gun rights was only the second step in the process to guarantee freedom from government tyranny. This is something the ignorant delusionals fail to understand.
So if I understand you correctly, Newfundland, with its own distinct culture, was wrong to join confederation?
However, Newfoundland is still independent.
"National Anthem of the Dominion of Newfoundland" — The Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra - YouTube
"National Anthem of the Dominion of Newfoundland" — The Slovak Radio Symphony Orchestra - YouTube
Yeah, met a Newfie last week, asked him where he was from..
He replied, Newfoundland... 1st generation Canadian, 3 Generation Newfie. :lol:
More evidence of America's fear of its government. That fear is not a trait of Canadian culture. Some individuals do, but it has never reached the level of political awareness and constitutionality as in the US. Americans as a people are afraid.
I see your logic but I disagree with your implied position. The existence of cultural differences doesn't necessarily make amalgamation hostile. Canada wasn't against Newfy differences. America disagrees with too many of our deeply held cultural norms, and has a history of being violent and aggressive about expressing its disagreements. Why don't you ask Newfies?
Canada should get rid of its conservative government to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm all for it. Sometimes, I have to wait a whole hour in line at customs.
Plus, maybe I'd finally get some decent poutine down here.
Plus, maybe I'd finally get some decent poutine down here.
As I mentioned before- We have resources up the hoop and State Corps moving in. The latest was Malaysia. 36 Billion for NG.
I prefer publicly traded corps over state companies.
Actually, it's only the drugged up delusional right wingers who say they fear government. But the moment a disaster strikes like Katrina or the NOLA oil disaster, they suck up the government butt and give it a good licking with lots of relish.
We went over how Gov Christie of New Jersey criticized Obama like a crazy fück - two weeks later when the Sandy storm struck he praised Obama as if he was the Messiah. That's the story of every CONservative in this country - no principle, no reality, nothing but bullshït.
America worships the greenback. Full stop. When the word "Property" is spoken out loud in public, all Americans within hearing are supposed to bow towards Washington, DC. That's the biggest reason why America is such a moral dead end. US lefties look much better than their righties right now, but let's not forget that the US the Democratic Party is way right of Canada's right. If they were here they'd be flat out called right wingers. As an organization the Democrats ride comfortably along being pulled further right by the Republican Party and gaining more power without trying to change very much at all. America needs a strong party like Canada's federal NDP to keep the others honest. Unfortunately US law prevents a third party ever being formed (or at least that's what I was told by a US teacher).
Should Canadians merge with that mentality? We are culturally far too different to make a good fit.
That means you are giving up control. The only control you have over a publicly traded corporation is through the economy. If Americans had as much control as they needed over US companies, their jobs would not now be in Asia. A crown corporation, like Air Canada, would never even try it because no politician would put his neck on the line. The opposition would make hay and the public would say no. The only people your ideology supports are the upper economic 1%. Are you one of the dreamers who thinks that if you keep supporting the elite one day they'll let you be rich?
I'm ignoring your knee-jerk anti-American foolishness in this post to say one thing:
The US teacher was an idiot.
There are many political parties, and have been many political parties in the USA. Reform, Progressives, Bull Moose....
I'm ignoring your knee-jerk anti-American foolishness in this post to say one thing:
The US teacher was an idiot.
There are many political parties, and have been many political parties in the USA. Reform, Progressives, Bull Moose....
There have been numerous parties in the US. But only 2 make the grade as National.
We have had Ross run and Nader as well.
United States presidential election, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ross drew enough votes from Bush Snr. to elect Clinton.
Bill Clinton -44,909,806
George H. W. Bush - 39,104,550
Ross Perot - 19,743,821
Nader ran and drew enough vote from Gore to elct Bush Jnr. ran
Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "spoiler" controversy
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida."[7]