Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has replaced the “community standard of tolerance with a harm-based test”, let’s hope the approved-list-of-shrubbery-and-house-colour “planned community” question is soon put to the courts.
I for one, can’t wait to see the restoration of our constitutional right to store a vehicle on blocks in the front driveway.
There is something so solid and good in the simple landscaping of the yeomanry. Stacked tires; painted baby blue, with colorful geraniums spilling over, framing the retired vehicle with its patina of oxidation. The piquant counterpoint of the occasional washing machine… Bold but simple. As country as the smell of fresh earth, freshly turned by the Poppin’ Johnny.
Kate,
Big difference between public display and private display.
Your neighbors, particularly someone trying to sell their home, have a right not to have their property values harmed by a next door neighbor’s vehicle on blocks on full display in the front yard. The same way the city will eventually come by to make you cut your grass.
I’m surprised the SCOC ruling has bothered you this much, it is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of getting government out of our lives as much as possible.
How does one go about having McLachlin, Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron impeached?
And what’s the best way to express one’s displeasure/disgust with this ruling?
Oh, that’s right, we live in Canada.
We’ll accept anything.
Nothing the Supreme Court has done has been in the role of getting “government out of our lives”. They are slowly eroding the ability of citizens and their communities to govern themselves, replacing the constitution with their own “written in” opinions and removing the ability of the electorate to hold their governments accountable. They are not reducing government – they are gradually seizing control of it.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but, Heaven Knows… anything goes!
As our betters continue to redefine for us what constitutes Canada, erasing and replacing laws and/or traditions that have been respected at least in theory by the “community” (a now-archaic expression) for generations, even some of the libertarian-minded among us wonder what manifestations of the law of unintended consequences will surprise us sooner or later.
Otherwise, I don’t much care what adults (and in my world “adults” shouldn’t include 14-year-olds) do in private as long as they don’t scare the horses.
That car up on blocks, on the other hand, might really spook them.
Honestly, this post is just stupid. What does “approved-list-of-shrubbery-and-house-colour planned community question” have to do with the definition of indecency in the Criminal Code?
Has anyone here actually read and understood the ruling?
“Your neighbors, particularly someone trying to sell their home, have a right not to have their property values harmed by a next door neighbor’s vehicle on blocks on full display in the front yard.”
I have a problem with this argument; let me change the object on display here and see if I can get it across properly:
“Your neighbors, particularly someone trying to sell their home, have a right not to have their property values harmed by a next door neighbor’s Conservative election sign on full display in the front yard.”
I admit this is a tricky one, though. I agree that an unkempt property can negatively affect the values of adjacent properties, but does that make it the role of the state to force the owner to make remedies to his own property or face sanctions, or to approve/disapprove displays on private property? The libertarian in me says hell no, though the realist in me says limited powers used for the betterment of the whole community aren’t unreasonable, as long as there are strong checks against abuses of that power.
Can somebody give me an answer to following question:
When Canada’s constitution was signed?
I think it was 1982–but not signed by Quebec–the original one was 1887–
It must be Christmas. This topic is down the chimney.
1982? 1887? That’s pathetic.
The British North America Act took effect in 1867. The Constitution Act, 1982, took effect in 1982 and it included the Charter of Rights. Other significant Constitutional Acts took place at other times; the Statute of Westminster in 1931 is an example. There is no one date for the signing of the Canadian Constitution, though it could be argued that 1867 is the closest thing to a single signing date.
I studied constitutional law under Peter Hogg, former Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School. Hogg is considered the top constitutional law expert in Canada.
On a number of occasions, the good professor and I had a number of sidebars about Trudeau’s Charter. I was given to asking all sorts of silly questions – all of which got me blank stares as reponses.
1. If the power over a man’s wallet is equivalent to the control of that man’s will, then why didn’t Trudeau guarantee the right to employment to all Canadians?
2. If one believes that society is best served by stable communities, homes and families, why are there no economic or property rights in the Charter?
3. If Canadians are to be ‘strong and free’, why are there no rights concerning freedom from political tyranny and specific rights to liberty and democracy?
Don’t expect a reading-in of these and such similar rights by the SCC concerning the Charter in the near future.
The true intent of the Charter, for those of you who still get sweaty with pride whenever it is invoked, is that it is a crude, political document.
The Charter intends to undo, not support.
It serves as the perfect, legal cover for those who seek to re-engineer Canada, not safeguard it.
Leftists are quite happy now, given that the particular colour of judicial activism displayed by the SCC matches their own. But in the future, if the court is pushed to an ideological extreme of another shade, I will expect nothing but silence to come from your corner of the brute darkeness. Because there is little in the Charter, or the attitudes of the SCC Justices, to prevent a slide toward totalitarianism.
Enjoy your sex clubs you morons.
speaking of down the chimney. see that nfld population is down to 515000, giving them an average riding size of 75000, and a voting boost of 25% over normal ridings.
this is after redistribution.
PEI under an earlier agreement has 4 seats forever. giving them a 400% boost in their voting power. the whole 110000 of them across the bridge have 4 seats that they give to whomever will finance their little paradise on the backs of the rest of canadians.
this is the ultimate planned community,planned by the libs to retain their seats. also the most over governed people in the world having a provincial legislature with about 1 rep to 5000 bodies.plus a plethora of town councils and other commitees .
not much room for freedom here.
FREE THE WEST.!!!!!
OT
The United Church O’ Canada urges PMPM to demand that all coalition forces be withdrawn from Iraq, so that the 4 Peacemaker hostages may be freed.
http://tinyurl.com/8vxj3
Gotta love that United Church, although it does seem to suffer from shrinkage. Wonder why.
As long as I remain free not to associate with people who live dissolute, debased lives, and to voice my disapproval thereof, I don’t see why the government should have the right to dictate matters of consensual adult sexual behaviour. One would hope that communities would continue to have standards regardless of the SCC. Unfortunately, I’m not necessarily sure that my precondition still exists, or if it does, for how much longer. I think the government may be ill. It certainly looks slimmer when rulings like this come down, but there’s also a lot of bloating and distension in places that should be as flat as a pancake.
dang hit post too soon.
I meant to relate the rural charm of PEI– rusting hulks , run down barns and oxidized dirt.to the yeomanry decor.
all financed by the feds. and filmed by Pravda about some crappy green farmhouse.
Let’s just see how popular the Supreme Court is when an angry and pissed off father takes a shotgun down to one of these sex clubs to retrieve his 14 year old daughter after she’s just “given a round” to the ten 40 year old men encircling her.
Remember, thanks to the LIberals, when it comes to sexual relations a 14 year old is legal. Great for the pervs…..a headache and heartbreak for mom and dad.
Yet another example of our new-found “Canadian Values”
Can this same SCC reading be applied to a private smoking club?..I was asked to put that on here..
Did you see one of the EGALE guys on Duffy complaining about what a hard time the cops gave the bath houses? Well, now they won’t be allowed to, don’t you know. We have to be the most boring people in the world next to the Swiss and Swedes, but boy, when it comes to sex, we are a Just Society.
Good letter in today’s NP in which a citizen reminds the next PM that it is his duty to protect the country, not a document. The charter was cobbled together by citizens of this country and can be changed as all documents can. But protecting Canadian society is sacrosanct.
john g: Civilization is defined by laws and customs. When one by one, all laws and customs are ‘deconstructed’ and nothing is ‘constructed’ in its place, what is left? No civilization.
What you advocate is libertarianism, one hair’s width of moral relevance away from anarchy.
“Big difference between public display and private display.
Your neighbors, particularly someone trying to sell their home, have a right not to have their property values harmed by a next door neighbor’s vehicle on blocks on full display in the front yard.”
So what if the folks next door have swingers parties every weekend and the property values go way down ?? Is that harmful enough – they are behind closed doors, if that even matters.
Just like a gang moves into the turf, rents a place and turns it into a crack house.
How courts will now determine “harm” is a complete mystery to me – but one thing for sure CITIZENS will take a back seat to APPOINTED JUDGES
Canadian democracy in action.
If MGK had learned anything in his classes, he’d know the answers to his stupid questions. What a turd.
thickslab,
And that would make you either a University of Windsor law grad (or dropout) or a poli-sci major at a second-tier college…who has dreams of being a Liberal prime minister?
Bark with a little more intelligence.
Stanley Kurtz on the dark side of legalizing swingers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz043003.asp
fred has it. this decision provides the legal precedent to allow for all kinds of previously abhorrent behaviour to take place in canadian society. not concerning ourselves about what specific behaviour we as individuals find abhorrent, the larger issue is the supreme court is allowing for an anything goes judgement. this ruling may or may not have had gay rights activists behind it, as Mrs Thatcher pointed out above, but i bet it did.
this is a politically motivated judiciary. the gay rights activists have pushed their agenda up the supreme court, when will we excrete some sense.
My bad. I gave entirely too much credit to Thickslab. From Google, this is who he is:
“A personal blog. I’m sarcastic, depressive, and totally in lust with big, hairy men. This is
my life: Sex, Men, Depression, Toronto.
thickslab.com/blog/
Saints preserve us from these f***ing Luciferians!
Honestly, MGK, your questions are stupid. Take your third question, for example: the Charter guarantees every citizen the right to elects MPs or provincial MLAs and to have periodic elections. The first section of the Charter states that the only limits on the rights must be justified in a free and democratic society, the obvious observation being that such a restriction makes sense only if we are in a free and democratic society. Yes, this admittedly a simplification of the text of s. 1., but I’m working in a small text box here; you should understand the point I’m getting at.
Lord save us from liars who pretend to have studied law at Osgoode Hall…
here’s a link to the site thickslab has which illustrates the connection this SSC decision has on the gay community’s “bath houses”
http://www.thickslab.com/blog/post/2005/12/21/bathhouses-are-now-mostly-legal
Now that community standards are gone, what exactly are we left with, some subjective “harm” test?
Who determines what level of harm is acceptable? How long ebfore the distinction between public and private is erased?
Child sex advocates have been aruing for years that children can give consent and not harmed by the abuse they receive.
Fred, why would swinger’s parties behind closed doors have any effect on property value? Ian, why would a conservative lawn sign? Come on…
Doug, yes in general I support libertarianism wherever it is practical to do so. Probably a result of seeing so much bad government over the last decade that in most cases no government is a much preferable alternative. I certainly don’t want government to prevent entirely consensual behaviour that harms nobody.
“Governments should only do what only governments can do” is a pretty good motto.
George
Thank you. This leads to next question – where I can buy a copy of Canadian Constitiution?
The written portions of the Canadian Constitution are available online for free.
thanks.
Is there unwritten portion?
No one on this post has effectively made the connection between what people do in private to ‘community standards’, these are two entirely separate entities.
It is ridiculous to suggest that towns will be turned into centres of debauchery. The percentage of people engaged in this type of activity is small and will always be small.
As for posters bringing up the �teenage daughter in the sex house� theme, nice try. You really don�t give teens much credit, and are really kidding yourself if you think you actually know everything your teenage daughters are into.
George: Yes. I suggest going to Wikipedia and looking up the Constution of Canada. That should give you a starting point for your research.
Ever since the days when Al Capone visited Moose Jaw it has been a right for decent citizens to break the law of the day and have group sex in public places.
In case you couldn’t tell, that’s a shot at Moose Jaw AND the supreme court. I’m pretty indifferent when it comes to Al Capone. He’s probably the most moral of the group….
So, let’s see if I got this right: two or more adults + sex + rights = (Osgood Hall Bath houses + debauchery + 14 year old girls – Canadian Values) / (dueling banjos + Rampant STDs + Anne does Green Gables – Poppin’ Johnny (?))
Is that like the drunks on every street corner in Alberta when liquer stores went private? Honestly folks, this ain’t a big deal. Those who like to dunk somebody elses dicky will continue to do so and catch or protect themselves from diseases. The car on blocks in Kate’s yard will be replaced by an old wagon and thresher (tractor stays in the back for now). The sun will rise in the east and a half hour earlier in Newfoundland. Good honest folks will still bring up their children with a strong moral upbringing. Life will go on.
Oh yeah, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and any other government document will still be written so that lawyers will be the only ones who can claim they understand it.
And a Merry Christmas to all in case I don’t have a chance to say it later. Ho, ho, ho y’all.
Thank you all for info. It look to me that Canada does not have constitiution. Maybe is about time – Zimbabwe has one – signed even.
I don’t know what you read or where you got your information, but Canada most definitely has a Constitution.
Canadian constitutional and other statues and regulations can be found here: http://www.canlii.org/index_en.html
“Ian, why would a conservative lawn sign?”
I think you missed my point. Let me try again. You can assert all you want that what I put on my property somehow harms the value of yours, whether it’s a broken-down car, an election sign, the colour of my house, whatever. So you run to the state and say my display is hurting your property value, so they should pass a law against what I’m doing.
The libertarian in me says the state should tell you to sue me, prove the damage done to you in court, and have me pay up accordingly, because the state has better things to do than decide whether what’s on my property affects the value of yours and enforce any violations of same. Plus, once the state starts down that road, it’s hard to get them to stop, and stupidity eventually ensues (http://tinyurl.com/7fqb2 — I think there was a similar event in Ontario a year or two ago but I can’t find it).
The realist in me says the state will butt its nose in anyway because any property value changes affect tax revenue, and there’s no such thing as a state that’ll tolerate reducing tax revenue.
I still say this ruling puts the onus on the victim to prove there was harm done. Even parents, for that matter.
I think applying for the gun registry may be in order. You may have to prove someone else’s harm unto you a leetle more directly than the courts seem to care about.
This would be the Constitution Quebec has yet to sign? Come to think of it I don’t recall voting to approve what passes for a Constitution in Canada.
Dana: the reason you don’t recall voting for a Constitution is because you weren’t alive in 1867 when the BNA Act was passed. Subsequent amendments, including the Constitution Act, 1982, were passed in accordance with the Constitution as of 1867. Regarding Quebec’s signature, its signature was not required. It was (and is) desirable for them to sign on, but it was not legally required under the Constitution as it existed before 1982.
Porter: the gun registry has nothing to do with the legal definition of indecency. Regarding “putting the onus on the victim,” the onus of proving harm is put not on the victim, but on the Crown in prosecuting cases involving indecency.
Paul Martin told Duffy he doesn’t understand this sort of behaviour, but he won’t challenge the Court since nobody’s getting hurt.
I wonder if the definition of “harm” might end up to be simlilar to that of “sexual harrassment” in the workplace. In the latter instance, i was taught that the person being “harmed” was actually harmed because he/she felt that way. Sometimes a very simple innocent act or word(s) could be construed as “harm” in the eye of the harmee, even though the majority of others could not see it.
The phrase “naked public square” takes on a whole new meaning!
Thickslab …..info from good source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2063.html