Calling the Supreme Court of Canada. Here's your chance to rewrite the budget. #SCOC https://t.co/d9rZPeDW6P
— Katewerk (@katewerk) April 16, 2015
In order to strike down the law as unconstitutional, the majority of judges, in a decision written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, argued that while the mandatory three and five year sentences handed to the two individuals in the case under appeal were appropriate, there might be some future case where the law would constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Since the majority couldn’t come up with a single case to make this argument, McLachlin made one up.
And that was written before today’s decision effectively striking down the National Anthem.
This will go on as long as judges remain unelected.
The motto of Canada is as follows:
A Mari Usque Ad Mare
Psalm 72:8 in the Bible:
“Et dominabitur A MARI USQUE AD MARE, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae”
(King James Bible:
“He shall have dominion also FROM SEA TO SEA, and from the river unto the ends of the earth”
By the Supreme Court’s reasoning the motto of Canada in latin is more dangerous than the possession of weapons requiring a 3 year minimum sentence.
Clearly, council prayers are more dangerous than a weapons offence because not worshiping the state is ‘anti-progressive’.
Obviously, council prayers are out of step with the 72nd Psalm notwithstanding that prayers and Psalms are essentially the same thing…worship of one’s Creator and asking for guidance.
Soon the Supreme Court of Canada will be striking down the 72 Psalm and the Anthem as unconstitutional. These comedians are making it up as they go along; and what’s more no one with any sense would believe their obvious ideological clap trap.
It’s a good thing that I live in BC, when you go down Highway #1 through the Fraser Canyon you pass through Hell’s Gate. Continuing on a considerable distance beyond HOPE you’ll find my place.
It’s a good thing that salvation doesn’t come from this clown show; who also think that doctors should unanimously be allowed to kill to you, in a 9 – 0 ruling.
Thank GOD that salvation doesn’t come from these gong show geniuses on the SCOC
As Psalm 113:7 per the Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“He raises the afflicted from a dunghill.”
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group ‘True North’
So the state will no longer sponsor the religion of atheism?
So “God keep our land, glorious and free” can’t be sung any more? It will be back to the old joke about 10,000 Canadians singing the National Anthem: Oh Canada hummmm, hummm hum, hum….
Alleluia he is risen, yes lord Jesus ,king of the Jews , mocked, hated, despised and rejected………but victorious. Amen!! Lord amen!! Emanuel jesus lives!!!
We will lose this battle. We know how this ends……….but we have won the war through Jesus christ who died , descended into hell , conquered death according to the scriptures and the third day he rose again and sits at the right hand of God the father….. Lord have mercy, christ have mercy, forgive them for they know not what they do. Amen!!
For the very few times the SCOC gets a decision right, I’m just not sure it’s worth it anymore.
The constitution of Canada is a piece of crap, those elected say one thing, do another, believe they’re above the law weekly, while we pay for it bi-weekly.
Is security of person a right? I mean it’s “in there” isn’t it? A “right” when we decide it’s a right..
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person…” except when we decide you don’t? or we decide it’s not a real right, or we redefine what is life, when does life start, when or why life should end. That liberty isn’t really liberty, and security of the person isn’t really for us working at the tax farm.
That junk about being entitled to “good government”, is that still in there? oh I suppose it’s not really a part of the constitution, as if that matters anyhow.
Forget the Senate, the unelected body we call the “Supreme” Court is the biggest threat to this democracy. The rights of the majority are taken away by even a minority of one, as in one complaint by a pack of appointed legal heads who themselves vote on cases and use majority votes in their decisions.
Oh Canada…..”God keep our land….” surely must be struck down as offensive to at least one person in this country.
looks like there is no longer a need for an election this fall. maintain the status quo and let the appointed socialists do the job, no need to elect new socialists.
We stopped seeing justice in the legal system decades ago – they do not defend the rights of the individual , they prosecute for the state and they adjudicate political agendas, most of which remove rights, exculpate criminals and suppress victims – political activism from the bench has run its course and it’s time to round up all the demented kangaroos and put them back in the cage – we don’t need them fowling things up any more than they have.
Case in point _ “Black Judge Lets Black Armed Robber Go Free Because White Victim Was “Racist”
“http://investmentwatchblog.com/black-judge-lets-black-armed-robber-go-free-because-white-victim-was-racist/
Sorry, here’s the link – read and weep
http://investmentwatchblog.com/black-judge-lets-black-armed-robber-go-free-because-white-victim-was-racist/
In some respects, this could be an indication of light at the end of the tunnel.
These instances of judicial activism are increasingly blatant….over-reach if you would….which should cause a backlash…the pendulum swing.
The critical factor is whether/how the media informs…..
Kate, you amuse me, as well as yourself. That notwithstanding, it’s getting close to time for the notwithstanding (clause, that is).
The Left bleat and wail at the mere mention of the Notwithstanding Clause, this in itself tells us all we need to know about the red robed Supremes and their agenda. Never mind the little details like the fact the Charter would never have been agreed to/signed off on had that Clause not be included.
Time for the Harper government to make use of it. In a democracy unelected people should not get to call the shots on the elected government’s Bills.
The Supremes see themselves as the moral and intellectual compass of the nation and the defacto official opposition to the Harper majority government. There is no light at the end of any tunnel. Peasant, meet and know who is thy master.
As someone of no particular religious affiliation, it’s hard for me to see what’s so all-fired necessary about a municipal government starting its meetings with a specifically sectarian prayer. Especially since much of my family is originally from, you know, Ireland.
I’m guessing that if the council were opening its meetings with 002.191-193 from the Quran, y’all might have a different opinion on the matter.
So Hans are you telling me if I drive to Vancouver, once I am beyond Hope, and drive through a Gate in the Fraser Canyon, I will be in Hell?
Thanks for the warning.
: )
Concerning the prayer decision, it is almost as if the SCOC doesn’t understand the difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom FROM religion”. And they are enforcing the latter.
Okay, I’m torn on this decision. The majority opinion is truly absurd, and the minority opinion makes very good points, but falls down hard on the following:
“Section 95 targets the simple possession of guns that are frequently used in gang‑related or other criminal activity. Parliament has concentrated on simple possession for a reason: firearms — particularly the firearms caught by Section 95 — are inherently dangerous. Outside of law enforcement, prohibited and restricted firearms are primarily found in the hands of criminals who use them to intimidate, wound, maim, and kill. Given the inherent danger associated with these guns, it was open to Parliament to conclude their simple possession should attract a significant mandatory custodial sentence.”
There are far, far more licensed owners of restricted firearms who harm no one, than criminals with handguns. And they are no “inherently dangerous”, but rather the hands of the criminal, not the tool.
We still have a long way to go to change minds about guns in Canada.
“Outside of law enforcement, prohibited and restricted firearms are primarily found in the hands of criminals who use them to intimidate, wound, maim, and kill.”
wat
Notwithstanding on that one would get a lot of support, I think.
Once again Canada bows to political correctness and cuts out more from the heart of our nation. No doubt this has something to do with no offending atheist Liberals and Muslims. Aayan Hirsi Ali has it right: “Islam needs to follow in the footsteps of Christianity and Judaism”. In Canada those footsteps form the cornerstone of our nation. We ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION. It’s nothing to be ashamed of – we are an example to the World. A cause to fight two World Wars over. A land with a living future for everyone because of the inclusiveness and humanity of our founding faith.
The Supreme Court’s narrow vision is attempting to leave our nation’s soul bereft of identity. Multi-cultural equivalence has to be utterly rejected or it will ultimately be the death of a country that believes in individual equality, fair justice and freedom.
Well said both times. You and David Southam have it right that the SCOC is the biggest threat to democracy at the moment and the Harper government should start using the “Nothwithstanding” clause.
sasquatch, as long as the decisions of the SCOC oppose Conservative legislation the MSM will applaud.
Obviously PM Harper has appointed too many closet Liberals to the court.
Kate’s comment at the masthead is right in poking fun of sorts at the SCOC. It seems the SJW SCOC is interjecting itself into every facet of society.
The case for a mandatory minimum (MM) sentence is that it would constrain the discretion of a judge who might otherwise determine a sentence on what ought to be an irrelevancy, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or some other cause celebre de jour. In general, limiting the discretion of judges may make the law and its consequences more predictable—that’s good thing, right?—, and it would also leave the decision on what is/is not required by the law in the hands of our legislators. We seem to prefer that, believing, against all the evidence, that our elected representatives are accountable to us.
The case against is that the laws which have MMs attached may be so poorly crafted that they would ensnare and then punish those who do not earn the harsh minimums. No surprise when the laws are crafted by your much ballyhooed elected representatives, many of whom know little about the law and less about language.
If the law in question would require imprisonment of an otherwise law-abiding citizen for violation of our arcane gun-storage laws, then that is a reason to re-write the law. It is not a reason to do away with mandatory minimums.
Geez!
LizJ. you hit the nail on the head.
Strike it down as at least one person in Canada would find it offensive. emphasis on the might.
We are in the age of victimization…where for absolutely any reason at all one can be consdered a victim. And the Supremes are experts at this garbage. I totally agree with you that THEY are significantly more dangerous to the country as a whole compared to the feeding pigs in the Senate. (Which MUST be reformed as opposed to Deleted).
I am one that is pretty much areligious…dont go to chruch – dont belong to any organized religion..Agnostic I guess. For myself, Yet I could care less about the word God in the National Anthem… And what is it that offends people with that word anyway.?? I mean really.?? People (Lame Stream Media especially), need to get a REAL Life and worry about things that could in fact endanger their lives rather than their sensibilites…
Like IRAN with NUKES maybe eh.??
Stk.
How long will it be before the ringing of Church bells will be illegal? One wonders if they will stop the call to prayers, from Muslim temples? Answer: Won’t happen! Will we still have to allow prayer areas for all the calls to prayers for Muslims? Where will they put their prayer mats, shawls, whatever? There is now talk (by an NDP member), for Churches to be taxed, and for Church properties to be used for the homeless. In Vancouver, they have ruined the United Church on Hastings by allowing for this – with the Churches’ blessing. It will happen to my Church over my dead body! Chew on that Beverly!
Perhaps some notice that the socialist / fascist / communists and other such talk very, very much about future.
The current occupant of the White House is most significant example of this waste of oxygen.
Those that talk so much about future have successfully hijacked the idea of optimism to mean absolutely nothing.
They talk about future so they don’t have to deal with today. While future is unknown and whatever happens then has no effect on today and those that pronounce such nonsense will not be around to be held accountable for it.
So we have a case where, what is commonly called bullshit, trumps serious thought, common sense, reality and awareness of what the future can possibly be.
If you’ve ever heard Michael Enright’s very fawning interview of her, it becomes clear Bev has quite a sizeable ego; I can understand how someone such as her believes she should be both ruling on, & writing law.
The old fop Enright somehow managed to be awarded the Order of Canada, Bev chairs the Advisory Council. Quid pro quo?
“the country’s top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.”
Wouldn’t it infringe on freedom to deny someone the right to recite a prayer??
I am not sure where the Supreme Court came up with separation of church and state stuff? The buggers are making it up. No such thing exists in Canada nor for that matter in the US where their court made it up too.
More troubling than the rulings is the reasoning behind many of these decisions. The Nadon ruling was based on neither fact nor statute nor legislative record. The assisted suicide ruling eschewed the court’s own precedents decided only a few years previous. The aboriginal title opinion created an entirely new legal construct out of whole cloth. The problem is not the decisions themselves, rather it’s that the court no longer feels constrained by any of the traditional norms that guided judges’ decisions. It just decides which result it wants and goes there with complete disregard for our system of governance or its proper role.
I now believe wholeheartedly that is now time to start shooting judges…. Now
Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, or else it is meaningless. Ultimately, it’s about not being able to use the coercive power of the state to make anyone else worship your God.
The prayer in question was specifically Catholic. Based on several hundred years of British and European history, I think it’s safe to say that many Protestants might take issue with that.
I don’t think, and I’m sure no other regular on this blog thinks so. We are libertarian conservatives, not anarchist or lefties. Shooting people for political purposes is a lefty thing. You might better be on rabble.ca or the Liberal and NDP sites.
This is not an indication of popular sentiment….but rather the evidence of LIBRANO appointees refusing to abandon a lost cause.
You are right and express it well. The SCOC seems to have become a leftist SJW court and parliamentary traditions and laws be dammed.
How does my saying a prayer impact or offend another? And if it does offend someone, why should I care? I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to God. So stop invading my privacy and shut up!
I understand the SCOC has also spoken on the hypothetical situation where someone could be forced to pray.
Unable to secure electoral victory, the progressive intelligentsia are trying to usurp power using unelected institutions like the SCOC, the media and academia. Look for many more rulings, in depth reports and peer reviewed studies clearly showing how PMSH is bad for progressives, umm Canada.
No doubt we’ll also be graced with Omamaesque memes and false narratives; whatever.
If the last election or debates around climate change denial are any indication, we have seen their worst already, kind of like the Mike Duffy trial, lots of fizz at the start, then nothing.
Meanwhile the Liberals are still looking for someone to write their policy platform. I understand many of the Quebec NDP MPs are concerned about the timing of the election in October; right at the start of mid term exams.
“The prayer in question was specifically Catholic. Based on several hundred years of British and European history, I think it’s safe to say that many Protestants might take issue with that.”
Based on 2,000 years of Catholic history in Europe, and four centuries of Catholic history in Canada, who much cares what Protestants take issue with?
“The prayer in question was specifically Catholic. Based on several hundred years of British and European history, I think it’s safe to say that many Protestants might take issue with that.”
Any Protestant outraged at a prayer to God/Jesus is not a believable Christian. Quebec Catholics have 2000 years of religious history and TRUTH on their side. British history is of STATE organized Protestant religion and not of religious freedom. The Quebec Act was a radical departure from British religious imperialism because they were afraid – – of the French! The US Constitution departed from the state sanctioned religion model with The First Amendment, which “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion […].” In other words, Anglicanism lost its place at the public trough. Catholics were NOT allowed to vote in the 13 colonies because they were papists.
“The Church survived a multi-century eradication program by the world’s Roman overlords; survived wave after wave of barbarian invaders; survived power-seeking and predatory leaders; survived nation-states that desired—and still desire—to control and manipulate it; survived atheistic Jacobins, communists, fascists, and other tyrants.” We will survive Protestantism, New Atheism and radical liberal secularism. We are the antidote to Islam, which is why Catholicism must be destroyed.
The Supreme Court may have lit a fire of mistrust in Canada’s 1982 Constitution.
I thought Quebec was a ‘distinct society’. By forcing a homogenous ruling on all of Canada does that not imperil the distinctiveness of La Belle Provinca?
“The evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of this neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral”… From their very own ruling; does not enforced secularism mean people of faith have their beliefs constrained? Duh.
The SCC decision on prayer also makes a case for longer making accommodation for religious persuasions in the public sector workplace. Ergo, Muslim prayer rooms must go. But also Christmas and Easter holidays, Ramadan, and any other religious holiday exception. Since a municipal council was not afforded the “parliamentary privilege” that the House of Commons appears to have, then, a municipal council can only be described as a public venue as with the rest of the public service. Hence, if you are a civil servant, no religiosity for you…
Slight typo ” …NO longer making accommodation…”
Shades of “if it saves one child…”