Unfortunately I have H Fry as my MP so telling her anything is a waste of time.

CCP = Roadkill

Conservative Utopia:

When this story hits the airwaves and the "reporter" asks the "activist" 'just how much money have you made off this program in x-years?'

Canadian Bar Association - another self serving ( professional make work) lobby group.

I agree. Only Big Corporations should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of our laws.

The Court Challenges Program ended a fine tradition in Canada of only corporations challenging things like Sunday shopping laws, free speech laws (like the important challenge against the colouring of butter and margarine as a matter of free speech), like the right to mass produce and distribute pornography, like the right to broadcast whatever they want whenever they want.

Yup. It was those nefarious disadvantaged "special interest" groups helping out individual cases with no money that have destroyed our culture by calling for equality. For shame.

(By the way, as a purely factual accuracy point, I'm not sure that the unanimous provincial Court of Appeal decisions that found opposite sex marriage only was unconstitutional were in fact funded through CCP.)

Ted
Cerberus

Well, lets all write our mp and two or three others by cc ing and let them know we want this thing to stay dead. I bet the bar ass. buisness is going down hill drastically. Gonna be a long cold winter over at the bar.

Yeah, Ted, all those feminist groups that were sucking at the teat of Mama Government used the Court Challenges program on a regular basis, all at taxpayer expense: Were they pursuing "individual cases" with "no money"?

I don't think so.

The feminists were always pursuing some issue and their defence costs were always paid for from the LEAF (Women's Legal and Education Action Fund--you notice that men didn't have a similar fund with which to go to court), while those challenging the feminists always had to pay out of their own pocket--whether they were individuals or other lobby groups.

Real equality, Ted. Just the kind you're talking about, actually.

Ted: The question here is Why should the Taxpayers of Canada fund groups to challenge the laws of the land, afterall the laws are made on the hill not in the courts.

Are we not already taxed to the max.

All the laws in this country need to be sent to referendum.

Boag opens his yap again--- justice is foreign to our justice system Keith.

Re: three strikes your in bill.

The bill has received praise from victims' rights advocates, but defence lawyers have said it goes too far and could undergo a constitutional challenge if it becomes law.

"This will be a controversial piece of legislation in some quarters, but it will be welcomed in others that voted for a Conservative government," said Keith Boag, CBC Television's Ottawa bureau chief

If your MP is 100% behind the CCP, then write that person a note like:

" I know that you support the CCP, I am just writing you to make a point of saying I support it".

Something like that.

Just so they can guage the response. It'd be good to make a strong showing.

Sure, I used the CUPE/CCP website to send messages to MP Ralph Goodale and PMSH. I rejigged the CUPE boilerplate messages to ask that the CCP be ended ASAP.

I'd rather not have the government use my funds to pay someone to sue the governement. It's the ultimate scam, get paid twice!

Ugh.

Ted, listen to what you're saying. No one is suggesting that people be prevented from callenging laws - just that they should pay for it from their own pockets (or do their own fundraising if they think they speak for more than just themselves). Surely you can see it's not right or fair that some pet special interest groups be allowed litigate endlessly on the taxpayers' dime, while others who are not so favoured have to pay out of pocket. What is being suggested is that each challenger pay his own way - you know, so it's equal.

The Court Challenges Program ended a fine tradition in Canada of only corporations challenging things like Sunday shopping laws ...

I remember a Spadina furrier named Paul Magder, surrounded by a sea of Chinese stores allowed to open on Sunday because they were in a "tourist area," who used his own livelihood and staked his future on the right to open up on Sunday like his neighbours to his immediate right and left.

I also remember Bob Rae doing his level best to bankrupt Magder.

Sometimes you can be a real idiot Ted.

Better to use our money for national defense and to help the poor rather then it going to the UN or to the pockets of forgein tyrants like FIDEL CASTRO or HUGO CHVEZ and certianly no more for the ACLU or People for the American way Southern Poverty Law Center or the other lieberal leftists group and no more for the CSPI or PCRM

Matt:

Lots of individuals challenged the Sunday shopping laws by risking their livelihood. But it was Edwards Books and several other corporations that had the funds to take it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

What about criminal cases? Should we stop funding Legal Aid? I'm sure that a lot of conservatives would agree to that, but many would not. Many would quickly see that it is expensive to hire a lawyer and to protect yourself and we collectively benefit to have a legal system that provides defendents with at least a modicum of ability to defend themselves. That's all the CCP does.

already gave my absolute support of this bill. called my MP..and I am lucky enough to live in Provencher,and have Vic Toews as my MP.The timing was fortunate,as on our local radio station(CJOB/Adler's home),this a.m.got to listen to the drivel spew from Greg Brodsky this a.m.He was talking about Joey Wiebe(recently escaped from Selkirk Mental Hosp...thankfully re-captured),and he had had contact while JW on the run.Listening to his ilk,his son,and the whole Whitmore fiasco,just makes me wonder how far they will go,to protect the rights of this human offal.Media hounds,each and everyone,and they make me sick! GO Vic,Go Conservatives..and will be interesting to see who votes no. Sammy

And while they're at it: END giving INTERVENOR status to various advocates. That turns the SCC into a PAC (political action committee). Only actual parties to a case should be present at a court case. Oh, and END victim impact statements too. We don't want our courts Winfreyized, and sentences to be academy awards!

Ted; How many CCP cases involved penniless defendants? Your last post implies that the CCP was being used to help the poor and downtrodden who had been railroaded by the wealthy.

Defense lawyers say it could undergo a constitutional challenge.

Just like the CC Program, this is the problem with this country.

Way too many court challenges because it could infringe on a persons rights as set forth in the charter.
What about the rights of the honest hardworking taxpayer?
Toews is talking about the habitual criminal, they have a right to what? To go out & sexually assault over & over?
What about the Victim? Thats who's rights he is talking about & it is long over due.

Ted:

You pissed me off when you wrote "only corporations." It's nice to see that you now acknowledge that small business owners put it all on the line.

I'm still pissed at Rae for the way he went after Magder. I'd like to knock that SOB's teeth down his throat.

Gee Ted by all you complaining you would think you are a lawyer. Oh wait you are aren't you? Just like a true Liberal you claim to be working for the social good but you are really just looking for another payoff.

Ted, when you alleged that "Many would quickly see that it is expensive to hire a lawyer and to protect yourself and we collectively benefit to have a legal system that provides defendents with at least a modicum of ability to defend themselves. That's all the CCP does," you're wrong.

The CCP benefited only special interest groups that were favoured by the Liberals. Do your homework. Maybe you think that's OK, but millions of Canadians who aren't either left-leaning or feminists don't think it's OK.

RIP CCP...

Exactly right, 'been around'. The Court Challenges program was not a democratic and equitable program. It had a committee that selected the groups it would fund - and those groups were only the leftist groups.

Therefore, Ted, your claim that the Court Challenges enabled the average citizen to confront the courts is empty. It didn't. It used taxpayer money to fund selected activist groups and reject other groups/individuals. That's not democracy. That's a misuse of the taxpayers' money.

CCP deserves to be scrapped. This program did not help the every day Canadian's fight anything in the court system. IMMO this was just another slush fund that the Lib's friendly had access too. PM Harper, please keep getting rid of these useless funding programs that do not benefit the average taxpayer.

been around, ET: Hear! Hear! It was liberal legislation without risking votes: "The SCC made us do it". Same deal with the Canada Council: zero chance for a grant to a artist/writer with a conservative pedigree. Or for research that might expose global warming for the fraud it is. Then there are the "off-book" foundations. And on and on. Rotten.

robbing peter to rob paul's reference to the sikh kirpan ruling riminded me of my view on that situation:
what if the school yard bully looks around for the raghead knowing he's carrying a knife, smashes him in the face, takes the knife, er, 'kirpan' and uses it on the actual intended victim?

isnt this 'kirpan' ruling crap a loophole in security against weapons in schools?

why doesnt it come with the caveat that the kirpan needs to have the tip ground completely flat on a bench grinder and the blade ground down to the useless thickness of a pc of 1/8" steel plate?

either that or resort to toy rubber knives if the emphasis is solely on symbolism.

there. now it is no longer a potential weapon in the hands of a resourceful criminal.

What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn't see his/her support payments all go to the government.

The CCP not only allowed Thibodeau to bring the claim but it was able to bring the issue to the government which was able to correct an outdated piece of legislation.

To me it's a baby and bathwater thing. There are a few high profile cases that produced results you don't like so toss it the whole thing.

right on ET & Been
The more of these selfish wastes of money that are Exposed for what they are worth & Eliminated the better, Maybe we can start saving money in this country Without taxing the Sh** out of the worker.
What was it Baird said on the hill: Why should the Gov't pay a group to Sue the Gov't ?

Ted: What tax laws that hurt both men and women? The CCP sure as H*ll never helped to bring a case to the courts to equalize the taxes paid by one-income families with a parent home to care for the child(ren) and the much lesser taxes paid by two-income families where both parents put their child(ren) into substitute care.

Why not? The lib/fembos who ran the CCP decided that women who stayed home to care for their children were "unequal," they didn't support "equality for women."

That's equality for you, is it, Ted?

Ted:
Couldn't another individual raise the same objections as Thibodeau? Haven't other individuals raised cases without the CCP? Can't individuals raise funds to fund challenges? Are we not adults rather than infants to be looked after by the nanny state?
How much have you or your firm benefited from the CCP?

"What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn't see his/her support payments all go to the government.

The CCP not only allowed Thibodeau to bring the claim but it was able to bring the issue to the government which was able to correct an outdated piece of legislation"

What a croc.The whole basis of this was that the payee should get it tax free.The payor,me included,had this payment as a tax deduction.The result of that ruling was that any support orders made after a certain date meant the payee never had to pay tax on it and the payor could not claim the deduction.The payor was never taxed twice on it as you claim.Anyone paying support after that date lost the deduction.And the government came out ahead in the end because the payor in most cases has a higher income and therefore higher tax rate.Luckily for me my support order was pre this date.

And CBC just trotted out Clayton Ruby to slam the changes...Julie Van Dingbat just eats up anything anti Con...lots about "ooooh,the $$$ this will cost,more jails,THOUSANDS more locked up",and link it to the failure in the U.S.of the 3 strikes law.I have to clean my tv off from the venom dripping after Julie,Keith Boar..I mean Boag,and Duffy Live makes me puke past 2 wks,with Taber.I enjoy seeing her squirm,when Tim Powers lands a direct hit on any Lib they put up against him.

been around the block said....
The CCP benefited only special interest groups that were favoured by the Liberals. Do your homework. Maybe you think that's OK, but millions of Canadians who aren't either left-leaning or feminists don't think it's OK

et said...
It used taxpayer money to fund selected activist groups and reject other groups/individuals. That's not democracy. That's a misuse of the taxpayers' money

no dhimmi said....
been around, ET: Hear! Hear! It was liberal legislation without risking votes: "The SCC made us do it". Same deal with the Canada Council: zero chance for a grant to a artist/writer with a conservative pedigree. Or for research that might expose global warming for the fraud it is. Then there are the "off-book" foundations. And on and on. Rotten.

To Ted and all other liberals,
evidence suggests someone other than the conservatives has the ...."hidden agenda"....!

Seems to me Clayton Ruby and others like him have a great deal at stake here.THey make their fees off repeat offenders with their whining about criminals rights.If they can only commit 3 crimes and they get locked up for 7 years the defence lawyers lose money.

As for all the whining about $$$ cost how come none of these idiots ever mention the cash lost because of crime.Damage,insurance payouts,health care costs for victims,policing costs,and the list goes on.Not to mention the majority of law-abiding people should be allowed to live without supporting these losers.t

The CCP- was this yet another example of a Lieberal funding sinkhole? Did the taxpayers actually see any results from it? And if so, were the results worthy of the $dollars put into it? I wonder how many $millions simply disappeared into this one, just like the gun registry, just like the foundations, etc, etc.

I have to admit that I have been so disappointed with so much of what the Libs have screwed up, that I hardly care to try to sort it out anymore.
Chances are, if it was a Lib program, it is so tainted with crap and corruption, you might as well just axe the whole program and start over again.

Ted-
There is a vast difference between the CCP and Legal Aid.
Legal Aid is for people that cannot afford a Lawyer to mount a proper defence when charged with an act contrary to the law..
CCP is exactly the opposite. It allows a person to initiate a CHALLENGE to a partiucular law or statute.
Your arguement doesn't hold water.

The truth is how many Canadians had even heard of the CCP before it was axed?

The only ones that new about the program were those special interest groups in Canada that do not believe in any law that does not fit into their own adgenda.

So Yes Baird was right in saying Taxpayers Money being used to fund groups to sue The Government & who's money is that, The Taxpayers.

Breaking news (from Adler)..Iggy "uninvited" by Jewish groups on trip to Isreal,as well as any other Lib.leadership candidates.DELICIOUS.

Rat,

You are quite correct and this is a major difference. Everyone has the right to defence but the right to prosecute?

Honestly we wont miss it when it is gone. Just like Katimavik...that silly senator who would starve himself to keep it alive.....

LEt CCP go and be like real human beings and fund a charity that supports these things. Then it is all that much more transparen.

So Ted if you like this so much I expect to see you starting a charity for this very purpose. Go and raise the money.

See its different when people actually have to think about where their money goes.

And by the way, no it doesnt equate to police or fire protection, that is common good stuff. It is a real stretch to state this as common good.

You have have an option, I look forward to seeing your charitable number. And when you have the website up and running that can take credit card donations I will promise you a donation....

Gosh, I'm going to miss the CCP...

I so enjoyed seeing my taxes funding a court challenge enabling the nine elitist, unelected, red-velvet-and-ermin-robed former flower children to overturn legislation brought in by Parliament.

/sarc off

Ted the money grubbing effeminate Toronto Liberal Lawyer, who has a conflict of interest in the matter at hand, asked his wife and female work supervisors if it would be OK to lift his snout from the "free public money" trough for a moment to make the following comment: "Whaaaaa!"

lol.

Jane Doe Versus Attorney General Of Canada, a case concerning a lesbian couple who want to use sperm from a gay man for artificial insemination. Canadian law prohibits a man who's had sex with another man since 1977 from donating sperm.

Why not take the direct route and save us all a lot of tax dollars. Use the four F method. Here's how ...
Just hold close your eyes and ...
F**k the F*g for a Free Fetus

You know just like straight women do when they want to bear a child.

Listening to question period today, you would think that the native populations recidivism rate was the CPCs' fault..it's a gas to see all those years of Liberal feel good policy come crashing down around their ears when they find it did not work a lick..

Three strikes and your a state labeled hazard friend.. any one who does not vote for this measure is truly soft on crime if not in the head.

Another downtrodden minority finds a voice...

The Canadian Bar Association reaffirmed its support for the program and called on the federal government to not only increase funding, but also to ensure the program’s long-term financial stability.

CONTACT: Hannah Bernstein, Canadian Bar Association, Tel: (613) 237-2925, ext. 146; E-mail: hannahb@cba.org.

Too bad we will no longer be able to mount a Court Challenge to overturn the CCP. If we'd only known. But, we wouldn't get money. They can fund themselves just like REAL women have had to fund themselves. Those groups in favor of this program,(according to SOW's) have never been named. Reminds me of a full page ad in the paper a few years ago, against smoking, and supposedly signed by numerous organizations. My son and I run up a huge phone bill calling these org to see when they passed a motion to support this. Over half listed didn't exist anymore. Others had never been contacted. Reason I did this, an org I was president of was listed, without my knowledge. I know that an org, run properly, cannot have any ex officer make stmts on their behalf, without motions, etc. Did the group funding this do a retraction, no, did the paper run an apology, no.
At that point I refused to believe any of the propaganda re any special interest group,=global warming, (it was global cooling then) aid epidemic, starving children. (where are the bodies of the 20,000 who die every day) Many reports out now that lung cancer is increasing in non smokers. My thinking is that if second hand smoke was so dangerous, it had to kill any virus it come in contact with. Notice the increase in office sickness, asthma, closing of hospital wards etc due to viruses. Second hand smoke killed them when one could smoke. Something to think about. In 30 yrs the smoking myth will be debunked just like DDT has been.

Time for some real tort reform and any trial lawyer who would sue in a illegal aleins behalf should be booted out of the country forever i mean the firearms manicaturers get protection from these rapacous vultures so can the rest of us

Thanks for the link, Kate. I've compiled a list of 16 or so now.

John at 6:08 pm. said:

"Jane Doe Versus Attorney General Of Canada, a case concerning a lesbian couple who want to use sperm from a gay man for artificial insemination. Canadian law prohibits a man who's had sex with another man since 1977 from donating sperm.

Why not take the direct route and save us all a lot of tax dollars. Use the four F method. Here's how ...
Just hold close your eyes and ...
F**k the F*g for a Free Fetus

You know just like straight women do when they want to bear a child."

But wouldn't that be too demeaning to the poor dears? Wouldn't that just give them another ready case for the CCP. "The government forced to engage in ...yecchhh... heterosexual activity."

bryanr..excellent point at 455pm and as william also pointed out this was a well kept hidden agenda by certain special interest groups with Lib connections for quite awhile. Who knew? It certainly wasn't common knowledge what the CCP was up to with our tax money.
Thanks to a special interest group (that is self-sustaining) I've known for awhile, and I am thankful for that group of REAL Women who have tirelessly worked to get this information out to us.
Glad to see so many well informed comments here.
Ted...Trudeaupian arguements are toast here, and so is CCP

hmmm, how about a publicly funded program to sue the asses off the Libranos for their many years of bilking us? like public funding of challenges programs now, Libranos?

But wouldn't that be too demeaning to the poor dears? Wouldn't that just give them another ready case for the CCP. "The government forced (me) to engage in ...yecchhh... heterosexual activity."

Or, as the typical CCP plaintiff would put it: "The heterosexist white male regime denied me control of my reproductive rights without subjugatiuon to the nexus of phallocentric hegemony!"

That the CCP allowed itself to become seriously politicized destroyed its credibility as an agency seeking justice. As far as I'm concerned, CCP is responsible for it's own demise.

Kate: I think this is on-topic, referring to Ted's argument about a good result from CCP:

Ted at October 17, 2006 03:52 PM
What about Thibodeau? CCP funds were used to challenge the tax laws that hurt both men and women. The SCC rejected the case, but Parliament then moved to fix the laws so that the payor avoided double tax on support payments and the payee didn't see his/her support payments all go to the government.

=====================================
GOVERNMENT RIPPED OFF FAMILIES, MADE A KILLING

As I remember it (and based on some notes from 1996) before Thibodeau support payments were treated in the standard way with the payor deducting the payments and the payee including them in income. Because the father was usually the payor, hysterical, angry and evidently innumerate feminists argued that it was unfair for them to have to pay the income tax. The femi-pandering government turned a fundamental income tax principle on its head, making the payor, who is very often a higher income father, cover the income tax (taking away the deduction) and making the payment tax-free to the recipient custodial parent, who is often a lower-income mother.

This resulted in a supremely perverse effect yielding less disposable income in the aggregrate between fathers and mothers nation-wide, and – surprise! -- more revenue to the treasury. The government even acknowledged this windfall and promised (chortle1) to pay it out to "the poor" (chortle2). If memory serves, they made a cool $100 million on the deal!

Example (with max.tax differntial for illustrative purposes):

Let’s follow $5,000 of the father’s pre-tax salary being allocated to the mother assuming he has has a 50% marginal tax rate, she only 25%.

Old “unfair” system:
He pays $0 tax; she receives $5,000, pays $1,250 tax, nets $3,750 for the children.

New “fair” system:
He pays $2,500 tax, she receives $2,500 pays $0 tax, nets $2,500 for the children.

Oops, big shortfall! She needs $3,750 like before.

Now follow the money again. He needs to earn $7,500 in salary so that after paying income tax of $3,750 she can receive $3,750 net for the children.

So in this extreme tax differential example we can see that the father needs to earn 50% more salary to yield the same net to his children. To prevent this, the government needed only to have treated the parents as adults and allowed them to determine who would pay the income tax and allow them to adjust the payments for the optimum result between them.

Kate's on a roll. Good to see you back and giving us the kind of stuff that has made you famous

I'll say the same thing here that I said at Steve Janke's AiTGWN. It applies and has immense merit:

I'm male: I have a VERY valid equality problem. I could NOT, I could not get access to the CCP. The reason is straight forward, my equality concern which is a fatality concern to me(1) would inconvenience some females if addressed.

THAT, that is the CCP as it was. The "equality" concerns of the CCP only had merit if they involved females or racial minorities.

------------------

1: I went through a near fatal female offender sex assault back in 1981. There was also a fair bit of female offender damage due to the fight to get lone fathers basic human rights. Current law says that I, being male, have no right to protection from female police officers and prison guards. This means, given my extreme sensitivity to being controlled by females, that any female in Canada may murder me --legally-- by simply making a good enough false charge. The law was never meant to be used as a murder weapon, but that is THE LAW in Canada, for the few men in positions similar to my own.

Reply to e-mail:

"Thank you for your e-mail and support.

It is our intention not to re-fund this program [CCP].

Gord" [Brown, MP, Conservative]

or heads will roll!

the great thing about conservatives is that they can't help being conservatives. harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there's no broad-based support for harper's social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless.
keep your crazy talk up over here, it helps the rest of us more than you know.

I was just forward an email last night from United Mothers. They, in partnership with 1clicklobbyist are working to end the CCP. If you type the above in you search it will come up. Then you pick the issue and it will take you throught the approriate steps. Also there is a spot to register Vote Yes to raise age of consent. I think that this is a good way to get massive responses to support the government.

It is the most important thing the CPC has done in their brief tenure to get rid of the CCP.

If they cave, I'll be somewhere else on voting day. I doubt they'll cave. This program was a travesty of justice.

A politically motivated public program that was not accountable. It shouldn't just be shut down, it should never have been legal to begin with.

There should be no funding to any lobby groups, special interest groups, or advocate groups. I strongly object to my money being stolen from me by the government and used to fund the agendas of people I disagree with - regardless of the subject.

Ted,

Think of it this way, if public money was being used to fund REAL Women and a bunch of right-wing Christian groups, you would have a fit. It's hypocritical to then suggest that your political allies should be publicly funded but those you disagree with should not be. Any funding by the public for ANY reason should be politically neutral. That includes cultural programs and the likes of the CBC (although my own preference would be to eliminate all funding and sell it off.)

I think the best part of this whole CCP thing is that the PM, before he became PM, used to work for a lobby group. One that raised it's own funds and had no support from the Goverment.

Nothing like a PM that walks the talk.

Remember how the CCP leapt to the defence of Bruce and Donna Montague and millions of other Canadians to valiantly fight C-68?
Right alongside the Canadian Civil Liberties Union.

Yeah, right...

Good riddance.

Oh, and why is the BAR association involving itself? Probably because the CCP is so lucrative. I mean, if it was because the cause was so noble, then the BAR would offer up its services Pro Bono, no?

Somebody left the door open and "jeff" slithered in. The looney pinko (who likely receives his income from some government agency somewhere) says "the great thing about conservatives is that they can't help being conservatives. harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there's no broad-based support for harper's social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless." Well jeff the great thing about conservatives is that they have a backbone (look that up jeff....you probably would like to know what that is). As for "canadians" pushing back, what jeff really means when he says "canadians" (the standard Liberal mantra) is, quite simply, people who have their noses deep in the government trough and see the gravy train coming up against the wall. The great thing about pinkos is that they are so transparent and predictable. You can go back to sleep now, jeff.

or heads will roll
"canadians are pushing back"
Is that another this is what Canadian's want & believe statement?
Canadians are pushing back as evident right here, Canadians are tired of seeing there hard earned money that they send to Ottawa being wasted on Useless Feel Good Programs, They are tired of seeing the Pigs at the Trough.
The only ones that are pushing back are the ones that know it is Last Call at the Trough.
The next adgenda i hope will be the Senate, as reported on the wastefull travel expenses $30,000 to have a meeting amongst 4 Senators in a hotel in Dubai? & thats just the Hotel!
$95,000 in Unaccounted travel expenses when the Senator lives in right Ottawa? Thats one hell of a Taxi fare!
"So Yes Heads Are Going To Roll"
"So yes Canadians Are Pushing Back"
And Yes we have the Right Man for the Job.

Chris, good point. Let's see the Bar Association do a little good will work if they believe in the cause so much.

Slashed funding to the SOW, dumping the CCP, Three stikes your out to clean up (finally) the hardcore crooks...NICE going Mr. Harper, you and your team are RIGHT ON!! Now, how wonderful the world would be without the Senate, CBC, CUPE....keep the dream alive!

Or, as the typical CCP plaintiff would put it: "The heterosexist white male regime denied me control of my reproductive rights without subjugatiuon to the nexus of phallocentric hegemony!"

Posted by: Dudley Morris at October 17, 2006 11:16 PM

Dudley,

You're absolutely right about the language. I don't know whether to admire or show sympathy to your ability to get into the headset of a CCP plaintiff that well.

Librano$ shovelled out billions of tax dollars to their clients. Mind-boggling list of clients here.

Librano$ spiel/bribe/quid pro quo is: Give us your vote(s); we, the Librano$, will send youse the $$$$$$$$$$.

Their clients said: Yes, oui. Thanx, Jean/Paul. X

...

Who We Are

[Oct 5, 2006 03:55 PM]

The Coalition to Save Court Challenges is a broad coalition of concerned organizations and individuals committed to ensuring the continuation of funding for the Court Challenges Program of Canada. New organizations and individuals are signing onto our campaign every day. We include the following organizations:

* Action Canada for Population and Development
* Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes (AOcVF)
* African Canadian Legal Clinic
* Alberta Association for Community Living
* Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians / L'Alliance pour l'ÉgalitÉ des Personnes Aveugles du Canada (AEBC).

more $$$$$$$$$$ and more groups, org's, lawyers, etc. (scroll down)

3w.savecourtchallenges.ca/www/t2a/whoweare

Re the support payments. One thing that was never brought out in this case is that the mother who received payments also got the tax deduction for the child, which in most cases was about double what she received in payments. One more than offset the other. Fathers also got a deductions for amount paid, and was glad for the deduction. Usually single mothers had a taxable income that resulted in little or no tax, and did get the payments on a regulare basis. This act was a very unfair burden on fathers, (and in some cases mother) and why any divorced man, paying support, would vote liberal is beyond me. I would rather see a system where a fund was set up for the children and was audited to make sure this money was spent on the child, instead of beer and popcorn for the bed partner of the week of the woman involved. During this case I sent numerous letters to MPs asking them if they had ever prepared their own tax return, or were even aware of what is on it for deductions etc. No answers, but with over 30 yrs experience doing returns, I can say men got a bad deal. I also have no use for those who think women don't lie in custody cases, and make false charges of abuse or assault. Children can also be made to distort the truth, without realizing the results. FYI, I have been married to the same man for 52 years, so I don't have an axe to grind. During several discussions with Monte Solberg, (who would have been finance minister, if JF had not been elected) he also saw the unfairness of this act. Don't be surprised if changing this act is not part of Harpers hidden agenda. First you have to get rid of all the opposition, eg SOWs and CCP.
Since this act a mother does not claim about 5000./yr (more than one kid) but gets a deduction in excess of 6000., giving her over 11,000 in tax free income.
Even the so called deduction martin put in for last year was a scam. Reduce the rate payable by 1% and then at the bottom of the page, reduce the amount of the non refundable tax credit by 1% thereby increasing the amount you really paid by 1%. Yet, many still think Harper has raised your taxes by taking that cut away.

Now, now. Easy on Jeff. If you go to his low traffic website - Where'd That Bug Go? - you'll see that he's a "a photographer living in a forest in toronto with babies and a beautiful wife."

A photographer living in a forest wondering where that bug went? Creepily metrosexual!

To close to the heart budd?

Budd,
Funny how the right must be controlled while the left is free to disparage, vilify, lie, attack. Are you posting on the lefty sites and asking for moderation there?

And while you ask for this censorship you attack our host, "your kind of people".

Kate does this site without state funding and as far as I can tell for free too. Let her police her site and you can get back to policing the lefty sites.
enough

Hey Budd,

Go to Rabble.ca and troll their board for a while then come back and tell me how many "hateful" comments you find.

Hint: It's a whole lot more than here.

Now be gone.

Speaking of deep wells of unacountable monies, I hope PMSH and the gang get into that other scam the Lieberals had going with the Trusts or whatever, that were exempt from audit.

You have to love the way they work though, take your money, give it to some group that doesn't have to explain where the money went and then have you believe that the government was looking after you. Lieberals could sell fridges to eskimoes, as the old saying goes but then who would want to sell appliances in Edmonton? Gee, see how I got out of being politically incorrect?

harper is pushing his agenda and canadians are pushing back. there's no broad-based support for harper's social policies and canadians are realizing that his fiscal and foreign policies are simplistic and visionless.

So, Jeff, what you're saying is that the CCP isn't needed, because the Liberals are so successful in democratically effecting social change? Or perhaps, they used the CCP to push through/make unpopular policies less unpalatable? I find the latter explanation rings more true.

more critics from the rabble at CBCpravda , who else would favour the status quo of the justice system instead of the reverse onus. do pravda ever welcome anything - tax cuts, more justice, arresting liberals??

from the story.
Two problems
"The problem is not a deficiency in the law. It's a deficiency in the application of the law," Alan Young, a criminal law professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, told CBC.ca.

"And I think the problem may be it is not being utilized as much as the public would like it to be."

Young identifies two problems with the reverse onus system. The first, he says, is that it has the danger of capturing the wrong people. The second, and more dangerous one, is that putting the onus on criminals would make it too easy for the court system to find dangerous offenders.

"It's almost imposing an impossibility, because you're saying to someone: 'Prove you're not dangerous,' " Young said, adding that the court system should make the sentencing "more of an obstacle course rather than an assembly line."

He believes that the law, if passed, would be open for constitutional challenges, but it wouldn't be a "slam-dunk" win for lawyers.

There have been a few cases of reverse onus used in Canada's courtrooms, Doob notes.

For example, reverse onus was used in the old Young Offenders Act, allowing young people aged 16 and 17 to be transferred to adult court for certain crimes.

"It didn't lead to more transfers than before," Doob said.

Jeff, you really should try & get out past Spedina Avenue, broad-based doesn't end there!Although vacuous & brainwashed might.

Kate,

Here's my humble contribution.

http://prairiewrangler.blogspot.com/2006/10/we-need-court-challenges-program-prove.html

Can't the leftists understand this law. 3 strikes your out. That means an offender would already have been convicted and served time at least twice. The 3rd time he is caught the law comes into effect. Yes, I know that most first offenders are only there because that is the time they got caught, not the first time the offended.
What's not to like about this.

Now another high profile wife is charging abuse in a divorse action. At least she won't be funded by the ccp. Watching her in Canada, and on Larry King live, do you believe anything she says. Guess who. Guess who has the biggest wallet, guess who will win. What a price to pay for women finding an old rich guy to scam.

Go to Rabble.ca and troll their board for a while then come back and tell me how many "hateful" comments you find.

Man, i can't believe I just took a look around there, you know, just to see.

After spending 15 minutes there I've never needed a shower so bad in my life. What a horrid blog.

we need to revise what constitutes a felony.

shoplifting a 20 dollar watch is a felony, it shouldnt be.

raping and murdering a single mother and leaving her kids parentless is a felony, it should be.

we need some drastic revision of what constitutes a 'felony' and THEN lower the hammer with 3 strikes.