Has a Canadian champion.
More from Anne Anne Bayefsky;
While Arbour was hobnobbing with anti-semites, butchers and anti-democratic forces from around the world, Iranians were being prepared for public hangings. Arbour was reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency as having “expressed pleasure with being at the NAM meeting and described Iran’s representation office in the UN in Geneva as “very good.” In an unusual move, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has so far neglected to put her official statement on their website.
The day after Arbour left Iran the government felt sufficiently buoyed by their UN stamp of approval, that they executed 21 prisoners. People are executed in Iran for charges like “enmity against God” or “being corrupt on earth.”
Unfortunately, CBC Newsworld’s coverage of this important international event was pre-empted by the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in commemoration of the 6th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.
The left…
The reason I continue to go on in life:
To see what ridiculous bullshit these idealogical morons can come up with next.
Louise is a top-honours moron.
Such unbelievable stupidity.
Can’t wait for the next story from the leftist dum-dums.
You guys all realize that even the state controlled Iranian news agency couldn’t parse anything more positive statements than an anondyne comment of the “pleased to be here” variety and a compliment on the effectiveness of their diplomats in Geneva? And you also realize that Arbour cemented her international reputation chasing war criminals in Serbia? So what have you done for me lately?
Also, Blakbird, Arbour is a former Ontario appeals court judge, as mentioned elsewhere in these comments.
Her wearing (in such a sloppy manner as to convey her contempt, to my eye) a veil fits in perfectly with the “when in Rome” attitude that has been espoused here in regards to Canadian Muslims and their veils. What’s good for the goose, etc, etc.
Someone above mentioned that you all need to continue talking, and that Harper needs to get a majority for your views to hit the mainstream. Except that for Harper to get a majority his supporters – people like you – need to convince people like me (disgusted with the Liberals and NDP) to vote for him. Problem is, when some innocent questions any part of the doctrine, they’re attacked as if your whole ideological house of cards was in danger crumbling. In this case, I would hold that Arbour does not need to be the devil incarnate (she is not) in order for your viewpoint on the UN to have vailidity.
I don’t get the impression that anyone here is the least interested in discussion, or even making your case in the spirit of open, intellectual debate. You’d prefer to continue to act like a pack of starved jackals, content to laze away your days licking each other, rousing yourselves to theoccasional pack frenzy by the scent of passing heresy.
That’s all well and good: everybody needs what the gay groups at my former university used to call “safe spaces,” where they can just be themselves. But come the next election, I’ll remember what I’ve seen here, and I’ll be sure to tell anyone I know trying to make their decision to stop by as well. I don’t think they’ll come away with quite the impression you would hope.
Mark
1. this is not the CPC website
2. take my word for it, there is no way to confirm who posts here
3. trolls post vulgar comments, posing as conservatives
I know this to be true, as some moron moonbat was posting comments under my name, so please take some of this stuff with a grain of salt.
Was watching pm harper lastnight on ctv when he gave a great speech to the australian goverment live, flipped over to cbc, they had a show on muslim women and there burkas, lol they really are commie liberals bastards.
Mark, I made some comments about Section 33 of the Charter, abhorred by both the NDP and the Liberals, whom you claim disgust you: it is a fact that the undemocratic rule of judges in Canada, such as Arbour, would be seriously limited. (And let’s not forget present SCC Judge, Rosalie Abella, who, in her tenure in Ontario, lowered the age of sexual consent to 14 in order that homosexuals could enjoy sex, early and often, within the law.)
You say you want debate: as a person, apparently disgusted with the NDP and Liberals, I’d be interested in your ideas about my suggestion that Section 33 be used by legislatures as often as it takes to rein in our unelected, mainly Liberal-appointed, leftie judges, who, in their contemptible alliance with the Liberals, happily did the dirty work the Liberals were afraid to do through legislation.
IMO, your “objective” remarks don’t add up. SDAers upset when “some innocent questions . . . “: who are these innocents? I think you mean trolls.
Ad hominem put-downs don’t strengthen your objectivity either: “I don’t get the impression that anyone [sic] here is the least interested in discussion . . . You’d prefer to continue to act like a pack of starved jackals, content to laze away your days licking each other, rousing yourselves to theoccasional [sic] pack frenzy by the scent of passing heresy.”
Frankly, I think you’ve misrepresented yourself. If not, please provide convincing evidence of 1) why you’re disgusted by the NDP and Liberals, and 2) why you might vote Conservative: surely, it’s not entirely up to us to convince you! There are lots of other sources of information. (Why not access a primary source? Subscribe to the PMO’s statements and speeches. It’s free.)
For a person with open eyes to see and open ears to hear, there are plenty of intelligent posts at SDA to which you could, in your own words, “ mak[e] your case in the spirit of open, intellectual debate”.
Mark, in the spirit of practising what you preach, please be our guest.
If memory serves Jean Chretien did a CBC interview on the first 9/11 anniversary in which he gloatingly (yes, gloatingly) explained that the US got what it deserved — for its “arrogance”. Sorta like the old rape excuse.
Mark, there will be plenty of quotes and talking points that I will use with glee during the next election; so go for it, and good luck, you’ll need it.
Lookout: thank you for your reply. The innocents include myself, who was attacked several times by regular posters on a previous thread for questioning the underlying premise of an article linked here.
The gang up on Arbour is another distasteful manifestation of the same tendency: it’s not enough to disagree with your opponent, they must be demonized. It’s off-putting to someone who admires her for doing an unrewarding job in difficult circumstances. I don’t need to hate anyone, and have no interest in associating with those that do.
There are indeed also plenty of other sources from which I can, and do, get my information. On the other hand, it is the activists in the base of each party that determine that party’s direction.
And while I am sure there are those that post here that do reflect badly on CPC values, I don’t see other castigating them for their behaviour. If it isn’t acceptable, don’t accept it.
As to using the section 33 to overturn a judges decision: that’s a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly. As far as allowing anal sex at age 14, the sin (if you believe it to be such) is not Abella’s in harmonizing the law, but the law’s in allowing intercourse at that age at all. You’re perfectly correct that politicians – Martin in particular – were perfectly willing to have it both ways with judges, claiming to be forced by their rulings on the one hand while taking credit for being progressive on the other. But that remains a failure of politicians: if the law is not accomplishing what they want it to, they can draft new laws that do. Final authority always rests with Parliament. Why chase minnows when the big fish are basking in the shallows?
Mark
If you know the things that Arbour has said, you would be dismissive of her as well.
You say you are disgusted with the Liberals and the NDP. I would gather you are a life long center leftist who has had major doubts about the doctrine espoused of late from that quarter. It’s suddenly like half the world has gone mad is it not?
Mark, I appreciate your civil reply.
But to say, “As to using the section 33 to overturn a judge[‘]s decision: that’s a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly” shows that you don’t really know what the heck you’re talking about. E.g., You really believe that it’s OK for the decisions of the duly elected representatives–they’re called MPs–of the Canadian people to be routinely overturned by the politically appointed judiciary?
Re Rosalie Abella’s decision, you say, “As far as allowing anal sex at age 14, the sin (if you believe it to be such) is not Abella’s in harmonizing [?] the law, but the law’s in allowing intercourse at that age at all”.
Come again?? Contrary to your misconception, the law has no mind of its own: it CHANGED, Mark, because Abella DECIDED it would. That’s why the law now allows “intercourse at that age at all”.
Mark, please wake up and smell the whatever.
Lookout: I understand the issue very well, thank you. I’m also wide awake. The judiciary is, and always has been, a check on elected representatives, wherever democracy functions (and even in many places where it doesn’t). There are numerous examples in Canada, but the best example I can think of is south of the border, where segregated schools were struck down by a higher court decision. For her part, Abella quite rightly pointed out that you cannot allow some sex acts at 14 while banning others, which was the situation before her ruling. There’s no logic to it, and it was utterly unenforcable.
On the other hand, if Parliament were to raise the age of consent for all sex acts to 16 or 18 the problem would be solved (as unenforceable as THAT would be) with no need to use Section 33.
The law is a creation of man, and as such is a flawed instrument (as the recent brou-ha-ha over the elections act attests).
For that very reason, I’m wary of the idea of any government getting too comfortable with legislation that was specifically designed to abrogate parts of the constitution.
Mark, you say, “The judiciary is, and always has been, a check on elected representatives, wherever democracy functions.”
In Canada, since the Charter, the previous checks and balances have been drastically skewed, so that Canadian courts now regularly not only override or strike down duly voted upon laws by our ELECTED representatives, the courts even make law, often by “reading in” equality requirements where no such wording existed in the original. E.g., NOWHERE in the Charter were the words “sexual orientation” included as a prohibited area of discrimination. The possibility of including these words was debated and rejected.
Later, an unelected judge, who disagreed with this, simply added—“read in”—the words “sexual orientation” to the Charter, thus completely overriding Parliament’s original and very clear intent. (And you call this a “check”: I’d call it a take over.)
The argument here is not whether gays should have the rights the judge believed they should have. The issue is, in a free and democratic country, who should make such an important decision: unelected, politically appointed judges, with tenure, or the elected members of Parliament?
You seem to think the usurpation of democracy in this country is OK—as it seems to be in alignment with your wishes. On principle, I beg to differ.
Let’s look at what Rosalie Abella did re the age of consent for anal intercourse. Quite contrary to your assertion, she was definitely not compelled to lower it to 14: that’s a myth.
In the late 1980s, a Parliamentary Committee refused to follow through on Svend Robinson’s motion that the age of consent for anal intercourse be lowered to 14 to match the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse. (14 was allowed in 1892 because, with a much lower life expectancy, many young people of that age actually got married. Under present circumstances, raising the age seems quite appropriate.)
The Parliamentary Committee did reduce the age of consent for anal intercourse—which has attached to it a number of medical problems, e.g., high incidences of transmission of the AIDS virus— from 21 to 18. So, then, what did the unelected judges do?
In 1995, two feminist judges, sympathetic to the homosexual agenda and ignoring the health risks to 14 year old boys outlined by the Parliamentary Committee, arbitrarily decided to defy the Committee and lower the age of consent for anal intercourse to 14. Rosalie Abella stated that anal sex is, in her opinion, “a basic form of sexual expression for gay men” and that a difference in age of consent re vaginal and anal intercourse “ . . . perpetrates the gap for a historically disadvantaged group—gay men.”
The Liberals refused to appeal the decision, thus leaving vulnerable 14 year old boys prey to older homosexuals, who often prefer younger partners, who, among other things, are less likely to have AIDS.
Checks and balances, Mark? This kind of judicial usurpation in unbalanced! (Louise Arbour was a major culprit during her tenure on the SCC.) Again, whatever one thinks of rights for homosexuals—maybe this right is justified—the means by which it was decided were definitely arbitrary and undemocratic:
1) The words “sexual orientation” were read in to the Charter by an unelected, politically appointed (probably Liberal) judge; 2) A Parliamentary Committee, after due deliberation—among other things, both the Badgley and Fraser Reports were consulted—voted to reject 14 as the age of consent for anal intercourse because of health concerns; and 3) Two activist judges, unilaterally, on their own say so, using the read in words in 1), overturned the wishes of the legislature.
Democracy in action? I don’t think so. And this case is only ones of legions, where our courts have made a mockery of Parliament and the strict intent of its laws. Mark, I see this doesn’t seem to bother you. You said, “As to using the section 33 to overturn a judge[‘]s decision: that’s a mighty big stick for a fairly small fly”. Do you still think so?
(Just because, in this case, the court seems to have done something you approve of, doesn’t validate its undemocratic, arbitrary actions. In principle, remember, you could be the next victim of its arbitrary judgements.)
And, I’m still waiting to know why you’re disgusted with the Liberals and NDP: they actually seem to be quite in alignment with your biases here.
I’d appreciate if you’d actually engage my points: you say debate’s a good thing and I agree. I also agree with you that, too often, debating points simply get ignored. I think we all benefit from informed—even spirited—exchanges.
P.S. Mark, you have engaged some of my points, which I appreciate. (Politely too. Thanks.) But there are still some issues I’d like you to address, including a response to my latest post.
In your wildest and most deluded dreams, do you honestly think the left is aligned with Islamic fascism?
My god…this site never stops subverting reason and decency, does it? Whenever I think it can’t sink into a deeper cesspool, it does so with relish.
I’m with Mark. There are many centrists who are looking for an alternative to the NDP and Liberals. This site scares off many of them. I’m being absolutely serious – it truly scares them. I think most of the regulars here have no idea how truly repulsive the content on this site is to non-partisans, especially non-Conservative partisans who are simply info-hunting. But to come across a comment like the following:
“If we can’t have her shot as a traitor to humanity, we can at least ensure she’s in the UN sewer with her kind.” – Warwick.
…is an absolute disgrace.
Now, let loose with the “commie liberal bastard Taliban-loving” comments. Just remember that a lot of people visit this site, and are sickened by what they read. You’re hurting your party and your cause, and you’re chasing potential voters away.
Lookout,
I’m familiar with this background, actually, but it doesn’t change the underlying premise that anal sex is still a sexual act like any other. Abella came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons: it may be more risky, but risk alone is not enough reason to limit freedoms (it’s relevant, but not crucial. Did you know you can get a pilot’s license at 16? I may never go outside again for fear of drag-racing Cessnas) It was a badly thought out law that attempted to apply a different and untenable standard to a specific sex act. Abella didn’t have to “read in” special homosexual rights to determine this: anal sex ain’t just for breakfast anymore, as they say. And again, if Parliament is concerned about its authority being usurped on this issue, it has remedy through drafting a sensible age-of-consent law in line with its goals without resorting to Section 33.
The ruling doesn’t leave 14 year olds of either gender any more prey to older predators than before: 14 year olds can have consensual sex with each other, but not with 18 year olds.
I’m not terribly concerned about “activist judges” because I’ve yet to read of any situation where they’ve overturned a law where the remedy wasn’t a better-drafted law. Failure to do so should be blamed on the politicians for failing in their duties, not the judges for performing theirs.
The NDP and Liberals are indeed in line with my thinking on this, but this is not a make-or-break issue for me in deciding who to vote for. Honest, realistic debate based on policy is (like we’re having here, and I do appreciate it).
As to why I’m disgusted with the Liberals and NDP: it is largely over Afghanistan, where both are pandering to reflexive anti-war, anti-military, anti-American elements in the Canadian public. On the other hand, we just witnessed Harper indulging in anti-civil servant, Muslim-baiting over the Elections Canada issue, so I’m left without a home for my ballot. At the moment, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that a non-lunatic independant will stand in my riding.
Yep, the Left are all terrorists and they want Canadians to all die. They want an Islamic Canada.
Man, you guys really raise the bar for hyperbolic bullsh*t. I guess there wouldn’t be anything to talk about otherwise.
“In your wildest and most deluded dreams, do you honestly think the left is aligned with Islamic fascism?”
You need to go to more peace marches, Perry.
Hi, Mark
I appreciate your response, though cannot agree with a lot of what you’ve said, but a good debate is worthwhile for clearing out intellectual cobwebs.
My thoughts on yours:
1) You say, “anal sex is still a sexual act like any other”. NOT!
Anal sex includes penetration but is not procreative.
I don’t know of a single human being who’s been created as a result of anal sex. Do you?
Anal intercourse is also much more dangerous: unlike those of the vagina, the membranes of the anus are delicate and very porous—easy for the AIDs virus and others to pass through into the bloodstream. Tearing of the membranes is also common, which increases the chances of both infection and disease. (The gay community has a notoriously bad health record, much of it due to the prevalence of anal intercourse in that community.) To suggest that because more and more people in the heterosexual community also practise this form of sex makes it “no problem” is to seriously miss the point.
2) In this context, that you seem unconcerned about the serious—even life threatening—risks to boys of 14, who usually lack the maturity and perspective to be making such an important decision, especially when the partner involved may well be much older and exploiting the boy’s youth and inexperience, seems callous, to say the least.
Re sex with others of the same age: I find your argument is disingenuous. Other 14 year olds are far less likely to be preying on the other or to have AIDs and the host of other STDs that older partners are more likely to pass on.
3) Re “reading in”, Abella didn’t have to do that because it had already been done. She simply used this undemocratic precedent as the basis for her arbitrary, pro-gay agenda decision.
4) I do agree with you re Parliament having the guts to use its mandate to draft laws. However, knowing that our activist SCC would only strike down an age of consent law, I’d prefer going to Section 33 sooner, rather than later.
However, it’s not as simple as you propose: with a minority Conservative government, changing the age of consent is doomed: all the other parties (not to mention our ignominious MSM) are flagrantly pro the gay agenda and would vote against any such change. On the other hand, in order to protect our vulnerable young people in this highly sexualized age, a majority Conservative government could—and likely would—pass legislation raising the age of consent. If such a law were struck down by the court, a Conservative majority would—I hope—invoke Section 33 in order to preserve the law.
5) You say, “I’m not terribly concerned about ‘activist judges’ because I’ve yet to read of any situation where they’ve overturned a law where the remedy wasn’t a better-drafted law.” I’d like some examples, please.
(I notice that your statements are often general, e.g., “I’m familiar with this [Abella/anal intercourse] background, actually . . . ” but you provide no corroborating evidence. You seem very good at sounding knowledgeable, while piggy backing on information I’ve provided you.
It’s like not knowing the person on the phone, who says, “Hi, it’s Jill” [which one?] and then waiting for some clues. “Remember at yoga last week . . . ” Oh, THAT Jill!)
I provide concrete examples to support my theses. I’d like you to do the same. So, please provide a number of actual cases “where the [judge-made] remedy [was] a better-drafted law [than Parliament’s]”.
I actually have in front of me books by Ian Hunter, Law Professor Emeritus, University of Western Ontario, and Rory Leishman, London Free Press journalist, (Against Judicial Activism, McGill-Queen’s University press, 2006—you should read it), which list case after sorry case where the Charter has been used to let murderers and other felons off scott free: Regina v Askov, Regina v Lavallee, Regina v Seaboyer and Gayme, Regina v Kokesh, etc.
The Charter and activist judges is a very serious problem in Canada and the main reason for “the democratic deficit” in this country.
The Charter has largely given the Left in Canada what it wants—not through legislation, but via judicial fiat. The fact that you approve of both this usurpation and the results, Mark, makes me seriously question your claim that the Liberals and NDP disgust you. These two parties revel in the SCC’s left-wing, pro-gay, pro-feminist rulings.
Again, please provide some concrete examples re just what disgusts you about the Liberals and the NDP. You sound like you’d fit either party—they’re virtually clones of one another—very well, indeed. Case in point: you’ve just written, “[w]e just witnessed Harper indulging in anti-civil servant [OH NO: a new victim class?], Muslim-baiting [sic] over the Elections Canada issue . . . ” Those are not the words of a voter disillusioned by the Liberals and NDP. (I, in fact, heartily agree with the PM and applaud his good sense in NOT pandering favour with the unelected, Liberal-appointed [un]civil service.)
Mark, you keep outing yourself as a really serious anti-C(c)onservative: a wolf in (very thinly disguised) sheep’s clothing, for sure.
6) You also say, “ . . . so I’m left without a home for my ballot. At the moment, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that a non-lunatic independant will stand in my riding.”
You’ve outed yourself again, Mark: a true C(c)onservative would laud the PM’s decision re veiled voters, while you suggest this is THE reason you must look for an independent candidate. (Some advice: politics is the art of the possible. Unless your independent candidate has a chance to win or to seriously upset the status quo in your riding, it’s a wasted vote, Mark. Believe me: I’ve been there.)
I’m enjoying our exchange. I know two things for sure: a) You’re smart but not that knowledgeable, and b) you’re no C(c)onservative! (You didn’t really consider voting for the CPC, did you?)
Summary of lookout: “Being gay is just bad m’kay, and anal sex is gross so it’s bad too, m’kay? Also, I’m, like, WAY smarter than you.”
Re anon: This person’s ability to precis is obviously woefully lacking, as are is his/her language processing skills. What this person says I said is utter hogwash.
I’d be willing to respond substantively if this person could express him/herself in standard English.
(I really hope anon isn’t Mark. That would be very disappointing.)
lookout:
We don’t need to have a conversation.
You clearly think that sex is only for procreation, and that anything that is remotely risky – even a calculated, relatively minor risk – is wrong. We fundamentally disagree about sex, and about what decisions adults should be allowed to make for themselves. We also disagree about what makes something right or wrong, and the role of the state in legislating or mandating social freedoms. We aren’t going to meet anywhere on this topic.
We are also diametrically opposed when it comes to the current form and value of age of consent laws. You favour a heavy-handed threshold that I view as largely symbolic and ineffectual. I have no doubts that some kids are going to have sex and favour a harm reduction and education approach. I also refuse to characterize all kids with overgeneralizations.
I don’t believe there is a pro-gay agenda any more than I believe there is an anti-gay agenda, and I abhor jingoistic labels. I think there are groups with varying interests and I personally think that the gay rights groups have, by and large, legitimate claims. I also feel that they are being met.
I think the term ‘activist judge’ is ridiculous. I support the judicial branch when it interprets rights that are guaranteed under a living state document, when the rights so guaranteed would be denied to the minority by a simple majority. Slavery is not open to a majority vote, and neither are fundamental rights. They can’t be taken away with legislation in Parliament. The right to life, equal opportunity and access to state institutions, and self-autonomy are GOOD fundamental unassailable rights. There are others that are arguable.
I don’t really care about all of the murderers and rapists that are let out of jail ‘scott-free’ because I’m pretty sure that my view would be skewed, too, if I ignored all of the stories about people who WEREN’T let out of jail, and all of the times that the system worked. Despite the horror stories, we live in one of the safest countries in the world. I don’t think harsher sentences accomplishes anything beyond a point, and we’ve already reached that point.
Besides all of that, the general tone of your post was bitter, and it was peppered with tedious caricatures and tired cliches of people and groups that don’t actually exist. I suspect that we use terms completely differently, and any real discussion would be spent sorting out what was and was not a personal attack, because you’ve already decided who the enemy is and what their position is, so there is no use in taking them seriously. You capped everything off at the end of your writeup by advising the person you were responding to that they were wasting their vote if they voted on their principles, indicating that ‘beating the other guy’ is more important than the possibility that there are other people in the world who may have different values, different goals and, overall, a different life than you. Then the coup de gras: you informed the person that you are wiser than he, and that his type could not be a ‘real true Conservative’.
Sorry for making a funny out of it.
Unfortunately, CBC Newsworld’s coverage of this important international event was pre-empted by the airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in commemoration of the 6th anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.
I love your sarcasm!
Lookout,
No, anon is not me, but I’ve no way of proving that. I’ve also no way of proving I’ve considered the CPC over the Liberal or NDP parties.
Since this isn’t one of “those” websites, I won’t get into the numerous sex acts that are not prohibited and aren’t procreative, but they do exist, all carrying their own sets of risk. And, as mentioned before, relative risk, though important in deciding an activities legality, is just one of many factors in play.
I must also point out that you’ve put words in my mouth: I didn’t and don’t endorse anal sex for fourteen year olds. I do hold that section 33 is not the remedy here, raising the age of consent across the board is. And in any case, my feelings on the issue have no bearing on the logic of a legal decision.
I will admit to piggybacking off your information here, for a few reasons: I trust what you’re posting is accurate, so I’m happy to argue on the basis of the facts as presented; I don’t want to expand the scope of the debate beyond what is reasonable for a comments board because, beyond Internet searching (and, let’s face it, you can find anything you want to support an argument on the ‘net), I don’t have access to my usual resources and won’t for some time; and finally because I’m commenting here instead of working, as I should be, and these searches take time. Moreover while I am familiar with the cases you mention, in a “Hi Jill” sort of way, they aren’t, as I mentioned before, a preoccupation of mine, so I’m not nearly as up on the issue as you are. However, even in conceding that, in this case you have not convinced me that Abella was out of line or that judges on the whole are out of control. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples you could find to make that case, but I don’t believe this is one of them.
You’ve correctly sensed that homosexuality and homosexual rights are not something I get particularly exercised about. However, as I know and respect several civil servants, I take exception to them being attacked or labelled partisan for doing their jobs. I don’t applaud Harper’s actions in this instance as he is attacking a bureaucrat for following the law (not, ironically, what Harper would seem to prefer he read into the law).
I can’t accept the Liberal and NDP’s apparent willingingness to sign over our foreign policy to the UN, so I am being pushed away from them. Harper’s actions in this instance (though not many others) is pushing me away from the CPC as well. On the other hand, I’m happy to see what he actually does on the file first.
As to my sincerity, I can’t prove that either, but I return to the point I made (albeit, in frustration) at the beginning: I needn’t accept all of a party’s aims to vote for them, anymore than I need to disagree with all of them to give them the heave-ho. The concept of “a true conservative,” as you put it, is what appalled me about this board in the first place. Disagreement on any one issue, or the details of any issue, isn’t heresy. You could, and probably can, point to many cases where judges have overstepped their bounds where section 33 might be the only remedy. My instinct, and the little I do know says no, but I’ll recognize I’m outgunned on that question, and retire from the field. While that doesn’t convince me that Abella did the wrong thing in the case you cited, for the reasons mentioned above, I sure were I to demonstrate that Harper is wrong on the voter id issue, it wouldn’t change your mind on his overall fitness as Prime Minster.
You have, however, proven me wrong on my original assertion, namely that civil debate was impossible here, and for that I thank you.
Hi, Mark. Thank you to you for your civility, graciousness, and good will–traits fast disappearing in our million miles an hour society.
I’ll only answer briefly for now as I have an early appointment today.
I’d suggest Rory Leishman’s book, Against Judicial Activism, which quite convincingly makes a case about judicial overstepping since the Charter. Perhaps, because I am a C(c)onservative–we’ve fared very badly in most Charter cases, where our opponents, via the Court Challenges Program, have had many of their expenses paid by the taxpayer–and because the MSM is consistently hostile to C(c)onservatives and our initiatives, I’m quite sensitive to issues which may be of lesser importance to you.
Re political parties: they all have their faults and, IMO, one has to support the one that most closely approximates one’s philosophy and goals. I prefer less government because governments are prone to abuse, sooner or later. At the moment, the CPC and Stephen Harper, for whom I have a great deal of respect–though he’s not perfect–get my vote.
Re the veils and voting: Elections Canada has overstepped here, IMO, but, as you point out–and I agree in this case–Parliament may remedy this by drafting a more specific law. Then, if the courts strike it down, Section 33 could be used. I do agree that more guts on the part of our MPs–most are Liberals and other lefties–would help, if there were the will, to rein in our judges. (However, the left is more than willing to have the dirty work done by the courts, “Hey, that’s not our fault!”)
As you might expect, my contempt for leftie politics and its parties is strong and not one of them would get my vote. (I once, strategically, voted Liberal and NDP. That was against a candidate I wanted to see defeated.)
I’m on the fly. have a fine day.
From AP via the Globe and Mail.
:Ms. Arbour says she raised the matter with Iran during a visit there last week and expressed particular concern about death sentences handed out to juveniles in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Ms. Arbour says she also discussed the need for the Iranian government to safeguard the right of its citizens to peaceful protest.”