30 Replies to “Reader Tips”

  1. You’ll have to claim all your earnings at Canada Border services before you get home;^)

  2. I trust Kate was a very ‘heavy bettor’…congratulations on your enormous winnings and extra prestige in pony perspicacity…!
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

  5. Wish he’d show a little leadership!
    Showalit Tleleadership

  6. Peter, did you make note of the fact that the good professor’s name is Ignatiev.
    Well Kate, you might have to take Lance out for dinner. He has just been slaving away back here in Saskabush.

  7. Nice race, Nice Horse, Nice ride!
    Was I the only one that heard Bob Costas (NBC) shilling for PETA at the Kentucky derby… NBC must not want to cover horse racing unless they can demonize something. Shame on Bob Costas! I always thought he was a real fan of sports !
    Ban NBC for life!

  9. Tipped last night (not by me):
    http://leeakazaki.com/2014/05/02/judicial-ethics-in-real-time-commentary-d-9-to-principle-d-3-of-ethical-principles-for-judges-cdnpoli/
    The article points out that one of the Ethical Principles for Judges is that a judge may on occasion have cause to contact a politician but it should be non-partisan in nature, not deal with individual cases, and not be capable of being perceived as advisory in nature.
    The question is whether the press release by Chief Justice McLachlin addressed the “individual case” of the Nadon candidacy or, barring that, whether it was “advisory” in nature.
    The author opines: “The Chief Justice’s press release appears to have painted her into a corner.”
    If McLachlin ends up having to resign over this (which I have no idea whether it will happen or not), the biggest benefit for Canada is that it will give Prime Minister Harper the opportunity to appoint a new Chief Justice who is not named Rosalie Abella.

  10. Unbelievable Story:
    Common Core: Students in California School District Asked to Write Essay Offering Their Opinion as to Whether the Holocaust Really Happened, or If It Was “Merely a Political Scheme Created to Influence Public Emotion and Amass Wealth”
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/348981.php
    The Rialto school district planned to revise an eighth-grade assignment that raised red flags by asking students to consider arguments about whether the Holocaust — the systematic killing by the Nazis of some 6 million Jews and millions of others — was not an “actual event” but instead a “propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”
    http://ktla.com/2014/05/05/rialto-assignment-asking-to-students-to-question-holocaust-to-be-revised/#axzz30uhI4iK5
    The district initially defended the assignment.
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/school-district-officials-reportedly-threatened-over-holocaust-debate-assignment/

  11. Reader Tip FYI original Comment got swallowed by blog moderation.
    google Rialto School holocaust

  13. Here’s an oldie but a goodie that involves a speech by Chief Justice McLachlin in New Zealand, reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen, 5 Dec. 2005:
    http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=66232d1c-b18e-4503-9d2b-5b34c17ca854
    OC: “Judges should feel ’emboldened’ to trump the written word of the constitution when protecting fundamental, unwritten principles and rights, says Canada’s chief justice.”
    OC: “Chief Justice McLachlin listed several unwritten constitutional norms that have evolved into entrenched rights over time, such as the right to not be punished without a trial, to retain counsel, and enjoy the presumption of innocence.”
    Okay, if some of the general principles of judicial fairness are not explicitly constitutional, then maybe there are “unwritten constitutional principles” that should be followed.
    But it would have been nice if the Chief Justice and her colleagues had followed that advice in cases like Chatterjee (2009), and Blencoe (2000).
    Chatterjee involved “civil forfeiture” without a conviction or any other judicial decision – a supposedly “anti-crime” measure that is itself a crime. The Court weaseled its way out by deciding that forfeiture was not “punishment”, thereby negating the necessity of a trial.
    If certain properties are suspected of being the proceeds of crime, it is reasonable for the authorities to confiscate them on a temporary basis, primarily so that the accused cannot squander another person’s property in his own defense. But in the event of his acquittal or indeed a decision that no prosecution is forthcoming, those confiscated properties should be returned to the accused forthwith. A caveat, though, is that in some cases, stolen property will be identified and reclaimed by the rightful owner, but for various reasons a prosecution is not done. The legal system must untangle this.
    Blencoe involved “human rights commissions”. It contained this gem: “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to be ‘tried’ within a reasonable time. The majority of the Court of Appeal erred in transplanting s. 11(b) principles set out in the criminal law context to human rights proceedings under s. 7. Not only are there fundamental differences between criminal and human rights proceedings, but, more importantly, s. 11(b) of the Charter is restricted to a pending criminal case.”
    Let’s expand this to see what would happen for a few other principles of justice:
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to a presumption of innocence.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to due process.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to a fair trial (hearing).”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to have one’s case heard by a fair and impartial arbiter.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context for search warrants to be required.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context against double jeopardy.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context against the introduction of hearsay evidence.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to use truth as a defence.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to have a ‘costs’ rule against frivolous complaints.”
    “There is no constitutional right outside the criminal context to sue for malicious prosecution.”
    Again here, it would have been nice if the Chief Justice and her colleagues had used some of those “unwritten principles” to uphold justice rather than to encourage those travesties of justice / kangaroo courts with the Orwellian name of “human rights commissions”.
    It’s easy to get the impression that judges will just do whatever they damn please, without much regard for Parliament or the constitution.
    OC: “In another ruling that has been described as one of the Supreme Court’s boldest, the judges used unwritten constitutional principles in 1997 to order provincial governments to set up independent commissions to set judges’ salaries.”
    That was former Chief Flake Antonio Lamer making it up out of thin air, not any “bold” application of principle, constitutional or otherwise.

  14. Judge is a lawyer.
    Chief justice is a lawyer/judge.
    Justine is a Liberal.
    …-
    “Video: Justin Trudeau slams PM’s ‘appalling’ spat with chief justice
    The Globe and Mail Staff”
    …-
    “Broken Trust – Two faces of justice”
    “Former lawyer Lawrence Burns runs a North Toronto restaurant. He is also a disbarred lawyer found to have taken close to half a million dollars from his clients. Burns, like many lawyers caught with his hand in a trust account, escaped criminal prosecution. A Toronto Star investigation found most Canadian law societies report members to police. The Law Society of Upper Canada does not.
    They treat client trust accounts as their personal piggy banks, facilitate multi-million-dollar frauds and drain retirement savings of the elderly.”
    http://projects.thestar.com/broken-trust/

  15. Mao Stlong* Lepolt.
    …-
    “North Korea Holds Key to a China Nightmare
    Pyongyang’s Nuclear Quest Threatens to Escalate Beijing’s Rivalry With Japan”
    (WSJ)
    …-
    “China plans for North Korean regime crash”
    “China has drawn up detailed contingency plans for the collapse of the North Korean government, suggesting that Beijing has little faith in the longevity of Kim Jong-un’s regime.”
    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/china-plans-for-north-korean-regime-crash-30246265.html
    *Liberal Justine’s favourite dictator.

  16. Good backstory of the common breeding of the Derby winner.
    Lowlife’s can play in the same sandbox as blue-bloods, eh?

  18. Beg pardon, Kate, but didn’t you pick Untapable to win last Friday?

  20. Reuters – puzzled by this brand new “T” word…
    ————————————————–
    The government called the attackers “terrorists”, a term it uses to describe Islamist militants and separatists in Xinjiang who have waged a sometimes violent campaign for an independent East Turkestan state.
    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2014/05/06/21651821.html

  21. Excuse me but re: PMSH “spat” with SCOC, isn’t there exactly zero there, kind of like wafergate? I understand Andrew Coyne is quite miffed. Such BS, nobody cares.

  22. I greatly appreciate your assessments and posts: you should do more of these, actually.
    I’d only point out further that John Duncan, an original Reform MP (I’m pretty sure) and former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, resigned from cabinet in 2013, having “inappropriately”, by his own standard, contacted a junior court on behalf of a constituent.
    My admittedly-pedestrian read on the generally-accepted political standard in Canada is that it is tabu for politicians (other than the chief law officers — attorneys-general) to speak with sitting judges in respect of anything. By the way, a breach of this standard became a major controversy in the mid-1970s, if memory serves, when a Trudeau, Sr.-era Quebec-based minister attempted to contact a judge about something or other.
    So, it’s not just clear to me where the problem is: Stephen J. Harper, on the advice of the Attorney-General of Canada, thought it inappropriate to speak with a sitting judge. Instead, Mr. Harper (even having received an over-the-head-of-the -Attorney-General-of-Canada call to his office (taken by Chief of Staff Ray Novak, apparently) from the Chief Justice of Canada) made an entirely appropriate reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and got an opinion.
    Are the goal posts moving, yet again, or what? Looks like another long-form census debate to me (that won’t end well for the protagonists).
    As Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, “It is a strange doctrine to preach that the judges are responsible to Parliament. Where is that responsibility? I have always understood that the judges were responsible only to their own conscience, and Parliament has no power over them. True, they can be removed, but only on an address of both Houses of Parliament. That law has been adopted to make them absolutely independent of Parliament, and they are only responsible to Parliament in extreme cases of malfeasance.” (Canadian House of Commons Debates, September 15, 1903, pp. 11313).
    So, it rather seems to me that yet another Trudeau is off-side with the founder of the Liberal Party of Canada. What’s that about, exactly?

  23. VDH’s inventory of the hypocrisy of self-styled “21st Century Liberalism” – an excellent primer next time you’re challenged on the greedy right:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377237/liberals-exempt-scrutiny-victor-davis-hanson
    Their main three tenets are: I don’t have to follow the rules you, you have to follow the rules; You have to make sacrifices, I don’t have to make sacrifices; I do very well financially, you don’t do very well financially.
    Why, because they “say the right things,” so are cool, and get a pass from the left despite being rich coal barons, or overpaid professors, or …:
    “Concern for the Sierra toad and frog should stop logging-road and mountain development, but incinerating fauna with solar mirrors or grinding up eagles and hawks in wind turbines is the necessary price of green membership.
    The Koch brothers have allegedly polluted politics with their ill-gotten cash; the Steyer brothers have not with their coal money.”

  24. Good point . Fact is most of these characters care about one thing only. Money sports gives them.
    Good call Kate. Hope the tax man doesn’t take your joy away.
    Take her easy on the way back. Winter is still here.Snowing now in fact. (O:}

  26. I’m already back. We left Saturday night after the race, rolled into Saskatchewan Monday morning.

  27. What makes you think no one likes you and furthermore, what does it matter ? This isn’t a club, it’s a forum for opinions. All posts stand on their own merit and there’s not a reason in the world to expect everyone or even anyone to agree with you. Good post @3:24 by the way.

  29. The comments on the “Eastern Bastards” is coming up as ;
    Page Not Found
    Page not found – /archives/let-the-eastern.html

  30. For leftists / liberals, hypocrisy is not accidental — it’s a way of life, a modus operandi. Not a bug, but a feature.
    I think Ayn Rand identified the real issue when she wrote Altruism as Appeasement. If they can make you feel unearned guilt, they’ve got you by the short and curlies.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation