30 Replies to “Reader Tips”

  2. Saw something tonight about CFL changing the names of Canadian players and non Canadian players to national and international players …….if that’s true …..thats gaaaaaayyyyyyy

  5. Toronto Star, Wednesday, Aug. 19. An article by John Whyte, professor emeritus, Queen’s U. faculty of law, shows that the leftist legal elite is circling the wagons:
    http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/18/russell-brown-doesnt-belong-on-the-supreme-court.html
    JW: “He has opposed constitutional interpretations that would reflect the dynamism of social and political contexts or that promote underlying constitutional purposes; narrow interpretations of constitutional texts shut out consideration of contemporary values and conditions and rob a living document of vitality and relevance.”
    This boils down to nothing more than, “I disagree with his politics.”
    JW: “Until the very day of being named to the Supreme Court, he served as an adviser to a conservative think tank that promotes constitutional protection for property rights and claims that affirmative action in aid of disadvantaged minorities violates equality, both contrary to the Charter’s content.”
    It is regrettably true that the Charter section 15(2) permits reverse discrimination, otherwise known as “affirmative action”. This is one of a couple of dozen mistakes in the Charter that need to be fixed, before the country is destroyed by it. The omission of property rights is another. Section 26 of the Charter provides for the recognition of other rights not explicitly named within the document, which could be “interpreted” to include property rights, but it is completely ignored in practice.
    JW: “He is a literalist, a libertarian and a conservative. These match the legal and political values of the prime minister whose judicial nominating power is being used to establish judicial conservatism.”
    If these are indeed the political values of the prime minister, it contradicts the usual notion that he is a “dictator” who is undermining democracy in Canada.
    JW: “Both Justice Brown’s views and the prime minister’s nominations can be seen as a normal and legitimate course for democratic will. In my view, this form of constitutionalism adopts unsound legal theory, lacks liberality of interpretation and defeats the idea of a common good.”
    Translation: the law’s left-wing self-appointed elitists should override the “democratic will”.
    A big problem with the Charter is precisely the amount of “interpretation” that has gone on. One former judge claimed, to the detriment of our rights, that freedom of association did not include the right not to associate, in defiance of the proper definition of that term. The “hate speech” law was upheld because the Court decided there was little value in it with regards to the principles of freedom of speech, as opposed to political speech, which was much more important, in fact at the “core” of that right. But when election third-party spending laws came before the Court, it nevertheless saw fit to rein in political speech as well, quoting a fictitious “egalitarian model” of elections rather than the proper one, namely the “free and fair” model.
    JW: “Justice Brown is the fourth Alberta jurist on the Court since there has last been a judge from Saskatchewan. Even if the next appointee to the Court were from Saskatchewan, the period of non-representation from that province would be two-thirds of a century. By long practice, membership on the Supreme Court has been based on a pattern of rotation in order to promote the national legitimacy of the Court; the prime minister has overridden this vital practice in order to promote his political ideology.”
    This contradicts itself. If the non-representation of a province has gone on for “two thirds of a century”, I would say that demonstrates that the “long practice” is clearly not based on a “pattern of rotation”.
    JW: “… his role as adviser to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, an organization that advances conservative positions that often are inconsistent with the terms of the constitution and with decided cases …”
    The Supreme Court has been known to overturn itself on “decided cases”. Why don’t you complain about that? Oh, I know — because it has usually moved away from the “conservative position” in doing so.
    Let’s go back to the comment about “the prime minister whose judicial nominating power is being used to establish judicial conservatism”. Mr. Harper has nominated several judges in his term of office. Much has been made of the fact that most of his appointees have lined up against him in several big judgments, such as InSite, Omar Khadr, Senate reform, and the proposed national securities regulator. Now that one apparently conservative judge who might be more inclined to align with the PM’s views on issues will be appointed, the leftist legal elite have their shorts in a knot about it.
    In 2000, prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court herself (which occurred after a public campaign of sorts, considered unseemly by many), Rosalie Abella in a public speech quoted Lillian Hellman: “I will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.” As everyone knows, Lillian Hellman changed her opinions when Stalin ordered her to. Apparently there is no problem having a Supreme Court justice who sees fit to approvingly quote a deranged bootlicker of one of history’s biggest murderers. But heaven forbid the Court should have “a libertarian and a conservative”.

  6. For those who want a quick summary: They’ve been doing it now for about 5 years or so. Each year, a student is selected and given travel expenses to travel the province during their break. The condition to this is they blog about their adventures.

  9. Latest CROP poll has the N.D.P. at 47% in Quebec. We will soon be regreting not getting rid of socialist Quebec when we had the chance if this leads to a majority N.D.P. government. Also thanks to Alberta voters provincially who made a N.D.P. government seem legitimate.

  10. “We will soon be regreting not getting rid of socialist Quebec when we had the chance …”
    “soon” be regretting?

  11. Is the Duffy trial becoming a Seinfeld type shaggy dog affair? How long can the Judge put up with this nonsense and figure out who did what wrong? So far it’s just a pathetic circus aimed a Stephen Harper, it’s all about making headlines for the media party as they feed their unofficial campaign against him.
    IMO this should be tossed out of court, it’s a waste of time and money.

  12. Paul always agrees with forcing Peter to give money to Paul…so busy handing out money for entertainment, they can’t fix the roads.
    We want you to live, work and play in Saskatchewan from January 2015 until December. And we don’t expect you to do it for free—we’re prepared to pay our Saskatchewanderer between $55,000 and $60,000 per year.

  13. With all due respect to CROP, etc. an NDP tidal-wave in Quebec, absent substantial increases in seat count in other provinces, is not going to spell NDP majority, or probably even minority.
    Holding 59 seats now, there are only about 20 more for them to get, which has never happened before, even when Mr. Trudeau, Sr. took all but one with about 65 percent of the vote in 1980 (the NDP is nowhere near that level of support at the moment; in fact, given margins of error, they might be slightly above where they were in 2011). Besides which, a preponderant NDP position in Quebec and an equally preponderant Liberal position in Atlantic Canada are skewing the national polling numbers (the two regions represent approximately 110 of 338 ridings), which according to no less an eminence than the Toronto Star’s own pollster, Lorne Bozinoff, haven’t changed in the last week, even with the breathless reportage of Mr. Wright’s and Mr. Perrin’s testimony.
    (In connection with the last point, I’m still trying to figure out how it’s a “BOMBSHELL!!!!!!!” that Mr. Novak was told once, twice or fifteen times that Mr. Wright was going to cover Mr. Duffy’s expenses. To have a legitimate story, the media needs to answer how any of the three following statements has materially changed:
    – There is no taxpayer money missing.
    – Mr. Duffy is the only person on trial, and
    – There is no evidence that Mr. Harper had prior knowledge of Mr. Wright’s intentions, to which I would add, what difference does it make if he did or did not, and, given that, why would he lie and say he didn’t know if he actually did know? The media’s clear intention is to convey the impression that Mr. Harper is a liar. In the absence of any actual, you know, evidence that he is lying, it’s just a lot of guilt-by-association, which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.
    And I think it’s fine, and all that, that Quebeckers think that it’s time for a change — by which they really mean they want to break the power of the Western Canada-rural/suburban Ontario Conservative alliance. Before we get all demoralized and everything, I believe we should spend a bit of time reflecting on what that means, and govern ourselves accordingly.
    As much as I hate to mentioned it, have a look at Chantal Hebert’s column this a.m. (linked at National Newswatch) about what’s really driving NDP fortunes in Quebec.

  16. BC no longer has the highest gas prices in North America
    I just did the math. 123.9 litre X 3.77 US Gallon = Can $4.67/1.3 US exchange rate= $3.59 US a gallon.
    Gas in San Francisco and Los Angeles is more expensive. California as a whole is about the same. In some places in the US with less gas taxes, prices are below $2 a gallon.
    This has more to do with the plunging Canadian dollar than the plunging price of oil. It seems because the Canadian dollar goes up and down with the price of oil, we don’t see as much change in the price at the pump when oil prices change.

  17. Thanks, as always, for that. I’d also add to your analysis my deep concern about this little nugget, which is pretty shocking:
    “Until the very day of being named to the Supreme Court, he served as an adviser to a conservative think tank that promotes constitutional protection for property rights and claims that affirmative action in aid of disadvantaged minorities violates equality, both contrary to the Charter’s content.” As if being an “adviser to a conservative think tank” is any less legitimate than being an “adviser” to those who hold a different philosophical position.
    Really? A plain reading of Section 15 (2) of the Charter provides the legitimate bases upon which Section 15 (1) (“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law…”) can be abridged. Professor Emeritus Whyte has a good case to make on that score, but Mr. Justice Brown has an equally good case, in my view, to argue for a strictly limited definition of the terms employed in Section 15 (2). I’m guessing, of course, but I’m fairly certain that, in the next few years, the definition of every delimiting term in Section 15 (2) is going to be litigated before the Court, with disastrous results. Which is fine, I guess — not that I’m in favour, in the least, of changing, or accepting any such change, of the blindingly obvious.
    Without even touching the definition of “sex” (suicide vest, in my view), what would happen, say, if the definition of “age” were limited to less than, say, 85 years, or 75 years, or in “Logan’s Run”, 30 years? Would that mean that my increasingly elderly mother would not be entitled to access to health care, on the same basis as younger people?
    But why, exactly, would Professor Whyte choose to lump all of that chaos in with “property rights”, claiming that “property rights” are “contrary to the Charter’s content”? Last time I checked in with my “property rights” lawyer, which I do every few days, as I have a serious “property rights” issue on-going at the moment, I do have property rights, as does every other single homeowner in Canada: in fact, they are essentially guaranteed in the Charter by Section 26 of the Charter, which reads, “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.” The litigation of those rights may be limited in some summary fashion by the High Court, which may choose to avert its collective eyes on account of more pressing, um, “social matters”, but they absolutely exist.
    I assume that Professor Whyte is, you know, a lawyer on some level, and that he can actually read. Dang, I guess I’ll be voting for the “Prince of Darkness”, yet again.

  18. “IMO this should be tossed out of court, it’s a waste of time and money.”
    I’m hoping the judge tosses it after the prosecution presents its case. The prosecution case is pathetically weak and do we really want to spend another 6 months for the defence to present its case? As a judge once told me, “I’m sure everyone here has something better to do.”

  20. The thugs the American President courts:
    “Hussein Sheikholeslam, a senior adviser to Iran’s Speaker of Parliament, told the Hamas-affiliated newspaper al-Resalah that Tehran ‘reject[s] the existence of any Israeli on this earth,’ a position he says Iran relayed to the P5+1 powers during the nuclear negotiations, The Times of Israel reported Wednesday. According to Sheikholeslam, Iran ‘will do everything to renew’ its support for Hamas, which Tehran lessened in retaliation to the Sunni group’s opposition to the regime of Bashar al-Assad after the outbreak of the Syrian civil war.
    Sheikholeslam’s comments are the latest in a series of threats issued against Israel by Iran since the Islamic Republic signed a nuclear agreement with the P5+1 powers last month.
    A video posted on a website linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), titled “Preparation of the complete destruction of Israel by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Islamic Revolution in Iran,” called for Israel’s “erasure from the annals of history,” according to another report in The Times of Israel on Wednesday. The clip depicts an invasion of Jerusalem by an Islamic army that includes Hamas and Hezbollah among its ranks.”
    http://www.thetower.org/2261-iranian-official-we-reject-the-existence-of-any-israeli-on-this-earth/

  21. PET Cemetery Report.
    Tonight! Shackles for Justine.
    …-
    “Liberal candidate admits he broke spending laws to win nomination”
    “Sven Spengemann admits he personally paid for some campaign expenses, which legally should have been paid only by his financial agent. (Sven Spengemann/Twitter)”
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberal-candidate-admits-he-broke-spending-laws-to-win-nomination-1.2528103
    …-
    “Watch [Conservative] Dean Del Mastro boards police vehicle in cuffs, shackles Video Online” (GlobalNews)

  23. Mohammed’s Plot In a Train Toilet.
    “The gunmen lived in Spain and is a follower of radical Islam,…”
    …-
    “U.S. Soldiers Hurt While Subduing Gunman on Train to Paris”
    “Two U.S. soldiers were wounded after they confronted a gunman on a high-speed train between Amsterdam and Paris, potentially averting a massacre, France’s interior minister said.”
    “The two soldiers helped capture the suspect after they heard the sound of a gun being loaded in a toilet in the train,…”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-21/three-people-hurt-after-gunman-opens-fire-on-train-in-france

  24. The Alberta gov’t has released the framework for the transition to become Ontario West.
    If you are concerned there will be 3 hours of public discussion in Calgary and 3 hours in Edmonton.
    Six hours of input from the public.
    http://alberta.ca/climate-leadership.cfm
    Northern Gateway by the Numbers
    The Review Process
    180 – Number of hearing days
    21 – Number of communities where hearings were held
    175,669 – Total number of pages of evidence filed on the record
    1,179 – Number of people who provided oral statements
    268 – Number of participants who cross examined witnesses
    9 – Number of First Nations communities where hearings were held
    12 – Number of Government participants
    47 – Number of Aboriginal groups that participated as interveners
    884 – Number of hours the Panel spent hearing oral evidence, oral statements, cross examination and final argument

  25. I guess ‘the who’ missed that story when he/she/it perused the weather network site. I guess ‘the who’ also missed all the fraudulent data that was used to foist the Global Warming fraud on humanity. I guess ‘the who’ is just an idiot.

  27. So, your ok with Canadian’s being described as non-imports? What’s with that? CFL embarrassed of it’s home grown players?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation