Charter of Rights and Freedom

Darts said:

When you can't win with the law, you argue the facts.

When you can't win with the facts, you argue the law.

When you can't win with either the law or the facts, you argue your Charter rights were grossly violated.

Trudeau was so afraid that some wacko judge would award Kadr $40 million, that he (Trudeau) settled out of court for $10 million.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...freeze-order-on-khadr-assets/article35680493/

Click to expand...

This post sounds fascist.

Charlemagne said:

This post sounds fascist.

Click to expand...

Darts dug back to 2017 to use the name Khadr — which he couldn't spell for looking at it — to smear the Judge who called DoFo's non-reasons for 'needing' to screw with Toronto's Council right now, in the midst of our election "crickets". Nothing he added to the link actually makes any sense, in the current context or back when the case was heard.

Old news. But it does raise the legitimate question: Do Canadians have any real rights, if any pol temporarily occupying a Premier's chair can just say, "Nope, you don't"?

For Khadr, Trudeau inherited a bag of shit thanks to Harper and Martin/Chretien. So there is plenty of blame to go around. EG: Had Harper either settled, OR even better had Harper advocated for Khadr to face a swift trial (since both Martin and Chretien didn't) then it is very possible that Khadr might be cooling his heels in an American prison. But he didn't do that. Instead he ignored the problem and then went to court to fight doing what was right. Hence the final settlement. So you see - the actual problem (the settlement) was because previous leaders didn't use facts OR the law - they simply ignored the problem - thus denying Khadr's rights to have facts presented in a courtroom (and allow him to defend himself) in a timely manner.

Now the story is being dragged back because the same judge who ruled against Ford this week also happened to deny a motion to freeze Khadr's assets. None of the rest of his post is of any relevance to either decision. Just inferences and innuendo about bias. The judge treated Khadr like any other Canadian - the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of risk other than an anonymous source quoted in a newspaper article - which is their failing, not the judge's.

The Khadr story is something the right wingers here would do best to forget. Because some of us were here and still have memories.

During the whole Khadr story, the rightists here were falling over themselves to argue for lynching of Khadr, and that he was a traitor, that should be hanged, preferably by the Americans, and that he had no rights as a canadian and and and..

At the time, I posted that Harper's unwillingness to give Khadr the customary assistance a Canadian Citizen deserves would eventually cost the Canadian taxpayers a lot of money.

oldjones said:

Darts dug back to 2017 to use the name Khadr — which he couldn't spell for looking at it — to smear the Judge who called DoFo's non-reasons for 'needing' to screw with Toronto's Council right now, in the midst of our election "crickets". Nothing he added to the link actually makes any sense, in the current context or back when the case was heard.

Old news. But it does raise the legitimate question: Do Canadians have any real rights, if any pol temporarily occupying a Premier's chair can just say, "Nope, you don't"?

Click to expand...

Better question: Why do leftists only ask questions about rights, laws, electoral processes, etc, after they don't get their way?

danmand said:

The Khadr story is something the right wingers here would do best to forget. Because some of us were here and still have memories.

During the whole Khadr story, the rightists here were falling over themselves to argue for lynching of Khadr, and that he was a traitor, that should be hanged, preferably by the Americans, and that he had no rights as a canadian and and and..

At the time, I posted that Harper's unwillingness to give Khadr the customary assistance a Canadian Citizen deserves would eventually cost the Canadian taxpayers a lot of money.

Click to expand...

LOL!!!! Politics, including the terrorist Khadr, is all about perception. You, of all people, should know that, after two years of trying to hang Trump based on thin air and a Clinton provided Dossier.

jcpro said:

LOL!!!! Politics, including the terrorist Khadr, is all about perception. You, of all people, should know that, after two years of trying to hang Trump based on thin air and a Clinton provided Dossier.

Click to expand...

I am glad you are able to laugh at yourself.

Nobody needs to try to hang Trump. He does a tremendous job of doing it all by himself. And you should know that I was in favour of Trump as President over Hillary (still am).

oldjones said:

Darts dug back to 2017 to use the name Khadr — which he couldn't spell for looking at it — to smear the Judge who called DoFo's non-reasons for 'needing' to screw with Toronto's Council right now, in the midst of our election "crickets". Nothing he added to the link actually makes any sense, in the current context or back when the case was heard.

Old news. But it does raise the legitimate question: Do Canadians have any real rights, if any pol temporarily occupying a Premier's chair can just say, "Nope, you don't"?

Click to expand...

Exactly. I hope this goes to The SCC. An elected official has to follow The Charter, there needs to be a firm presidence set.

It means squat shit now...doesn't it.

Boober69 said:

Better question: Why do leftists only ask questions about rights, laws, electoral processes, etc, after they don't get their way?

Click to expand...

You want people whose rights are being respected to mistrustfully ask why others are obeying the laws and doing as they should?

What a sad paranoid personal world you inhabit.

Darts said:

I wasn't picking on Khadr. My point is that Trudeau had so little faith in judges he thought it prudent to settle out of court for $10.5 million rather than take the risk a wacko judge might award Khadr $40 million.

Trudeau also got screwed by the courts in Trans Mountain Pipelines.

BTW: There could be another Charter case going to court.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...ainst-canadian-values-lawyer-argues-1.4714375

Click to expand...

Geez, considering that $30 million you're saying he saved was your money and mine, that seems like entirely the sort of deal he should make on our behalf. Now it's settled, no judges involved. What's your problem?

If and when you're made a judge you can advertise your cheaper cut-rate Court and its always government-favouring decisions. The judges and courts we have are supposed to be fair and impartial to all.

BTW: There's always another Charter case going to a court. We have a Charter because lotsa unevolved folks think their selfish desires should prevail over other people's rights. If you think some particular one worth discussing on TERB, click on some links, and make some informed points about it.

Darts said:

I wasn't picking on Khadr. My point is that Trudeau had so little faith in judges he thought it prudent to settle out of court for $10.5 million rather than take the risk a wacko judge might award Khadr $40 million.

Click to expand...

Harper fucked up, didn't consider the legal implications of supporting child detentions with the US.
Trudeau fixed it legally.

Ford is fucking up with his moves.
Looks like city council will fix it.

oldjones said:

You want people whose rights are being respected to mistrustfully ask why others are obeying the laws and doing as they should?

What a sad paranoid personal world you inhabit.

Click to expand...

Your response makes no sense...I would like to respond but you answering my question with a question that makes no sense is difficult to respond to.
Care to try again once you calm down...maybe leave the insults out perhaps?

Boober69 said:

Your response makes no sense...I would like to respond but you answering my question with a question that makes no sense is difficult to respond to.
Care to try again once you calm down...maybe leave the insults out perhaps?

Boober69 said:

Better question: Why do leftists only ask questions about rights, laws, electoral processes, etc, after they don't get their way?

Click to expand...

oldjones said:

You want people whose rights are being respected to mistrustfully ask why others are obeying the laws and doing as they should?

What a sad paranoid personal world you inhabit.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I really don't think it's that hard: Why would anyone leftists or rightists question the laws at all if they are getting their own way? No one hires lawyers and goes to Court to get a declaration that everything is hunk-dory. You go to court because they're not. That's why Trump has gone to Court — or been summoned there — in more than 4,000 cases, and been given and asserted his constitutional rights numerous times. Nothing much is ever right in DonnyWorld.

I regret you took my last sentence as an insult. I feel sorry for people who believe we have only such rights as are bestowed by force and power rather what arises from shared and mutual respect for each other. It wasn't intended derisively.

oldjones said:

I really don't think it's that hard: Why would anyone leftists or rightists question the laws at all if they are getting their own way? No one hires lawyers and goes to Court to get a declaration that everything is hunk-dory. You go to court because they're not. That's why Trump has gone to Court — or been summoned there — in more than 4,000 cases, and been given and asserted his constitutional rights numerous times. Nothing much is ever right in DonnyWorld.

I regret you took my last sentence as an insult. I feel sorry for people who believe we have only such rights as are bestowed by force and power rather what arises from shared and mutual respect for each other. It wasn't intended derisively.

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between someone using an existing law vs someone trying to abolish or significantly alter an existing law to serve their own purpose.
Ford leveraged an existing law.
We can argue whether or not he should have or not forever, but this is not an attack on democracy as many on here have been saying. This is about using a democratically created law.

I agree that no one argues about a law if it works for them (evident by Trudeau going back on his promise of altering the electoral laws).
But I believe blame shouldn’t be placed on someone just because they have exercised their democratic right by invoking a clause within the law.

Boober69 said:

I think there is a difference between someone using an existing law vs someone trying to abolish or significantly alter an existing law to serve their own purpose.
Ford leveraged an existing law.
We can argue whether or not he should have or not forever, but this is not an attack on democracy as many on here have been saying. This is about using a democratically created law.

I agree that no one argues about a law if it works for them (evident by Trudeau going back on his promise of altering the electoral laws).
But I believe blame shouldn’t be placed on someone just because they have exercised their democratic right by invoking a clause within the law.

Click to expand...

Fine and good, but you've invented these people "trying to abolish or significantly alter an existing law to serve their own purpose". Every Court case I'm aware of has been decided on the basis of what the law is. Judges are appointed to fearlessly to determine that, and if we the people dislike that finding we get to debate, vote and change the law that is. So far, we prefer to change PMs Premiers and POTUs way more often and sooner than judges.

Certainly what Ford is doing, is entirely to "serve his own purpose", and the Judge who heard nothing but "crickets" when he asked what overriding reasons the Province had that justified mucking with our lawful municipal election agreed. Now Ford's using another clause to "significantly alter an existing law" ,the one that protects our rights and freedoms, to satisfy his personal resentments.

I don't dispute the Province's power to determine any City Council's make-up or selection process, or to use Section 33. However there's a democratic way to do that and a dictator's way. It takes more than the few words of black letter law to make Doug Ford's way at all democratic. No one is to blame for his choice of the dictator's way but him, and the gang of unprincipled PC hacks that empower him.

oldjones said:

Fine and good, but you've invented these people "trying to abolish or significantly alter an existing law to serve their own purpose". Every Court case I'm aware of has been decided on the basis of what the law is. Judges are there to determine that, and if we the people dislike that finding we get to slowly change the law. Certainly what Ford is doing, is entirely to "serve his own purpose", and the Judge who heard nothing but crickets when he asked what overriding reasons the Province had that justified mucking with our lawful municipal election agreed.

I don't dispute the Province's power to determine any City Council's make-up or selection process, and never have. However there's a democratic way to do that and a dictator's way and it takes more than the words of black letter law to make Doug Ford's way democratic. And no one is to blame for his choice of the dictator's way but him and the PC hacks that empowered him.

Click to expand...

It was done democratically. Was it not put to a vote In legislature?
What’s your version of democracy?
Surely you don’t expect city councillors to vote on whether they lose their jobs or not? That’s like letting them vote on giving themselves a raise...and we’ve seen where that ended up.