It's important for people to understand clearly what the facts are in this matter, so they can accurately judge the players.Can we just end this thread. It's a dead issue, and media have dropped reporting it.
Crossman did not say any such thing. She said it would be wrong IF the government were to entice people to come get married if the marriage isn't going to be recognized. She, unlike yourself, did not allege that the government actually does encourage marriage tourism. She also did say that the government (quite rightly) does not offer (legal) advice on what issues a couple may face who choose to get married here.And she is saying exactly what I said, that it seems wrong for the government to encourage people to come here and then turn around and say their marriages are not valid. And she said that the court might fashion a remedy that uses equality principles and the Charter to get around this wrong.
He claimed that the marriages were only invalid in the context of the divorce act, and not otherwise. She is very clear in the video that the government's claim is that they were never valid at all, not even from the outset. She spoke at some length about how it's hypocritical to issue marriage licenses which aren't really valid.I just took the time out of my day to listen to the video. There is absolutely nothing there which goes against what has been posted by RLD and others here.
She says exactly what I have been saying. She asks some questions about misrep but comes to no conclusions. In fact she goes beyond that to say, very astutely, that few people getting married of any stripe know the legal obligations are taking on and we don't hand out copies of the divorce act or make you take a course on the law of divorce when you get married. She is bang on.This video is vindicating exactly what I said. The federal government is looking at creating an exception (this is incredibly admirable if Harper does this) to this rule. I said they could do this.
According to Cossman, the government did not have to make the argument it is making, which is that the marriages are not valid. As I said, this was the argument the government was making.
And she is saying exactly what I said, that it seems wrong for the government to encourage people to come here and then turn around and say their marriages are not valid. And she said that the court might fashion a remedy that uses equality principles and the Charter to get around this wrong.
I dunno, RLD, for someone who claims to have a lot of legal training, I sure think a lot more like a law professor than you do.
I agree that she does not like the law as it stands. But that does not change the fact she recognizes that is indeed the law.Brenda Cossman said, "It is absolutely accurate in terms of the technical rules of private international law."
She said it is technically right but it doesn`t sound right the way the argument is being made.
What she said, accurately and articulately is that some of the marriages did not follow the people home.He claimed that the marriages were only invalid in the context of the divorce act, and not otherwise. She is very clear in the video that the government's claim is that they were never valid at all, not even from the outset. She spoke at some length about how it's hypocritical to issue marriage licenses which aren't really valid.
Obviously the Minister's announcement a few minute ago may make this all moot, assuming it means the government will now withdraw its objection.
I'm just quoting this because it's good stuff. I assume that most of the posters here will not understand the words written inside, but I am just grateful that Stephen Harper has a bigger heart than some of his supporters. Go CPC!Justice Minister declares all same-sex marriages legal and valid
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sex-marriages-legal-and-valid/article2301691/
I wonder if they will retract their legal claim.
So much for the evil Harper conspiracy...now lets hope they design an intelligent work around.I'm just quoting this because it's good stuff. I assume that most of the posters here will not understand the words written inside, but I am just grateful that Stephen Harper has a bigger heart than some of his supporters. Go CPC!
You are gracious in defeat. Peace to you.So much for the evil Harper conspiracy...now lets hope they design an intelligent work around.
I didn`t see her state or imply that she does not like the law.I agree that she does not like the law as it stands. But that does not change the fact she recognizes that is indeed the law.
I believe she also called the law arkane and obscure and old. I got the impression that she did not like that law. But I admit it is only an impression.I didn`t see her state or imply that she does not like the law.
She thinks that the argument didn`t have to be made in such an ambiguous and inflammatory way.
"It is absolutely accurate in terms of the technical rules of private international law."
To be clear — the suggestion that these couples were never married under Canadian law, a suggestion advanced by a single government lawyer — is ridiculous. The notion that Canadian law should be dependent on the local laws of every single other jurisdiction on the planet is asinine. A government that has made so much of standing up for Canada’s values on the world stage has no business declaring our own laws subservient to any other land’s. We might not have the hard- or soft-power to give our laws much weight abroad, but we can at least honour them in our own country.
But taking a flawed, shortsighted legal manoeuvre by a government lawyer and reading an entire hidden agenda (or potential hidden agenda, who knows, Mr. Ibbitson might stress) into it says more about what people continue to expect from the Conservatives than anything the Tories have actually done. Matt Gurney
Which is an argument which makes most lawyers laugh, since typically most Law Professors are highly theoretical. Further, generally Judges do not come from their ranks.I dunno, RLD, for someone who claims to have a lot of legal training, I sure think a lot more like a law professor than you do.
Which if one reads the article goes right back to the point made in #87!Justice Minister declares all same-sex marriages legal and valid
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sex-marriages-legal-and-valid/article2301691/.
What on earth does the Minister of Justice expect to accomplish by this (other than to stop idle political chatter)?
What a can of worms to open up a Canadian Court making decisions on property distribution and perhaps child custody which are unenforceable in the jurisdiction in which the parties live! What then happens in the hypothetical of a divorced non-national, non-resident Lesbian couple where a Canadian Court grants custody to the non-birth mother of the child but back in Timbuktu (where everyone lives) the birth mother has custody. The birth-mother and child then come on a vacation to see Banff National Park, is Canada going to attempt to return the child to the non-birth mother, jail the birth-mother for contempt?
If the Minister proposes just dissolving the marriage, then do we not get into the issue of equal justice and indeed whether this was a marriage at all?
Specifically she said that the government made an argument, which she clearly stated they did not HAVE to make, that they CHOSE to make, that these same sex marriages were invalid the day they were entered into, even as the government was handing out marriage licenses. She pointed out that there are a variety of reasons why a court might decide that the government's argument is wrong--she cited application of equality law, and hand waved around other solutions. But the government chose to make that argument, which it did not have to make, and in doing so was choosing to try and strip away marriages from thousands of same sex couples.What she said, accurately and articulately is that some of the marriages did not follow the people home.
Let's see, the government chose to intervene in ways that it didn't have to, and made a conscious decision to go after same sex marriages.Tell us again how this is part of the big Harper agenda against same sex marriage Fuji.
Specifically she said that the government made an argument, which she clearly stated they did not HAVE to make, that they CHOSE to make, that these same sex marriages were invalid the day they were entered into, even as the government was handing out marriage licenses. She pointed out that there are a variety of reasons why a court might decide that the government's argument is wrong--she cited application of equality law, and hand waved around other solutions. But the government chose to make that argument, which it did not have to make, and in doing so was choosing to try and strip away marriages from thousands of same sex couples.
Let's see, the government chose to intervene in ways that it didn't have to, and made a conscious decision to go after same sex marriages.
The only real question is whether the Minister knew about it. If this flunky government lawyer Gaudet is still an employee of the Federal Government in a couple of weeks I guess the answer is that the Minister did know all about it. If Gaudet as a government lawyer went and independently did this on his own as some sort of rogue personal crusade against same-sex marriage without the consent of the Minister--well, I would guess he'll be fired. Let's see.
There are lots of people who dislike their bosses. There's nobody in the world, even those that seem to be the nicest people in the that doesn't have someone that doesn't like them. You've extrapolated the "drift" you felt while working with people to mean that harper is lying. I wonder how you would react to someone doing the same thing to someone you support. How about if I were to say, I interviewed a bunch of tim hortons employees who work at a shop across from a police station. The drift I got was that cops are a bunch of lying sacks of shit? By your methodology, it would be OK for me to assume that all cops are liars?I'm not quite sure what kind of 'evidence' you want as sometimes things don't make it on the internet. It doesn't take long when you work with or for the various government departments to get their drift. I don't work for the Feds much anymore, mostly with DFO, AA or NRC, but the list of friends much further up the food chain than I, who still do or have recently left, is really long and what they tell me makes me glad I'm not on the payroll any more. The grief isn't worth it. There are very few longtime senior bureaucrats in the Ottawa and it's for good reason.
I think you need to go back to law school and take one of Ms. Cossman's classes. It appears she has a few things to teach you.You have made such a fool out of yourself on this one Fuji. You really should avoid the legal stuff.
