What "input from the public"?
Trudeau forced all of that through and the result has been an unelected Supreme Court, appointed by the PM, that makes its decision on the fashion of the day, nor for the long term liberty and freedoms of Canadians. The 'notwithstanding clause' negates the entire thing anyway.
There were all kinds of public meetings on it. The supreme court should be unelected, its not a popularity contest, nor is the public suitably informed on legal expertise to make a suitable judgement of such impact.
There were public meetings on it but none had any impact. And if the Canadian public, or their elected representatives, are not smart enough to elect members to the Supreme Court then they are certainly not intelligent enough to speak on the design of a Constitution. All it did was allow the government to be the arbiter of the rights Canadians might have, rather than the restrictions placed on governments.
The same holds true for the judges as it does to our unelected Senate, whose appointments by the PM of the day to party loyalists is often called the 40-year-orgasm.
I believe in a triple E representative Senate, not the waste we have now.
the notwithstanding clause can only render rights suspension temporarily (max five years) so that to renew any invocation of the clause must be put to the electorate.
So the government can suspend the rights of Canadians only for a maximum of five years. Isn't that terrific!
Suspending the rights of Canadians to a fair judicial hearing by the "Human Rights" Commissions certainly lasted much longer than five years.
Sorry, suspension of Habeus corpus has been extended indefinitely as of Nov/11 in a provision of National Defence Authorization Act. It was first introduced in 2006.(Mea Culpa)
Reform the Patriot Act - Surveillance, Privacy, and National Security Law Since 9/11 | American Civil Liberties Union
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.
The bill also fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, most notably those relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. Numerous Department of Justice Inspector General reports have confirmed that tens of thousands of these letters are issued every year and they are used to collect information on people two and three times removed from a terrorism suspect
terrorism investigation
There were public meetings on it but none had any impact. And if the Canadian public, or their elected representatives, are not smart enough to elect members to the Supreme Court then they are certainly not intelligent enough to speak on the design of a Constitution. All it did was allow the government to be the arbiter of the rights Canadians might have, rather than the restrictions placed on governments.
The same holds true for the judges as it does to our unelected Senate, whose appointments by the PM of the day to party loyalists is often called the 40-year-orgasm.
I believe in a triple E representative Senate, not the waste we have now.
As far as the senate is concerned I totally agree. Its a farce.
As for the public meetings how do you know it had no impact? There were literally hundreds of briefs from highly qualified citizens.
I see your point vis a vis electing SC judges, but the average canadian voter is NOT qualified either to determine the best judicial candidate, nor what our constitution should contain.
So the government can suspend the rights of Canadians only for a maximum of five years. Isn't that terrific!
Suspending the rights of Canadians to a fair judicial hearing by the "Human Rights" Commissions certainly lasted much longer than five years.
Firstly, we both know why the notwithstanding clause was inserted.
Secondly, the HRC is a quasi-legal agency of political correctness that should be immediately scrapped. We have suitable laws in place already, and we don't need the dinks appointed as commissioners running around in self righteous indignation over free speech.
This part,
purdy much kills your argument.
It might do more your credibility to post the actual text of the act, vice the ACLU's interpretation.
I have read the text. Its conveniently on the ACLU site. Maybe you should read it.
2Are you saying that a terrorism investigation trumps civil rights?
Are you agreeing that NSL's by the thousands are not an invasion of a citizens right to privacy when they are twice removed from a suspect?
As far as the senate is concerned I totally agree. Its a farce.
As for the public meetings how do you know it had no impact? There were literally hundreds of briefs from highly qualified citizens.
I see your point vis a vis electing SC judges, but the average canadian voter is NOT qualified either to determine the best judicial candidate, nor what our constitution should contain.
Yes it does, if you have a problem take it up with the border guards and Immigration.He was charged with fraudulently using the title doctor??? And that makes him a criminal?
Being looney is certainly not a crime, otherwise Leftists would not be walking free.
I don't see the text on the site you posted. How about you direct me to it?
It seems that attitude about the Canadian people not being qualified to select SC judges extends to them not being smart enough too select their own Senators either. Actually I think there should be a debate on these SC appointments, as there is in the US, rather than what we have now. They should also have fixed terms.
But it seems we agree more than disagree in these areas.
Your Senate is totally different.
The Canadian senate is the equivalent of the House of Lords in the English parlimentary system. Its members are appointed by the sitting government usually in recognition of a noteable contribution to Canada or as a political favour returned. It has very very limited power, and I can only think of two times in the last 40 or 50 years where they attempted to exercise that power - they failed.
I thought there was lots of debate in the confirmation hearings, and the vote in both houses? Was I wrong?
After events play out their natural course, you will too. Multiculturalism is financed by the oil money the OPECker jihadists extorted from us infidels. Follow the money and you will see that your mindset follows not what has been thought but what has been bought.are you really comparing Mein Kampf to the Koran?
By the way, criteria is the plural of criterion. The no-talent fast talkers who brown-nosed their way into becoming role models for language usage represent an irresponsible generation. Similar examples of their worthless educations are the way these phonies misuse data, media, bacteria and phenomena, which are plurals of datum, medium, bacterium, and phenomenom. These people stole their jobs, and I feel it is my duty to expose how ignorant, pretentious, and dysfunctional their language is. This whole Internet looks up to these ambitious imbeciles and is not independent at all. In fact, the media themselves tell us that we are and they are slavishly believed about that too.By same criteria I really mean whims of the government of the day.
Communists were once not allowed into the US, a Dutch politician was not allowed into the UK and book burners are not being allowed entry into Canada. My feeling is that anyone should get a visitors permit unless they are criminals or until they break the local laws.
Prepare for a barrage of Christian Persecution Complex. You've been warned.
I'm Canadian.
If it has limited power, though this is denied by every Senator, why bother with it at all? I'm for a Triple E Senate, with the term limits.
Having debates or White Papers doesn't mean any of these complaints or recommendations would be acted upon. Are Canadians more free since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed? I don't think so. It has been a boon for lawyers though.
What gets me riled up is the abuses of the Human rights commissions. That really needs to be scrapped and re-thunk.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?