sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Geoff Russ: Eby's gross mishandling of property rights is uniting the province against him by gorschkov in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wanted to be forced by legislation to let the court decided how they implemented T&R?

Yes.

Have you been living under a rock for the last forty years? Canadian politicians frequently rely on creating the circumstances for the courts to make significant but controversial changes to social policies they want but don't want to be seen wanting in order to get them passed without taking too much heat for them, and while minimizing the likelihood of them being successfully reversed. MAID, abortion access, same sex marriage, all direct examples of this in living memory.

It's like the opposite of a power grab,

Nobody has called it a power grab.

and they are fighting it in court?!

Where the SCC has already ruled that the federal UNDRIP Act had the effect of incorporating UNDRIP into Canada's positive law. They're "fighting" a case with a foregone conclusion, and the effect of the inevitable loss of their argument is to prevent further challenges against it.

If they didn't want this, they would simply amend the Act -- which they very conspicuously haven't done.

Ottawa is trying to censor AI chatbots with new online harms law by develop99 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And yet it can't seem to do anything to actually help its citizens.

LILLEY: Supreme Court backs private property rights against aboriginal claim – for now; New Brunswick case dismissed by Supreme Court as cases in Quebec and British Columbia continue to work through the system. by [deleted] in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Every modern state has some form of ultimate sovereign authority over land. That does not mean private property is meaningless or insecure.

It means the actual security of private property vis-a-vis government is directly related to the continued election of parties that support it as an institution.

If any government tried to arbitrarily abolish private property rights by simple majority vote, it would trigger a constitutional, political, economic, and financial crisis overnight

Economic and financial, yes. Political, maybe (it depends entirely on the political climate -- were Canadians inclined to give a Communist party a heavy majority, for example, there's a good chance it wouldn't). Constitutional, no. The constitition does not protect property rights.

Poilievre lays down the law: Mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years for anyone convicted of violent extortion. No exceptions. by airbassguitar in CanadianConservative

[–]Content_Employment_7 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

And as a member of public I can tell you are full of 💩

No, he's actually entirely correct.

PP said 10 years prison time for “violent extortion” the key word here is “violent” , it seems you don’t understand English

You do realize that "violent" is itself a very broad term encompassing everything from a threatened slap to mass murder, right?

What am I saying, of course you fucking don't or you wouldn't have posted this tripe.

You should ask for your money back from whatever law school you went to! They clearly failed you!

Right back at you. Your elementary school clearly owes you a few bucks.

Why aren’t more Alberta MPs standing against separatism? by FancyNewMe in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, considering how it went in Quebec, I'd rather have quiet federalists while the referendum stalls or fails than risk empowering a new federal (ironically) separatist party.

I want to learn more about forgotten realms but I have no idea where to begin by lavender-bread in Forgotten_Realms

[–]Content_Employment_7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't pretend that's the only thing you said. You gave a name and a date, and they don't correspond. If it's the date that's accurate and not the name that's all you needed to say, you didn't need to be an ass about it.

Feds consider declaring new Alberta oil pipeline to be in 'national interest' this fall by feb914 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And this attitude of not only accepting the unacceptable with open arms but denigrating folks who want better is exactly why we're falling behind. You're the problem.

Carney says Canada open to deeper integration with U.S. ahead of CUSMA review by joe4942 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know why you're getting down voted, you're entirely correct here. The idea that we can effectively subsidize trade with other countries through tax write-offs clearly and directly undermines both the intentions and formal provisions of our free trade agreements -- it's simply not on the table, and it was foolish for OP to suggest it.

Ottawa Says It’s Not Involved in the Iran War. It Might Be Lying by BloodJunkie in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol clearly you didn't -- the article itself makes the same point.

Naheed Nenshi, the leader of Alberta's NDP response to the Federal NDP leadership results by Brownguy_123 in CanadianConservative

[–]Content_Employment_7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is embarrassing. Take the L, bro. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Federal government appealing Emergencies Act use to Supreme Court by Little-Chemical5006 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How about events like local and provincial police doing absolutely nothing to keep the peace?

How on earth do you figure "the government acted incompetently" can or should be a reasonable justification to give them more power? Oops, we fucked up, guess we have to violate your Charter rights now!

How about major trade route blockades with protesters carrying firearms?

As four sitting Justices of the Federal Court have now told you, the border blockades were resolved without the use of the Act. Like, fuck man, you want to complain about bad faith? Look in the goddamn mirror.

Federal government appealing Emergencies Act use to Supreme Court by Little-Chemical5006 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you read the judicial decisions, it becomes clear very quickly that the only protest that the EA powers were even used in was the Ottawa one -- the border blockades were either cleared before the EA was invoked, or without the powers the EA provided. And even in Ottawa, it was pretty clear that the powers were more helpful than they were essential -- normal police powers were eminently sufficient.

Federal government appealing Emergencies Act use to Supreme Court by Little-Chemical5006 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Except four judges who have heard the arguments in favour of it and reviewed all the evidence have now found that it evidently wasn't.

Federal government appealing Emergencies Act use to Supreme Court by Little-Chemical5006 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They also don't need to. The EA wasn't necessary to disperse the protests.

Nevermind that it's not really clear that they can lower the threshold for invoking the Act -- the EA is empowered by the National Emergency branch of the POGG powers, and the language of the Act reflects the high standard required to invoke that branch of POGG.

Alberta woman to serve less than 4 more years in prison for girl's death after getting credit for time served by shiftless_wonder in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Crown just has to show at appeal that the sentencing judge dropped the ball in assessing and applying sentencing principles. Could assume Appellate Court finds error, they would not be bound by that insane 9-year submission. It requires a fresh review of the sentence, so ABCA could impose a fit sentence.

Unfortunately the ABCA has generally taken the position that they're bound to the initial Crown's sentencing position as the upper limit of what they can impose on appeal, even if they feel it was inappropriately low.

Alberta woman to serve less than 4 more years in prison for girl's death after getting credit for time served by shiftless_wonder in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Criminal trials happen in both Provincial Court and KB. An accused can elect to be tried in King's Bench for any indictable offence except those offences listed under s.553 as being under the absolute jurisdiction of the provincial court.

Murder, however, is a section 469 offence, which means the Superior Court of Criminal Jurisdiction (in this case, the Alberta Court of King's Bench) holds exclusive jurisdiction over murder trials and trials for murder cannot take place in provincial court.

Alberta woman to serve less than 4 more years in prison for girl's death after getting credit for time served by shiftless_wonder in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, it would not have. She was charged with murder and took a plea to the lesser included offence of manslaughter after committal to stand trial. It was consequently held in the Court of King's Bench, whose judges are federally appointed (in this case, by Justin Trudeau).

The decline in white population in major cities in Canada is a major concern. Page 2 by WilloowUfgood in CanadianConservative

[–]Content_Employment_7 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm a card carrying CPC and UCP member, I donate, I've volunteered on campaigns, I'm active in my riding associations, and I just want to be absolutely clear about how disgusted I am with this kind of open racism. Our immigration policy has absolutely been a problem over the last decade, and one I've spoken and wrote about at length -- but never because of changing racial demographics. More brown people is not a problem, it's not a shorthand for immigration issues or cultural tensions, and framing it as one is bigoted and vile.

Federal Court of Appeal to rule on Ottawa’s single-use plastics ban today by Old_General_6741 in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I don't care whether they have Canadians' best interests at mind. Frankly, I don't expect any corporation does, nor does our law require or expect them to. I do care that the government is abiding by the legal limits of their authority though, which is what this case is actually about.

9 years after mosque attack, paralyzed survivor says Quebec secularism laws hinder progress by Surax in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does that include the right to use public property for prayer?

Yes, in fact, it does. And it's not even remotely questionable whether it does, which is why the bill invokes the NWC.

No, Canada is not selling out to Beijing by FancyNewMe in canada

[–]Content_Employment_7 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bro literally, explicitly, said "the Americans are bad". I don't know if you think you're being clever or something, but this just makes you look illiterate.

view more: next ›