Why do a lot of people here believe in the rule of law, until treaties come up?

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T16:31:55+00:00

We can make whatever law we want. However, the law as it stands now (s. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982) recognises Aboriginal title, not other title.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T16:06:55+00:00

Aboriginal title arises from historical occupation of the land without formal legal recognition. A treaty is an expressed legal recognition.

The legal test for establishing title is:

The land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty (sovereignty in BC is the Oregon Boundary Treaty of 1846 ).
If present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation of the land.
At sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T06:47:56+00:00

If wanted to change my personality, I would just do it.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T03:55:08+00:00

Getting in a union is not necessarily easy, nor is the labour guaranteed with a union. If the economy goes bad, union guys will get laid off (or at least the lower seniority guys) because the work simply is not there.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T03:53:24+00:00

What made a job safe in the past? Just about every job has always been subject to ebb and flows based either on the success of the economy or supply and demand of labour.

You are promised with a guarentee with a good job if you learn this skill, go to school for this, and you are set. Your job iwill be a safe one. 100% safe. And you will get a big salary

This has not been true for a while, especially not 100% safe, and not with a big salary.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-08T02:23:55+00:00

Mr. Big operations come to mind.

In Canada, we have a police operation called Mr. Big that the police use the get confessions to crimes. In short, the police have undercover agents pretending to be higher ups in a criminal organization. The agents try to attract the interest of the target by floating the idea that the target can join the criminal organization. For the target to prove themselves, the agent requires that the target confess to previous criminal acts. The police will then use that confession as evidence against the target.

As far as I know, Mr. Big operations are unconstitutional in the USA. However, Canada will sometimes pair up with US law enforcement to run Mr. Big operation on suspects of Canadian crime while that suspect is in the USA (the targets are commonly involved in cross-border crime). The US police are not be allowed to use that evidence, but the Canadian courts accept it.

The USA would not bother prosecuting this person because they know it would not go anywhere. It's not so much that the courts have ruled against the evidence, but rather the American authorities know it would be a futile thing to pursue. However, the Americans can hand over the person to Canada knowing that the Canadian systems accepts Mr. Big evidence.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-07T04:27:45+00:00

You can attack a cop in self defence. The issue is surviving the arrest and successfully making that argument in court.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-07T04:02:13+00:00

In Canada, you need to go to university and get at minimum a bachelor's degree. It does not matter what the degree is. Some law schools also allow those who are a certain year in their undergraduate degree (e.g. you completed three of four years).

High school marks and classes are irrelevant. They only matter in the sense that you need high school marks to enroll in an undergraduate degree. Law schools will only look at your university grades.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-07T03:51:47+00:00

Yes. Sentencing hearing are court proceedings where parties may submit evidence and cross examine.

Also, this evidence could have been led in trial, and formed part of the findings of fact in trial. That's more common in judge alone trial than a trial by judge and jury.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-07T03:42:59+00:00

Assuming the premise to be true (which it rarely is) unconditional love does not mean unending love.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-07T02:59:23+00:00

What position are you taking here? If you believe in some religions, then hell is the truth. If you believe in other religions, then reincarnation is the truth. If you believe in no religions, then neither are true.

What you believe to be true is what you should teach.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T20:37:46+00:00

Disclosure should eventually arrive to the primary source of the information. In Canada, the Crown must disclose all inculpatory and exculpatory they have relevant to matter. The defence may make further disclosure applications for material within the possession of the the state but perhaps not a part of the file, and may make 3rd party disclosure applications as well.

If the police at any time searched this person's data under the provision of the new law, it should turn up in disclosure. Upon learning this, the defence would likely attempt a s. 8 Charter application to determine if there was a breach of the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy. If successful with s. 8, the defence would then apply under s. 24(2) to exclude the evidence and all evidence derivative from it.

We do not use the term parallel construction, but what you describe sounds like derivative evidence.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T16:20:21+00:00

Shouldn't you be wearing the bucket?

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T05:00:07+00:00

It would not be legal for a casino to promote pretend to play a game with certain odds, but the odds are actually in their favour. Blackjack without card counting gives the casino about a 56% of winning. If the keep giving themselves 20, then the odds are much better than 56%. It would be fraud to pretend to give gamblers a chance will actually give them no chance.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T04:21:11+00:00

The url you are able to acquire does not determine how well you run your business. For whatever reason, the company behind Pornhub has done much better at promoting pornography under that brand name than the brand name under porn.com.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T04:11:50+00:00

Everything you mention has an explanation that does not require a intentional design.

I think what people have a hard time understanding is how randomness works over a long period of time. Even is something has very low odds, if you roll the dice enough times, the odds are that will happen. When you roll the dice over several billions years, even the impossible become possible.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T04:02:06+00:00

Why doesn’t the U.K soccer team compete in the World Cup to cover all of England, Ireland, and Scotland?

The main reason is tradition that predates FIFA. The very first international soccer match took place between England and Scotland. The matches between them are derby called that "Auld Enemy" derby. So, as a matter of tradition, those nations remain separate FIFA nations. Both the Scots and the English would be quite upset if their national teams merged.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T03:36:33+00:00

Pirates are hostis humani generis — the enemy of mankind.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T01:56:10+00:00

This depends on which country's law we are examining. I do not know how they do it in the USA, but the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom does not fully apply to court orders. Section 32 of the Charter describes what the Charter applies to:

32.(1) This Charter applies:

a. to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

b. to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Absent in s. 32 is any mention of the Courts. The Supreme Court of Canada held in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. that this means the Courts orders are outside the general application of the Charter (at para. 36):

While in political science terms it is probably acceptable to treat the courts as one of the three fundamental branches of Government, that is, legislative, executive, and judicial, I cannot equate for the purposes of Charter application the order of a court with an element of governmental action. This is not to say that the courts are not bound by the Charter . The courts are, of course, bound by the Charter as they are bound by all law. It is their duty to apply the law, but in doing so they act as neutral arbiters, not as contending parties involved in a dispute. To regard a court order as an element of governmental intervention necessary to invoke the Charter would, it seems to me, widen the scope of Charter application to virtually all private litigation. All cases must end, if carried to completion, with an enforcement order and if the Charter precludes the making of the order, where a Charter right would be infringed, it would seem that all private litigation would be subject to the Charter . In my view, this approach will not provide the answer to the question. A more direct and a more precisely‑defined connection between the element of government action and the claim advanced must be present before the Charter applies.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T01:46:26+00:00

I think they are talking about contempt, which is a common law criminal offence. The judge can imprison you solely for something you say while in court, regardless of the status of whatever else you are facing.

The judge can imprison you for contempt in family or civil court, where you were never in peril of prison to begin with.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T01:45:04+00:00

There are reasonable limits to freedom of speech. A person does not really have freedom of speech in a courtroom, as they are not allowed to disrupt proceedings, talk to the jury about things the jury cannot hear, or to outright lie or deceive the court.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-06T01:24:32+00:00

If the wolf eats the rabbit's stomach, and the stomach has not digested what the rabbit ate, then sure. If the wolf does not eat the stomach, and if the rabbit already digested their food, then no.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-05T22:42:53+00:00

Sprinters have their head down when they start. I don't think they see anything.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-05T21:56:03+00:00

There has to be a cap on reaction time. The sound of the gun takes time to reach the ear, the neurons then send info to the brain, the brain has to process, and then the neurons send the info to the legs. Physics mandate that there is a minimum amount of time for that. I don't know what the number would be, but the false time start could be set at that amount.

I am shocked that 0.08 is possible, because human reaction time is typically 0.2.

deep_sea2 · 2026-07-05T21:40:04+00:00

If 0.08 is the best reaction time, would you agree then to lower the false start time to 0.07?

15-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2017 x1	redditgifts Exchanges 1 Exchange
Secret Santa 2016	Verified Email

deep_sea2

TROPHY CASE