These keyboard warriors want us to go along with them and fight to the end and will post in any forum regardless of what the initial discussion was just to show how "tough" they are. They will be the first ones to hide if things start to happen. These guys are such a joke. I'd ignore, but I've already done that to this particular idiot four times already.
Liberals invoke S.39, refuse to provide evidence
- Thread starter Wolverine .303
- Start date
These keyboard warriors want us to go along with them and fight to the end and will post in any forum regardless of what the initial discussion was just to show how "tough" they are. They will be the first ones to hide if things start to happen. These guys are such a joke. I'd ignore, but I've already done that to this particular idiot four times already.
I know, I know, I am late reading this thread...
That means that the government can dictate any law, any time, without the justice system being able to validate and question that law?
The same tactics could be used to force any law, without evidence, without oversight. I thought there was a balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative powers? (sorry, that last part might be a poor translation on my part of "législatif et le judiciaire").
Let's say a coucou takes power, he could pass a law using his majority, get it through the Senate, and shield it from federal judges as well?
I often joked in the past that the Canadian system was to elect our next dictator, it looks like that more and more. Does S.39 apply to the Supreme Court as well?
That means that the government can dictate any law, any time, without the justice system being able to validate and question that law?
The same tactics could be used to force any law, without evidence, without oversight. I thought there was a balance of power between the judiciary and the legislative powers? (sorry, that last part might be a poor translation on my part of "législatif et le judiciaire").
Let's say a coucou takes power, he could pass a law using his majority, get it through the Senate, and shield it from federal judges as well?
I often joked in the past that the Canadian system was to elect our next dictator, it looks like that more and more. Does S.39 apply to the Supreme Court as well?
The short answer seems to be yes, and this is, or will be, the precedent setting case that makes it permanent. That is why this is such a big deal.
I'm not sure about the Supreme Court but I expect they would be left in the dark if the government ducked under Sec.39. I'd like to hope the SCC is not as willing to accept that as this lower court was.
The supreme Court gave a pretty wide range of applications to s.39 so yes it probably didn't exclude itself from it.
Also whatever the laws are the liberals will just change them to fit their agenda. Look at what I posted a few posts up, a country that prevents you from leaving it's border for anything other than the most heinous crime just doesn't give a damn about your rights or your morals.
captainamazing
CGN Regular
- Location
- The Socialist Autocracy of Canada
Sec.8 of the Charter protects us from arbitrary Seizure of property. That being said if sec 39 is allowed to stand
then the seizure isn't arbitrary and their argument is taken at Prima Facie. If it fails upon further lawsuits and we see that they are doing this for woke points with the anti gunners we have a good Sec 8 argument.
But then again Canada's Supreme courts are filled with liberals with a tenuous grasp on the concept of civil service.
Last edited:
The charter isn't going to protect you from anythinf, it's right there in its first section "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".
My money is on the narrative that a truly free and democratic society shouldn't be subject to a few violent individuals who want to own weapons designed to kill a maximum amount of people in the shortest bla bla bla
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Please take note that this lower court has not yet ruled on the case, so it is premature to say that they accepted the S.39 claim willingly. Yes, they agreed the government has the right to claim cabinet confidence on this pocket of evidence, but it remains to be seen if the court agrees to accept that the evidence has any meaning now that it is hidden.
It should also be noted that the courts have ruled in the past that S.39 should only be used when there is genuine confidence that needs protecting, the government cannot use the privilege willy-nilly just to avoid scrutiny. If the judge thinks that is what is going on here, she may become annoyed.
This guy's name was originally Wojtec or something like that. He's been pinked at least four times in the last 2 or so days. He just never stops spamming any and all posts regardless of what they are discussing. He's a keyboard warrior.
But the government (this one at least) wants to do exactly that. And if they get away with it in this court or, worse, if it's appealed to the Supreme Court and they win there it will be enshrined in law that the government can pass laws without any scrutiny or need to show the evidence they used or didn't even seek. I find that very frightening.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Yes, if it happens, but it hasn't.
Look, I agree that a lot rides on these cases and if we lose it is worth questioning whether or not Canada is a nation worth living in. But we haven't lost yet. Give the courts a chance.
I see you are back Wotjek. I give it less than 72hrs before this name goes pink.
captainamazing
CGN Regular
- Location
- The Socialist Autocracy of Canada
I saw it and the Liberlas have objectively failed to demonstrate its justification because they literally refuse to, well...... demonstrate the justification. They haven't even tried and when asked they refused.
Charter arguments are used daily in criminal court to find fault with cops procedural errors and even prejudicial thoughts to have charges withdrawn or stayed. The Charter is our best chance to keep our legally owned property.
That will be the test. If it goes well, fantastic. If not it suggests one of two things. Either the Liberal appointed judges really are sympathetic to their appointers (and the Liberals have a long and well documented history meddling in judicial appointments) or they are truly independent of politics and think this kind of hidden, no-need-to-justify lawmaking is A-OK. Like you say, let's see what happens. We may be surprised that right, common sense and and justice prevails.
