ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 4344
Sep 30 11 11:42 AM
Magnanimous Prosecutor wrote:fringillidae wrote: I disagree, MP. I think this worked out exactly as it should have. The judiciary are here to provide an impartial balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. In this case, the state's action would have caused harm to a vulnerable group. It's exactly the Court's job to step in and remedy that imbalance. I'm sure you'll recall the old law school adage about democracy - it's not majority rules, it's protection of minority rights. Which is precisely why politicians should never be given unfettered discretion to decide the rights of the people. Their motives cannot help but be tainted by knowledge that the next election is determined by the majority of votes - a mindset most brilliantly illustrated by the current government's "tough on crime" bullshit agenda.And I would disagree with calling access to a safe injection site a "right". It a matter of health and social policy, not a right.
fringillidae wrote: I disagree, MP. I think this worked out exactly as it should have. The judiciary are here to provide an impartial balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual. In this case, the state's action would have caused harm to a vulnerable group. It's exactly the Court's job to step in and remedy that imbalance. I'm sure you'll recall the old law school adage about democracy - it's not majority rules, it's protection of minority rights. Which is precisely why politicians should never be given unfettered discretion to decide the rights of the people. Their motives cannot help but be tainted by knowledge that the next election is determined by the majority of votes - a mindset most brilliantly illustrated by the current government's "tough on crime" bullshit agenda.
Interact
Sep 30 11 2:07 PM
Wobblie wrote:Rusty Iron Ring wrote:If you combine recent re-branding trends, I think the Royal Harper Court is more likely.Nice.Next thing you know they'll be insisting on gold-embossed business cards.
Rusty Iron Ring wrote:If you combine recent re-branding trends, I think the Royal Harper Court is more likely.
Posts: 411
Sep 30 11 3:33 PM
Posts: 1003
Sep 30 11 5:22 PM
Sep 30 11 5:39 PM
Posts: 4635
Sep 30 11 5:45 PM
Wobblie wrote:Don't worry Reg. Stevie will fix them with his next 2 appointments. Ezra Levant and Arthur Hamilton might say yes if asked.
Sep 30 11 5:54 PM
Sep 30 11 6:00 PM
Sep 30 11 6:03 PM
Sep 30 11 6:14 PM
Sep 30 11 6:28 PM
Regulus de Leo wrote:You are the one idiotic enough to call Ezra a failure. Free speech is a public good. Healthy debate is a public good. Ezra been a central figure in both and has made sacrifices along the way. And what have you done?
Sep 30 11 6:51 PM
Sep 30 11 7:06 PM
Sep 30 11 7:21 PM
Posts: 1397
Sep 30 11 7:27 PM
Regulus de Leo wrote: You are full of crap, Jizzboy.
Sep 30 11 7:34 PM
Sep 30 11 7:35 PM
Posts: 4456
Sep 30 11 7:48 PM
Wobblie wrote:JP, I have to disagree with you, Ezra would make a fine appointment to the SCC. Other than Conrad Black, who else has such intimate knowledge of the law of defamation. Unfortunately for Ezra, most of his knowledge was aquired at considerable cost to himself. After apologizing and paying undisclosed damages to Con Senator Ron Ghitter, Ezra again had to dig deep when successfully sued by Giacomo Vigna. Naturally, after paying out like that, you'd expect a man to be a bit more circumspect in what he said. But not our man Ezra. He's currently being sued for defamation by Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella, and was lucky to dodge a bullet after making some wild accusations of Nazi collaboration against George Soros.I believe Ezra would also bring a new perspective on administrative law and professional liability to the court. The Law Society of Alberta found that Ezra violated the following rules of professional conduct: to “respect and uphold the law in personal conduct,” to “seek to improve the justice system,” to not “ act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law,” to be “courteous and candid,” and to not “harass any person or discriminate against any person” on various prohibited grounds and ordered Levant to attend a "mandatory conduct advisory".In short, he'd be just the cat for Stevie to set among the pigeons.
Minister of Love wrote:None that I am aware of. How many have you driven to use the ignore function?
Share This