--> Getting It Right: Important Quote

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Important Quote

I thought I'd reprise this one as a reminder that the responsibility rests in all of us to hold our elected officials (and the unelected ones, too) to account...

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong". ~Thomas Sowell


At 3:46 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

This can be parts of the Federal-Liberal made Charter Of Rights And Freedoms upon being interpeted by left liberal activist Supreme Court Judges. Right here in Canada.

At 8:20 p.m., Anonymous Sean P. said...

You can't always blame the SCC.

After all, the Liberals were freely elected in 1980 with a promise to repatriate the Constitution of Canada, which was done; the Constitution Acts 1867-present are fine examples of that.

Also, the then Provincial Premiers played a very key role in the Charter of Rights. Don't forget, it's largely the Western Premiers (Bennett, Lougheed, & Lyon) that demanded the notwithstanding clause. And, if I'm not mistaken, it was also Western Premiers that requested that it be nearly close to imposible to abolish the Canadian monarchy, as all ten Provinces and both houses of Federal Parliament must agree to that amendment.

Whether we like it or not, we are just common people....The lawyers and judges are our betters, and it is best that we leave them alone to administer justice and interpret the law. Common people, such as us, shouldn't critique them as much as we do; it's simply undignified.

At 2:38 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

We may be common people but we do have minds.If the S.C. Judges of Canada go into left ideology rather than properly judging within thier fixed area's, by doing nothing just leaving it. Canadians would be known as commonly stupid and lazy.Fact is the Charter concept is left-wing socialist former liberal PM Trudeau mind set.Personally I like the BNA Act more than the Charter. Besides rights and freedoms often don't even coinside.One persons freedom can be taken away due to another rights.

At 5:29 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like a good quote to justify a totally elitist viewpoint. I.e. the little people should be deceived because their investments aren't effected by their vote.

Business as usual from neoconservative shills like yourself.

At 7:34 p.m., Anonymous Sean P., Vancouver-Quadra said...


I totally understand your point, and your frustration, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms defies the typical left-right political ideologies!

The British North America Act, 1867, was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867; there hasn't been any BNA for 24 years!

Also, I challenge you to prove that the SCC, and judges in general, are on a leftist slant!

Back up until the 1970s, British Columbia judges were considered the harshest in the Commonwealth! We were one of the last jurisdictions to sentence people to corporal punishment (whipping)...Do you want to go back to that? Do you want Canada to reinstitute the barbarian death penalty? Do you want the Courts to sit by and let governments discriminate against minority groups?

Since 1982, the SCC has unlimited judicial review powers (ie, it has the full power to declare whether or not any Provincial or Federal legislation is constitutional or not). Prior to that, it had very limited judicial review, and could only declare whether legislation was either ultra vires (beyond their legislative powers), or intra vires (within their legislative powers) according to sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Charter of Rights & Freedoms, which is (officially) an appendix to the Canada Act (United Kingdom), 1982. It simply encapsulated existing human rights and freedoms by putting them on paper. Yes, I agree that the Charter did give more power to the Courts, and took power away from the Legislative branch of government.....It did change the supremacy of Parliament, which is part of our history...But, the notwithstanding clause does try to rectify that.....It's very ironic that a man who was perceived as being not too pro-American (Trudeau), helped to "Americanize" our legal system by granting the courts the powers of unlimited judicial review.

No Larry, I think that the Charter of Rights & Freedoms is an absolute necessity these days, especially with a political party that is as right-winged and closely allied with the Bush Republicans in charge of the government!!!!

At 1:58 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Sean p.,hello to you and appreciate your response.To remove the death penality the Charter is not needed to do this. Minority's do have rights. The Charter has been used improperly giving minority's special rights. Excample-punch a heterosexual one than gets a six month jail term. Punch a homosexual one gets a 12 month jail term. Another excample this time a true case.-A Christian who had his own business of publishing ads for people choose not to publish a pro homosexual ad from a homosexual group. This homosexual group simply could have went to another ad publisher but no instead the homosexual group filed discrimination and won. Here rights beat the freedom of a ad publisher whom has certain morals. He can't even run his own private business the way in which he thinks best. Had this been a public business thats different. In a general term, freedom is better than rights and often the two don't even coinside together. Once again the actual concept within the Charter is from socialist Trudeau. It's not easy to use the Notwithstanding Clause in which the Premiers had insisted be placed in the Charter. The left wing media and left-government will scream discrimination. NOTE: Left-wing media mostly believe and write of the greatness of the Charter,all violence and discrimination is wrong. Their like nomino's. If a woman was being raped and you were near by I'm sure you would attempt to take the rapist down which is good but you would have used violence for taking the rapist down. Also it's good to discriminate against evil or wrong ideas and or situations. But with the Charter lots of good common sense has been removed and replaced with left wing ideology-all the same no room for individual or group by hard and good efforts to become above with governments limited to the Charter. Charter of Rights and Freedoms sounds great but is dangerous. Especially if a left-liberal majority federal government stays in power. Eventually and one step at a time the Charter would be used to turn Canada into a full socialist government run state. Quick Excample the Fed-Liberals want state childcare. With this the government will eventually place in child-training some form of government socilist program by another name of course. Soclist governments like to give out lots of government programs better for keeping it's citizens dependant upon government with tax payers money of course. One new blog/website which is gutsy, smart and informative is-{www.williamgairdner.com}. Give it a read. Thanks!!.

At 2:54 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Continue 2nd Part. Sean p.,another real excample of left-wing activist judges and the left federal liberal government used the Charter is in the marriage situation here in Canada. Although the fed-liberals had voted before to keep and protect the tradition marriage institution exclusively a man and woman union they changed their minds and voted for gay marriage due to rights and the Charter. Again the socialist stance all the same. Homosexual couples could have civil unions or a new official name title or allow the church heneforward to do marriages and city hall do civil unions for all others. Or at least allow Canadians citizens have a vote on this matter-out goes democracy too due to the Charter. Philosophy and science says a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are in fact different but not left liberalism. During the last federal election Martin consistanly said he believes in rights thats the voice of socialism wheres the voice of democracy. Former recent liberal PM Mr.Q., consistantly pointed at the Charter as if it's the Holy Bible at least to some left-liberals. The down and out or sick, the old, yes government should help and their family's and churchs too. But a socialist left government wants control of all it's citizens. Hitler wanted Christianity destroyed. Usually ones family and faith or religion people place higher than the state. Hard left socialist don't like this thus action against the two in a sly slow but firm manner even by the use of a Charter.

At 4:06 p.m., Anonymous Sean P. Vancouver-Quadra said...

Hi Larry,

I appreciate your points of the argument, and I totally respect your right to your opinion; but...

You seem to be confusing the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, which has been an undisputed part of our Constitution since 1982, with Human Rights legislation (both federal and provincial). Whether or not a publisher chooses to print a gay rights groups' propaganda would apply under provincial Human Rights Legislation......The Charter is designed for relations between citizens and the Crown (Federal and Provincial governments).

Also, as has been stated by many law professors, the Charter is not a "be-all-end-all" document.....The SCC can read into the Charter what is deemed to be just and right.....IE, the SCC can continue to read certain rights and priviledges into it, that were not there, such as the rights for gays and lesbians to marry.

I can understand your points of view. I live in Vancouver-Quadra, next door to Heddy Fry's Vancouver Centre riding, and she has a large number of gay and lesbian voters.....The Federal Government's decision to not stick by its original definition of marriage was nothing but pure politics.

Personally, I am strongly in favour of gay and lesbian marriage. Why should they not have that right extended? I am fully in favour of extending all rights and privileges to minorities.....With statistics, gays and lesbians will be as divorce prone as heterosexuals! Most of the Western World is ready to embrace either gay marriage or gay civil unions. The odd exceptions are the Bush Republican dominated United States Federal government, a few American States, and the Commonwealth Government of Mr. Howard of Australia.

What I am in favour, however, is that marriage should be clearly defined as the full union between two persons, to the exclusion of all others. I am opposed to incestuous marriages, polygamy, polydandery, and the like types of unions....Canadian society has developed enormously since the 1960's! Believe me, my personal opions have changed, as I was opposed to my denomination (The Anglican Church, Diocese of New Westminster) voting in favour of instituting the rite of the blessing of gay civil unions!

I am fully opposed to the Crown imposing gay marriage upon religious institutions....If the Roman Catholic Church in Canada refuses to recognize the institution of gay marriage, and refuses to preside at a gay marriage service, it SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT as a fact of the Charter's protection of religious freedom!

....The decision of the Roman Communion from refusing to let its orphanages adopt out children to gay and lesbian couples is a different story.....That is a human rights issue, and also one of bitter irony, when that group refuses to deal with the pedaphilia problems within it :-)

At 11:36 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Hello Sean p.,just a view points here.The Charter upon reading into it being alive or actually being prune okay but by whom. A left wing activist Judge their lays the danger of left socialist power. Marriage being open to homosexual couples for rights than why not three persons too for rights eventually marriage would become meaningless.Also what about the rights of the marriage institution itself. No doubt intended and made exclusively for heterosexual couples in the western world. theirs Gay Games,lesbian only clubs,women only book clubs,girl guides for girls only,separate mens and womens washrooms and sport team,school class rooms too,ect.,.Should these and the others all be changed too-of course not.Finally here again freedom is better than rights also rights and freedom often don't even coinside together, one removes the other in many situations. The Charter does not read reality it reads ideology.

At 1:08 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Pt.2 for Sean p.,sorry about these sections of reply's but am busy.Regarding marriage. Fact is in the western world form of marriage came from Judeo-Christianity, later governments had incorperated marriage from Judeo-Christianity.Marriage is also meant to have a Spiritual connection and for uniting the two human genders not only one of the two.Secondly for natural procreation and a mom and a dad for and with kids.Both genders have quality's to offer kids in general their always the exception of course.The rights of the intended marriage institution is removed by way of a Charter of rights n freedoms. A Charter can be okay not the best although with a proper government and Judges but unfortunately this is not often the case.The Charter is set for equality but not concern for ethics and reality.A minority often wins jubect to equality but not the truth.Of course truth is not meant to hurt nor please it just is.Truth,reality and ethics or morals is a lesser concern than equality within the Charter here in Canada.

At 10:14 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry: move to Arizona. The mainstream American value system sits much better with your views.

Personally, I consider activist judges to be those who would try to change the meaning of the Charter so that some people's freedoms are held more highly than others.

Are you really so blind that you can't see how the rights that you enjoy are also to be enjoyed by others? If everyone's freedoms are protected, can't you see yourself as better off?

If gays and lesbians marry, does that not mean that mutual support between TWO PEOPLE (your three-person argument is ignorant and ridiculous) takes a potential financial burden off of the government and social services? Is that not better for Canada? In this day and age, marriage's chief utilitarian purpose for government and society is to ensure mutual care and protection of individuals. How does gay marriage NOT contribute to that?

The freedoms of some being extended to everyone is the foundation of our Canada today.

Whether you like it or not, people being able to marry which ever person they love makes your life better as a Canadian and as a taxpayer.

Not to mention that having the maturity to recognize the universal nature of freedom has won us respect around the world.

Take off the blinders.

At 2:20 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Anonymous,you seem intolerant,forums,blogs are for open discussions.Your insults only shows your lack of character and weakens your arguement.Plus you hind your name too.Do read-A Declaration On Marriage at www.williamgairdner.com

At 1:40 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, I'm not intolerant - you can marry whoever you like! Really, I don't mind. If I were you I would look at my own verbiage and find out where the true intolerance lies.

Kindly indicate where I insulted you...? I mean, Arizona is a very nice place to live.

I did read your champion's blog, and he indicated that marriage is a child-centered institution, not an adult-centered one! How ridiculous - the definition and purpose of marriage has changed over the course of the last few hundred years. It is what we make of it.

He also seems to indicate that adoptive families or those with children conceived using donated gametes due to an inability to otherwise conceive are completely without value and make the same sort of mockery of marriage that he claims gay and lesbian people do.

Care to engage with my arguments about the social security system benefitting from all marriages in which peoples' well-being is not left solely to the government?

I guess not. Seems telling of the strength of your arguments and not of mine.

ps - My reasons for being anonymous are none of your concern, although I thank you for neglecting my logical points in favour of attacking my integrity on inconsequential grounds. I assure you, I have never lacked for integrity.

At 1:43 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Anonymous,fact is marriage is meant and intended as a exclusive male and female union. History,tradition,Spirituality and naturalism all confirms this.Whereas only your emotional opinion desires marriage to be something it's not.Personally I believe churches should do heterosexual marriages and city hall do civil unions for all whom wants it.The western world form of marriage came from Judeo-Christianity not the governments. Be best for you to think and be informed beyound the tip of your nose. Your post reveals you don't even understand in fullness the Declaration on Marriage at the William Gairdner blog/website.

At 9:50 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry - don't even get me started on accusations of being uninformed and ignorant.

Your assertion that my argument is 'emotional' in nature while yours is highly rational, informed and political is not only misogynist (in its use of 'emotion' to reduce a well-informed progressive argument to an emotional outburst, not in reference to my gender, before you display your ignorance yet again) bu utterly irresponsible for someone who has demonstrated such a personal stake in the issues which we are discussing.

Clearly you are ignorant of the nature of universal human rights as enshrined in our constitution as well as numerous such declarations the world over (notice the groundswell of actions opening marriages to everyone on an international level). Before you talk about the States defensively, no, they do not even have protection against sex-based discrimination in many constitutions throughout the union.

The fact is, I agree with you about civil unions being done by city hall and marriages by the church. I personally find it discriminatory that opposite sex couples are given legal rights that same-sex couples are not. I wouldn't touch a church sanctioned wedding with a barge pole.

What I don't understand is, with judeo-christian faiths such as Unitarianism, Reconstructionist Judaism, etc. lining up to admit gay couples to the fold via marriage, what makes you so sure that your personal opinion is more legitimate than that of congregations numbering in the tens of thousands? These sects have found scriptural and cultural basis for inequality in the same texts in which others have found 'fire and brimstone'.

I mean, with such divisivness among Judeo-Christian sects and individuals on the issue, how can you possibly fall back on that ideology?

What about the rights of priests and rabbis who are gay/lesbian or straight and believe in equality to perform the marriages of their choosing?

The beauty of the law is that little social conservative people like you don't have to go to our churches, attend our weddings or listen to our priests (not that I have one).

Emotional is only the half of it, Larry. I am a writer, activist and scholar of progressive movements, discrimination and inequality. Don't even try to put my arguments to bed with an accusation of being "emotional".

And who says they are not? Do you really think that gays and lesbians who were raised in the Christian/Jewish faith desire their unions to be honoured/their children to grow in that faith? Do you have no compassion for gay Christians?

Step outside of your own little box there, buckeroo.

At 11:32 a.m., Anonymous Larry said...

Anonymous,your off the topic too much and your taking yourself too seriously here.Stop personalizing this so much-it's not so much about YOU!! but rather the issue. Your non-effective debating the marriage issue. Stop the around method and get to the exact point if want to discuss this issue with me.{PS-I have a possible idea who you are now}.At university's a debate can be set up.Are you willing.I'll debate you on feminism too.

At 1:57 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

* Anonymous,your first post here I knew your were a activist left-wing feminists. Your rants are extremely text book feminsts 101. You think of yourself highly and sooo-qualified. Than debate me publicly on both feminism and the marriage institution.Try critical thinking instead of the so common simple minded follow the lefty-radical feminist domino.You have not stated here any original or self thinking ideas.Plus not only do you seem to lack critical thinking but insightfulness too. How is the classified business going. Stop your rants and do the walk-lets debate at SFU. Of course you won't-hey proove me wrong,you'd like that, heres your chance too. More importantly show your correct on these issues-Your not.Don't hinde come out of your left-wing socialist feminist closet.

At 12:31 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

No can do Larry - but thanks for the invite. I am not who you think I am and besides, I don't have nearly enough airmiles.

I wish you a long and happy life, free from having to match your oh-so-commonsensical wits against those who you reject as emotional, socialist and feminist.

Oh yes - and you have my permission, as a Canadian taxpayer, to take whichever single human being you desire to the altar, as is your human right in our wonderful country.

I would like to leave you with the urging that you recognize the following: the moment you decided that I must be a woman, you ceased debating with me in the appreciative, semi-intellectual way that you debated with Sean P., instead completely disrespecting my arguments and rejecting them as "emotional". You cannot deny this - the evidence is on the page.

I refuse to interact with you any longer as your absolute sexism, misogyny and inability to see women as debating partners renders you an unfit receptable of my arguments.

You are so blind to your own heterosexist privilege that you cannot see how NOT BEING EMOTIONAL about this issue IS A PRIVILEGE only given to straight people by virtue of their being straight and therefore not worried sick about becoming second-class citizens yet again.

You are also so completely ignorant as to be threatened by a postmodern critique of rationality instead of open, curious and engaged. Or, shall I say, threatened by the spectacle of someone who you perceive to be a woman ripping away at your kneejerk conservative arguments.

I consign you to the four winds.

Fare thee well.

At 12:33 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS - People who are threatened by feminism are ignorant of its philosophy and purpose.

People who appeal to a law higher than themselves are unable to debate on their own terms.

At 12:13 p.m., Anonymous Larry said...

For the left-wing socialist feminist,the reason Sean p and myself had a good discussion is because he was polite and resonable-whereas you the socialist-feminist lefty are a snob. I'm not threaten by feminism-some of it in fact I like and agree with. But the radical aspect, as a left feminist wrote in the Vancover Sun before the traditional family must be destroyed.Full equality is communism plus is agianst freedom and talent.As for stats they often do not tell the full story.Studies are only that their nonconclusive and a study can be done prooving study's are wrong.I'm not against the female gender as you imply but rather your left-wing socialist ideology fed mind.Real Woman of Canada disagree with you too and their female-but niece try.NOTE-a feminist female author who's been much through feminists studies and their left feminist biase pro education now disagrees much with lefty-feminism. /-> BOOK is:"The Princes At The Window" by Donna Laframboise also read-The War Against The Family by William D. Gairdner.{For Erin Airton,I apologize to you for this at you blog/website.Of course these are my opinions and replys and has nothing to do with you].


Post a Comment

<< Home