They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. As soon as Harper got the chance to go to war against ISIS, he started talking about terrorists and introducing this legislation. He's a war munging control freak who really believes he is the good guy.
They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. Would have been so much better if the guy could have had some psychiatric help. It's a shame that the crackhead has given the Conservatives more ammunition to remove our rights, especially considering he was totally under the radar anyways so this legislation wouldn't have helped.
No, constitutionally the legislature is the only branch that can create law through statute. Even today much of contract law, tort law and property law is not covered by statute yet the law exists. Now while statute law usually overrides common law, there are exceptions such as whether the law is constitutional, and that is left up to the judicial branch. Same when two laws contradict. And something that is obviously criminal such as murder was still illegal before a statute was passed as precedent has existed for a long time that murder is unlawful.
Actually under this government, if a non-profit negatively comments on legislation, they get audited by the Canada Revenue Service. Shit a bird watchers society wrote a minister about bee colony collapse, the answer they got back was that since they were being political, they were going to get audited.
Not in Canada where corporations are not allowed to contribute and people are limited to around $1200. More likely "wouldn't want an accidental leak of where your money came from would you" or "do you expect a nice well paying job after you leave office?"
In common law jurisdictions (98+% of the USA, Louisiana is the exception), Judges can make law. This was especially true at the time the American Constitution was written as there was a shortage of statutes. Examples of a Judge being able to limit speech include contempt of court where a person can be locked up indefinitely for speech. Restraining orders, where if you bother me enough with speech, I may be able to get an order for you to stay away from me, backed by the force of the law including jail. Various other forms of injunctions can also be issued by courts to limit speech. As for the President, at least as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he has the power to tell his subordinates to shut up, order no talking back to officers and perhaps order no talking to the enemy. All limitations on speech.
There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such. You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights). It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the first amendment to all forms of government but it is not clear and the fact that the 14th amendment was passed with federal soldiers holding guns on the members of state legislatures to force its passage makes it questionable anyways. All rights are limited, the famous example is your right to swing your fist stopping where my face is. Security of person is as much of a right as free speech and serious threats against your person can be unlawful. Now it can be argued that this law is too broad and I'm inclined to agree but if someone is making credible threats they are crossing a line.
When the first amendment was introduced, duels were pretty well legal and accepted as a response to an insult and even now "fighting words" are considered to be a defence against assault charges and possibly murder in some jurisdictions.
His use was correct. Liberals are the first to demand everyone else walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt.
A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.
Yet it is right wing governments bringing in these laws. My right wing government loves increasing jail sentences, creating new crimes, expanding spying on their own citizens and the libertarian part stays quiet as long as their are tax cuts promised and certain parts of government are shrunk.
Actually there is a new species appearing due to global warming, the Pizzly bear, a cross between a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear, so even bigger and thinks of people as food. It's new enough that the Inuit don't have a name for it.
Of course America used to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Then the white man showed up and between disease and genocide, killed of most of the free braves and put the reminder in reservations.
Of course corporations pay tax and if we lowered their actual tax rate to zero and increased the workers tax rate to 70% (number pulled our of my ass) the corporation would have to pay the workers quadruple what the actual worker keeps, whether the corporation is profitable or not. And no matter what the tax setup is they'll charge as much as possible.
Once you've been cohabiting for a year (may vary on jurisdiction) you're considered married in common law. If you've bought stuff as a couple such as a house or have children, splitting can be much the same as divorce. The opposite can also be true, if married but not owning anything substantial, with no kids, divorce can be pretty simple.
There's not all that much easy to mine uranium and the mining gets pretty disgusting as they have to mine lower grade deposits. The only saving grace about mining uranium vs coal is so much less is needed.
Architecture is also starting to consider the problem. Turns out it isn't that hard to make windows that aren't as attractive to birds and some jurisdictions are now mandating more bird friendly design.
. >If someone is in chronic pain, whether physical or mental and a drug as cheap to manufacture and as safe as heroin is cheaply available, does it matter if they become addicted?
something about the cure being as bad as the disease.
Besides being addictive, clean pure heroin is a safe drug, side affects are constipation and drowsiness. It's safe enough that my aunt was given it for childbirth (last one in Canada). What is the hangup about being addictive? I'm addicted to air, water, food and even things like company. Then there are the drugs such as coffee that I'm addicted to and yet coffee is not demonized.
Lots of things are highly addictive, the various drugs starting with oxy are good examples as they're perhaps more addictive then heroin and frequently prescribed. Then there is alcohol, one of the few drugs that can kill you during withdrawal and tobacco, the most addictive and also one of the most deadliest. If someone is in chronic pain, whether physical or mental and a drug as cheap to manufacture and as safe as heroin is cheaply available, does it matter if they become addicted?
Republic is pretty generic, examples include N. Korea, China and Syria and democracy now a days really means representative democracy (Switzerland is about the only close to pure democracy and one of the more free countries in the world) where the people vote in representatives to govern us. The opposite, monarchy, is also usually a representative democracy with the monarch mostly being a figure head. There are exceptions, mostly American allies who actively support the Taliban and Isis. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are examples of absolute monarchies.
Slashdot Mirror
Harpers a Christian, not a Muslim.
They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. As soon as Harper got the chance to go to war against ISIS, he started talking about terrorists and introducing this legislation. He's a war munging control freak who really believes he is the good guy.
Harper talked to the PM of Israel before talking to Canadians which shows his priorities.
They were going to introduce the legislation on the day the crackhead attacked Parliament. Would have been so much better if the guy could have had some psychiatric help.
It's a shame that the crackhead has given the Conservatives more ammunition to remove our rights, especially considering he was totally under the radar anyways so this legislation wouldn't have helped.
No, constitutionally the legislature is the only branch that can create law through statute. Even today much of contract law, tort law and property law is not covered by statute yet the law exists.
Now while statute law usually overrides common law, there are exceptions such as whether the law is constitutional, and that is left up to the judicial branch. Same when two laws contradict. And something that is obviously criminal such as murder was still illegal before a statute was passed as precedent has existed for a long time that murder is unlawful.
Actually under this government, if a non-profit negatively comments on legislation, they get audited by the Canada Revenue Service. Shit a bird watchers society wrote a minister about bee colony collapse, the answer they got back was that since they were being political, they were going to get audited.
Not in Canada where corporations are not allowed to contribute and people are limited to around $1200. More likely "wouldn't want an accidental leak of where your money came from would you" or "do you expect a nice well paying job after you leave office?"
We still have the revolving door, especially with this government and the oil industry.
In common law jurisdictions (98+% of the USA, Louisiana is the exception), Judges can make law. This was especially true at the time the American Constitution was written as there was a shortage of statutes.
Examples of a Judge being able to limit speech include contempt of court where a person can be locked up indefinitely for speech. Restraining orders, where if you bother me enough with speech, I may be able to get an order for you to stay away from me, backed by the force of the law including jail. Various other forms of injunctions can also be issued by courts to limit speech.
As for the President, at least as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he has the power to tell his subordinates to shut up, order no talking back to officers and perhaps order no talking to the enemy. All limitations on speech.
There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the first amendment to all forms of government but it is not clear and the fact that the 14th amendment was passed with federal soldiers holding guns on the members of state legislatures to force its passage makes it questionable anyways.
All rights are limited, the famous example is your right to swing your fist stopping where my face is. Security of person is as much of a right as free speech and serious threats against your person can be unlawful.
Now it can be argued that this law is too broad and I'm inclined to agree but if someone is making credible threats they are crossing a line.
When the first amendment was introduced, duels were pretty well legal and accepted as a response to an insult and even now "fighting words" are considered to be a defence against assault charges and possibly murder in some jurisdictions.
His use was correct. Liberals are the first to demand everyone else walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt.
A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.
Yet it is right wing governments bringing in these laws. My right wing government loves increasing jail sentences, creating new crimes, expanding spying on their own citizens and the libertarian part stays quiet as long as their are tax cuts promised and certain parts of government are shrunk.
Only if daddy was a grizzly, at least according to wiki, the male has dominance when it comes to naming.
I thought that packing in grease and wrapping well and then burying works for long term storage.
Bears and whatnot haven't evolved much since 1914
Actually there is a new species appearing due to global warming, the Pizzly bear, a cross between a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear, so even bigger and thinks of people as food. It's new enough that the Inuit don't have a name for it.
Of course America used to be the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Then the white man showed up and between disease and genocide, killed of most of the free braves and put the reminder in reservations.
Of course corporations pay tax and if we lowered their actual tax rate to zero and increased the workers tax rate to 70% (number pulled our of my ass) the corporation would have to pay the workers quadruple what the actual worker keeps, whether the corporation is profitable or not. And no matter what the tax setup is they'll charge as much as possible.
Once you've been cohabiting for a year (may vary on jurisdiction) you're considered married in common law. If you've bought stuff as a couple such as a house or have children, splitting can be much the same as divorce. The opposite can also be true, if married but not owning anything substantial, with no kids, divorce can be pretty simple.
There's not all that much easy to mine uranium and the mining gets pretty disgusting as they have to mine lower grade deposits. The only saving grace about mining uranium vs coal is so much less is needed.
Architecture is also starting to consider the problem. Turns out it isn't that hard to make windows that aren't as attractive to birds and some jurisdictions are now mandating more bird friendly design.
Skyscrapers also interfere with wind. On the other hand, we've removed many a tree that used to interfere with the wind
How much was spent on stopping the minimum wage from raising to $5 a day so that the CEO of Haynes could get a bonus?
.
>If someone is in chronic pain, whether physical or mental and a drug as cheap to manufacture and as safe as heroin is cheaply available, does it matter if they become addicted?
something about the cure being as bad as the disease.
Besides being addictive, clean pure heroin is a safe drug, side affects are constipation and drowsiness. It's safe enough that my aunt was given it for childbirth (last one in Canada).
What is the hangup about being addictive? I'm addicted to air, water, food and even things like company. Then there are the drugs such as coffee that I'm addicted to and yet coffee is not demonized.
Lots of things are highly addictive, the various drugs starting with oxy are good examples as they're perhaps more addictive then heroin and frequently prescribed. Then there is alcohol, one of the few drugs that can kill you during withdrawal and tobacco, the most addictive and also one of the most deadliest.
If someone is in chronic pain, whether physical or mental and a drug as cheap to manufacture and as safe as heroin is cheaply available, does it matter if they become addicted?
Republic is pretty generic, examples include N. Korea, China and Syria and democracy now a days really means representative democracy (Switzerland is about the only close to pure democracy and one of the more free countries in the world) where the people vote in representatives to govern us. The opposite, monarchy, is also usually a representative democracy with the monarch mostly being a figure head. There are exceptions, mostly American allies who actively support the Taliban and Isis. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are examples of absolute monarchies.