Swingers Clubs Don't Harm Society
Lords of the Land?
This article worries me plenty of how the liberal courts have altered not only the judicial system but how society and morality is conducted in Canada. "The high court, which was ruling on two Quebec cases, said Canadian standards can tolerate the activities, even when they are done amid spectators." Who is to say what the standards are in Canada? Are nine people suppose to really decide the direction of Canada's morality? The liberals have created this to make an elitist society where nine people have the power to turn Canadian history anyway they want. The Chief Justice of Canada has precedence over the Speaker of the House of Commons. Also notice how the majority of the justices have been appointed by liberals. These are people that have more power than parliament themselves, not elected but mearly selected by the Prime Minister. This is totalitarianism as we know it currently happening in Canada. An elitist people that are not accountable to anyone and do not risk being stuck off their high horse no matter how outrageous the verdict. Why not let a farmer or mechanic on the bench? Trades count for about two million of Canada'a jobs. Would not this more proportionate to the Canadian population instead of elitists using political patronage to get their job? They are the lords of the land and nothing can do anything about it. As for this specific ruling, I think that it is just one more step to legalize protitution. It is not as though it has not been proposed. If you never knew about that, it was just the liberal media's way of keeping the lid in things to not look like total kooks. This ruling, like same sex marriage, in my opinion, does not reflect the views of Canadians and has been handed down to us by liberal elitists to accept and not refute. At least leave these issues to parliament, where elected officials can have a free vote on the issue and let them and their ridings decide the fate of Canada's future.
This article worries me plenty of how the liberal courts have altered not only the judicial system but how society and morality is conducted in Canada. "The high court, which was ruling on two Quebec cases, said Canadian standards can tolerate the activities, even when they are done amid spectators." Who is to say what the standards are in Canada? Are nine people suppose to really decide the direction of Canada's morality? The liberals have created this to make an elitist society where nine people have the power to turn Canadian history anyway they want. The Chief Justice of Canada has precedence over the Speaker of the House of Commons. Also notice how the majority of the justices have been appointed by liberals. These are people that have more power than parliament themselves, not elected but mearly selected by the Prime Minister. This is totalitarianism as we know it currently happening in Canada. An elitist people that are not accountable to anyone and do not risk being stuck off their high horse no matter how outrageous the verdict. Why not let a farmer or mechanic on the bench? Trades count for about two million of Canada'a jobs. Would not this more proportionate to the Canadian population instead of elitists using political patronage to get their job? They are the lords of the land and nothing can do anything about it. As for this specific ruling, I think that it is just one more step to legalize protitution. It is not as though it has not been proposed. If you never knew about that, it was just the liberal media's way of keeping the lid in things to not look like total kooks. This ruling, like same sex marriage, in my opinion, does not reflect the views of Canadians and has been handed down to us by liberal elitists to accept and not refute. At least leave these issues to parliament, where elected officials can have a free vote on the issue and let them and their ridings decide the fate of Canada's future.
posted by TheTorontoTory | 2:07 PM
2 Comments:
BUT, if the people of Canada elected the Liberals into power and then the Liberals selected the judges - isn't that democracy???
If the Conservatives were elected would they not begin to select judges who are conservative? (which would be the pick of the people of Canada because they voted Conservative)
OR do you want voting like they have in the US where you have to fill out an entire novel full of voting??? I think that is stupid and a waste of time because people don't pay attention to who is running for head of garbage disposal.
Why do you care so much about same sex marriage? I support it, but it blows my mind that social policies like that (which only affect a small % of the population) actually make differences in elections. Are you gay? Do you care if gay people get married? How will that affect you?
I don't know where I stand on legalized prostitution. But the people who want it are looking out for the safety of the young girls who are being taken advantage of in terrible ways. I think it is trife to sit in your nice toronto apartment and ridicule legalized prostitution. Do you know what those women / girls go through? I don't, and I don't want to know, but if our government can help them, then shouldn't they at least consider it??
Thank you for your comment.
For your first statement, how is political patronage considered democracy? The judiciary and legislative are two separate branches of government. Should not the judiciary have accountability to their actions and base their actions on what society thinks while protecting constitutional rights? Democracy consists of the rule of the majority of the people and not the elitist few. Yet you further comment on changing social policy “which only affect a small (percentage) of the population”. Your first statement of “the people of Canada” and “a small (percentage) of the population” in your fourth statement are conflicting and demonstrates the point of the article of how elitist rule can change society for the majority of Canadians for the benefit of a few. This is what the article was about and the rest of the statements relate little to it but you seem like a nice fellow and I will try my best to satisfy your concerns.
Same sex marriage had little to do with this article but as an analogy to the problem at hand. I used this analogy because this is something that concerns constitutional matters. I do not see anywhere where it enforces same sex marriage (S.15 does not list it under equality rights) but does infringe the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion as well as belief (S.2a&b). There of plenty of religious groups that does not wish to perform these ceremonies and will not accept it as a marriage but are supposedly forced to by liberal elitists. This is infringement on freedoms and beliefs that is felt by the major religions in Canada and should be respected. This is why the analogy was used.
“But the people who want it are looking out for the safety of the young girls who are being taken advantage of in terrible ways.” Does this mean that it has to be accepted? Serial rapists have a hard life and are treated “in terrible ways”. Does this mean we have to make special laws to permit their activities? Liberals are creating the problems they are trying to solve and are not “looking out for their safety” but rather making the problem worse by tolerating it.
Thank you again for you comments. They make the blog that much better!
Post a Comment
<< Home