Search results

Definitely - human rights is the only place that I don't see a need to bend to the will of the people or their representatives. 

That would hardly be fair, seeing that the laws of neither Canada (according to the Supreme Court of Canada) nor the US (according to the Supreme Court of the United States) were followed in obtaining that confession.  In my view, the confession is next to useless. Let me just say that I am...

I would bet a lot of money that if a few people could go back in time, they would have added a few more caveats to the Charter.  I agree with you that convicted criminals should lose more of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they violated their contract with society, IMO.  Still, I...

You would think, but, the courts say no...

The flaw in this logic - if they obtained citizenship under false pretenses, they were never actually legal citizens.

They did just that, more than once.  They lost each time.

Not at all - they have the same rights.  That's why our system works so well, even if we don't always like the result.

If I said torture, I didn't mean to say torture.  It was mistreatment and abuse of process.

The ones that were ruled to have happened by the courts.  Your sweet lord has nothing to do with it.

That's not actually what it says at all. 

The precedent has nothing to do with the cheque, but rather the court decisions related to people like Khadr and Arar.  The court decisions are what placed an obligation for reparations on the government.  Yes, the Harper government chose Arar's reparations, and yes, the Trudeau government chose...

There is no way to blame the precedent on the Trudeau government.

If only we could do that for ourselves....

I would imagine that in many cases, the upgrades would cost almost as much as a new ship.

I agree - they're completely fallible.  They're simply more qualified to make the determination.

The funny thing about those 'articles' - each of them are also opinions.  And again, each of those opinions are held by people an order of magnitude less qualified than the justices.

That's true.  Their opinion is wholly more informed than yours...or mine.  The law is their area of expertise.  I'm sure you wouldn't want them wading into yours.

It really is 'fake news', as interpreting laws within their foundational context, as well as the modern context in which we live, is also part of their job.

Parliament has (partial) authority to change the Constitution and full authority to change the law.  The SCOC interprets it as written. 

Close only counts in horse-shoes and hand grenades though.  Whether or not they made a mistake is kind of beside the point.  They're the final arbiter of such things, and they've already decided.