tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post8901338628074129837..comments2023-06-27T10:33:35.086-04:00Comments on kirbycairo: Kill the Messenger, Then Cut Him UP, Drag Him Through the Mud, and Feed him to the Dogs.Kirbycairohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-26379080264023577612011-12-09T17:44:30.248-05:002011-12-09T17:44:30.248-05:00Anonymous - I agree that it is a grey area. Howeve...Anonymous - I agree that it is a grey area. However, I think the issue revolves around the concept of rights. The CWB was established specifically to protect the livelihood of wheat farmers against the vagaries of the market and big corporations. That is why I compared it to unions, because it is a form of collective bargaining. A law protecting the right to 'own guns' would not fit into such a concept of rights. <br /><br />PS. I have heard a couple of legal experts suggest today that the government could have, in fact, gone back and amended the original legislation and that would have avoided the issue, but there seems to be some complicated reasons that they didn't do that, and that is where the problem lay. However, I have been unable to clear the fog that surrounds that part of the issue. <br /><br />But all in all, such things are grey areas and always difficult. <br /><br />The bigger issue of killing the messenger still stands.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-53861584282635396952011-12-09T17:44:29.869-05:002011-12-09T17:44:29.869-05:00Anonymous - I agree that it is a grey area. Howeve...Anonymous - I agree that it is a grey area. However, I think the issue revolves around the concept of rights. The CWB was established specifically to protect the livelihood of wheat farmers against the vagaries of the market and big corporations. That is why I compared it to unions, because it is a form of collective bargaining. A law protecting the right to 'own guns' would not fit into such a concept of rights. <br /><br />PS. I have heard a couple of legal experts suggest today that the government could have, in fact, gone back and amended the original legislation and that would have avoided the issue, but there seems to be some complicated reasons that they didn't do that, and that is where the problem lay. However, I have been unable to clear the fog that surrounds that part of the issue. <br /><br />But all in all, such things are grey areas and always difficult. <br /><br />The bigger issue of killing the messenger still stands.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-48377129648576127762011-12-09T17:28:46.444-05:002011-12-09T17:28:46.444-05:00Hmmm. I see it, and perhaps that's where the j...Hmmm. I see it, and perhaps that's where the judge is going, but I worry about how that could be misused by any given Parliament. For instance, what's to stop the Conservatives from setting passing similarly structure legislation that would, say, enshrine the rights of gun-owners as a group (so that you needed their permission to change gun control laws in the future), or property owners, or military members, or whomever, and tie the hands of any future government.<br /><br />At least the Treaties with First Nations are now enshrined in the Charter - if still undefined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-51464287819828381942011-12-09T15:39:39.865-05:002011-12-09T15:39:39.865-05:00No, the judge didn't make it into a constituti...No, the judge didn't make it into a constitutional case, though I suspect the CWB will try to make it one in the SCoC appeal. As I said the analogy is not perfect but it is, I believe, significant. This is because the judge essentially saw the original law as a kind of guarantee of future rights - in other words, like a union which is established by a law and which can only be forfeited in the case of consolation and agreement. As I said, I think that the court could only make such a case when dealing with an institution has been established, the primary intention of which is to guarantee the rights and or safety of the people involved. In the end there must be some guarantee of consistency in such matters or you end up with the kind of situation which has happened to First Nations People - they signed treaties in good faith only to have future governments simply disregard them. And even with the fact that the BNA recognizes that the First Nations People are one of the founding groups of Canada, they saw successive governments ignore the rights that had been established in law. <br /><br />What say you?Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-41319753797223844652011-12-09T15:21:38.378-05:002011-12-09T15:21:38.378-05:00Surely this is the case in Constitutional and Char...Surely this is the case in Constitutional and Charter-rights cases. I believe closing down unions, as you describe, has been ruled unconstitutional. Or at least regulated within a charter framework.<br /><br />And that's the point and function of a constitution - to bind future Parliaments on certain issues. <br /><br />But has this been made the case with the CWB? I'm not so sure.<br /><br />It might make sense for the judge to refer to this in constitutional terms, but I'm not sure that he/she did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-85822794028732006902011-12-09T13:43:13.702-05:002011-12-09T13:43:13.702-05:00Dear Anonymous - Such conditions would only make s...Dear Anonymous - Such conditions would only make sense in cases in which the government is moving to eliminate a democratic right that has already been established. For example, the CWB is very similar to a trade union which has a closed shop (of sorts). Now the existence of trade unions and closed shops are both recognized in law. The government could not unilaterally move to eliminate a trade union, such legislation would be a clear violation in law. Though the cases are not exactly similar - they share a basic principle - a piece of legislation guaranteed that farmers would have this institution to protect them and that it could not be taken away without their agreement. The same thing is true of a federal employees union.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-64457424408281695422011-12-09T13:23:45.362-05:002011-12-09T13:23:45.362-05:00I'm trying to think of another scenario, anoth...I'm trying to think of another scenario, another type of legislation, that would require a government to take additional steps before moving to alter that legislation in the House.<br /><br />I have no doubt the judge is correct, but it seems like a process which is contrary to accepted Parliamentary practices. It seems odd that Parliament could break the law by moving legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-91024877899079760382011-12-08T18:14:01.458-05:002011-12-08T18:14:01.458-05:00No, I read the judgement - and he said quite clear...No, I read the judgement - and he said quite clearly that the bill itself was wrong-headed and illegal. That much was clear.Kirbycairohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17528654183160305877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5611409863712113861.post-88639606357657114792011-12-08T18:03:57.510-05:002011-12-08T18:03:57.510-05:00The messenger was so unclear, left the whole in a ...The messenger was so unclear, left the whole in a ball of mud to go no where. Remember when Alice in Wonderland came to a fork in the road and asked the cat which way to turn. The cat said where are you going she said didn't know. he said then it doesn't matter. same thing with this jjudge. he left it hanging, up toe the ministerhsiemenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10055550784675017644noreply@blogger.com