2024 Canadian Political Thread

[appleomac]

Establishig the rights of the fetus seperate from the mother is the classic way social conservatives start the ball rolling to challange abortion laws.

This is a bunch of nonsense that people like you spew off on, I'm guessing because you don't understand the law. There are ZERO laws on abortion in Canada. There is NO abortion law to challenge in this country. Any federal government, if they wanted, can simply draft legislation to ban or limit abortion. And none have attempted to since Morgentaler. So no, you are spewing off something that is incorrect. C225 does NOT "challenge abortion laws" - there is NO abortion laws in Canada to challenge. Saying nothing for the fact that one challenges a law in COURT. A piece of legislation does NOT challenge a law, it either creates or change laws NOT challenges them. And a proposed piece of legislation certainly CANNOT challenge a law that does NOT exist. What are you even blabbering on about? Do you even understand the state of abortion rights in this country? How can you no so little about things you have so many opinions on? LOL

And exactly as you pointed out, any judge could *ALREADY* consider the fetus during sentencing, so what was the bill required for? 《HINT: it wasnt, it was only a vehicle for the sneaky sneaky》

To require it. Not leaving it up to discretion. If you require a judge to consider it, they would have to delineate their judgement about that particular aggravating factor as it relates to the sentence. Much like a Gladue analysis requires a judge to delineate/state that analysis in formulating the sentence for the accused, when applicable. That is the difference - can be done (current state) vs must be done (the proposed state). I get why you don't see/understand the difference, it's nuanced, and nuance (although you claim to have it all the time) is NOT in your wheelhouse. LOL

 

[Drjohn]

If the dress fits.

Nice seventies pop culture reference.

Nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Ditch the thesaurus a grab a dictionary.

That way you can work on your spelling.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Laws as in ' legal standing' you misreprenting belly-button- lint- licker.

And again, your whole premise rests on the idea of giving the fetus rights, which is the first step in removing those of the mothers, contrary to your previous claims that this bill doesn't do any that sort of thing. You know this and now you're trying to spin it while accusing me of doing it. The two are not casually compatible.And your Lover Pierre and most of the decieve-o-cons voted yea.

 

[appleomac]

Laws as in ' legal standing' you misreprenting belly-button- lint- licker.

And again, your whole premise rests on the idea of giving the fetus rights, which is the first step in removing those of the mothers, contrary to your previous claims that this bill doesn't do any that sort of thing. You know this and now you're trying to spin it while accusing me of doing it. The two are not casually compatible.And your Lover Pierre and most of the decieve-o-cons voted yea.

Legal standing is NOT the same as laws, Einstein. A fetus having legal rights in a sentencing provision DOES NOT invalidate a woman's right to choose - you are making a false equivalency. My dog has some legal rights, that doesn't change my rights one bit. Rights are not a zero-sum game - giving a right to X, does NOT mean some right is taken away from Y. That is some more of your insane mental gymnastics to get to that type of erroneous belief/conclusion.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Legal standing is NOT the same as laws, Einstein. A fetus having legal rights in a sentencing provision DOES NOT invalidate a woman's right to choose - you are making a false equivalency. My dog has some legal rights, that doesn't change my rights one bit. Rights are not a zero-sum game - giving a right to X, does NOT mean some right is taken away from Y. That is some more of your insane mental gymnastics to get to that type of erroneous belief/conclusion.

Really. Since the mother can so easily be seperated from the fetus, I'm sure your legal interpetation holds great standing when it comes to rights.Guillianni-lite.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Nice seventies pop culture reference.

Nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Ditch the thesaurus a grab a dictionary.

That way you can work on your spelling.

Talking about? I thought we were name calling. My bad.

 

[appleomac]

Really. Since the mother can so easily be seperated from the fetus, I'm sure your legal interpetation holds great standing when it comes to rights.Guillianni-lite.

The fact that physical separation is not easily accomplished wrt mother and fetus, that doesn't mean legal separation when considering sentencing of a crime is not possible. Again, a false equivalency. Conjoined twins cannot, sometimes, be physically separated - that doesn't mean they are not actually separated as far as the law is concerned. Physical separation has nothing to do with a legal separation wrt to legal recognition during sentencing. What a silly/foolish analogy you just attempted! LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

The fact that physical separation is not easily accomplished wrt mother and fetus, that doesn't mean legal separation when considering sentencing of a crime is not possible. Again, a false equivalency. Conjoined twins cannot, sometimes, be physically separated - that doesn't mean they are not actually separated as far as the law is concerned. Physical separation has nothing to do with a legal separation wrt to legal recognition during sentencing. What a silly/foolish analogy you just attempted! LOL

You're just trying to sell this bullshit as just a crime bill, but its not. Are you trying to legally say that pregnant women are deserving of more consideration than those who aren't ? How could that stand under the charter?
At what point in pregnancy does this come into effect? If a woman with ejaculate in her is murdered, is it 1Million+ murders?No?But then you have to define the moment of conception legally. And once youve done that just a hop skip and a jump away for this trojan horse legislation to work its purpose. If you really are versed then you're two faced about what you're spinning. What a silly/deceptive argument you've tried to make.

 

[appleomac]

Are you trying to legally say that pregnant women are deserving of more consideration than those who aren't ? How could that stand under the charter?

No. The Bill isn't treating the victim differently, it's treating the criminal differently. Another false equivalency on your part.

If a woman with ejaculate in her is murdered, is it 1Million+ murders?

No. Ejaculate/sperm/semen doesn't constitute a fetus. Wow, you are really trying hard to make some nonsensical useless points. LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

No. The Bill isn't treating the victim differently, it's treating the criminal differently. Another false equivalency on your part.



No. Ejaculate/sperm/semen doesn't constitute a fetus. Wow, you are really trying hard to make some nonsensical useless points. LOL

So make the punishment different if the woman is pregnant. In other words, treat the value of the woman differently depending on her potential state of pregnancy. Ramifications and actual outcomes arent a big thing for you, are they?

Answer the question about when it applies then, because im sure another pro-life lawyer would. I know you like you think your misguided opinions would constitute good law, but there would need to actually be legal definition for the law to be practiced, and that would mean defining moment of conception.

 

[appleomac]

So make the punishment different if the woman is pregnant. In other words, treat the value of the woman differently depending on her potential state of pregnancy. Ramifications and actual outcomes arent a big thing for you, are they?

No. Punishment for whatever crime is committed against the woman is whatever the punishment is for murder, assault, whatever the crime happens to be. C225 contemplated, (quote taken from the text of the bill)...

"This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing."

This is creating a new crime, punishment for that new crime and further requiring judges to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

And again no, this does not "treat the value of the woman differently depending on her potential state of pregnancy" (your words). State of pregnancy is not what the Bill contemplates, the Bill contemplates (from the Bill) "...cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman...". You are again, making false equivalencies.

Answer the question about when it applies then, because im sure another pro-life lawyer would. I know you like you think your misguided opinions would constitute good law, but there would need to actually be legal definition for the law to be practiced, and that would mean defining moment of conception.

It applies when the the victim is pregnant and the unborn is caused injury or death. So, no, pregnant/pregnancy DOES NOT mean the mere presence of semen/ejaculate as you previously tried to claim. If you don't know what pregnant means, here's the Webster's dictionary definition

Pregnant: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body

Now, you keep in asking me about Bill C-225. A Bill, might I remind you, you brought up. So why do you need me to answer your questions about the Bill you supposedly know about? But, since I'm in a giving mood. The Bill does not define when someone is pregnant. Because, and this is something you don't know about the law/laws. Laws/legislation doesn't need to define well understood terms. Ergo, it doesn't say at what time someone is pregnant. Because most rational people understand the term "pregnant". Ergo, if you want to know when someone is pregnant, you can simply compare to the common definition of "pregnant" (which I provided for you). In addition, if you still can't understand the definition of pregnant, you can also look at the meaning of pregnancy as well.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

No. Punishment for whatever crime is committed against the woman is whatever the punishment is for murder, assault, whatever the crime happens to be. C225 contemplated, (quote taken from the text of the bill)...

"This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman and to add pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing."

This is creating a new crime, punishment for that new crime and further requiring judges to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

And again no, this does not "treat the value of the woman differently depending on her potential state of pregnancy" (your words). State of pregnancy is not what the Bill contemplates, the Bill contemplates (from the Bill) "...cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman...". You are again, making false equivalencies.



It applies when the the victim is pregnant and the unborn is caused injury or death. So, no, pregnant/pregnancy DOES NOT mean the mere presence of semen/ejaculate as you previously tried to claim. If you don't know what pregnant means, here's the Webster's dictionary definition

Pregnant: containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body

Now, you keep in asking me about Bill C-225. A Bill, might I remind you, you brought up. So why do you need me to answer your questions about the Bill you supposedly know about? But, since I'm in a giving mood. The Bill does not define when someone is pregnant. Because, and this is
something you don't know about the law/laws. Laws/legislation doesn't need to define well understood terms. Ergo, it doesn't say at what time someone is pregnant. Because most rational people understand the term "pregnant". Ergo, if you want to know when someone is pregnant, you can simply compare to the common definition of "pregnant" (which I provided for you). In addition, if you still can't understand the definition of pregnant, you can also look at the meaning of pregnancy as well

Despite the word garbage in the bill, that is the net effect- to codify women different value depending on pregancy status when considering punishment.
Since you act like such an expert i thought you might be aware of this consequence, but alas it seems a false hope , again.

And there is no agreed on definition of pregnacy like you're refering to where 'common sense' would prevail. Zealots like your constituency pals *would* use the ejaculate definition ( every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted...) and that wouldnt be an if but a *when* because that is their intent.

You chose to try to refute my view of the bill, hence the interrogative sessions.

 

[appleomac]

Despite the word garbage in the bill, that is the net effect- to codify women different value depending on pregancy status when considering punishment.
Since you act like such an expert i thought you might be aware of this consequence, but alas it seems a false hope , again.

LOL! You think it's "word garbage" because the Bill is NOT saying what you claim it is saying. LOL

And there is no agreed on definition of pregnacy like you're refering to where 'common sense' would prevail. Zealots like your constituency pals *would* use the ejaculate definition ( every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted...) and that wouldnt be an if but a *when* because that is their intent.

When a judge looks to a law and said law doesn't precisely define a term - a judge uses common parlance to determine terms that are not precisely defined by the law. Ergo, why we have things like Black's Law Dictionary. And judges, most certainly can AND do refer to common definitions. Common definitions are those things found in dictionaries, like Websters or Black's Law Dictionary, etc. Common parlance meaning of words DOES NOT require "agreement." Merely what is commonly held to be true by a reasoned person. Most reasoned persons can refer to a dictionary, Webster's or otherwise.

You chose to try to refute my view of the bill, hence the interrogative sessions.

Yes. Because you continued to make erroneous/false statements about said Bill. Which, sort of highlights your propensity to have opinions about things you know nothing about. My gawd, watching you try and provide evidence for your opinion is laughably pathetic. It is clear, you have never even read Bill C-225 until you were challenged to quote it. I mean, it's obvious you work backwards. You have a conclusion (your opinion) and then you look for things/data to validate it and then try to present your data as evidence. Most rational/logical/reasoned individuals would gather date, research, contemplate the data and then formulate a conclusion based on the data. But again, you do it backwards - it's like you're trying to fly the plane while building the plane. LOL I'm guessing, you simply believe that the CPC will ban abortions - because you paint all conservatives as pro-life zealots. And then when challenged to provide your evidence, you simply do a google search to find some newspaper articles or whatever. I'm guessing that is how you discovered Bill C225, right? I doubt you'll answer that. All you do is continue to demonstrate that your opinions are not well thought out, not well researched/contemplated - you simply believe what you want to believe. You then state those opinions and when eventually challenged to defend your position/provide evidence - you can't. Because you worked backwards, you simply started with the conclusion! LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL! You think it's "word garbage" because the Bill is NOT saying what you claim it is saying. LOL



When a judge looks to a law and said law doesn't precisely define a term - a judge uses common parlance to determine terms that are not precisely defined by the law. Ergo, why we have things like Black's Law Dictionary. And judges, most certainly can AND do refer to common definitions. Common definitions are those things found in dictionaries, like Websters or Black's Law Dictionary, etc. Common parlance meaning of words DOES NOT require "agreement." Merely what is commonly held to be true by a reasoned person. Most reasoned persons can refer to a dictionary, Webster's or otherwise.



Yes. Because you continued to make erroneous/false statements about said Bill. Which, sort of highlights your propensity to have opinions about things you know nothing about. My gawd, watching you try and provide evidence for your opinion is laughably pathetic. It is clear, you have never even read Bill C-225 until you were challenged to quote it. I mean, it's obvious you work backwards. You have a conclusion (your opinion) and then you look for things/data to validate it and then try to present your data as evidence. Most rational/logical/reasoned individuals would gather date, research, contemplate the data and then formulate a conclusion based on the data. But again, you do it backwards - it's like you're trying to fly the plane while building the plane. LOL I'm guessing, you simply believe that the CPC will ban abortions - because you paint all conservatives as pro-life zealots. And then when challenged to provide your evidence, you simply do a google search to find some newspaper articles or whatever. I'm guessing that is how you discovered Bill C225, right? I doubt you'll answer that. All you do is continue to demonstrate that your opinions are not well thought out, not well researched/contemplated - you simply believe what you want to believe. You then state those opinions and when eventually challenged to defend your position/provide evidence - you can't. Because you worked backwards, you simply started with the conclusion! LOL

You sidestepped everything, and said the law is precisely written + it depends on a common sense definition to interpret. So which is Mr. Logic? Why CODIFY it if interpretive judges are enough to rely on?My guess is whatever is convientent to hide the truth of the bill implications from openend eyes.

Your 'Rebuttal' isnt a set of counterfacts as much as 'Your opinion, man'.

Did i look for examples of how yhe conservatives have voted on bills that are chilling yes. But, again, you make it out like the talking points and propaganda you spew come straight from your head like athena from zeus..but in reality you're pushing an adgenda, not some factual arbiter of truth. Tell me you've never looked anything up to defend your points and ill stop discussing with you as youd be a bad faith actor.You're as biased as they come despite your sheeps outfits with the 'I Love Pollieve' scarves.

 

[appleomac]

You sidestepped everything, and said the law is precisely written + it depends on a common sense definition to interpret. So which is Mr. Logic? Why CODIFY it if interpretive judges are enough to rely on?My guess is whatever is convientent to hide the truth of the bill implications from openend eyes.

LOL! My goodness, for someone that claims to have nuance on all sorts of matter you demonstrate time and time again that you have NONE at all. You cannot understand various concepts, and because of that lack of understanding you interpret that as "side stepping" and contradiction.

Here's a simple real world example. There is a law in Canada that stipulates how firearms are to be stored. If you are a owner of a firearm and violate said law, you can be charged under the criminal code. The law states, basically, that a firearm needs to be stored in a safe. That is a precise law. It dictates how a licensed firearm owner must store their firearms. The law however, does NOT define what a safe is. The law is precise as to what the subject matter is. In my example, how to store a firearm, it has to be stored in a safe. BUT, safe is not defined in the law because it is a commonly understood "thing". Same goes for Bill C-225 - it is a precise law the deals with harm or death to the unborn. The law is both precise in subject matter but DOES NOT need to precisely define all "things", especially "things that are commonly understood - like pregnant or pregnancy, like a safe wrt to the firearms storage laws. So no, I am not side-stepping, you just don't know the law. Because if you did, you would know laws can be precise as to overarching subject matter WITHOUT having to precisely define all things. Again, you have too many opinions on subjects/topics where you lack sufficient understanding of the topics/subjects you opine about.

you're pushing an adgenda,

No. I'm just pointing out your erroneous claims, calling you out for your falsehoods, lack of understanding, you propensity to spew off about subject matter you lack knowledge in, your propensity to then revert to name calling (pulling the fascist card, pulling out the veiled racism claim, etc.). LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL! My goodness, for someone that claims to have nuance on all sorts of matter you demonstrate time and time again that you have NONE at all. You cannot understand various concepts, and because of that lack of understanding you interpret that as "side stepping" and contradiction.

Here's a simple real world example. There is a law in Canada that stipulates how firearms are to be stored. If you are a owner of a firearm and violate said law, you can be charged under the criminal code. The law states, basically, that a firearm needs to be stored in a safe. That is a precise law. It dictates how a licensed firearm owner must store their firearms. The law however, does NOT define what a safe is. The law is precise as to what the subject matter is. In my example, how to store a firearm, it has to be stored in a safe. BUT, safe is not defined in the law because it is a commonly understood "thing". Same goes for Bill C-225 - it is a precise law the deals with harm or death to the unborn. The law is both precise in subject matter but DOES NOT need to precisely define all "things", especially "things that are commonly understood - like pregnant or pregnancy, like a safe wrt to the firearms storage laws. So no, I am not side-stepping, you just don't know the law. Because if you did, you would know laws can be precise as to overarching subject matter WITHOUT having to precisely define all things. Again, you have too many opinions on subjects/topics where you lack sufficient understanding of the topics/subjects you opine about.




No. I'm just pointing out your erroneous claims, calling you out for your falsehoods, lack of understanding, you propensity to spew off about subject matter you lack knowledge in, your lets go round the circle agpropensity to then revert to name calling (pulling the fascist card, pulling out the veiled racism claim, etc.). LOL

Still dancing. Whats unborn, Fertalized eggs?

And again you completley bypass the logical incosistency of 'it needs to codified so that the penalty is consistent, but it can be interpreted by judges'. If it can be intrepreted then it doesnt need to be codified. Those folks who voted on the bill do that as their job. They know what it means behind the letters, as opposed to my amateur opinion They knew what they were doing when they voted yes on such a law.

And I'll equally accuse you of grandiose visions of self importance and thinking that because your brain farted a turd into your mouth and it came out you must be correct on all matters. If you do know in this case, then there is incosistency and you're lying about what the bill was for.

You, sir , like me, are naught but a feces throwing monkey with a sense of propriety they think is superior to all the other monkies and the baggage they carry. In the end, your opinions and biases no better nor worse than all the others really, pehaps with some minor statistical variance up and down.

 

[appleomac]

Still dancing. Whats unborn, Fertalized eggs?

No. You constantly asking questions is your feeble attempt to get me to do you work. If you don't know what "unborn" or "fertilized egg" means, go figure it out Einstein. LOL

Those folks who voted on the bill do that as their job. They know what it means behind the letters, as opposed to my amateur opinion They knew what they were doing when they voted yes on such a law.

Those who make laws are generally not the ones that interpret/adjudicate the law. You see, we have separation of powers. There are those that make/write the laws (politicians, parliament, etc.), those that enforce the law (police, RCMP, etc.) and those that adjudicate the law (the courts). Those that write the law do not enforce the law and do not adjudicate the law. Those that enforce the law do not write the laws nor do they adjudicate the law. Those that adjudicate the law do not write the law. In other words, those that wrote the bill, are NOT the people that will adjudicate the law. Interpretation of the law is left, primarily to the courts (judges and juries) and to some extent crown prosecutors (for laying of charges). So, if you believe some MP gets to tell a judge and/or crown prosecutor how to interpret and therefore how to adjudicate the law - you haven't the faintest idea how our system of jurisprudence actually works. LOL

And I'll equally accuse you of grandiose visions of self importance and thinking that because your brain farted a turd into your mouth and it came out you must be correct on all matters. If you do know in this case, then there is incosistency and you're lying about what the bill was for.

You, sir , like me, are naught but a feces throwing monkey with a sense of propriety they think is superior to all the other monkies and the baggage they carry. In the end, your opinions and biases no better nor worse than all the others really, pehaps with some minor statistical variance up and down.

Accuse all you want. That's all you have, really. You lack any semblance of knowledge on any number of topics. So you change the subject, move goal posts, name call, whatever. LOL No offense, I don't take insults/accusations from individuals like you too seriously. I mean, after all, you are the person that drivels on about eugenics when the topic was government fiscal records. You pull out the fascist card when you have nothing of substance to state. You make thinly veiled accusations of racism, when you have nothing of substance to say. Call me whatever you want, it just demonstrates your infantile mindset! LOL

 

[Moan For Me]

I think he’s just trolling at this point. I can’t see anyone being this obtuse not wanting to accept that C225 is designed for harsher penalties with regards to sentencing and sentencing only, not some back door “sneaky sneaky” trying to limit abortions. The only time I would ever see a limit/clause would be more from a scientific standpoint that I mentioned earlier, and even then it’s probably a stretch (that was just my opinion as a possibility - ie aborting a fetus at 37 weeks when it’s so close to being born, without undue hardship to the mother is pretty fucked up - but not something i’m entirely worried about because again facts - 91% are aborted during the first trimester, almost 9% during the second and barely a handful in the third - and even then, that came down to a medical risk presumed by doctors not some quack on perb). Not a far stretch to understand that killing a baby that the mother intended to be born as killing a second human being garnering a stricter penalty. This isn’t Peter MacKay conservatism any more (bible thumper). Trudeau has gone so far left, a guy like PP brings us back to the Cretiene/Martin era of centrist liberalism, to a certain extent. Listening to you rant is like listening to The View on how women don’t need men 😅 or how Rachel Maddow explains the pay gap whilst being proven wrong.

Ironically for a guy so worried about abortions, he’d have to meet a woman willing to be impregnated by him in the first place, to again ironically have an abortion to make sure those rights were protected 🤣

Shots fired. Don’t care. @appleomac explains it better than anyone else can and you just simply don’t understand.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

I think he’s just trolling at this point. I can’t see anyone being this obtuse not wanting to accept that C225 is designed for harsher penalties with regards to sentencing and sentencing only, not some back door “sneaky sneaky” trying to limit abortions. The only time I would ever see a limit/clause would be more from a scientific standpoint that I mentioned earlier, and even then it’s probably a stretch (that was just my opinion as a possibility - ie aborting a fetus at 37 weeks when it’s so close to being born, without undue hardship to the mother is pretty fucked up - but not something i’m entirely worried about because again facts - 91% are aborted during the first trimester, almost 9% during the second and barely a handful in the third - and even then, that came down to a medical risk presumed by doctors not some quack on perb). Not a far stretch to understand that killing a baby that the mother intended to be born as killing a second human being garnering a stricter penalty. This isn’t Peter MacKay conservatism any more (bible thumper). Trudeau has gone so far left, a guy like PP brings us back to the Cretiene/Martin era of centrist liberalism, to a certain extent. Listening to you rant is like listening to The View on how women don’t need men 😅 or how Rachel Maddow explains the pay gap whilst being proven wrong.

Ironically for a guy so worried about abortions, he’d have to meet a woman willing to be impregnated by him in the first place, to again ironically have an abortion to make sure those rights were protected 🤣

Shots fired. Don’t care. @appleomac explains it better than anyone else can and you just simply don’t understand.

Oh , good one on the abortion burn. You're a prime example of people having too many children.

Then answer the fucking question on why they would write a law to codify something that would need to be interpreted by a judge, if it is already law that can be interpreted by a judge?

And unlike the token statements your like puts out, I actually care about others rights instead of trying to arrange society into neo-fuedelism.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

No. You constantly asking questions is your feeble attempt to get me to do you work. If you don't know what "unborn" or "fertilized egg" means, go figure it out Einstein. LOL



Those who make laws are generally not the ones that interpret/adjudicate the law. You see, we have separation of powers. There are those that make/write the laws (politicians, parliament, etc.), those that enforce the law (police, RCMP, etc.) and those that adjudicate the law (the courts). Those that write the law do not enforce the law and do not adjudicate the law. Those that enforce the law do not write the laws nor do they adjudicate the law. Those that adjudicate the law do not write the law. In other words, those that wrote the bill, are NOT the people that will adjudicate the law. Interpretation of the law is left, primarily to the courts (judges and juries) and to some extent crown prosecutors (for laying of charges). So, if you believe some MP gets to tell a judge and/or crown prosecutor how to interpret and therefore how to adjudicate the law - you haven't the faintest idea how our system of jurisprudence actually works. LOL



Accuse all you want. That's all you have, really. You lack any semblance of knowledge on any number of topics. So you change the subject, move goal posts, name call, whatever. LOL No offense, I don't take insults/accusations from individuals like you too seriously. I mean, after all, you are the person that drivels on about eugenics when the topic was government fiscal records. You pull out the fascist card when you have nothing of substance to state. You make thinly veiled accusations of racism, when you have nothing of substance to say. Call me whatever you want, it just demonstrates your infantile mindset! LOL

Avoiding the point, yet again. Dance little dancer. You cant even answer a question on why this bill is bad , and seemingly every post you make is the same accusations over and over ad- nasuem. Repeated refrains of ' i know, you dont know, idiot' is maybe a winning strategy among your ilk, but you havent really demonstated anything but the ability to do internet searches. No critical thought going on in there is there?