Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
French Patriot

Give to Caesar. Why? Better law and justice?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Our system gives the law precedence over conscience. Sorry to loop you in on this, but it's a fact. We live in a system based on the rule of law rather than the rule of conscience. We can disagree with the law but for the most part we're obligated to comply with it. As for politicians, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the West - but particularly in Canada - there's been an increasing emphasis on party discipline, whereby individual politicians, whether elected or prospective candidates, must comply with directives set by their parties and party leaders. It's increasingly become the norm. Even in the U.S., which doesn't have a parliamentary system that compels party discipline, voting statistics indicate increasing adherence to such discipline.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-on-congress-the-curse-of-party-line-voting/#649c6b3c6139

As an example, when I want to reach my Constituency in email, it has to go through the party and redirected to the member. Our elections are presented as though we elect the particular people but we actually only vote for that party here. But how does this relate here? Our country does not have separation of church and state. I'm not sure what you differ in opinion on here.? ...or if you do.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

The wording was intentional in our Constitution to blur the distinction, but 'freedom of conscience' is NOT 'freedom to express those feelings'. Note that 'conscience' is more specific a word to refer to one's moral interpretation in one's head, not in their actions. We do NOT have the same freedoms guaranteed as the U.S.'s "First Amendment"! It cannot be this while they also command special rights to the select historical groups they protect for perpetuity based on religious grounds. 

Our opening preamble to the Charter of Rights within the constitution TELLS us we are founded on the principles of God...and thus, a pseudo-theocratic institute by default, not one intended to separate church and state.

Freedom of expression is also guaranteed under the Charter, however, there are instances where this right can be suppressed. American First Amendment free speech rights are no doubt stronger than are our Charter rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. As for religion, the American constitution, which was drafted mainly by Enlightenment thinkers, actually guarantees freedom from religion by forbidding the establishment of a state religion more than it does freedom of religion. It's a historical irony that U.S. has become perhaps the most religious of Western societies. As for the Preamble to the Charter, which reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." I cannot think of a single SCC Charter ruling that cites the supremacy of God as justification for a decision. If you know of one, please reference it. I suspect the wording like other traditional aspects, including the role of the monarchy, is intended as symbolic rather than substantive. The rule of law, on the other hand, remains the operative principle governing our institutions. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already know our Constitution worded them in a way that may appear trivial and that no essential precedence is yet able to overthrow this. I believe that it was challenged at some point but would easily be excused just as you have said. This though makes the preamble and other wording equally as loose. To say that some part of it is certainly interpreteable while others are fuzzy or about something assumed as trivial, makes the article as a whole questionable. It was made only to PLACATE the masses here, not an honest Constitution for the people and by the people. 

"Rule of law" is itself circular if any Law is itself Constitutionally commanding that the Law is Ruler which is saying nothing other than that any system of government anywhere uses LAWS to command people with priority over any person's particular 'conscience' wherever it is derived from. But the particular government can HAVE their 'conscience' particularly enshrined if they are the ones creating the Constitution by force. 

Our 'freedom of conscience' is thus a moronic statement of mind that we already have. What matters is whether we have constitutional protection of the expression of that without censor by government for or against any arbitrary opinion. We do not. [Example, "hate speech"] And whatever slight of words in our Charter of Rights that appears to support free "expression" is countered by the protections of specific superiority of those apparently 'symbolic' trivialities. They CAN be used when needed and WHY those statements are in there. Otherwise they have no reason to be there.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Look at most governments and their corrupted state.

As to my error, you prompted it with your "What exactly is not God's? ".

Everything is not God's.

Fictitious characters cannot claim ownership of anything. Right?

Regards

DL 

When you are making fun of Quislings, you use their talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, turningrite said:

Our system gives the law precedence over conscience. Sorry to loop you in on this, but it's a fact. We live in a system based on the rule of law rather than the rule of conscience. We can disagree with the law but for the most part we're obligated to comply with it. As for politicians, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the West - but particularly in Canada - there's been an increasing emphasis on party discipline, whereby individual politicians, whether elected or prospective candidates, must comply with directives set by their parties and party leaders. It's increasingly become the norm. Even in the U.S., which doesn't have a parliamentary system that compels party discipline, voting statistics indicate increasing adherence to such discipline.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddavenport/2017/12/13/a-growing-cancer-on-congress-the-curse-of-party-line-voting/#649c6b3c6139

All true, which shows that some have been voting their conscience and must be disciplined.

Bottom line. Any politician can vote his conscience regardless of the law in place or new bill before him.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...