AB POLITICS 22 RE NON CREDIBILITY OF CANADA S SUPREME COURT
From: John Carrick (jcarr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:16:04 GMT


On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 13:36:08 GMT, "Paul Moore" <moorepa#@no-spam>
wrote:

>If enough Canadian voters wanted it that way it would have >already been changed. Canadians, it seems, don't want it changed.

Oh? How would you know that? Public opinion polls released recently say just the opposite.
Do you live in downtown Calgary, or one of its suburbs?

>Robinson tried to make a point on CBC a bit back saying Canada >had "joined the people of the Netherlands and Belgium in deciding >to allow gay marriage".

Robinson? Which Robinson? The N.B.A. star?

>Except we didn't.

Really? Dozens of marriage licences have been issued in Toronto and a number of ceremonies have taken place. The province has stated that it will recognise these unions.

It certainly *looks* as though we did.

>Canada decided NOT to allow gay marriage, on >numerous occasions. A few unelected judges who are not >responsible to anyone decided it for them.

[1] You must be singularly unobservant not to have noticed that ***laws change from time to time***.
In the 18th C. slavery was legal in Canada. Some Loyalists brought their slaves with them, when they left the U.S. for what is now Canada, in the 1880s.

According to your logic, since those in charge had NOT outlawed slavery in the 18th C., it ought to be permitted today.

[2] You are raising objections to "judicial activism".

That is the ordinary position of neo-conservatives. Are we entitled to list you as a right-wing crazy?

Right-wing crazies yell loudly, when the courts adopt any position that they see as "too liberal". They purr contendedly, however,
when the courts uphold any conservative position.

In truth, they are not against judicial activism.

They are against any changes that are liberal in their nature.

Tough titty. Most Canadians do not share their viewpoint.


From: John Carrick (jcarr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:30:16 GMT

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:18:58 GMT, "Nelson White"
<white.nelson@no-spam> wrote:

>
>"dpwozney" <dpwozney@no-spam> wrote in message >news:5dddc6fb.0306220219.763f9e98@no-spam >
>
>>
>> Homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) is sinful and morally wrong.
>> All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).
>> Diligent Christians, cleansed of all sin (1 John 1:7), may be >> found blameless (2 Peter 3:14), but men who hold the truth in >> unrighteousness are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).
>
>
>I've used those passages to successfully beat traffic tickets. It's >especially effective against photo radar.
>
>You wouldn't happen to be one of those lunatics who scurry around quoting >words put down by savages 2,000 years ago, would you?

Thanks for an entertaining post.

It is astounding to me that some religious zealots think that is perfectly all right for them to attempt to impose their peculiar personal standards on *everyone*.

You'll have noticed that these are the same people who get themselves in a frenzy over Canada having a few of the R.C.M.P. in turbans.

They are religious bigots, although they will go to great lengths to deny that fact.


From: JohnCarrick (NOSPAM@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Non-Credibility of Canada's Supreme Court
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 16:34:40 -0400

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:34:08 GMT, "JoeSixPack" <olegp@no-spam>
wrote:

>> How does someone like you stay out of a mental institution?
>
>I'm so impressed, John. Your debating skills are truly impressive.

Is that the case?

What *should* impress you is that I am not a back-shooting coward,
who comes here under a pseudonym to attack others with poison-pen letters.

Get the guts to identify yourself properly, and maybe you'll start to impress some of us too.
Until then your opinions are worthless, since you won't stand behind them.

All anonymous criticism is chicken-shit, baby.