Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No war is good, and I agree that Chretien and Harper sending our troops over there did/does not help to win anything at all. The casualties of our youth in the US and Canada is horrible, no matter what war.
It is all so senseless.
No war is good, and I agree that Chretien and Harper sending our troops over there did/does not help to win anything at all. The casualties of our youth in the US and Canada is horrible, no matter what war.
It is all so senseless.
Well we definitely see eye to eye there. I personally do not endorse any of the actions both the Canadian and US government has taken in Afghanistan (and the US in Iraq).
Well we definitely see eye to eye there. I personally do not endorse any of the actions both the Canadian and US government has taken in Afghanistan (and the US in Iraq).
Just to be clear, Afghanistan was a NATO implemented solution to a global outcry. Completely different from Iraq.
Just to be clear, Afghanistan was a NATO implemented solution to a global outcry. Completely different from Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornerguy1
Geez, mikeyyc, there you go again using fact to confuse the issue.
Agreed on Mikeyyc's point. BUT, that does not mean that a NATO member cannot make a decision to not extend a pointless and fruitless mission. Last I checked the Dutch made that decision for themselves and it seems pretty clear that Turkey is not far behind.
No war is good, and I agree that Chretien and Harper sending our troops over there did/does not help to win anything at all. The casualties of our youth in the US and Canada is horrible, no matter what war.
It is all so senseless.
Were you this upset when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own citizens and the Taliban was oppressing women? Just curious.....I'm really not trying to get the thread off-track.
Were you this upset when Saddam Hussein was gassing his own citizens and the Taliban was oppressing women? Just curious.....I'm really not trying to get the thread off-track.
But you are, nonetheless, so let's stick with thread topic and use the Politics forum to debate topics like the merits of Iraq.
"Lucknow" says that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the Constitution of Canada...he's half right. The Canadian Constitution consists of 2 parts; The "Constitution Act, 1867" (which used to be called the "British North America Act) - and "The Charter" - or the "Constitution Act, 1982." The 1867 part divides jurisdictional powers among the federal and provincial govt's (another difference between the US and Canada is that in Canada, the balance of legislative power favours the federal gov't whereas in the US, the balance of power favours the states). The Charter (essentially) establishes the relationship between the government (federal or provincial) and the individual - with the "relationship" being a codification of individual rights. ALL laws in Canada must flow jurisdictionally from the 1867 Act and be consistent with the Charter...or they're invalid. Also, state conduct must be consistent with the Charter - or it's invalid - hence the warning to police in the other posts. HOWEVER, in Canada, we have a legal test to balance police action against tossing evidence - and in a lot of cases, the evidence goes in, whereas the exclusion of evidence in US courts in automatic - where police have violated a person's constitutional rights.
As for our "2 types of attorneys," we don't really have them. What we have is language borrowed from the British where we have (very generally) "barristers" (lawyers who go to court) and "solicitors" (lawyers who work in their offices). However, unlike in the UK where there are very much 2 types of lawyers ("attorneys" itself being a mostly American term) every lawyer in Canada is both a barrister and solicitor....so, we really one have one "type" of "attorney."
As for our "2 types of attorneys," we don't really have them. What we have is language borrowed from the British where we have (very generally) "barristers" (lawyers who go to court) and "solicitors" (lawyers who work in their offices). However, unlike in the UK where there are very much 2 types of lawyers ("attorneys" itself being a mostly American term) every lawyer in Canada is both a barrister and solicitor....so, we really one have one "type" of "attorney."
You are right about the 9 provinces where there is the British Common Law tradition.
Perhaps the post you are referring to was in reference to Quebec and its civil law, and where there really are two types of attorneys: avocat (lawyer) and notaire (notary or title attorney).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Needs a little clarification
