Significant differences
Babble on.
My favourite Wine-Swilling, Quote-Spouting, Lazy-Ex-Reservist blogger makes a valiant attempt to educate the seething, thronging hordes of William Wallace Wannabes ("FREEDOM! ...to read any testimony I choose, whenever I choose, and the law be damned!") regarding the oft overlooked distinctions between Canadian rights and American ones. He concludes this valuable lesson, appropriately enough, with a delicious quote:
So in some circumstances, the Charter is about as useful as a chocolate barbeque fork.
Heh. Well...the line is funny, even if the content is somewhat disheartening.
Now, if you want to start talking about changing the Constitution, Don Quixote...
Babble off.
posted by Babbling Brooks @ 5:11 p.m.
1 comments
1 Comments:
Babbler, come over here and sit down and relax one sec. i think we need to have a little talk. here's the story, in a nutshell.
one does not, repeat, one does NOT unthinkingly obey proclamations of any sort.
that may be a shocking revelation for some canadians. after all, many of us (like me) are descended from people who fled to canada so as not to be burdened with the responsibility of governing themselves. but this is, after all, the 21st century. i think canadians, as a polity, have matured to the point where we can aspire to think for ourselves.
of course, that means that there will always be differences of opinion. i respect your right to be wrong (written tongue in cheek). but, as Debbye at BAITO posted earlier today (or yesterday), this is a simple act of civil disobediance, not an armed insurrection. nor is it a lynching.
freedom is good. so is freedom of information. granted, there may be cases where information must be kept under wraps. but, in this case, there is none.
preserve an uncorrupted jury pool? please. brault is spilling the beans like mad. either he has a plea bargain already or he is angling to have his case thrown out. either way, who cares? there are much, much bigger fish to fry that brault.
many of us (well, ok, I) are (am) opposed to the ban without being disrespectful of Gomery. it is my considered opinion that gomery knew the ban wouldn't work but he had to "impose" it so that it would be seen to be useless. don't forget that he is under severe attack from da liddle guy's mobsters and he has to be seen to be impartial.
peace, order and good government. works for sheep (no insult intended).
anyway, there are my disjointed ramblings. like i said, you have the right to be wrong. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home