Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Ya, but think of the rights of the parents to morn the death of their straight child.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm still flabbergasted that of all of Alberta's problems, creating legislation around restrictions of gender identity is top of their agenda items.

That is something else. Just baffling.

[PsYcNeT]

Them transes have had it too good for too long, bout time the UCP came along to knock em down a peg or two

[Fuzz]

The Alberta RCMP says Premier Danielle Smith was "inaccurate" in statements about the province's Mounties on Thursday.

Smith made the remarks at the Alberta Municipalities Convention in Red Deer, while discussing policing needs in the province.

"The RCMP has not been able to fill the need that we have," Smith said on Thursday.

"Despite continuous communications with our provincial partners, the current strength of Alberta RCMP officers is regularly miscommunicated, as is our current vacancy rate in Provincial Policing," the statement read.

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/rcmp-say...ates-1.7054836

When the police have to stop and take a moment to call you out on your continuous lying, maybe you shouldn't be premier? And why exactly is she lying to us repeatedly? Hrmmm...

She got fired from her radio job for being a lying liar and was rewarded with being made premiere, so I guess she knows it works. Thanks, morons.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

How many women are going to die in the meantime?

Probably no deaths directly attributable to the policy. I’m sure the blood testing delays delayed diagnosis that led to death but none were ever attributed to the policy. It won’t be a measurable amount.

[PsYcNeT]

A new group of whackjobs has entered the chat

https://1905committee.ca/

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

A new group of whackjobs has entered the chat

https://1905committee.ca/

Do you want us to click on their link and give them traffic? Who are they?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Do you want us to click on their link and give them traffic? Who are they?

Wannabe UCPers including this woman:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...arty-1.6649906

[getbak]

"The 1905 Committee" -- So, they want to bring Alberta back to a time when the Premier was an Ontario-born Liberal?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by getbak

"The 1905 Committee" -- So, they want to bring Alberta back to a time when the Premier was an Ontario-born Liberal?

Since everything in Canadian politics is stolen from the U.S. it's probably just a play on The 1776 Project, so it's a meaningless name.

[direwolf]

Yikes, Alberta just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier. It's incredibly unfortunate that there's still 3 more years of this insanity before Nenshi can start to right the ship (hopefully).

[habernac]

You know the UCP is terrified when they’re running attack ads against Nenshi 3 years before the election.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by getbak

"The 1905 Committee" -- So, they want to bring Alberta back to a time when the Premier was an Ontario-born Liberal?

More notably, also before the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getbak

"The 1905 Committee" -- So, they want to bring Alberta back to a time when the Premier was an Ontario-born Liberal?

I've always wanted to churn butter and learn to make my own clothes.

- Said no one. Ever.

What are we? Amish?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by habernac

You know the UCP is terrified when they’re running attack ads against Nenshi 3 years before the election.

He's just not ready.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by getbak

"The 1905 Committee" -- So, they want to bring Alberta back to a time when the Premier was an Ontario-born Liberal?

And dont even get me started on 'Women's Rights' because in 1905 guess who wouldn't be the Premier of Alberta?

I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

He's just not ready.

Nice hair though

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

And dont even get me started on 'Women's Rights' because in 1905 guess who wouldn't be the Premier of Alberta?

I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

Notley?

[MBates]

Apologies in advance for the long constitutional law post, but I also just came across this link which helps one understand where the purported "right" to acquire and possess firearms is coming from (and being included in some manner in the new Alberta Bill of Rights):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Wwax2MaqE

The "Black Hat Group" as it is being called here (I guess he does not like the use of 'Gang') by "constitutional lawyer" Leighton Grey is operating on what he says is an "interesting question" based on an interpretation that the Charter says we "inherited the full British tradition" (no idea what he is referring to here, but we can put that aside for now) such that the 1688 Bill of Rights in England gives us as Albertans the "right to keep and bear arms" in 2024.



For those interested in trying to understand ye ole English for themselves, here is a link to the cited 336-year-old English law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/W...2/introduction

If you read it you will note the issue of owning "arms" in the 1688 Bill is an intervention to restore to Protestants what had been banned previously in relation only to them but not Papists. So it returned equal treatment in law (in other words saying you could not ban 'arms' ownership only in respect of one group literally based on religion). Nowhere does the 1688 Bill actually say there is an inherent constitutional right of all British subjects to keep and bear arms (which would be curious given the present day status of firearm ownership in Britain, but I digress). Indeed what it says suggests the opposite of an inherent constitutional right:

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

The implication being that "arms" for "defence" have to be "suitable to the conditions" and also "allowed by law".

While not fit for citation in a court brief or a law school exam, here is what seems to me is the clear and obvious rebuttal to this "interesting question"...which can be put together in a matter of minutes:

While the 1982 Charter does indeed say it "...shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada", section 26 clearly refers to what is then in existence in 1982.

It seems an impossible stretch to say that the Constitution of Canada ever included the 1688 Bill of Rights, particularly where any part of that Bill of Rights is contradicted by the text of the Constitution Act, 1867. But also there is section 52 of the Charter itself:

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;

(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

The schedule, does not mention any British bills of rights. What it does list, obviously, is the Alberta Act, 1905 which includes this section:

3. The provisions of The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, shall apply to the province of Alberta in the same way and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in the Dominion, as if the said province of Alberta had been one of the provinces originally united, except in so far as varied by this Act and except such provisions as are in terms made, or by reasonable intendment may be held to be, specially applicable to or only to affect one or more and not the whole of the said provinces.

I am sure this pains the UCP to no end, but from the very existence of Alberta, it has always been so that Criminal Law was voluntarily given up in 1867 as the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and as we know from the Firearms Reference, Criminal Law includes the valid constitutional authority of the feds to decide what parts of firearm ownership / possession / use are able to be banned by making them crimes.

Even if the Constitution of Canada did somehow include the 1688 Bill of Rights, firearm ownership in that document was clearly subject to restrictions by government for what was needed for defence, suitable to the circumstances, and not otherwise made unlawful by legislation.

So, for example, if in 2024 a government with the authority over criminal law in Canada decided it should be a crime to own automatic machine guns, handguns, or some semi-auto rifles that are too risky to be used in mass killings of others, then your "right" to bear arms was subject to being restricted accordingly.

I mean, I am a law-abiding firearm owner who does not agree with the current federal government's view of where the lines should be drawn regarding firearm ownership...but that does not mean there is some non-existent Charter protected right to keep and bear arms if someone who wants it to exist just wishes for it hard enough.

I have said before, I will still wait to see what they actually try to put in the proposed Alberta Bill of Rights, but it is hard to see an Alberta government in 2024 relying on a special interest group's opinion of 1688 British Imperial legislation as a serious government that should be trusted to do anything to manage the challenges and problems we actually face as a province.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by MBates

Apologies in advance for the long constitutional law post, but I also just came across this link which helps one understand where the purported "right" to acquire and possess firearms is coming from (and being included in some manner in the new Alberta Bill of Rights):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6Wwax2MaqE

The "Black Hat Group" as it is being called here (I guess he does not like the use of 'Gang') by "constitutional lawyer" Leighton Grey is operating on what he says is an "interesting question" based on an interpretation that the Charter says we "inherited the full British tradition" (no idea what he is referring to here, but we can put that aside for now) such that the 1688 Bill of Rights in England gives us as Albertans the "right to keep and bear arms" in 2024.



For those interested in trying to understand ye ole English for themselves, here is a link to the cited 336-year-old English law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/W...2/introduction

If you read it you will note the issue of owning "arms" in the 1688 Bill is an intervention to restore to Protestants what had been banned previously in relation only to them but not Papists. So it returned equal treatment in law (in other words saying you could not ban 'arms' ownership only in respect of one group literally based on religion). Nowhere does the 1688 Bill actually say there is an inherent constitutional right of all British subjects to keep and bear arms (which would be curious given the present day status of firearm ownership in Britain, but I digress). Indeed what it says suggests the opposite of an inherent constitutional right:



The implication being that "arms" for "defence" have to be "suitable to the conditions" and also "allowed by law".

While not fit for citation in a court brief or a law school exam, here is what seems to me is the clear and obvious rebuttal to this "interesting question"...which can be put together in a matter of minutes:

While the 1982 Charter does indeed say it "...shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada", section 26 clearly refers to what is then in existence in 1982.

It seems an impossible stretch to say that the Constitution of Canada ever included the 1688 Bill of Rights, particularly where any part of that Bill of Rights is contradicted by the text of the Constitution Act, 1867. But also there is section 52 of the Charter itself:



The schedule, does not mention any British bills of rights. What it does list, obviously, is the Alberta Act, 1905 which includes this section:



I am sure this pains the UCP to no end, but from the very existence of Alberta, it has always been so that Criminal Law was voluntarily given up in 1867 as the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, and as we know from the Firearms Reference, Criminal Law includes the valid constitutional authority of the feds to decide what parts of firearm ownership / possession / use are able to be banned by making them crimes.

Even if the Constitution of Canada did somehow include the 1688 Bill of Rights, firearm ownership in that document was clearly subject to restrictions by government for what was needed for defence, suitable to the circumstances, and not otherwise made unlawful by legislation.

So, for example, if in 2024 a government with the authority over criminal law in Canada decided it should be a crime to own automatic machine guns, handguns, or some semi-auto rifles that are too risky to be used in mass killings of others, then your "right" to bear arms was subject to being restricted accordingly.

I mean, I am a law-abiding firearm owner who does not agree with the current federal government's view of where the lines should be drawn regarding firearm ownership...but that does not mean there is some non-existent Charter protected right to keep and bear arms if someone who wants it to exist just wishes for it hard enough.

I have said before, I will still wait to see what they actually try to put in the proposed Alberta Bill of Rights, but it is hard to see an Alberta government in 2024 relying on a special interest group's opinion of 1688 British Imperial legislation as a serious government that should be trusted to do anything to manage the challenges and problems we actually face as a province.

Someone here should register www.1688committee.ca before one of those nutbars does.