[romanP]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

romanP romanP:

while i think that law should be more accessible to all, and is written in highly technical jargon in order to make it difficult for those it affects most to be able to interpret it and use it effectively, i can say that those versed well in the law because they have spent considerable time studying it are far better judges of what is and isn't good law than politicians who will use the law as a club to beat down anyone who opposes them or might be a threat to them, such as what our current government does consistently.

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all but that's unlikely to happen given we've become a nation ruled by lawyers.

we live in a capitalist system. the laws are designed and written by capitalists in such a way as prevent those who are not wealthy enough from having the means to understand it with confidence.

$1:

The problem I have with these appeal courts is that they have taken to using the term "of public importance" to circumvent political decisions and insinuate themselves into everyday life in Canada rather than staying strictly within the framework of the law as they did prior to 1982. As it is now they provide no viable outlet for democratic resolution and impose solutions based solely on their interpretation of the Constitution which would be fine if people didn't want a say in how their country was run.

you already don't have a say, and it's not because of lawyers. it's because of a system that requires lawyers to exist.

$1:

It's also interesting to note that New Zealand, Australia and the UK deny their judges the power to invalidate legislation. I wonder why?

for the most part, the Supreme Court invalidating invalid legislation has worked out pretty well in our favour. i'm not sure how C-51 managed to slip past them, though.

$1:

But on the plus side this decision is being appealed to the SCC by the Gov't which should be hilarious given that august Judiciary has a record of protecting their own underlings decisions over backing any Gov't legislation.

i don't believe it is the Supreme Court's job to back legislation. it is its job to analyse legislation and apply appropriate measures to legislation that is or is not consistent with existing laws.

[uwish]

herbie herbie:

$1:

I agree the law should be accessible and understandable for all

Yeah, and so should Windows. But there just aren't many people out there who can grasp the basic concepts. Haven't, can't and never will.

That's not very communist uuu socialist of you is it comrade?

[herbie]

$1:

we live in a capitalist system. the laws are designed and written by capitalists in such a way as prevent those who are not wealthy enough from having the means to understand it with confidence.

What a load of shit. They are written in English and only require you to make the effort to learn a few terms to understand them.
As it ties to my referencing Windows...

I really don't give a shit about left and right politically, it's refusing to learn that pisses me off and blaming someone else for that even more.