“Obstruct Plate”

Squishy wrote:

CoolChick wrote:A plant is a resident of a place, but it cannot consent to anything !!!! why should a human being ?

Humans have a bit more reasoning capacity than plants do. Attempting to treat humans, other animals, and plants as equals is (for lack of a better term) crazy hippy-talk.

hmmmm I will try not to view that comment as an insult and simply say...

All humans animals and plants are living things and each deserves respect and should be treated fairly, would you not agree? If plants are of no importance than why are some plants viewed with such disdain...after all it is only a plant...isn't it ? Can you tell me why dogs (and now apparently cats) need a licence ? But pet rabbits, pet pigs, pet goldfish and even pet monkeys do not ?

My theory is that dogs and cats are plentiful and will bring in the most revenue...... what is your theory ??

Treated fairly, yes, but not equally.

Dogs and cats require licences because the majority of society (at one time) called for it. They are more plentiful, thus have more of an impact on a community should bad owners exist (also why many municipalities have by-laws restricting the number of pets per household). They are larger than most other pets, and can be more destructive if not properly restrained. Should 100% of rabbit owners become "bad" (e.g., letting them run around the neighbourhood, not controlling population), I bet there would quickly be licensing requirements imposed on rabbits, regardless of their numbers and potential revenue. Just look at what happened to pitbull owners.

I won't deny that the government is partially a business - it needs to be. However, Canada was founded on the principles of good government, and I believe their main duty is still in serving us, the general public. Sure, some government figures may take a few too many vacations, but the majority of our tax dollars, licensing revenue, etc., still go back into public programs.

So you are of the belief that human beings are superior then ?

I dont recall anyone ever calling for dogs to have a licence and definitely no cat owner that I know (and I know quite a few)... If an animal is destructive within someones own home, what is that to do with anyone else ? The only reason I see that it would be advisable to not have too many animals in one residence would be if the animals were being abused ? (meaning they were harmed)

As for rabbits and owners becoming 'bad' letting them roam neighbourhoods..... I believe rabbits already roam neighbourhoods...they do where I live ! So are you suggesting that only rabbits that are pets or don't look like a regular wild rabbits should be licenced ? That would be discriminating would it not ?

As far as pit bulls are concerned, I know a very nice RCMP officer who owns a pitbull and the dog is an absolute gem.... so maybe we shoudn't judge all owners the same ! Also if someone has a dog who attack ssome else then the dog they are responsible for has caused harm...therefore that would possibly fall under a Common Law crime...so why the need for a licence....?

The government is not just partially a business...it IS a business...it trades as a corporation !!!! Do you really believe we are receiving good service from the government ?

You buy a car with your money...you have to register it... sign it over to the government validated by your signature.

You buy a house with your money... you have to register it..sign it over to the government.. (even pay tax on it ).. again validated by your signature,

You have a baby, your own flesh and blood...you have to register it,,, sign it over to the government... and the mother/father sign the necessary forms to do this, oblivious to the possible consequences...

You see.... your signature is very valuable isn't it ???

Of course humans are superior. Thumbs, baby. We grew thumbs, developed language, and made fire. We're the big cheese until we overpopulate and wipe ourselves out with a pandemic. But until then, this also means we have greater responsibility as the "caretakers" of our environment. Dogs, cats, rabbits, and my potatoes have no consitutional rights.

I don't remember a time when cats or dogs did not require a licence, but I do remember the public outcry resulting in "pick up after your pet" and leash laws.

Wild rabbits are part of the natural population. Pet rabbits, if uncontrolled, would quickly overrun the neighbourhood and even push out the wild population. I'll speak from an area I have knowledge in - RES turtles, popular in the pet trade but non-native to Ontario, are slowly pushing out our smaller and slightly less aggressive native painted turtles due to pet owners releasing them to the wild. However, turtle owners are few compared to cat and dog owners, and public concern over turtle populations just isn't that great. It is still illegal to release pet turtles and it is still illegal to keep native turtles, but no licence is yet required so these actions are hard to regulate. Given the small numbers of turtle owners, should the native turtle population be sufficiently threatened, I could see an outright ban instead of licensing.

You also missed the point of my pitbull comment. That ban was put into place due to public opinion - a few bad owners resulted in some extreme cases, which pushed public opinion to the point of an outright ban. The government could have created revenue by requiring special handling licences for pitbull owners and handing out tickets after enacting muzzle laws, but instead did what the public demanded of them.

And yes, relative to other governments, I do believe the Canadian government is doing a pretty good job.

What about humans that don't have thumbs ?

I can see why you would think we could possibly wipe ourselves out with a pandemic though...but if we are sensible and stay away from Tamiflu and Flu Shots we might be OK...

So uncontrolled pet rabbits might need a licence because they might over run the neighbourhoods...hmmm I see !

So pet turtles risk being banned if too many are released into the wild ..... So how do we explain this to the turtles ? That they are banned I mean... how would they know ? Would that mean we might be obliged to murder all pet turtles if they ever get banned? I am intrigued at the possibilities that are likely to be turned into Acts of parliament.... this is serious stuff.... It really makes you realise how important these Acts are....

Do you think that the ban on pitbulls might have been a little contrived ? I can't imagine it would be easy having to enter a home with or without a warrant to be faced with a pitbull's strong jaw lock.... those dog owners who had pitbulls, still have them though, you realise that right ? But what I find strange is that ever since this ban, even though those pitbulls are still there...there hasn't been any further furore about pitbulls in the media. Do you think the pitbulls have realised that they must be better behaved now that they are banned ?

CoolChick wrote:I can show you a few successes...

And they are ... ??

CoolChick wrote:It wasn't written as an insult so I am sorry you took it as such.

It's pretty hard to believe that calling someone an ignoramus is not an insult but if that's not how you intended it, we'll leave it at that.

My statement about leaving was something that people do every day - they don't like the laws of a nation or province, don't agree with them and can't change them, so they leave. Case and point: Quebec with the language laws brought in under the PQ. If they remain there, they're subject to the laws, unless they can challenge them as unconstitutional or otherwise get them changed. Common law's main principle is stare decisis, not so much personal freedom to decide which ones they will or will not follow. Personally I've seen a lot of different attempts to use these sorts of strategies in court, and I read enough and have a small background in law - this is where I get an understanding of it from. The only ones that I've seen successfully challenge laws are where they are unconstitutional (violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms), or where the law/act/whatever was ultra vires.

(Now time for long philosophical stuff.)

Your signature is a form of identification. In many cases, yes you are "consenting" to the terms and conditions imposed by government - that's a fair statement, BUT there's a big catch. Using the "corporation" analogy, your consent is a trade. Corporations don't give out freebies, neither does the government. Due to the nature of things like driving, which are inherently hazardous, society must be protected by ensuring at least a minimum standard of capability in the people who are permitted to do so. Same thing with flying airplanes (by the way thanks for using that analogy Squishy). Some people cannot drive safely and allowing people who would otherwise put society at risk would infringe the rights and freedoms of other people. ("Right to safety and security of the person.") This is why individuals cannot simply decide "I'm not registering my vehicle, I'm not getting a license, but I'm going to drive on a public road anyway." It negatively impacts your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens, through the government, have collectively demanded that standard.

Government does serve the people - ALL of them. It is there not only to serve everyone but protect them. Your signature on your driver license is consent - I will agree there - however it is your agreement that you will abide by its terms and conditions, so that you may join your fellow citizens (who have made the same agreement) in driving a motor vehicle on a public road. (Hence, driving is a privilege.) Ditto signing your health card - you're agreeing that it is you, you will use it appropriately, so then you get "free" health care (taxes notwithstanding). You give your consent that you will follow the terms and conditions imposed by the government on behalf of the rest of society, so that we will all be protected against dangerous and incompetent drivers, health care fraud, etc. Then, when you agree to follow the terms and conditions, you are given the privileges. In some cases, the terms for acquiring the privileges is very low (e.g. health care card), in other cases very high (e.g. pilot's license). In some cases, governments enact laws that directly oppose other laws or are blatantly unconstitutional (example: s. 172). In those cases, the law can be struck down by the courts, but we have vested the authority to do so in the judicial system, not in us as individuals. The Judiciary provides a legitimate venue for the disputes, where we can go and get these things addressed. It's there for our use. Providing the venue, as opposed to allowing anarchy, is to maintain peace, order and public safety.

The legitimacy of it comes from the fact that governments are elected. It is a collective statement that "this is what we want as a society." That is legal precedent dating back to ancient Greece and the birth of democracy, or, as you put it "pre-government law." Since all of these acts and laws were enacted by democratic bodies, that binds all of us - we asked for it. Allowing people to run amok and do what they want is not democracy, it's anarchy, and infringes upon the rights and freedoms that everyone has.

You don't have to consent to the terms and conditions that the government imposes for driving, but that means that, because collectively we elected the people who put that in place, it also means that you can't drive on a public road. Hence, "if you drive on our roads, you will meet our conditions," and the government imposed that on behalf of us. The fees we pay for licensing also pay for road maintenance, repair, traffic signals. Your consent to the laws is the only way to achieve the privilege of driving. You can drive your unregistered vehicle without a driver's license on private property only.

Your rights are guaranteed to you. But because the Constitution is not only the bedrock of Canadian law but also its highest authority, the rights we have are given are spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada also is not solely common law, but also Napoleonic code, because of Quebec and the French law traditions they have. In other words, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not an iron-clad right.

(End of long philosphical stuff.)

That is too much for 7:00 in the morning, I have got to stop doing those lengthy Ottawa/Halifax pairings...

As for your successes, perhaps you could share a few. You've hinted that you've wanted us to ask, now I'm asking.

Radar Identified wrote:

CoolChick wrote:It wasn't written as an insult so I am sorry you took it as such.

It's pretty hard to believe that calling someone an ignoramus is not an insult but if that's not how you intended it, we'll leave it at that.

My statement about leaving was something that people do every day - they don't like the laws of a nation or province, don't agree with them and can't change them, so they leave. Case and point: Quebec with the language laws brought in under the PQ. If they remain there, they're subject to the laws, unless they can challenge them as unconstitutional or otherwise get them changed. Common law's main principle is stare decisis, not so much personal freedom to decide which ones they will or will not follow. Personally I've seen a lot of different attempts to use these sorts of strategies in court, and I read enough and have a small background in law - this is where I get an understanding of it from. The only ones that I've seen successfully challenge laws are where they are unconstitutional (violate Charter of Rights and Freedoms), or where the law/act/whatever was ultra vires.

(Now time for long philosophical stuff.)

Your signature is a form of identification. In many cases, yes you are "consenting" to the terms and conditions imposed by government - that's a fair statement, BUT there's a big catch. Using the "corporation" analogy, your consent is a trade. Corporations don't give out freebies, neither does the government.

Due to the nature of things like driving, which are inherently hazardous, (many things are inherently hazardous like gas, propane, electricity but we do not need a licence to have it within our homes )

society must be protected by ensuring at least a minimum standard of capability in the people who are permitted to do so.

Same thing with flying airplanes (by the way thanks for using that analogy Squishy). Some people cannot drive safely and allowing people who would otherwise put society at risk would infringe the rights and freedoms of other people.

("Right to safety and security of the person.") Ahhh... the person !!!! What about the human being ? You do know that in commerce a 'person' is a legal fiction, right ?

This is why individuals cannot simply decide "I'm not registering my vehicle, I'm not getting a license, but I'm going to drive on a public road anyway." Actually we can as human beings decide whatever we like within the confines of natural common law....... it is called FREEDOM.

It negatively impacts your fellow citizens. Your fellow citizens, through the government, have collectively demanded that standard.

Not so.... not everyone votes and not everyone votes for same party... so by rights these people CAN remove their consent to be governed...

Government does serve the people - ALL of them. Not necessarily

to be cont...possibly

If you think your beliefs about withdrawing consent and driving without a license or with an unregistered vehicle (among other things) will work in real life, good luck with it. I've noticed that you've talked about a lot of stuff and ideas but haven't backed it up with any examples that have worked in Canada. With that in mind, we'll just have to agree to disagree.