|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who will you vote for? |
| Conservative Party |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
| Liberal Party |
|
36% |
[ 4 ] |
| NDP |
|
27% |
[ 3 ] |
| Green Party |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Bloc Québécois |
|
18% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
|
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="trueblue"]Uh oh.
| Quote: |
October 29, 2015
Whither Canada?
By Daren Jonescu
Picture a first-class leftist self-promoter: riding an incoherent wave of anti-establishment fever to the highest seat in the land through sheer chutzpah and “newness”; easily exposed as a Marxist-influenced, neo-Maoist rabble-rouser, but somehow able to persuade the general populace that he is a pragmatic uniter; sweeping the media and the academics off their feet with his wordy arrogance, his smug, savior-like pronouncements, and the charismatic attraction of the seeming “man of destiny.”
|
You can probably relax.
Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, and the Liberals were subsequently replaced as governing party by the Conservatives, who ruled until 1993. The Liberals came back in '93, under Trudeau crony Jean Chretien, and subsequently proceeded to implement NAFTA, scale back social programs, and slash the deficit in a manner that made his Conservative predeccessors look like bleeding-heart socialists. And they sure as hell didn't go anywhere near nationalizing the energy industry, or anything else, for that matter.
I'd wager that Justin is more likely to govern in terms of what the Liberal Party overall has actually become, rather than bolt leftward out of some misguided deference to the(somewhat exaggerated) image of his father as a leftist icon.
Last edited by On the other hand on Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep. He's a neo-Marxist but he supports the TPP.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Liberal government will have to do substantial work on the international stage before it can follow through on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana, new documents suggest.
That work will have to include figuring out how Canada would comply with three international treaties to which the country is a party, all of which criminalize the possession and production of marijuana.
|
| Quote: |
The Liberal policy means that Canada will have to amend its participation in three international conventions:
— The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, as amended by the 1972 Protocol;
— The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971;
— The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.
"All three require the criminalization of possession and production of cannabis," says the briefing note.
|
Does anyone happen to know what sort of enforcement mechanism there is to these treaties? If we break them by legalizing pot, what exactly can be done to punish us? Or do we just lose our reputation as the squeaky-clean Boy Scout of global politics?
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without looking into the details of each of the three treaties, I believe that like most international accords, the three conventions rely upon the national and provincial apparatuses to provide recognition and enforcement.
That said,
| Quote: |
Under our federalist system, however, states have no obligation to punish every activity that Congress chooses to treat as a crime. The Supreme Court has said, based on a dubious reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce, that the federal government may continue to enforce its own ban on marijuana in states that take a different approach. But that does not mean the feds can compel states to help, let alone force them to enact their own bans.
According to the INCB, none of that matters. "The international drug control treaties must be implemented by States parties, including States with federal structures, regardless of their internal legislation, on their entire territory," it says in a recent position paper. "Those treaty obligations are applicable with respect to the entire territory of each State party, including its federated states and/or provinces."
In other words, our government is required to impose marijuana prohibition on recalcitrant states, regardless of what the Constitution says. Can that be true? Only if you believe that international treaties can give Congress authority that was not granted by the Constitution, which would obliterate the doctrine of enumerated powers and the state autonomy that depends on it.
Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions.
In light of such language, how can the INCB insist that "internal legislation" and "federal structures" have no bearing on a country's obligations under these treaties? "The INCB is just flat-out wrong in making such a claim," says Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. "The INCB's claim that its narrow, restrictive interpretations of the conventions override domestic constitutional law cannot stand in light of the actual wording of the conventions."
The INCB cites Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which says "a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." It also mentions Article 29, which says "unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory."
Yet "it’s a basic principle of statutory interpretation that a specific statute or command trumps a general one," notes Alex Kreit, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of law who specializes in drug policy. In this case, the drug treaties make allowances for the constitutional principles that the INCB says are irrelevant. |
I bolded and underlined the passage specifically connecting the analysis to Canada.
Basically, Justin is really stalling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
