You just had that one lying around to photograph for us? Thanks!An ounce of weed (about 28 grams).
Canadian Politics
- Thread starter Eriol
- Start date
Very disturbing: Supreme Court to hear case involving Calgary man expelled from Jehovah's Witnesses
CBC's article: Case of Calgary Jehovah's Witness expelled from congregation will go before Supreme Court
This is basically, "organization (religion in this case) has own rules, don't like the process, appeal to a court!" How does this NOT horrifically violate freedom of both association and religion? I think the specific case is them being too harsh, but it's up to an organization to determine who their own members are. If they want to exclude anybody based on anything that's up to them. In this case, the guy got drunk twice, but it could be anything.
CBC's article: Case of Calgary Jehovah's Witness expelled from congregation will go before Supreme Court
This is basically, "organization (religion in this case) has own rules, don't like the process, appeal to a court!" How does this NOT horrifically violate freedom of both association and religion? I think the specific case is them being too harsh, but it's up to an organization to determine who their own members are. If they want to exclude anybody based on anything that's up to them. In this case, the guy got drunk twice, but it could be anything.
It sounds more like this is a case of him being shunned by the other members of his (former) religion & that putting his business at risk. So while I agree that this case is a violation of freedom of association & religion, it might be nice to have the courts also look at the concept of shunning (which the JW's are not the only religion to do) & say "Hey, telling your members who they can & cannot associate with is also a violation of freedom of association. Don't do it!"
After all, look at that bit @Gruebeard quoted - whether officially or unofficially this family felt they had to choose between disobeying their church or making their *15 year old daughter* homeless. That's horrific.
I'm hoping they put her up with an aunt or some other family friend not a member of the religion.
Yeah, that'd be the hope but what do you do if there isn't someone like that available?
I'd actually be inhterested to hear what @stienman thinks about shunning since he a) is a devout member of a religion that practices it & b) is fiercly devoted to his family. Even if all he has to say is "I don't know what I'd do in that situation & I hope I never have to find out."
GasBandit
Staff member
This story's about Jehova's Witnesses, which are different from the Church of LDS (Mormons), to which Stienman belongs.
Yes, but my understanding is Mormons also practice shunning, which is why I was curious about his thoughts on the subject.
GasBandit
Staff member
I hear a lot of people say that, but in my teenage years I was friends with several different mormon families, none of which tried to convert or shun me, and I was openly agnostic. In fact, one of the families had a daughter who had been removed from the church because she had had two children out of wedlock (by two different fathers), but her family did not shun or cut ties with her, either.
And yeah, she was pretty hot. We used to give my friend from that family a hard time about how hot his sister was, constantly.
Ah? Well, I'm certainly no expert on mormons so if I was wrong, I was wrong.
No, wait, this is the Internet. I was right, you were wrong & I will ignore all evidence no matter how convincing to the contrary!
Lots of intertwined stuff to pick apart here. Let's see...
Keep in mind I'm not agreeing with the organization's rules, I'm simply suggesting that there is no human rights infringement going on. If there were, then anything the organization says you can't do without expulsion would be a violation of human rights.
That said, many members of the church, unfortunately and sadly, perform shunning or some forms of it when their children and family members make choices that they don't like. You'll occasionally find misguided local leaders who may offer suggestions of that nature as well. This doesn't jive with the gospel of Christ, who made an effort to reach out to those who weren't following His doctrine and go to their places and associate with them even knowing they may not change.
Speaking specifically about children, I have heard cases where families have kicked out their children when they've found they were gay, transgender, or in similar situations. The church has been actively trying to communicate to families that they are to love their children regardless of their choices, and they shouldn't be evicting them for such issues.
I've also experienced instances where people felt shunned, but asking those they blamed for the shunning it wasn't an active thing, but since they never saw them weekly at church they never made an effort to include them in outside church activities. This is especially prevalent in LDS dense populations like much of Utah. Your "friend's list" is full of people you see weekly at church, and you only peripherally know your neighbors. Someone drops out of the church and they lose regular contact with their previous group of friends. I've known people who pushed past that and actively made an effort to keep up their relationships, but since it's so easy to be friends with people you interact with weekly, and it's hard to keep friendships alive with people you have to work to contact, it is a real problem. I'd call this a form of passive shunning, if it could be considered shunning at all.
Then, of course, you run across those who leave the church and spend a great deal of effort and time trying to convince others to leave. If every time I see someone they spend much time telling me to leave the church or insist on discussing the latest thing the church has done that's gotten under their skin, well, I'm going to go out of my way to avoid that person. But this isn't what is taught at church, and if anything I shouldn't be avoiding them, but that's my personal failing and something I need to improve.
The only other case in which I would consider actively limiting contact with anyone is if they posed an active threat of physical harm to other members of my family. I would still keep in contact and try to maintain (and actively improve) whatever form of relationship I could with them without putting others at risk, but I would be very careful. I don't think that's something the church has anything to do with, though - some juvenile offenders for violence are in jail for assault against family members, this can happen in any family, and I'd encourage anyone, family or not, to protect their vulnerable members from those who do or would do them harm.
So, no, the LDS church doesn't support shunning, and certainly wouldn't support the idea of parents evicting their child because they didn't follow the church's guidelines, nevermind force the parents to do so via threat of expulsion.
I agree. I don't think this would fly in the US (Canada has more restrictions on religion and freedom of association than the US) at all. The fact that it got to the Supreme Court with two lower courts saying that the government does have a say in whether a religious organization can expel a member is surprising.
If you voluntarily choose to live according to to the organization's rules, then they aren't violating your rights. You still have the right to associate, but you may then not have the right to be a part of that organization. In neither situation are your fundamental rights being infringed - but you have to choose between two incompatible choices, and can't have it both ways. Either be a part of the organization and follow their rules, or don't and associate with some the organization tells you not to.
Keep in mind I'm not agreeing with the organization's rules, I'm simply suggesting that there is no human rights infringement going on. If there were, then anything the organization says you can't do without expulsion would be a violation of human rights.
I believe the courts should act in this case of egregious child abuse. Unfortunately there's not much power the government has when parents reject their own children. They could remove any other children from the home, declaring the parents to be abusive, until they complied with certain parenting standards. But the reality is that if parents reject a child, for whatever reason, it's almost always best to remove the child from that home - forcing them to live under such circumstances is worse than placing them in even a flawed foster system.
The LDS church does not practice shunning. It is not part of the doctrine. Parents are encouraged to keep their family together, even when family members may not be following the religion.
That said, many members of the church, unfortunately and sadly, perform shunning or some forms of it when their children and family members make choices that they don't like. You'll occasionally find misguided local leaders who may offer suggestions of that nature as well. This doesn't jive with the gospel of Christ, who made an effort to reach out to those who weren't following His doctrine and go to their places and associate with them even knowing they may not change.
Speaking specifically about children, I have heard cases where families have kicked out their children when they've found they were gay, transgender, or in similar situations. The church has been actively trying to communicate to families that they are to love their children regardless of their choices, and they shouldn't be evicting them for such issues.
I've also experienced instances where people felt shunned, but asking those they blamed for the shunning it wasn't an active thing, but since they never saw them weekly at church they never made an effort to include them in outside church activities. This is especially prevalent in LDS dense populations like much of Utah. Your "friend's list" is full of people you see weekly at church, and you only peripherally know your neighbors. Someone drops out of the church and they lose regular contact with their previous group of friends. I've known people who pushed past that and actively made an effort to keep up their relationships, but since it's so easy to be friends with people you interact with weekly, and it's hard to keep friendships alive with people you have to work to contact, it is a real problem. I'd call this a form of passive shunning, if it could be considered shunning at all.
Then, of course, you run across those who leave the church and spend a great deal of effort and time trying to convince others to leave. If every time I see someone they spend much time telling me to leave the church or insist on discussing the latest thing the church has done that's gotten under their skin, well, I'm going to go out of my way to avoid that person. But this isn't what is taught at church, and if anything I shouldn't be avoiding them, but that's my personal failing and something I need to improve.
The only other case in which I would consider actively limiting contact with anyone is if they posed an active threat of physical harm to other members of my family. I would still keep in contact and try to maintain (and actively improve) whatever form of relationship I could with them without putting others at risk, but I would be very careful. I don't think that's something the church has anything to do with, though - some juvenile offenders for violence are in jail for assault against family members, this can happen in any family, and I'd encourage anyone, family or not, to protect their vulnerable members from those who do or would do them harm.
So, no, the LDS church doesn't support shunning, and certainly wouldn't support the idea of parents evicting their child because they didn't follow the church's guidelines, nevermind force the parents to do so via threat of expulsion.
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh, and I should also point out that children of same sex parents cannot be baptized until they are 18. They can attend church, participate in all the activities that LDS children would participate in (except going to the temple), etc. The church teaches that same sex marriage isn't part of God's plan, though, and has made an active decision not to force children to choose between that belief and their relationship with their parents. The church would be a wedge between the child and the parents, and the focus is on strengthening the family - regardless of the makeup of that family. Allowing children of same sex parents to join the church would harm that relationship, so they can't do it until they've reached the age of majority.
This isn't unusual, though, because children of Islamic families and Jehovah's Witness families have the same waiting period. Those faiths practice shunning (and worse, in some muslim culture/faith systems) and allowing a child of those families to join the church would again damage that all-important parent-child relationship that the LDS church teaches is sacred.
All are welcome to worship in our services regardless of their adherence or not to the doctrine. We believe that everyone is trying to come closer to Christ, and accept that we are all at different places in our lives with respect to Him. We don't believe we are at different places with respect to each other - we are all alike, falling short of perfection.
So I don't believe the restriction from baptism and recorded membership is a form of shunning, but I can understand that some might define it differently.
This isn't unusual, though, because children of Islamic families and Jehovah's Witness families have the same waiting period. Those faiths practice shunning (and worse, in some muslim culture/faith systems) and allowing a child of those families to join the church would again damage that all-important parent-child relationship that the LDS church teaches is sacred.
All are welcome to worship in our services regardless of their adherence or not to the doctrine. We believe that everyone is trying to come closer to Christ, and accept that we are all at different places in our lives with respect to Him. We don't believe we are at different places with respect to each other - we are all alike, falling short of perfection.
So I don't believe the restriction from baptism and recorded membership is a form of shunning, but I can understand that some might define it differently.
I thought this was a good editorial: Canada will legalize pot, after arresting a bunch of people for pot offences first
I particularly liked this section:
Another wrinkle that will come up in the medium-term (and SHOULD be addressed already, but isn't) is medical pot. You can take morphine, and other prescription narcotics across the border right now if you have your prescription with you (the regular bottle is enough in my experience), but the same for Pot is not true. That is also BS.
I particularly liked this section:
Edit: And another interesting question raised:
This is interesting in that I'm OK with the concept of a country setting whatever standards it wants with regards to whom is let in, even if whatever the person did is legal in the country they're coming from. On the horrific side, people who practice (encourage, perform, etc) Female Genital Mutilation for example should not be let in, even if it's "legal" where they come from. So the "general concept" of saying "I don't care if it's legal where you come from, we're saying we don't want somebody who did so in our country" is OK. It's this specific example, where it's legal in a number of US states that it's beyond stupid, regardless of the product itself.
Another wrinkle that will come up in the medium-term (and SHOULD be addressed already, but isn't) is medical pot. You can take morphine, and other prescription narcotics across the border right now if you have your prescription with you (the regular bottle is enough in my experience), but the same for Pot is not true. That is also BS.
Last edited:
Some of my thoughts on the topic.
1. Does applicable canadian law prohibit and penalize these acts, specifically the possession and recreational use of cannabis? Seems like it does.
2. Has the applicable law been properly enacted, that is to say been decreed according to due process by the legitimate authority with the power to do so? I guess.
3. Is the content of the law non-discriminatory in nature, applying equally to all groups and individuals? I suppose.
4. Can the law be changed by legitimate processes to which all members of the public have fair access? Yep.
5. Is the enforcement of the law, in general, fair and impartial? I would think so.
Based on the above, I'd say we are dealing with a just law which must be followed by all who are subject to its jurisdiction, as long as it is in force. Those who break such a law should be held to account, and be subject to such legal penalties as may apply. Those who believe pot should be made legal, or the penalties in the law for pot use/possession be reduced, are perfectly free to campaign to that effect and, if successful (as seems to b the case), the law changed accordingly. But before that happens and the new provisions come into effect, the law as is needs to be obeyed.
Spoilered for length:
”One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. […] Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. […] Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr. ”Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. […] Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. […] Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.”
- Martin Luther King, Jr. ”Letter from Birmingham Jail”
I agree on countries being allowed to set such standards for entry as they may deem fit. Personally, I might not agree, in general, on my country not permitting in people on the basis of them having performed acts which are perfectly legal in their own country, but not legal here, such as the aforementioned Female Genital Mutilation. I agree it is a horrific practice, would like to see it gone and, if I cared enough about it, might even support all legal efforts to eradicate it. And I certainly would not like to see anything like it in my country. But if someone who practiced it would like to enter into my country, then I don't think they should be denied entry on that basis alone, provided they respected the laws of the land while in my country.
Let us approach this from somewhat of a different angle. The minimum age of marriage in Canada is 16 years, with parental consent. International organisations define child marriage as a union where one or both parties are under the age of 18. So, let's say you got hitched to a girl aged 16, with full parental consent and what not. Then, when you were going on a honeymoon, was denied a visa because you are a dirty old man who practices child marriage. Should the country in question be able to deny you a visa on that basis? I think so. Should they deny you a visa on that basis? I think not.
You may well say ”Hang on, didn't that MLK quote you just made say something about moral laws? The minimum age of marriage in Iran is 9 years. There is, like, a world of difference between marrying somebody who is sixteen, and sombody who is nine!”. I would agree with you on that. However, there might be some cultural biases at work there. I think what I think about minimum ages mainly because those are the values of the culture I grew up in. Other parts of the world may view these things very differently. As with Female Genital Mutilation above, I might support all legal methods to eradicate child marriage, but as long as something falling under the term, according to my view, was legal ”over there”, I'm willing to respect that, even if I personally do not in any way agree with it. We have such laws as we do in my country because they, broadly speaking, reflect the will and the values of the majority of our citizenry, and apply to all the public and any foreigners who might be here. But that is where the jurisdiction ends, and the laws of my country do not and should not, in my opinion and again broadly speaking, have an impact outside our borders.
Not familiar with the topic, but I guess in general prescription medicines are permitted, but if the specific medicine, in this case marijuana, is illegal in the country, then the possession of it is prohibited, prescription or no. You want to go to some country? Then you willingly place yourself under their laws, and if the law on the border says one thing, then you need to obey it, even if the country in question had some internal legal jurisdictions with the authority to have their laws/ordinances say something else on the particular topic - a common situation in quite a few countries, actually.
Because Canada is a better country.
Because as y'all swing right, we veer left to stay out of your way.
You go crazy, we double down on sanity.
Or the reverse. Theoretically.
Making the dangerous assumption we're already moving in the same direction. Luckily we both drive on the right or we'd be hitting head on.
I think it would have been funnier if he'd said Gary Trudeau.
And if we were 20 years in the past
A møøse once grabbed my sister's pussy.
Trudeau admits to his family using political power to get out of criminal charges: Trudeau says his dad went to bat for son Michel when he was charged with pot possession
Yes it was only pot. Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.
I only wish it surprised me, but it's that family. What did people really expect?
Or how about "we were able to do that because my Dad was politically powerful, and their children don't get convicted of crimes." Yay influence peddling!!! One law for Caesar, another for everybody else!!!
Yes it was only pot. Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.
I only wish it surprised me, but it's that family. What did people really expect?
Which pisses me off further when they won't pardon minor pot crimes after the law goes through.Trudeau admits to his family using political power to get out of criminal charges: Trudeau says his dad went to bat for son Michel when he was charged with pot possession
Or how about "we were able to do that because my Dad was politically powerful, and their children don't get convicted of crimes." Yay influence peddling!!! One law for Caesar, another for everybody else!!!
Yes it was only pot. Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.
I only wish it surprised me, but it's that family. What did people really expect?
Ha ha! Oh dear, I consider myself one of the most optimistic folks around, yet even *I* have learned to expect this sort of behavior on all levels, whether it be the Sheriff's son caught behind the athletic building, all the way up to the economic machinations of a Governor's wife. Nepotistic behavior of one sort or another is a behavior almost expected of those in power. After all, the sentiment is that people only chase/accumulate power in order to distribute it as best benefits themselves, right?
--Patrick
Oh I've always expected it, it's just differently brazen to see somebody so openly admitting to their family doing it as a "routine" thing.
A reaction to the above with a similar situation, but not "powerful people" to get you out of it: Me and Michel Trudeau: The story of two drug busts
In other words, he understood his legal rights and didn't confess guilt under pressure. That's not luck.
Sorry, calling that luck just annoyed me.
Fine, though I'd also say he's lucky that his "friends" didn't all then try and pin stuff on him for reduced sentences or whatever.
The core point stands though: if you have power, you don't face legal consequences. As a great author once said, "Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest." I'm just surprised that more people aren't outraged about our PM so brazenly admitting to it.
Edit: for once (not the first time though I'll admit) I agree with Mulcair: Federal NDP pushes Trudeau to decriminalize weed following pot remarks
Last edited:
And now Manitoba!
And apparently some org is suing Nova Scotia over the grabher plate because it's attacking freedom of speech. All that's gonna accomplish is convincing government officials to quit issuing personalized plates.