I would like to announce that I would like to be run for the position for Minister of Justice. Frankly, I don't give a darn whether or not the current minister is running, since its a lot more run to just simply go out there, press the flesh and let the people know that I will fight for you!

I will make sure that you will get your money if you are hit by a reckless criver.
I will make sure that you will be compensated for malpractice when the doctors mess up your operation.

I will make sure that you will get what's coming to you when you slip and fall at your place of work.

ALincoln, taking the time to fight for Canada!

Paid for by people who are willing to bash their heads against a wall for the fun of it! :wall:

What do you plan to do as Minister of Justice? What needs to be changed?

Are you related to Jim Adler, the Texas Hammer? Making sure you get the money coming to you from insurance companies? What is it about the position that makes you an appropriate fir?

Despite the fact I am a staunch left-of-centre liberal, I have no problem with having conservatives involved with the judiciary system to a certain degree. However I think it would help your case if you presented a solid agenda/program with short term goals.

youve got my vote! :wall:

On the short term, I am most interested in setting up a board of appeals. I have no interest in having any authority myself, and would want an independent board temporarily set up by the assistant minister of justice, the second of the Prime Minister, and three others chosen by each other the other ministers.

Second, I am bent on setting up a parliamentary system based on the location within the nation of the Canada, based on the map situation. I am a lover of direct representation.

Third, as a long term goal, I want to set up a single judge to eventually take up the reigns of appeal. This would be a position elected directly elected by the populace, and must be approved by two of the five ministers. I don't want a majority, since the force of the ministers could force particular candidates upon the people after veto. Therefore, two of the five ministers (or approval of the Prime Minister alone), would ratify said judge.

In some areas of the legal bases:
Emissions: I am in favor of moving from petrol-based fuels to that of hydrogen fuel cells. I am favor of this for economic independence much more than than for environmental issue.

Quebec: I am against the seperation of Canada. However, should the Province of Quebec determine by two-thirds majority of their parliament in favor of seperation, I believe it would then be time to allow them to choose their own course.

Legislation: I would draft legislation allowing for the direct referenda, upon the approval of legislation of the Cabinet as such, or upon the confirmed petition of twenty of the Nations in the Region of Canada. Some of the laws should be chosen directly. Twenty-five percent of legislation should come before the Nations in the form of referenda.

Disculosure: The state of the disclosure seems vague to me. There should be enumerated in the legislation itself what qualifies as "overriding national interest" I would confer with both the cabinet and the populace as what would qualify as overriding national interest. It is important that if discussions might be kept confidential, Nations should know which discussions may be kept confidential. If the cabinet refuses to act in such a manner, I will resign my position, assuming I am elected.

Not as urgent, but I believe that a three-fifths majority of the cabinet should be required, instead of unanimity, to override the PM's ruling on confidentiality.

I have one concern in reference to the ejection law. There are many who believe in the immorailty of those who particiipate in homosexuality, as I freely admit that I hold to this. Religious liberty, as long as it does not incite hatred, as I hold no hatred towards those who participate in this, should be viewed as free speech. Moderate language in this area should be allowed and followed. Remember that many within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all hold this mainstream viewpoint, notwithstanding incendiary language implying otherwise.

Parties insulted on the basis of religious hatred have no protection either, under the ejection laws. I don't demand as such, but religious liberty is a cherished instiution, and I believe that if racial, oriential, and gender issues be protected, then relgious issues be protected by the same law.

If the nations of the region of Canada elect me as Minister of Justice, then they can count on me to listen to them and include their viewpoints in the writing of, and the discussion of legislation. I will not be intimidated by the other members of the cabinet, and I will hide behind the couch whenever I don't like what I hear. :hide:

Viva La Canada :Canada:

Um... I think you're confusing RL issues with NS issues. Just a bit. :P

While I agree with the idea of a board of appeal or process of appeal I think that we maybe have differing ideas for the means to this end. I am a strong advocate of being able to appeal againt a decision as it adheres more closely to "innocent until proven guilty" rather than the diametric opposite.

The creation of targets is a most noble cause and while the party political system in Canada would enable this to be used, I currently question the level of participation within the party system. Consessionally, your proposal for a more direct representational process of party politics within the Region would aid in this, if the participation level by the membership was high enough, but by use of demograph potentially removes some of the choice involved as to which party you may join based on a geographic location. This may require the devising of a new map which in itself is another good way to promote involvement.

Your concerns about Religious Freedoms and insult parties based on their ideals, morals, philosophies, etc., are partly covered already. It may be necessary to clarify the semantics, or even create a tailored legilation for within The House of Commons. I do fail to see the relevance of mentioning homosexulaity though as the main foci of the platform is that of religion.

The main problem about public forums is that anyone can view them - under the current permission mask setting. While I am all for freedom of information, if that information contains sensative materials with regard to either the security of the Region or pertains to the acquisition of information that may be sensative to the security of another Region or disclose information concerning possible illegal actvities within the Region (such as using it as a base of hidden operations), the collection of additional material may be required before a prosecution can take place giving those guilty enough time to adopt a different strategy of leave the region without being held to answer for their actions.
I'm just wondering to what extent this disclosure would carry?

Perhaps, if this is the case, the process could be extended to account for additional situations or scenarios -- only a suggestion.

I *hope* I've kept it focussed to NationStates.

*crosses fingers*

I do have a tendency to ramble on at times... :wacko: :drool:

Umm, did you just say what I think you just said? I'm guessing that you mean you would seek to adjust the board guidelines to remove homophobic from the wording?

Remove? Wouldn't homophobic reactions surely count as "flame-baiting" (rhetorical)?

I'd like to give you my two cents on your suggestions, hopefully you can take the above feedback and make refinements to your proposals...

This idea has merit. Your earlier suggestion that the MoJ not vote on giving out the penalty, so they can be available late to review the decision sounds like a good starting point. I for one do not think arbitration will work for handling appeals I think we would need a mediation process instead.

I have no idea what you are trying to suggest here - could you expand on your idea?

Might be better to pick the method you like best for handling appeals, it's not like cabinet will be able to keep updating this process over and over.

Sounds good not sure why it's currently needed. For the few times this has come up the House of Commons was used to kick things off. I think you will find there are not as many people proposing laws as you might think.

IMO it's usually not a good idea to try and create a laundry list of issues you are trying to address in a law because there will be those you forget and also people can use it as a way to create loop holes.

As you can see from the posts above that homosexuality is called out specifically unless what you are asking is to have the ability to pick on that group on religious grounds - which is not likely to happen.

Just because the word "religion" is not in the code does not mean there is no protection against hatred directed at a religous group so I'm not sure I agree with you on this one either.

Due to your views on homosexuality I will no longer consider supporting your campaign.

No problems with much of your platforms however, on the subject of ejection rules I have a quetion.

In your view, in situations where they conflict, which should receive precedence? The rights of individuals or of instututions?

Durass, I am not certain what you mean, however, I will answer the best I can. I believe that institutions are extensions of multiple individuals. I do not believe them to be a collective of individuals, but more of a group of individuals all going in the same direction (exception: military, which the collective identity is set up to primarily to kill people and break things.

That being said, all things being equal, I would rule in favor of individuals. That would be all things being equal. I would err on the side of capitalism, meaning that individuals could not pursue damages based on things that were partially their fault (for instance, coffee spillings).

I would rule in favor of individual freedoms over government rule just about every time. If a person wants to build on his property, he should not be required to get permission from the government. If a man business wants to put up a sign, the government should not be allowed to stop them based on "urban clutter," "light pollution," or "distraction."

I hope that answers your question.


Canada6, I never considered your support anyway. If I were with Canada with 277 days, my qualification would not have given me any improvement in your eyes. I will be the first to say that I am morbidly unqualified. I never said I was running because I thought I can win. I have no doubt that if Hudson Bay seeks the office, he/she will win. I am running, primarily, because I want issues I think important heard. As for Canada6, I expected your obvious blind judgmentalism from the very beginning.

Hudson, I appreciate your suggestions: I will briefly answer. I would prefer a seperate judge to handle appeals. It give independence, and frees up the full cabinet to make deicions. It also allows for one extra review.

I am not heck-bent on the referena. If there are as little legislation as you imply, then perhaps it is not neessary. I am interested in forcing important legislation into the hands of the whole group, since it affects all. I would work towards that, if reasonable and possible.

As a citizen of the nation south of Canada, I am very stuck on bicameralism. I believe that legislation should be worked twice before becoming law. Also, since legislation usually creates more power for the government and more spending by the government. I want less legislation to actually become law. Therefore, I would aim to get direct representation in a parliamentary system via the a map like in other regions), which would require more work for law-makers to force law.

Concerning disclosure, I am asking for a short list, perhaps five or six items, of things which nations know might be discussed. Speaking to Carbonusa, I will quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Once again, I believe that government should be as transparent as possible, and that if they government has the right to withold anything they want, then government eventually will withold, so they don't have to be subject to the people. Therefore, citizens can be confident that on most issues, they can hold opinions and arguments and discussions to their leaders. If there are five issues, that citizens know might be witheld, then they know what government's limits are. I want limits. Governments need to be subject to the law, also. I cannot stress this enough. There needs to be a few issue, military issues, spy issues, and punishment issues, which needs to be witheld. Those need to be spelled out so that the Nations know that constiutional changes and plain legislation are being handled by their government. I cannot stress how important this is.

If the discussion of homosexuality comes up (believe you me, I won't being it up: I don't want to hear about it), then I want the freedom to speak my mind and conscience without fear of reproval. And, I will add that without rights being enumerated by the government, "unenumerated" rights will be the first stepped on, on the basis that it was not enumerated in the first place. Thus, I am very concerned about religious liberty. All I ask is that if a person's religious conviction makes them believe something about homosexuality, that he be not afraid to speak on his convictions in a moderate tone, which touches freedom of speech as well as religion.

As far as I can tell, as the Constitution stands, I should have been be ejected from the region already, since I have "insulted" homosexuals as it is.

I am willing to stand by those remarks and find another region in which to reside. However, I will let nations know that Canada is not a free region, as they claim to be if it comes to that. Yes, I am calling out the administration. Will the vague nature of "insult" carry the day, if so, Eject me. If freedom of sppech and liberty is really to carry the day, then I have the right to express my opnions in the moderate tones that I have.

If there is a way to protect religious liberty (which is not enumerated) while keeping the languages as such, I won't argue. But if the language stands as it is, then I state that it would be the duty of the government to state that freedom speech and liberty does not exist, and eject me. Of course, I would not bother to appeal. Since it is stares very clearly, and of course, appealing to the same group that ejected you is fruitless, pointless, and a waste of time.

One last thing, I would submit legislation forbidding consecutive terms of office. Regardless of the passage of this legislation, I would not serve consecutive terms. The Prime Minister continues to lead until some one gains more support from UN member nations, but fresh ideas are necessary, and individuals should not be allowed to consolidate power. I am not advocating one term foever, I am state that one should succeed oneself in the same position. I don't even care if one goes from back and forth betwen two positions, I just want different faces each time.

You have responded well to questions. I think that the issue of bicameralism is interesting, but with the House of Commons and Citizens Voice forums, it is always possible to involve cabinet members in discussion. If anyone wanted to initiate and explore issues, I am positive everyone from the previous cabinet would have enjoyed such participation.

I am much more interested in RP & forum platforms than IRL issues, although I think a degree of crossover is necessary. Are there any UN propposals that you are interested in drafting?

I reread what Canada6 had to say, and I can’t find any indication of “blind jugdmentalism.” In fact, his first post was to say that he wasn’t dogmatically opposed to your candidacy, and to ask you for more details on your platform. Unless I have misinterpreted what Canada6 meant, I think that you have just attacked a strawman.

Discussions involving homosexuality and homosexual rights have already has come up in the past, and I don’t think that anyone will claim that they were censored. But let’s look at the law:

(c.) Where the nation has posted or private messaged clearly racist, homophobic, sexist or other messages that can be clearly defined as inciting hatred against any identifiable group or individual;

This doesn’t forbid someone says things like: “I don’t think that homosexuals should be able to ____ because _____,” as far as I can determine. It does forbid things like “I think that gays are evil!” The first is possibly rational, if controversial, discussion while the second is baseless bigotry. The same goes for religious freedoms. You will notice that the actual Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t really enumerate all forms of discrimination, nor should it simply in the interest of brevity. Our document is following the same form.

But we need to also make sure that religious freedoms don’t trump the rights of homosexuals to not be discriminated against. We as Canadians are committed the Charter, and I think that NS Canada should be equally committed to the spirit of said document. So while the freedom of speech is highly important, I cannot endorse the blind application to it in all situations, especially in regards to overt and obvious examples of hatred and calls to action.

This is far more disturbing from a Ministerial candidate. Not that I think that you are actually in violation of the Constitution, but that you believe that this post is in violate of it, and posted it anyhow. The Minister of Justice needs to be the paragon of legality, just like the Minster of Doughnuts and Beer needs to be the paragon of drunken corpulence.

Knock off the martyrdom nonsense, you preach to no one but yourself when you do that.

Doesn’t that limit democracy, rather than encourage it? We present a spread of candidates each time, and the people vote for whomever they feel is the most qualified. If A is the most qualified for position X, as a citizen I demand the right to vote for A as X. To do anything else is to restrict my freedoms as a voter.

I believe most of this already covered to some extent within the Cabinet Disclosure Law. However, it may be a worthwhile opportunity to revisit the guidelines which would make for an impressive platform.

For the benefit of this forum and the quality of the ongoing discussion I will not ask you to elaborate.

I considered supporting your candidacy, and I kindly asked for clarification on your ideals. Upon doing so I veryfied that you and I have very different views. I respect them, but I dissagree with them.

btw, I'm a hetero male.

As far as my limited experience within this region tells me I can assure you that religious or sexual freedom have never been in question.

You have not insulted homosexuals. At least not to my knowledge. Saying that homosexuality is imoral is an opinion, not an insult.

I believe Canada6 is correct.

Having reread the posts, you have stated your oppinion, backed by your religious opinion. Assuming you recognize that it is ony an opinnion and one not shared by all in the region then it's not a problem.

However, as Daemon noted, your decision to post a comment you felt exceeded the legal bounds of our forum is more troubling than the actual comment.

Actually, it's troubling to me because at times it may seem as if there censorship issues on the forum. To discuss homosexuality and to have a point of view is great. To express that point is perfectly fine. When the discussion degenerates into name calling or expressions of outright hatred, that's where I think the legal boundary is. For people new to our forum, that boundary may not be clear. I think that may be what alincoln is saying, although it is a little hard to see at first.

Indeed :unsure:.