Not a lawyer BUT!

[riders2010]

I don't agree with it, think it is all just a political grandstand by libs and ndp backed board, but why is the judge being blamed and labeled. This is a country where the judges are required to make decisions based on the current laws not political influence. The wheat board has not been dismantled through all of the political and legal processes yet so the rules of the wheat board are to be followed aren't they? If the judge had ruled in the gov favor wouldn't all legislated law for any orgainization etc become useless?

No need to panic, this may mean a little longer time which p's me off as much as any. But legally mr. Ritz broke the law. The thing to consider now is what is the punishment for breaking that law, bet there won't be anything, but is that right, even though he is right he is wrong?

If those farmers that want to keep the wheat board can prove by their methods (that I think are not correct) that they have lost money due to the illegal action of the minister will that mean another law suit against the minister and the gov for funds lost to the cwb farmers, including all of the legal costs they are incurring? this thing can get even more stupid than it is.

[liberty]

Can anyone succinctly define what law it was that Ritz broke? If he broke the law requiring a plebiscite, is this not trumped by the fact that he is a Minister of the Government in the process of passing legislation to amend said law? Or are we in a "new era" where present governments are not allowed to amend or repeal legislation passed by previous governments?

I have a hard time believing that he is the equivalent of a hoodlum robbing a grocery store.

[oneoff]

In the long run it is much worse for an elected representative to break the law; than it is for any person (including especially an elected official who has the power to make laws) to " rob a grocery store". To have our leaders even consider such action is leading to a breakdown in our society.

Whom else has recognized the similar affronts to our supposed democratic foundations?

[liberty]

I'll ask again: what law did Ritz break?

If the judge's point is that the government needed to first pass legislation repealing the requirement for a plebiscite before amending the legislation, then this still creates a dangerous precedent whereby current Parliaments can add plebiscite provisions to a whole host of legislation for no other purpose than to put roadblocks in the way of future Parliaments. Soon enough, we'll spend all our time voting in plebiscites every time a government wants to change a speed limit.

[malta]

I do blame the judge. I theory Judges are to rule on the laws that exist. There are numerous cases where judges have overruled Parliment. Using farmer logic I believe that this judge has written a lot into the law. Section 47.1 talks about adding or subtracting crops from the CWB. No crops were added none were subtracted. The judge "wrote" monopoly into the act for the purpose of his ruling. This judge also made the ruling and then said he couldn't enforce it because he couldn't interfere with the legislative process. That is just stupid. This like many rulings will likely be overturned at the supreme court. If this one stands, the supremacy of Parliment is gone, and our democracy with it.

[oneoff]

Someone mentioned the word "injunction". Do we hear any smug laughing.
I'll mention what looks like "poor legal advice" the federal government must certainly have received. Surely losses in legitimate courts aren't a part of the federal government plan to "ammend" or provide new options for Western Canadian farmers.
If ammendments can not be made within existing Acts then Governments should repeal the existing Acts; and create new laws to enable what they wish to do. Then they should live with the repercussions and fallout......just like the rest of our society; and all within the rulings of the court system which must be respected.

[BreadWinner]

If governments were to follow this ruling there would be no need for goverment. Judges would just continue to enforce the the laws the way they have been written in the past, right or wrong. A great example would be the right for women to vote. If it were up to the judges women would still not have the right to cast a ballot. Goverment is there for a reason, they see through all the muddy waters and come up with rulings that serve all the people.

[oneoff]

The legal system is an integral part of democracy. If the previous post is valid; then I'll be the first to agree that democracy has already been lost.
Absolutely everyone must work within the system; or be held acountable;............... else chaos will ensue.

[oneoff]

The legal system is an integral part of democracy. If the previous post is valid; then I'll be the first to agree that democracy has already been lost.
Absolutely everyone must work within the system; or be held acountable;............... else chaos will ensue.

[liberty]

Oneoff, is your idea of democracy a system where we have plebiscites every twenty minutes simply because our legal system has deemed that past Parliaments are entitled to effectively hold present ones hostage? What's democratic about that?