Victory for the little guy

[BearSniper]

Supreme Court of Canada ruling on democratic rights.

Finally, a ruling for the little guy which serves to limit the absolute power of a majority government.

The S.C.C. ruled that the B.C. Government had no right to rip up Hospital worker contracts just because they had a huge majority in the house in 2001.

What this means is, just because you're the premier, and don't like labour unions, it doesn't mean you can be a dictator and fire any one you want. It also goes back to the old legal principle of "due process of law". Collective bargaining, which really occurs in all areas of life, is protected under the constitution.

Now, if you extrapolate this ruling to another angle, just because you may be the government in Ottawa, perhaps with a majority, and you don't like firearms, or people who hunt, you can't arbitrarily outlaw guns. Or, just because you don't like the way some crazy Quebecer shoots students,
it doesn't mean you can outlaw handguns.:icon_frow


I take heart in this ruling because to me it means this. If 350 Allan Rocks' were elected to parliament in Ottawa tomorrow, and they outlawed guns,
hopefully the S.C.C would protect our rights as a minority and honour us because we are law abiding citizens enjoying a legal, licenced activity.

Any ruling which protects the little person vs: the power of big Government is a good thing in my opinion.8)

Any rate for what its worth, just my 2 cents.

[Tuffcity]

Well, as much as I applaud your way of thinking I suspect that you're being rather optimistic that this ruling can be applied to the firearms issue.

All the supreme court decided was that a contract is a contract. As far as I know, firearms owners never negotiated a term limit to handguns with a 15% ammo increase over 3 years.

RC

[308BAR]

A ruling on labour is just that a ruling on labour. I would like to share your extrapolation view on labour to firearms but it's a far from that. The supreme court has already ruled that we don't have property rights, we as firearms owners do not have a "contract" with the government. If we were a union and had a contract with the government, saying that we have a right to own and possession then we have a case.

This is where it goes grey on me and maybe someone could clarify if the Firearms Act is in the Charter of rights or is it just a set of laws? :confused:

IMO our only hope is to continue to fight for property rights and rights to protect property and defence. We have to make it know that a ban is not acceptable to any area of our sport.

[Chuck]

Well, as much as I applaud your way of thinking I suspect that you're being rather optimistic that this ruling can be applied to the firearms issue.

All the supreme court decided was that a contract is a contract. As far as I know, firearms owners never negotiated a term limit to handguns with a 15% ammo increase over 3 years.

RC

There ya go!........Imho, I think you're probably closer than not.

[BearSniper]

Thanks fellas

Points well taken. I suppose I'm the eternal optomist.:-?

But what I do see in this, loud and clear, is the courts stand against oppression by government .

Thanks

[Gun Dog]

I've never thought of the HEU as "the little guy".

[coyotebc]

The courts as I see it have done a long standing position of making desicions based on political correctness not the rule of law.
As bad as what the BC liberals did, it was really no worse IMHO then the deal the HEU signed with the NDP gov right before the election. It was a payoff pure and simple

[Jagermeister]

The courts as I see it have done a long standing position of making desicions based on political correctness not the rule of law.
As bad as what the BC liberals did, it was really no worse IMHO then the deal the HEU signed with the NDP gov right before the election. It was a payoff pure and simpleI suppose that you think it is perfectly alright for that development contractor to take downpayments from people and then nullify those contracts in favour of making a hundred grand or so per unit. They thought that they could take a page out of Campbell's gevernment book and do the same thing. Tearing up contracts by Campbell's government smacks of Facism, plain and simple! It's a good ruling by the SCC, for everyone, especially Gordon Campbell.
''I've never thought of the HEU as "the little guy".'
Think of the HEU as a colony of ants, made up of "little guys". Singularly they can be squashed, collectively they are more formidible.

[kutenay]

This is GOOD!!!

[abbyfireguy]

Gordon Cambell did his level best to screw our Vancouver Firefighters when he was mayor and since in his position as Premier just because we had the nerve to openly support the opponent in a civic election.
The man has no morals and his word means crap....Common sense discussion with him lead in one direction,down.
I wouldn't trust that idiot any farther than I could throw him.
An agreement be it handshake or written means nothing to him and his ilk!!:evil:
Have another drink Gordo.....Just don't drive this time...

[overthetop]

Are you implying HEU got a 15 % raise? I have been an HEU member for 7 years and make A DOLLAR FIFTY LESS THAN WHEN I STARTED! Houses here were 135, not 395 then and gas was 55 cents!

[steel_ram]

Granted, tearing up legally negotiated contracts in a democratic society is plain wrong, but now, what actual "little guys" are going to have to get "screwed" to pay for these overly decident contracts?

Perhaps since the government is being forced to respect the law, perhaps the picketers who hold up public transportation, health services and education should also be forced to do so, instead of holding the rest of us hostage every few years.

Public money isn't printed in the legislature. Fat NDP "negotiated" contracts given to suck up to their union buddies will have to be payed at some else's expense.

[overthetop]

I'd rather see the money going to pay for jobs to support a decent living wage in this province than Gordo giving it to all his corporate buddies. The average HEU wage is less than 20 dollars.....you can work at timmies for 13 here or walk onto a construction site for more than that. I make less that the job I quit to go back to school for 6 mos full time for this job for.

[wetcoastwillie]

And the best part:

George Heyman, head of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, said...... "his union will be seeking compensation for the workers affected".

:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

YAH!!!!!!!

UP YOURS GORDO!!!!

[Phreddy]

Gordo & crew really threw the screws to us retired BCGEU employees when he arbitrarily decided he could take away the health and dental benefits he promised us. This is also before the courts and I would hope that this latest HEU case has the *******s shaking in their boots.
You can fool some of the folks some of the time.

[alremkin]

Well I'm glad the Supreme Court made this ruling. It establishes the rule of law. The idea of tearing up legally negotiated contracts just because you don't like them or the people represented in them is worng and dictatoria. I hope the HEU members can get back their wage losses and jobs, but that will be difficult after this much time has passed.

At least it's a loss for the companys like Sodexho, who run for profit prisons in some other countries. So we've moved a little father from the idea that corporations will always make a profit even on those who turn to crime. HEU had negotiated livable wages for working people only to have those contracts ripped up. The gap between the monied class and working class is growing larger to the detriment of humanity. This ruling begins to address the issue in that it tends to affirm workers rights. At some point there needs to be recognition that workers need to receive enough pay to be able to reasonably live where they work. This ruling is a step in that direction.