Twenty-five years ago the country changed a lot when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaced the Canadian Bill of Rights, and courts became superior to politicians. This has meant every law passed by Parliament can be challenged under the Charter, and must meet its test of fairness.
Some people see this as giving far too much power to the unelected judiciary, while others think the Charter has empowered citizens and provided a necessary check on the power of the political elite. In any case, there is no question courts now play a larger role in citizens’ lives than before.
That’s why many people were outraged when the current federal government cut funding recently for the Court Challenges Program, which provided a method by which people of lesser means court hire lawyers and fight for their charter rights. This has been a particular bone of contention for minority language groups and women.
One champion of the Court Challenges program is northern Ontario MP Anthony Rota. MPtv caught up with him for a session, in French, outside the House of Commons.
To view the video, click here.
74 comments ↓
No time to comment in detail now, other than to say that personally I found this to be one of the more egregious acts of the current Conservative government (and I believe was tried under Mulroney, but then retracted). A government should be confident – and competent – enough to have its policies subject to legal scrutiny by those affected by such policy in a negative way, and fix those policies according to ruling if found to be lacking. This is just one more tool to ensure legislation is sound. To suggest that Legal Aid is there to assist in such matters for those not wealthy enough to take on the state on their own, as I believe was done, is laughable.
Maybe the government should stop subsidizing groups who support the Liberals and actually have a program that helps fund individual legal challenges for people who are POOR.
Maybe someone needs to challenge the cuts to the Court Challenges program.
If the cuts result in unequal access would this not be a basis for a challenge? (Any Charter lawyers out there?)
I suspect PMSH saw a picture similar to this one, thought the Justices looked like Santa Clause, giving people what they wanted over the wishes of the elected government and said “Bah, humbug!”
That Harper is incompetent is understood by growing numbers of Canadians. That Harper is a sinister, incompetent has yet to be fully appreciated. But the connection becomes clearer as his legal initiatives all boil down to his oft uttered disdainful view of “Judges” (to say nothing of his falacious use of logic) which goes something like, “Judges have to learn that it’s not up to the courts to make laws; its up to the politicians”.
It’s unclear exactly what you mean by that statement, perhaps you could elaborate. In reference to the topic at hand, the Liberals are just as likely to be subject to a challenge as any other government in power, and hence the program is not selective or biased. It is another mechanism to act as a safety valve against a more-powerful state that the individual may not otherwise have. If anything, the checks-and-balances make for stronger legislation, not weaker.
The Court Challenges Program is for ALL Canadians. “Our” taxes pay for it, not Harper alone or his party.
What is Harper afraid of? His key side-kick Ian Brodie has been against the program (and even written something I believe) for years.
Does Harper not think for himself?
Harper being “told” what to do? Appears so.
He hasn’t come up with any vision, not one new idea – only what he’s told to do and then he prepares the tactics.
This isn’t leadership. Harper’s more like strategist than a leader.
This isn’t the first time the CPC people have backed out of committees – they run away. Rona Ambrose did it often. Since when do strong people run away from an issue that they don’t like?
Weakness is showing – extreme weakness.
Dube,
My point was groups like Egale – a homosexual lobby group who fought for gay marriage and supported the Libs – don’t deserve any subsidization from the government. Everyone knows that gays and lesbians have the greatest amount of wealth on a per capita basis (so called pink money) – more than the average Canadian. So if that is the case, why is the government giving them money? The government should be giving it to deserving low income INDIVIDUALS instead to fight legal battles. The homeless perhaps?
P.S. It would also be very interesting to know who DECIDES which groups get the money since there is(was) a limited pool of funding.
Wow. Dangerous post. Tough to get into specifics without being accused of being a bigot, but what the hell, I understand kind of what KPK said. My problem was never with the CCP, but more with how they decided what was going to be funded. Alternative Lifestyle cases yes, Divorced Fathers seeking access No just as an example. It is my belief that the board had been high jacked by special interest representatives. I think Dube, that is what most people who straddle the middle of the political divide had a problem with. The case concerning the Little Sisters and Pornographic material is an example of this. Was the decisions that constantly ignored the more “main stream views”. If this could be corrected. The program moved away from its purpose of being a tool for all Canadians to challange the Charter or and or the Govt such as language rights, to be a tool of a select few groups.
Hi Garth and everyone, indeed, this Conservative government, despite running on the issue of accountability, prefers to use ‘back-door tactics’ to deal with everything: it Cuts funding to the Courts Challenges programs, saying that this program challenges the ruling of his courts (and yet they criticize the courts).
Does that make sense to you? They say that Judges have too much power, and then they cut a program that not only puts a check and balance on unjust laws passed by Parliament, but unjust rulings by the Courts themselves!
I mean, we do have 2 sets of 3 layers Courts for a reason (the 1st is Federal, the 2nd is provincial): in Canada’s founding, we recognized that Judges are fallible people (just like politicians and ourselves) and therefore, it’s necessary to have Courts of Appeals, as well as Supreme Courts (which have no Jury).
So ya, this Government ignores the Kyoto Protocol, it selectively recognizes the Geneva Convention, it fails to respect the 1985 and 2005 Atlantic Accords by forcing Nova Scotia to ‘choose’ between our negotiated Accords or a better equalization system.
Well, if the Federal Government has the power to say to provinces ‘either you choose between a previously negotiated agreement or a newer equalization system’, I gotta ask, whatever became of the rule of law?
Dube,
P.S. Oh wait..then there is the provision which allowed groups that got funded in the past by the CCP to decide who gets funded in the future..now isn’t this a conflict of interest of mega proportions? It’s political NOT legal.
Intersting that KPK only brings up the gay issue. Uh huh. He assumes they’re all rich. Uh huh.
The programme is for “everyone” who needs it, not just gays.
A little bigotry here?
The programme is for “everyone†who needs it, not just gays.
A little bigotry here?
SLG,
The program is for people who can’t afford to launch legal challenges themselves. Bigotry has nothing to do with it. If a group of multi millionaires suddenly decided to launch a court challenge saying government violated their rights because of their income trust decision, would you be in favour of subsidizing them? The only reason I brought up Egale was because of the demographics and their financial ability to raise funding on their own. It doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage. But if you want to stifle a complex debate just use the word “bigot”. That is what people like you do right?
So, now you are defending the Program.
I find the use of gay issues interesting, that’s all. You are assuming that gays are rich.
When I said it’s for ALL, I meant all Canadians who do need it for financial reasons, whether they are gay or not.
Charter scrutiny of all legislation is a foundation of true democracy. We can never allow partisan politicians to decide if their ‘law’ is in accord with OUR Charter.
That the sole duty of the Supreme Court of Canada at the federal level, and the provincial courts for the provincial level.
Never relinquish the keys to the inmates. Just look at the current fiasco we call the HoC and QP? Any questions?
The judges all look like idiots and look pretty scary. To say that they are our surpreme court is embarrassing.
I support the cuts to the Court Challenges Program because it was hijacked by special interest groups.
Liberal Sucks, I agree with your second para totally, I think it has a role to play but has to be revamped as to how it decides which cases to fund. Just so you know, your first para totally destroys any creditability you had with most viewers on a factual statement in your second. If we cannot clean up QP I am sure we can attempt to clean up this blog.
When I said it’s for ALL, I meant all Canadians who do need it for financial reasons, whether they are gay or not.
SLG,
That IS my point exactly. I’m defending the need for such a program. The program
should be taylored to help low income people NOT powerful special interest groups who can raise millions on a whim.
I didn’t support abolishing it, just reforming it.
The mandate of the Supreme Court of Canada is to interpret the law and prtect the rights of each individual under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legislators pass laws in Parliament – these ‘laws’ may or may not be legal – it is up to the Supreme Court to decide, when approached on a legality or interpretation of a law. The Supreme Court is our balance, to either uphold or strike down laws that have been passed by Parliament. Several decisions have been made that strike down laws that contradict the rights of individuals under the Charter. The Supreme Court does not make any laws – our politicians do. Our judiciary, at any and all levels, should never be elected, campaign-style as in the USA – it should not a popularity contest, based upon political leanings – but solely and entirely on their proven grasp of Canadian law and the application of same within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Cutting the Court Challenges program is directly in line with Orthodox Calgary School thought.
Check out Ian Brodie’s intellectual peak in “Friend’s of the Court”. The very premise that rights are a zero-sum game is flawed, but even if you accept where he’s coming from, the entire argument isn’t all that valid.
This simply underlines the bigger problem with our justice system. Justice should not be expensive!
Our current system of trials where court costs exceed damages is broken. You can’t challenge the charter because the cost is insane. But thats just the charter.
You can’t criticize public figures because defending (and proving your innocence) in a defamation case costs more than is reasonable. The industry even has a term for it. SLAPP [Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation]
Even our criminal system harshly favors those with money — and the result is clear, corporate criminals rarely if ever get sentances proportionate to their crimes. Steal a handbag to buy bread and you’ll get more time than stealing a million dollars from shareholders.
The system is broken and inaccessible to every-day Canadians, as a result, we’ve come up with a system where justice exists solely for the rich, where public participation is extremely chilled and where we have class-based sentancing for criminals.
Something really needs to change.
K Murphy,
And yet:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070503/judiciary_patronage_070503/20070503?hub=Politics
“I support the cuts to the Court Challenges Program because it was hijacked by special interest groups.”
So the only interests who will be able to have a charter challenge considered will be the ones with deep pockets, who predominantly favour the right wing. But of course they are not special interests and they have the best interests of Canadian Society in mind.
Personally, I like having a group of unelected people with no political interests or lobby groups to pander to reviewing legislation to see whether it meets the simple measure of meeting Canadian Society’s values.
Is that really what the supreme court judges wear or are they about to attend a Christmas party?
Rota was my old MP… great guy. Came to my door when I was in high school for his campaign, and actually took question from me for quite a while (it was my first vote). This may be normal, but it was important to me at a younger age.
The mandate of the Supreme Court of Canada is to interpret the law and prtect the rights of each individual under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
One of the results of our Charter is that the Supreme Court can “Read into Law” whatever it likes. There are several instances where they have ordered parliament to pass legislation to bring laws into their interpretation.
Effectively, then, the Supreme Court is making law.
Personally, I am still a little uncomfortable with nine unaccountable appointees having that kind of power.
Marc,
The judges have part time jobs playing Santa during the holiday season.
Ed brooks, reading into law means that the parliament passed a law that contradicts itself [as it often likes to do].. it is for the courts to decide if it is a contradiction.
In no case has a judge ever said, ok, so this is the new law, deal with it parliament.
They say, this law conflicts with this more important law, thus the more important law wins UNLESS parliament passes a correction/clarification by X date.
Seeing as we have the notwithstanding clause, the court has absolutely no power to enact from the bench.
So, effectively, no, the court is not making any laws.
Effectively, then, the Supreme Court is making law.
Personally, I am still a little uncomfortable with nine unaccountable appointees having that kind of power.
By Ed Brooks
I share your concern. Judges are not elected and therefore not accountable for their decisions. A lot of judges are
appointed based on their political preferences as the Guelph study pointed out. On the other hand, how do judges make landmark legal decisions against the popular consensus if they can be removed from the bench via an election?
It is a chicken and egg scenario. How do you make them accountable and removable from the bench in the event of incompetence without prejudicing how they make their decisions by making them
accountable to the public via an election? The only recourse our elected government has is the not withstanding clause – and that expires at the end of 5 years.
Is that really what the supreme court judges wear or are they about to attend a Christmas party? – MARC
Yeah. I’m suprised that they don’t wear hoods.
KPK, give your head a shake. Very poor ‘example’ using Egale to make your point.
With the CPC at the time campaigning actively to defeat same-sex marriage and suppress their rights why on earth would Egale do anything but support the party in power that could actually get the legislation passed.
Oy.
KPK,
The only recourse our elected government has is the not withstanding clause – and that expires at the end of 5 years.
5 years should be plenty long enough to get a ratification passed if it’s really an ammendment that the provinces want.
So its not like the judges have control their either, it always boils down to the elected representatives of the parliament (nonwithstanding) or the provinces (re-ratification/ammendment)
What you two are talking about is a system of government with a supreme ruler. That makes me far more uncomfortable than the half-dozen checks and balances on absolute power that we have now.
KH,
Do you have diffic writing paragraph?
What you two are talking about is a system of government with a supreme ruler.
Kevin M,
Not sure what you mean here. Saddam was a supreme ruler. We can throw our “leader” out after the next election. I guess the question I should of asked is what processes are in place to REMOVE incompetent judges from the bench (and there are many – at least in Ontario).
Frank Frink
Then why are some groups excluded from the CCP? Because they don’t represent the Politically correct “Liberal” point of view?
We go back to the point that the CCP is biased because groups that got funding in the past can decide which groups get funding in the future. It’s biased plain and simple.
OMG,, Is that you Ms.Wright, Yes I still have that same problem with paragraphs I had in your grade ten english class. LMAO, I stand humbly corrected and will attempt to do better Purist.
“Judges are not elected and therefore not accountable for their decisions. A lot of judges are appointed based on their political preferences as the Guelph study pointed out.”
Do you have a link to this Guelph study? I wonder how this study’s results will change thanks to PNSH’s decision to allow the police a stronger voice in selecting judges?
“How do you make them accountable and removable from the bench in the event of incompetence without prejudicing how they make their decisions by making themhow they make their decisions by making them accountable to the public via an election?”
The best solution is to make the judges that are selected the most suitable and the best qualified people available.
KPK, you’re mistaking a fascist ruler with a democratic ruler. Our prime minister is not the ‘ruler’ of the country. He is the leader of the house of commons. One small part of our governing system.
There is the senate, the courts and the provinces that all balance out this power.
So yes we can kick out PMSH with the next election, but that doesn’t mean we should cede 100% control of the country to one person during any given term.
There is no absolute power position in Canada, and it should stay that way.
With that in mind, what extra good would electing judges do, other than to ensure that lobbyists and corruption could influence the bench? What defines an incompetant judge — they are asked fairly binary questions, and if they answer ‘wrong’, the parliament can pass new laws to clarify the previous ones. They just have to get those who agreed the first time to agree again (like the senate and the provinces) within a reasonable time frame.
It’s all very balanced and we should keep it that way.
KH,
Still as perceptive as ever. LMAO right back at you.
Damn, Just got your post Purist. Should sue my mother for this blonde thing. That is just the military coming out in me, we abbrv everything. Paragraph, hows that.
So, with Harper running a BushCo style gooberment will we have restrictions on travelling to Cuba like the ‘Land of Freedom and Democracy’, our southern ‘neighbor’, does, just because some schmuck doesn’t like the country’s leader or politics?
U.S. probes Michael Moore’s Cuba sojourn
KH,
We use SOP for each DD, just to help conserve trees. The SNAFU is also the FUBAR, and then the HQ issues a TSO so we all know what our GO’s are for the TDY! Is that what you meant? LMAO!
The LZ is HOT, and the MRE’s cold. What a life, eh?
LOL @ Bill M.!
The SNAFU is also the FUBAR indeed.
Don’t forget, dont forget, TANSTAAFL!
For you fashionistas out there:
On the bench, the Chief Justice, or, in her absence, the senior puisne judge, presides from the centre chair with the other judges seated to her right and left by order of seniority of appointment. At sittings of the Court, the judges usually appear in black silk robes but they wear ceremonial robes of bright scarlet trimmed with Canadian white mink in Court on special occasions and in the Senate at the opening of each new session of Parliament.
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/role/index_e.asp
A study of 978 judicial appointments between 1988 and 2003 found at least 30 per cent of judges appointed during the Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien years made donations to the political party in power.
So 70% didn’t make donations at all.
When it comes to the Supremes I would think these people are at the top of their game with years of exemplary experience behind them, let alone a tremendous amount of Canadian legal knowledge. Incompetence would not be an issue.
The only real problem I can see would be having judges on the bench that are not partisan enough for the government of the day.
And who would be suitable to elect them. You, me? The general public? Based on what? Posters and promises? That works so well doesn’t it?
oops, forgot
The Riddell Study, University of Guelph
42 page pdf
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Riddell.pdf
Thanks Georgine.
An interesting report.
The LZ is HOT, and the MRE’s cold. What a life, eh?
By Bill-Muskoka on 05.10.07 5:01 pm
LZ= Landing/loading Zone right ?
MRE= Meals Ready To eat right ?
TSO so we all know what our GO’s are for the TDY! ??
Not too sure about these .
Not sure either in the US Military, but in Canada, TSO is Techincal Service Orders, I believe GO stands for General Orders, and TDY has no clue what the Y stands for but TD north of the border meands Temporary Duty.
KH,
TDY = Temporary Duty in the States back during ‘Nam. Today it is simply TD. I think the ‘Y’ was in reference to what everyone asked when the got such assignments? LOL
JCLH, You got it.
Now, does anyone have the Magic Decoder Ring for Georgine’s ‘TANSTAAFL!’ That is a new one for me?
My favorite acronym is is still ‘POLITICS’ = ‘People Obviously Lacking Intelligent Thought In Critical Situations.’
That can also be applied to General FU and General Nusiance! LOL
I keep trying to remember the line. I can’t remember who said it. In regards to cutting the funding to the CCP. With great disdain he stood up (in the HoC & elsewhere?) and said “Why should we fund people to go to court against the government with the government?” Or something similar to that.
Does anyone remember who and what the line was? It’s making me crazy that I don’t remember.
Thanks Bill and KH . Appreciate the info .
Been reading up on the Regiment ( British SAS and SBS )and their selection process .
Man oh man are those guys tough .
Our equivalant,I suppose , is the JTF2’s.
Colonel David Sterling is still a hero of mine .
The court challenges program was used to supercede the values and morals of Canadians. It superceded our democracy and put it in the hands of unelected judges. I’m very happy that the program was eliminated.
“The morals of Canadians?” And what would those be? — Garth
As for the Court Challenges Program, Baird said .”It doesn’t make sense for the federal government to “subsidize lawyers to challenge the government’s own laws in court.”
Baird the moron beaking off big time .
The court challenges program was used to supercede the values and morals of Canadians. It superceded our democracy and put it in the hands of unelected judges. I’m very happy that the program was eliminated.
By Sean P. Hogan on 05.11.07 12:05 pm
The idiot Hogan again.
The idiot Hogan again.
By Jackie Chan’s Left Hand on 05.11.07 12:23 pm
Another comment without any substance. Just like 99% of your comments.
Garth, why are you asking me? You seem to claim that you are in the majority here. You answer.
TANSTAAFL
“There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”
Garth, why do you allow Jackie to keep verbally abusing other posters?
Hogan,what are you doing here ? I thought the “Truth Squads/Death Star” employees were all laid off when they figured out they would lose the next election .
Your girl friend Foreman was toasted .
As for substance . There is more substance in one of my posts than in a hundred of your posts full of insane rantings and drivel .
Jackie, where do you get your strange ideas from? Its nice and easy to insult behind a computer under a fake name, too bad you don’t actually have the integrity to actually post without insults and use your real name. What are you hiding since you don’t use your real name?
Jackie, you’ve demonstrated that you have nothing substantial to say. All you do is insult. There is nothing of substance there and your claim is just bravado. You seem to me to be a very frustrated, lonely individual who has a very hard time learning to speak to diverse people. You’re a very one-dimensional person.
And your baseless accusations that anyone who disagrees with you is a CPC shill is very simplistic. You really need to get out into the world to see that there are many kinds of people who like many kinds of things. Grow up bud, leave the schoolyard insults behind.
“The morals of Canadians?†And what would those be? — Garth
By Sean P. Hogan on 05.11.07 12:05 pm
Whatever Hogan imagines them to be .
You’re a very one-dimensional person.
By Sean P. Hogan on 05.11.07 1:39 pm
Thank you . Coming from you who knows nothing about anything that is a compliment .
I appreciate it .
The challenges program helped pay for lawsuits by those who believed their charter rights had been violated. Among the beneficiaries were same-sex couples seeking tax breaks, off-reserve aboriginals looking for voting rights in band elections, and people seeking greater language rights.
Social conservatives have long resented the charter, contending that activist judges have usurped the role of Parliament with liberal interpretations that have extended rights beyond anything contemplated by politicians. Harper himself has occasionally echoed those views.
Cuts the neo-cons made.
* $78.8 million: Elimination of program that gave GST rebates to tourists
* $50 million: Elimination of unused funding for Northwest Territories devolution
* $46.8 million: Smaller cabinet announced in February
* $45 million: “Efficiencies” in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
* $15 million: Elimination of residual funding for softwood-lumber trade litigation
* $13.9 million: Cancellation of National Defence High-Frequency Surface Wave Radar Project
* $11.7 million: Removal of unused funds for mountain pine beetle initiative
* $6.5 million: Elimination of funding for the Centre for Research and Information on Canada
* $6 million: Operational efficiencies at the Canada Firearms Centre
* $5.6 million: Elimination of Court Challenges Program
* $5 million: Administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada
* $4.6 million: Cuts to museum assistance
* $4.6 million: Elimination of the RCMP drug-impaired-driving program’s training budget
* $4.25 million: Consolidation of foreign missions
* $4.2 million: Cuts to Law Commission of Canada
* $4 million: End to medical-marijuana science funding
All of these cuts are driven by far right ideology .They are targeting those that are least able, in society, to fight back .
No replacement programs were announced .
That is why I despise you Hogan and your ilk . You haven’t a clue what social justice is or means .
You are a fake Canadian .
You may live on Canadian real estate but your mind belongs to Amerika .
Do us all a favour and move South where you belong with the Bushites .
So far Jackie, every single post has been an insult. No substance whatsoever. Everyone knows that once a person stoops to that level, they’ve lost the argument. Keep it up though, I enjoy being the victor.
You didn’t answer my question, why do you hide under a false name? Why don’t you have the integrity to post under your real name? Maybe integrity is foreign to you, after all, you are a neo-Lib.
Hey Jackie, you didn’t answer my question. And, you’re a very racist person with your anti-American comments. Putting the k in American is a ridiculous and childish post. It demonstrates a lack of tolerance on your part. I feel sorry for your ilk Jackie, so full of hatred, that you cannot stand diversity. Sad really.
I feel sorry for your ilk Jackie, so full of hatred, that you cannot stand diversity. Sad really.
By Sean P. Hogan on 05.11.07 3:17 pm
I can stand diversity Hogan . I just can’t stand you and your ill informed posts that are meaningless to almost every one .
Why do think no one responds to your idiocy ?
JCLH,
You are right on both; TANSTAAFL and on Baird beaking off. Thank you for that, I should have remembered, it’s so obvious.
And thank you for the very clear and succinct list of all the vicious cuts the Cons have made, yes yet again, mostly to those less able to help themselves.
I’d would just like to say that I for one am very glad that you are a participant on this blog. You are funny, smart, cutting when necessary, an excellent judge of character, even when the character doesn’t have any, and I like your nic. Oh, and you have read RAH.
Sean P. Hogan. You on the other hand, are a pompus ass, a twit, an idiot, and you are very unpleasant to have to listen to at the best of times. You offer nothing, not even a balanced difference of opinion. You whine unrelentingly. You happily gang up on others with your nasty sidekick but then cry foul if anyone calls you it. And you claim to have morals? What does the P stand for Sean? Read my mind.
Go away already.
JCLH,
TANSTAAFL
“There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunchâ€
Well, unless you are in the military, eh? “here’s your tasty MRE! Bon appetite!” LOL
I see Sean the Bean is back with his diatribe of thinking he is superior to all others. Ignore it, and maybe it will go away, if not then hopefully Garth will SWAT the stupid SOB!
Thank you so much Georgine . Your opinion means a lot to me as I have much respect for your writing abilities and POV .
You definitely have my respect .
JCLH
I see Sean the Bean is back with his diatribe of thinking he is superior to all others. Ignore it, and maybe it will go away, if not then hopefully Garth will SWAT the stupid SOB!
By Bill-Muskoka on 05.11.07 4:02 pm
Let us pray ! It happens sooner rather than later .
I swear he gets more clueless by the day.
Sean P. Hogan. You on the other hand, are a pompus ass, a twit, an idiot, and you are very unpleasant to have to listen to at the best of times. You offer nothing, not even a balanced difference of opinion. You whine unrelentingly. You happily gang up on others with your nasty sidekick but then cry foul if anyone calls you it. And you claim to have morals? What does the P stand for Sean? Read my mind.
Go away already.
Georgine, you’ve provided the biggest laugh here. When have you or Bill, or Jackie Chan have offered anything but partisan comments? It is to laugh. You’re just upset because someone actually has a different opinion than your’s. Lacing your posts with insults mean that you’ve lost the argument. Garth has stated that much to another person here. It is definitely true in your case and Jackie Chan and Bill (if that is his real name). Georgine, take Bill’s advice, ignore me, actually, take your own advice earlier, ignore me. Now, run along.