Quatloos!

Burnaby49 wrote: [T]he Republic of Kanata. . .[e]ssentially a Kevin Annett wet dream where he dismissed the government of Canada and replaced it with his own government. Apparently by just deeming it so. However there is one problem that has been thwarting Kevin from his right to govern Canada. The "real" government of Canada inconsiderately ignored Kevin's proclamation and is still acting as if it is the legitimate functioning Canadian government. This gross criminal activity seems to have unhinged Kevin somewhat, at least his latest posting about the republic of Kanata don't reflect a mind entirely happy with the way events have gone;

http://kevinannett.com/2017/06/15/peopl ... n-trudeau/

Anyhow, as I said, I can't connect Alexander to the sticker but it seems a surprising bit of timing. Alexander is an avid Karl Lentz believer so why not Kevin too?

noblepa wrote:Did Canada truly legalize dueling? Somehow, I doubt it.

Even if there were such a bill passed that repealed a specific statute outlawing dueling, that would not make dueling legal, would it? Wouldn't dueling still fall under the statutes covering assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder or attempted murder?

Perhaps parliament was just doing a little housecleaning and repealing an outdated and unnecessary law.

Burnaby49 wrote:

noblepa wrote:Did Canada truly legalize dueling? Somehow, I doubt it.

Even if there were such a bill passed that repealed a specific statute outlawing dueling, that would not make dueling legal, would it? Wouldn't dueling still fall under the statutes covering assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder or attempted murder?

Perhaps parliament was just doing a little housecleaning and repealing an outdated and unnecessary law.

I have no idea what he's babbling about. I've read nothing about the Trudeau government revising laws on duelling.

The country’s Liberal government has formally presented a comprehensive justice bill that, in part, seeks to rid the Criminal Code of laws that are “obsolete, redundant, or already ruled as unconstitutional,” Platt writes. Among the laws getting the boot is section 71, which imposes a prison sentence of up to two years on anyone who challenges or provokes a person to fight a duel, or accepts a challenge to fight a duel. (It should be noted that using a weapon to cause bodily harm remains, without doubt, a prosecutable offense.)

Order

1. Dismiss claim is granted. Costs of the action to the defendant.
2. Mr. Dorman's signature is dispensed with.
3. Order signed on bench.

arayder wrote:

The country’s Liberal government has formally presented a comprehensive justice bill that, in part, seeks to rid the Criminal Code of laws that are “obsolete, redundant, or already ruled as unconstitutional,” Platt writes. Among the laws getting the boot is section 71, which imposes a prison sentence of up to two years on anyone who challenges or provokes a person to fight a duel, or accepts a challenge to fight a duel. (It should be noted that using a weapon to cause bodily harm remains, without doubt, a prosecutable offense.)

eric wrote:However, removing the law banning witchcraft may be a mistake.

The Observer wrote:

eric wrote:However, removing the law banning witchcraft may be a mistake.

Only if the law includes burning the convicted witch at the stake.