Friends of the Earth asks court to force Ottawa to live up to Kyoto
Canoe.ca, Canada "We're not asking the court to tell the government precisely how to deal with climate change and greenhouse gases," he told a news conference. cnews.canoe.carelated articles
Canadian Members of Parliament who voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, had an obligation, before taking their seats, to swear that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. They swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.
Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule.
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.
This calls into question the legality of Canada's alleged commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.
Seriously, there may be reasons not to go forward with it, but using such a silly reason would make Canada a legal laughingstock. That would not be wise at all.
2 comments:
Canadian Members of Parliament who voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, had an obligation, before taking their seats, to swear that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. They swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second.
Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule.
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.
This calls into question the legality of Canada's alleged commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.
Trying to get off on a technicality eh?
Seriously, there may be reasons not to go forward with it, but using such a silly reason would make Canada a legal laughingstock. That would not be wise at all.
Canada is not a banana republic.
Post a Comment