Que. alimony case to go before top court

Originally posted by leo123


Nice going, JERKS.

This is what completely tics me off about the law in Canada as it applies to relationships and why I have not considered anything more than a casual relationship with women since my divorce.

Here is a guy who made it amply clear to his partner that he did not want to get married, which under Quebec law meant that neither partner had any obligation to each other. She obviously enjoyed not only his company for ten years, but the lifestyle he afforded her, but when the day came when they split she goes to court to try and screw him and being a woman she naturally wins. And in this case it meant having to change the law to do it.

Just complete BS.

CBC naturally closes the article to comments, because they KNOW what an explosion of posts would follow.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is why the West will fall, men are treated as slaves in waiting, and women are treated and act as if they are despots.

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by leo123


Nice going, JERKS.

This is what completely tics me off about the law in Canada as it applies to relationships and why I have not considered anything more than a casual relationship with women since my divorce.

Here is a guy who made it amply clear to his partner that he did not want to get married, which under Quebec law meant that neither partner had any obligation to each other. She obviously enjoyed not only his company for ten years, but the lifestyle he afforded her, but when the day came when they split she goes to court to try and screw him and being a woman she naturally wins. And in this case it meant having to change the law to do it.

Just complete BS.

CBC naturally closes the article to comments, because they KNOW what an explosion of posts would follow.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is why the West will fall, men are treated as slaves in waiting, and women are treated and act as if they are despots.

let's not collapse the "world as we know it yet" The case still has to go to the Supreme Court and my gut says she won't win

Originally posted by Perfect stranger
let's not collapse the "world as we know it yet" The case still has to go to the Supreme Court and my gut says she won't win

The question remains, Perfect stranger, why did our SCC even agree to rule on it, then?

reply to post by leo123


I guess that a good point. I don't know enough about how those decisions get made. Could have to do with Guy's political connections?

Awards and honors

Université Laval (Québec) awarded an honorary doctorate to Guy Laliberté in 2008. The year before, Guy Laliberté took the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award for all three levels: Quebec, Canada and international. In 2004, he received the Order of Canada, the highest distinction in the country, from the Governor General of Canada. The same year, he was recognized by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. In 2003, he was honored by the Condé Nast group as part of the Never Follow Program, a tribute to creators and innovators. In 2001, he was named a Great Montrealer by the Académie des Grands Montréalais. In 1997, Guy Laliberté received the National Order of Quebec, the highest distinction awarded by the Government of Quebec.[8] On November 22, 2010, he and Cirque du Soleil were honored with the 2,424th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.[12]

Originally posted by Perfect stranger

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by leo123


Nice going, JERKS.

This is what completely tics me off about the law in Canada as it applies to relationships and why I have not considered anything more than a casual relationship with women since my divorce.

Here is a guy who made it amply clear to his partner that he did not want to get married, which under Quebec law meant that neither partner had any obligation to each other. She obviously enjoyed not only his company for ten years, but the lifestyle he afforded her, but when the day came when they split she goes to court to try and screw him and being a woman she naturally wins. And in this case it meant having to change the law to do it.

Just complete BS.

CBC naturally closes the article to comments, because they KNOW what an explosion of posts would follow.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is why the West will fall, men are treated as slaves in waiting, and women are treated and act as if they are despots.

let's not collapse the "world as we know it yet" The case still has to go to the Supreme Court and my gut says she won't win

edit on 25-3-2011 by Perfect stranger because: (no reason given)

The statement is true regardless of the court ruling. Ask yourself this, if China decided to carve an Empire out of Asia could the USA, EU and other allies muster a force quick enough to meet the challenge? Would young men consent, heck even allow ourselves to be used as cannon fodder? The answer is no. Look at the problems the USA is having in recruitment, look at how easily Europe's forces become disgruntled way too easily(heck I would hate to see the the anarchy if the EU tried a draft).

You know the reason the draft hasn't been brought back? Not just because it would be close to political suicide, but because TPTB know this generation of young men are undraftable. Why do you think China is getting ballsy by the day? Because the Chinese know what TPTB know, gender feminism's persecution and alienation of males has left the west practically defenseless. In the end it will be like King Richard the Third "A Kingdom for a Horse!" moment.

Because even if TPTB promise all the gold one could carry, no guy is going to believe or trust them. Look around not just the web but basic day to day life. Pay attention to how guy's interact with gal's in general. You will notice these last few years guy's have been less likely to put up with chicks garbage. And everyday more and more guy's wake up to the reality of the oppression we face.

The West is doomed already. Probably a machination of TPTB for their NWO, but this won't end with a world government, more likely a global dark age...

reply to post by korathin


This has got to be one of the most incoherent posts I've seen in a long time!!

Because even if TPTB promise all the gold one could carry, no guy is going to believe or trust them. Look around not just the web but basic day to day life. Pay attention to how guy's interact with gal's in general. You will notice these last few years guy's have been less likely to put up with chicks garbage. And everyday more and more guy's wake up to the reality of the oppression we face. The West is doomed already. Probably a machination of TPTB for their NWO, but this won't end with a world government, more likely a global dark age...

Not sure where you look to for your role models but maybe you need to look in a better place.. even your use of the term "chicks garbage" shows an attitude that makes me think you don't know better.

I wish you well and hope you see a clearer light!

Alimony is just plain stupid.

If a woman chooses to not educate herself, and not find a career, that is HER fault and HER problem.

Laws as well as social expectations that lay the burden of supporting a woman during a relationship, and then even AFTER a relationship on the man are just offensive.

They don't feel they should have to take care of themselves, but instead feel that as a woman they are some how born deserving to be taken care of. It angers me deeply, and I would think real women would be offended by the actions of other women that hold that idea.

Being responsible for ones self is evidently not an idea that people care about. Back when women couldn't really work a decent job I could totally understand it, but today when you have many very successful women, and tons of opportunities, there is no excuse for demanding that your shoe buying habit be funded by a man.

I'll weigh in.

I'm not pro-Alimony. In a case where one partner has clearly been the main moneymaker and the other has tended other concerns in relation to their relationship a transitional period of time is important to the overall stability of the family unit.

This should be a short-term solution. The partner who isn't gainfully employed must pursue steps to take on that to support themselves in a reasonable time period. Not doing so should not extend the period of time where the non-employed partner is continuing to be "paid" for their work. And yes, being a parent is work.

In the case where the non-employed partner is NOT in a parent role, this time period of support should be significantly lessened.

I don't think an alimony situation should extend beyond a year at maximum.


If you choose to be in a relationship where one of you is not employed outside of the home, then you contract that that is that person job. Money is communal, and therefore the non-employed partner is something you AGREED to. If in that contract, a lack of other job skills have been neglected, then it a general severance period should be considered normal. If you want a housewive/husband, then you agree that that work is important and therefore worth compensation.

Originally posted by Aeons
I'll weigh in.

I'm not pro-Alimony. In a case where one partner has clearly been the main moneymaker and the other has tended other concerns in relation to their relationship a transitional period of time is important to the overall stability of the family unit.

This should be a short-term solution. The partner who isn't gainfully employed must pursue steps to take on that to support themselves in a reasonable time period. Not doing so should not extend the period of time where the non-employed partner is continuing to be "paid" for their work. And yes, being a parent is work.

In the case where the non-employed partner is NOT in a parent role, this time period of support should be significantly lessened.

I don't think an alimony situation should extend beyond a year at maximum.


If you choose to be in a relationship where one of you is not employed outside of the home, then you contract that that is that person job. Money is communal, and therefore the non-employed partner is something you AGREED to. If in that contract, a lack of other job skills have been neglected, then it a general severance period should be considered normal. If you want a housewive/husband, then you agree that that work is important and therefore worth compensation.

edit on 2011/3/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Money isn't communal, it is individual. In-fact it is one of the most individual things, as it is an individual who earns it and it enables individuals to survive. If you are interested in communal economics I suggest you look towards agrarian societies.

Simple fact is it ain't that hard to be a stay at home slouch. It is more boring and sometimes tedious thing to do, but it leaves plenty of time for a person to advance themselves. If a person failed to do so that is their own individual fault.

And in most cases the "bread winner"(as was common in the past) is often highly pressured to let the other person be a slouch. So your rewarding a person who used coercion to enter into an arrangement that while not being notarized with council, still oddly enough has the legal effect of a notarized contractual agreement...

Originally posted by Perfect stranger
reply to post by korathin

 

This has got to be one of the most incoherent posts I've seen in a long time!!

Because even if TPTB promise all the gold one could carry, no guy is going to believe or trust them. Look around not just the web but basic day to day life. Pay attention to how guy's interact with gal's in general. You will notice these last few years guy's have been less likely to put up with chicks garbage. And everyday more and more guy's wake up to the reality of the oppression we face. The West is doomed already. Probably a machination of TPTB for their NWO, but this won't end with a world government, more likely a global dark age...

Not sure where you look to for your role models but maybe you need to look in a better place.. even your use of the term "chicks garbage" shows an attitude that makes me think you don't know better.

I wish you well and hope you see a clearer light!

edit on 27-3-2011 by Perfect stranger because: (no reason given)

By that I meant, Domestic Abuse(more and more guy's are breaking the wall of silence[DV is roughly 50-50 give or take 5%), emotional abuse(something men are the singular uncontested number 1 victim of), but mainly the belief that because they are female they are extra special princesses who should be worshiped and never challenged(granted this mentality is held mostly by older females).

But because you are ignorant of what angle I am coming from I will explain how I got down this rabbit hole. Back in 06 I took a socio-economic course, well I have a habit of double checking text books(picked it up in middle school). Well the whole book was total rubbish. It was either an outright lie(they tried to use the picture of the lady and her children from the dust bowl and pass it off as an impoverished American woman from the 80's, butchered studies to make them conform to the general theme of the book), a gross manipulation or totally missing of relevant information. It was nothing more then a hateful feminist women's studies course in disguise.

As I tore each chapter apart, bit by bit I learned the whole facts of gender discourse in America. Once you know the whole truth(I have read tons of books from different era's so that added greatly to the click moment) you can't unknow it. You can only react to it.
If you actually looked at gender discourse in America it actually lines up with Marxist ideology to the T, a perfect storm for the full manifestation of Marxism. But I digress, you have to look all the facts up for yourself.

news.mensactivism.org... Poke around that website see the truth of what is going on, it is enough to turn your stomach. And there is so much more beyond that out there.

And if you don't like my attitude tough, because I will use what ever combination of words that will either help the dark age along or wake people up to it's threat(don't get me wrong I don't want it to happen but if it is inevitable then the sooner in, the sooner out).

Ah. A guy who complains women are "out of their place" AND wants them to work AND if they work thinks they are wrong AND doesn't think that men should support them.

At what point does you realize that being ^^ this ^^ at cross purposes just means you hate women?

Originally posted by Aeons
Ah. A guy who complains women are "out of their place" AND wants them to work AND if they work thinks they are wrong AND doesn't think that men should support them.

At what point does you realize that being ^^ this ^^ at cross purposes just means you hate women?

edit on 2011/3/28 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Yawn, I guess I am just being "uppity" for demanding equality.

P.S Stop being a liar. I have never supported traditionalism,ever. I always pegged you for being a chauvinistic female supremacist. On the one hand I am glad I wasn't wrong, but on the other it is always sad when people give into supremacist BS.

antimisandry.com...

Yes, you have indeed in other threads degraded women for being out of the traditional place of women and ruining everything.

And again, you are not all men. I don't hate all men. I don't even hate most men. I do however find certain men quite contemptible, and you certainly seem to run around acting like one of those ones.

You noticing that I don't find guys like you worthy isn't something you can blow up to include all men. You aren't a representative of men, you aren't a statistical sampling of men. I'll admit that you probably pick up on the fact that I might find that I am superior to YOU, but that is purely a personal reaction to your posts.

I am all the things that you think a woman should be - and you hate the crap out of me for it. Its really quite amusing.

Originally posted by Aeons
Yes, you have indeed in other threads degraded women for being out of the traditional place of women and ruining everything.

And again, you are not all men. I don't hate all men. I don't even hate most men. I do however find certain men quite contemptible, and you certainly seem to run around acting like one of those ones.

You noticing that I don't find guys like you worthy isn't something you can blow up to include all men. You aren't a representative of men, you aren't a statistical sampling of men. I'll admit that you probably pick up on the fact that I might find that I am superior to YOU, but that is purely a personal reaction to your posts.

I am all the things that you think a woman should be - and you hate the crap out of me for it. Its really quite amusing.

Yawn, please list all the post's where I expressly supported and advocated for traditionalism. Pretty pretty please? Wait you can't? aww pity you.

I hate the social construct of "woman" or rather what society enables women to do to men. I also hate the bias and discrimination against males in our society(in favor of women). Make no mistake I view women first and foremost as human beings and I am not going to hold anyone to a lesser standard because of their gender.

You don't see me saying "those barbarian's in Saudi Arabia have the right idea"(I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone). But if refusing to treat women like perpetual children makes me a bigot, then sign me right up. Because that I think is the singular, most contemptible sin that our forefathers committed against women.

We live in a society that enables women to commit great evil and get away with it. Of course it is a combination effect(arse backwards mix of traditionalism's "women can do no harm"+ gender feminist's "women are the master gender"). From a male perspective it doesn't matter that not all women are like that, what matters is that all women could be like that with the full blessing of the state.

But let's play a game, call it a term of the day type thing. Look up "feminist jurisprudence", and how "truly egalitarian" it is...(P.S to those who missed the sarcasm, it isn't).

Heck look up Paternity Fraud while your at it.


(As per my slouch comment, that applies in a gender neutral function. If I married some chick that had a super paying job and I became the SAHP, I would have to do something else. Volunteer work, something, even part time book-keeping. The most concession I would make about alimony is require the breadwinner to pay for the SAHP's unemployment tax so in the advent of divorce separation, they could use that until they get back on their feet. Direct payments from the bread winner strikes me as something akin to slavery or peonage, something I can never accept or agree with ever for any reason)

reply to post by korathin


Yawn... as you put it.... I'm tired of reading your rant... This woman will have her day in court anbd we'll see if the "decline of western civilization" is upon us LOL.

Alimony in Canada is reserved for married couples even at that it is something that is negotiated between the two people ( IE . Length, Amount)

It is also important to state that the Gender roles in Alimony is not fixed, Usually the higher earner ends up covering the lower earner. You can go on and on about WHY it's usually the woman that is the lower earner (when the mother is a stay home mother)
Couples that can afford to have 1 parent stay home AND BE A FULLTIME MOM....THIS IS THE KEY HERE
Do stay home and is probably in the best interest of developing children rather than be shipped off to a daycare system..


"Lola" in this case... remember that's what this thread is really about..... loved the " party life" her BOYFRIEND afforded her. They had full time nannies so she could enjoy life in the fast lane as "the GIRLFRIEND" and mother of their children. no the ride is over and she's not happy..


I believe that the law will be upheld and that the sacrement of marriage bring benefits both spritual and financial as well as legal... they made a choice!

Well The verdict is in and the SCC says Common law marriges have less rights!

montreal.ctvnews.ca...
This renews a bit of faith in the system.... Good "Guy" may have enough $$$ left for another ride to the ISS

My Post from March 2011 called it! ....... NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!!!!!