There Are liars, and then there are LIARS

I have a boyfriend, I have a wife, I have a girlfriend, I have a husband… but we are having problems, things are not good, you don’t really understand its complicated, blah blah blah…

There are liars, and then there are LIARS.

Everybody lies. It may only be a little white lie, but everyone tells lies or sometimes omits the truth. Lying start at a really early age around 4 to 5 years old when children are beginning to be aware of things, and how they can use lying to get what they want. Now why do husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends lie to each other? Uhmmmm, I have yet to find all the possible reasons to answer this question.

It's not pleasant to think about being betrayed by someone you love. No one likes to think that a husband or wife may be lying, especially not in their own relationship, but it happens, usually with the spouse who is the passive one in the relationship; You know the one that doesn’t raise his voice, and pretends to be calm cool and collected then low and behold his on some chat website or using some other social website pretending to meet new people, wanting to learn a new language, or is always coming home late from work, where the excuse is always “sorry honey I had to work late this evening” and or “sorry honey I had a late meeting” or “we had some big-time clients and took them out for drinks” … But in fact his really screwing his secretary, or making promises of a relationship with one of his online women, or he already have a girlfriend hidden in some apartment uptown!

And it's probably safe to assume that everyone wants a close, romantic relationship that is built on openness, intimacy and trust. But despite our best intentions, our close relationships do not always work that way. Often, our romantic relationships involve some secrecy and deception.

When the question is posed why people lie, seldom does the person asking realize just how complicated that question is. The truth is, there is no simple reason why people lie, there really isn't a clear definition of what is and what are just silly tales. Is an omission a lie? Maybe, maybe not, but if it is, it certainly isn't in the same way that a frank statement against fact is a lie. So, does mood influence people’s tendency to engage in evasive, equivocal communication when facing conflict situations? You should also take note of consistently evasive answers to direct questions. Many liars haven’t thought through their stories and so prefer to keep their answers short (think one to 5 word responses) and non-specific, they never elaborate; one of the most common responses from cheaters, which I have somewhat touched on earlier is the “its complicated” or “you won’t understand”, or “trust me” etc…

Of course, not everyone using the above phrases is being dishonest and vice versa, so you should use this advice as a possible warning sign and not as a blanket rule, and judge according to the person and situation in question. Apart from avoiding eye contact, breaking out in a sweat, and other possible physiological triggers, Forbes says that liars may be more likely to ask you to repeat your questions than those making honest claims. Also, liars may preface their pronouncements with “to tell you the truth” and “to be perfectly honest” more so than their truth-telling counterparts. Finally, liars also tend to use third-person pronouns like “we “and “they” as a way to “psychologically distance themselves from a lie”.

You meet a woman online, you chat for awhile on msn, facebook, or myspace etc then you ask her for her phone number or some pic’s; She says "why don't you give me yours and I will give you a call, or she sends you pictures of someone else but her. She does this because she wants to be safe to protect herself. This kind of a situation happens every day online, it’s a lie but it is totally acceptable. Anything a woman does to make herself safer in this crazy online dating world is ok by me. It’s much better and not in the least bit harmful, compare to this situation, finding out through friends on a social website like facebook, or msn that they know the guy who asks you for your picture and that this very same guy is married, and is really not in such a bad situation as he professed, and on top of that, his wife believes that this is the love of her life and loves him to death… geez, little does she know that he is having online emotional affairs with different women, or planning to break-up with her, or that he has already cheated on her!

A woman ask a man for his phone number, he says "why don't you give me yours and I will give you a call " or he says “ I’ll give you my number but only call me when I tell you to” or “don’t call me in the evenings, and on weekends” . Ladies, Offcourse he is a "player" !!! He is already in a relationship and or married and looking for a little something on the side. A man that definitely have something to hide or he wouldn't have to make all these requests.

DON’T CHEAT OR LIE TO YOUR SPOUSE OR PARTNER

DON’T PROFESS DISAPPOINTMENT IN OTHERS WHEN YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LIAR OF THEM ALL

DON’T STAY IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE NOT WORKING

JUST STOP HURTING ONEANOTHER and STOP THE GAMES

The Struggle between Boards and Courts over the Interpretation of Labour Relations Acts

By Jovana Zajaredic
Osgoode Hall


Collective Bargaining

In the Oakville Trafalgar and Metropolitan Life cases, supra, section 4:420, and in a number of other well-known cases, reviewing courts overturned the decisions of labour boards, ruling that the boards had adopted interpretations of their statutes ‘which the language would not reasonably bear,’ or that they had ‘asked themselves the wrong questions,’ or that they had ‘exceeded their jurisdiction’ by adopting particular interpretations of the labour relations legislation that, in the courts’ view, they were not entitled to adopt. In some of these cases, the courts’ intervention had the effect of overturning well-established board practices on which many collective bargaining relationships had been established over many years.
The most radical challenge to judicial review was contained in the British Columbia Labour code, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 212 (now repealed). Section 33 provided:
The board has and shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to determine the extent of its jurisdiction under this Act, a collective agreement or the regulations, to determine a fact or question of law necessary to establish its jurisdiction and to determine whether or in what manner it shall exercise its jurisdiction.
This was the first time that a Canadian legislature had said explicitly that even on questions of ‘jurisdiction’ the labour board’s decision was to prevail. Comprehensive privative clauses such as the one passed in British Columbia would appear to be doomed to failure after the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Crevier v, Quebec (A.G.) (1982), 127 D.L.R. (3d) 1. In delivering the judgment of the court, Chief Justice Laskin made it clear that provincial legislation which immunized a provincial statutory tribunal from judicial review on questions of jurisdiction, as opposed to questions of law, would be unconstitutional because its effect would be to usurp the traditional jurisdiction of the courts. This decision, however, simply precludes a total legislature ban on judicial review and still leaves open the issue of the appropriate extent of judicial review in light of the broad statutory mandate given to specialist labour relations tribunals. An interesting comment on the case’s implications is found in H. Arthurs, ‘Protection Against Judicial Review’ (1983) 43 R. du B. 277 at 289-290:
There is no reason to believe that a legally-trained judge is better qualified to determine the existence or sufficiency or appropriateness of evidence on a given point than a trained economist or engineer, an arbitrator selected by the parties, or simply an experienced tribunal member who decides such cases day in and day out. And there is no reason why one group of individuals, however intelligent and well-intentioned, should project upon the rest of society an image of how things ought to be run.