Canadian Election Tread (part deux)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Precisely my point, NYE.

The only time we see activist judges is if they are on the Liberal side. Heaven help a conservative activist judge. How many cries would we hear from the liberals if we had a conservative who interpreted the Charter so freely as our judiciary has done?

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just being paranoid, as always.

Can you even name which justices are conservatives and which are liberals? I doubt it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it would be very interesting to see a court case where one side argued section 33 and the other argued section 1 i.e. "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Such limits under section 33 already imposed on the notwithstanding clause provide for public opinion to be expressed.

In fact, I bet section 1 could even be used to affirm the supremacy of parliament over the appointed judiciary, such that the will of the people might not be blocked by dissenting justices.

The section of the law that looks at the purposes for the material is what you describe as the public good loophole. Removing this section results in a law that would make a criminal out of a victim trying to express the horrors of what she/he has experienced.

Why? The defense is not that child pornography may have a public good, but that the testimony of the individual is not intended for the purposes of porn. The vague wording of the public good defense, allows for a defense of porn along the lines of a public good, rather than a much narrower definition, along the lines I have specified.

It needs to be clearly outlined that child pornography can have no public good, something that the current amended policy fails to do.

We have no way to guarantee such a victim will not be successfully prosecuted without expressly including a section to do so.

Which the public good defense does not. It does not explicitly provide for this instance.

Name one pedophile who did not go to jail because of the artistic merit clause.

Mr. Sharpe.

This law presents a buck-shot collection of crimes to charge pedophiles with and we are discussing fine tuning one of that collection so that it does not stray and hit innocent people.

Buckshot is a fine analogy. Scattershot, and unfocused approaches that do nothing to punish the perpetrator.

Do I vote for the party who is going to extend special privileges to the group that I belong to and re-enact the notwithstanding clause to deny rights to a group I do not, or do I vote for the party which plans to do the opposite?

I would vote for a party that affirms the dignity of the human person, from conception onwards. Ergo, I would vote for a party like the Christian Heritage party that would extend the rights of individuals with respect to the Charter.

Progressivism is not coterminus with the Liberal and NDP party policies, but is rather antithetical to both.

Elections are never about a single simple issue and people usually have views which differ with one of more of the policy positions of the party they vote for.

Occasionally people will vote for an individual, or will vote against a person that they fear more than they will vote for someone. There are plenty of reasons why people vote the way they do, that have nothing to do with the point at hand.

Lynch-mob law wrapped up in a legitimate democratic process is still tyranny.

As opposed to the butchery of an entire Canadian generation, sanctioned by judicial cowardice? If the justices are for human rights, why are they against unborn children?

Any legislation can be amended or repealed by a simple majority of the legislative body which passed it.

Yes, but policy often becomes entrenched. You know this as well as I do. Inertia is difficult to overturn.

The constitution being a supreme law has its own amending formula but can similarly be changed.

When was the last time the constitution was successfully amended? It's not easy, and certainly easier for judges to make new laws out of whole cloth, than it is for the legislature to fix the problems that come from this activism.

If a majority of politicians feel that a law provides judges pour guidance they can just change the law as is constantly done (almost all legislation is amendments to existing laws).

1 Judge can do what 15 million people cannot. That is judicial tyranny.

What does this have to do with the independence of the courts and the legislature?

Everything. If the judicial appointment is supposedly non-partisan, why not ask for a unanimous approval process, from both the Senate and the Commons?

I will point out that there has never been a controversial appointment to the Supreme Court.

Controversial from who's point of view? Your own? That's like Chretien saying abortion is a settled issue, when more than half of Canadians disagree with the status quo. I assure you there have been controversial appointments to the Supreme court.

All of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court have been well respected in all walks of life and have been viewed as being among the best legal minds in the country.

And erstwhile Liberal party supporters, no doubt.

A Supreme Court justice has never been accused of, or identified as, having a partisan perspective.

Really. So when a justice finds a right to abortion in the Charter, when all the other justices disagree with her, that lady is nonpartisan?

I assure you, that position is very partisan.

Increasing the transparency of the appointment process must not compromise or be perceived as compromising the independence of the courts and the legislature.

How would increasing the transparency possibly compromise the independence? I can only see that working the other way. If Canadians really understood how their justices were appointed they would clamour for the American system.

It is this independence which is symbolised by the blindfolded woman impartially balancing the scales of justice. The subjective and ever-changing whimsy of the lynch-mob is, I believe, not what most of us want to go back to.

I am pleased to see that you have such faith in the appointments of Mr. Chretien. I look forward to your continued faith in the appointments of Mr. Harper.

The best form of government is the one you would live under should you disagree with the people in power.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just being paranoid, as always.

Can you even name which justices are conservatives and which are liberals? I doubt it.

Under who's definition of liberal?

I can easily state which justices I consider liberal, and my reasons for doing so. Therefore, you lose the bet.

[KrazyHorse]

T-4 days.

Yeeeeeeeehaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[KrazyHorse]

I sent in my ballot 2 weeks ago. Now it's all about seeing what the rest of you ****ers do at the polls.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I can easily state which justices I consider liberal, and my reasons for doing so.

Okay, name them and the reasons why you think they are liberal.

[Flinx]

In my world, I am a goddess!

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay, name them and the reasons why you think they are liberal.

The ones who supported the redefinition of marriage is just one reason.

Another would be the allusion I have already made in a previous post, with respect to finding a right to abortion in the Charter.

So I can say a majority in the court are liberals in my estimation without going into further detail.

[notyoueither]

As for the credibility of the court...

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/23/canada/scoc_prisoner040623

Supreme Court clears prison killer on weapons charge

Last Updated Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:06:23
OTTAWA - A prisoner in Alberta who killed another inmate with a stab to the head is not guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday.


INDEPTH: Supreme Court

At trial, Jason Kerr was acquitted of murder and of possessing a dangerous weapon.
An appeals court upheld the murder acquittal on reasons of self-defence, but overturned the ruling on the weapon charge, substituting a conviction.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court restored the second acquittal.

On Jan. 16, 2000, Kerr stabbed Joseph Garon in the head with a sharpened spoon during a fight in a kitchen at the Edmonton Institution.

The night before, the court heard, Garon had threatened to smash Kerr's head in because Kerr refused to get him coffee.

In the morning, Garon was armed with his own knife and attacked Kerr.

Garon was known to be a member of a gang in the prison.

Crown lawyers argued that acquitting Kerr on the weapons charges would set off an arms race in federal prisons, that prisoners would see such a decision as permission to arm themselves with homemade knives and shivs.

The court heard, however, that in 2000, the Edmonton Institution was rife with weapons and gang violence.

The trial judge, Justice Terry Clackson of the Court of Queen's Bench, ruled that the two handmade knives deterred attacks, and allowed him to defend himself.

Kerr is serving a six-year sentence for several crimes including robbery.

Now, I'm not sure, but the guy killed someone with a what, tool?

Does this mean I can go into the Strath and blow away someone with a gun because the place is full of bikers and guns?

They are making rulings that are... difficult for normal people to accept. Weapons and violence in our prisons are now the rule, as far as the SCoC is concerned.

What a bunch of jackasses.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now, I'm not sure, but the guy killed someone with a what, tool?

Does this mean I can go into the Strath and blow away someone with a gun because the place is full of bikers and guns?

They are making rulings that are... difficult for normal people to accept. Weapons and violence in our prisons are now the rule, as far as the SCoC is concerned.

What a bunch of jackasses.

To be honest, that was my initial reaction, but look at the facts of the case.

Apparently what happened is Kerr (the accused) was threatened by Garon (the dead dude). Garon and his buddies then corner Kerr in a room. Garon then attacks Kerr. Kerr acts in self-defence.

From the CP story:
It was his acquittal on the second charge, of carrying a weapon ``for a purpose dangerous to the public peace," that was argued all the way to the Supreme Court.

In its 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court indicated it wasn't suggesting all prisoners had the right to arm themselves.

"On this specific occasion, Kerr did not possess his weapons for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. I agree with the trial judge's finding that Kerr possessed his weapons on the day in question for the purpose of defending himself against an imminent attack by specific individuals," said the majority decision.

"Kerr was subject to credible threats of an imminent assault in an environment from which there was simply no possibility to escape and in which, was found by the trial judge, it was futile to seek protection."

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The ones who supported the redefinition of marriage is just one reason.

Another would be the allusion I have already made in a previous post, with respect to finding a right to abortion in the Charter.

So I can say a majority in the court are liberals in my estimation without going into further detail.

For all you know, a justice who was against abortion may have said yes to gay marriages.

You're b!tching about people you don't even know. You don't know who appointed them. You don't know whether they have a record of making conservative or liberal judgements. You don't know reasons behind their decisions.

You don't know anything, but you condemn them. Yup, you're a good Christian.

[notyoueither]

... and he had a weapon.

Acquit him of murder. Fine, I agree with that, and in fact the Province did not appeal that.

But the guy had a weapon! That ruling just made it open season on the wards of prisons across the land, and a few guards will most likely pay the price. Did the fine twots think of that? I doubt it. I think they are very much focused on remaking Canada as they think it should be. The law, Parliament, and common sense be damned.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... and he had a weapon.

Acquit him of murder. Fine, I agree with that, and in fact the Province did not appeal that.

But the guy had a weapon! That ruling just made it open season on the wards of prisons across the land, and a few guards will most likely pay the price. Did the fine twots think of that? I doubt it. I think they are very much focused on remaking Canada as they think it should be. The law, Parliament, and common sense be damned.

Typical. People ***** when the SCC interprets the law and people ***** when the SCC follows the letter of the law.

The law says it is illegal to carry a weapon "for a purpose dangerous to the public peace." This guy was carrying a weapon for self-defence, not to disrupt the peace or pose a threat.

Apparently, most of the prisoners were armed.

From the Globe story
"the guards at the Edmonton Institution had, to a significant extent, lost control over the inmates, who had gathered themselves into warring gangs.¡¨

The real problem here is the lack of funds for prisons [which means not enough prison guards]. So don't blame the SCC. The fault lies with Liberals and their efforts to balance the budget.

[notyoueither]

Not many ***** about the SCoC upholding the law. More people start to wonder when they make 'interesting' decisions.

btw, it is illegal to carry a weapon, period. I have never heard of anyone getting off before due to the rough neighbourhoos they live in. Anyways...

[notyoueither]

Evil thoughts category.

Many Tories would prefer Martin to win this election. Clark, Klein, a passel of Manitoba Tories, and even a bunch of Alberta Conservatives who came out in support of Landslide Annie are all up to something. It may come as a shock to many, but Klein was widely tipped as a Liberal before deciding to run for power by joining the provincial establishment in Alberta. Klein effectively derailed any dream Harper had of hitting near majority support with his recent comments on healthcare. Interesting that Harper's biggest problems come in the shape of Tories from Alberta (Clark and Klein).

Why?

A Conservative minority or a weak majority would not be good for the party, and maybe not for the country. More controversy is the last thing that is needed for a fledgling party finding itself in government, and would likely be unwise for the country. There is no shade of red in Hell that would see a strong majority with national representation for the Conservatives coming from this election.

Why?

In Quebec especially, and the East in general, time is needed to mend fences and to bury the spectre of Reform before the electorate is comfortable. Liberals elected in Ontario and Quebec is distasteful to many, so why would others accept Tories elected in Ontario and the West?

More importantly, time is needed to decide the nature of the party itself. With Harper as leader it can be viewed (accurately or not) that Reform 'won' the struggle for the right in Canada. But it goes way beyond Harper. It goes to candidates left over from then who shoot their mouths off in the heat of a campaign. Yet it goes even further than that to the party itself being undetermined on questions like abortion, and in fact, on every single other issue. The party hasn't decided a platform, it has one that a relative moderate (Harper) crafted from the common ground of the two old parties. That has led to more controversy no matter how moderate Harper may be, as opponents are able to define the party more than members of the party have been able to.

The evil thought is that people who would sooner rot in hell than join the Liberals (Clarke and maybe many more) don't want the Conservatives to win, yet.