blackbird

You are quite right. The anti-Trump media is responsible. If you believe in collusion with Russia, you have fallen for fake news.

There is a difference. Non-Muslims killing Muslims over religion is unheard of. But Islamic radical groups who kill people exist in a number of countries in Africa, the middle east, the Philippines, southeast Asia, and in a number of western European countries. France is reported for instance to be supplying high numbers of fighters for ISIS. There are hundreds of people killed (including Muslims) by radical jihadists every week in some parts of the world. There is no comparison to this among non-Muslims as you seem to think. It is disturbing that you don't want to acknowledge this and see christians or non-Muslims as doing the same things. Of course most Muslims are not doing these things and many or most do not support terrorism. But significant enough numbers do.

Who is providing support for these things? Nobody in this country as far as I know.

Again you have it mixed up. Christians disagree with homosexuality, etc. but do not hate the people who do those things. Christians simply cannot condone the practice of abortion, homosexuality, etc. Violence by conservatives or christians is extremely rare. As far as I know christians and conservatives do no approve of any kind of violence against people. But we know there are extremist groups in some parts of the world. We cannot control what they do. Never said you should hate or fear Muslims. It is the religion we disagree with.

I don't know what inflammatory rhetoric some conservatives are spouting. Maybe you could enlighten us. Also we live in a free country and people of any political belief are free to express their disagreement with certain things. You can call that inflammatory and it might offend some, but that is what freedom of speech is all about. You can disagree with whatever you wish. You have expressed very strong opinions on here yourself.

It's bizarre that you think Conservatives or people in this country physically attack or discriminate against homosexuals in Canada. There are laws against that. But in some of your beloved Muslim countries, homosexuality is illegal and people can be imprisoned or maybe even receive a death sentence. There are place where people kill homosexuals. That's why Canada just recently accepted a refugee claim from a bi-sexual man from a country in Africa.

What on earth on you talking about? What part of the world do you live in? Africa, Iran? You seem to have some very strange ideas that you must have heard or been taught.

Not all conservatives believe exactly the same way. There are many who are not religious and are more like liberals on these issues. A political party is not a church. The Conservative party includes people from all different religious and non-religious beliefs and backgrounds. But many conservatives oppose certain things because they are contrary to the Bible and the christian faith. These are such things as : Homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage, and Islam. Christians disagree with these things but do not "reject people" as you claim. That is a false statement. You are misleading. Christians still work with people, talk with people, and do business with people every day whom they disagree with on some of these issues. We all must live with and do business with people who do not think like us every day. Your rejection claim is false.

But you have to admit he makes excellent points.

You make a false assumption. No, conservatives don't wish to do away with rights of the accused. Conservatives can be accused of crimes as well and want to have fair treatment by the justice system. You have a bias yourself in that you are willing to only accept one side of the argument and make no good defense. Rights are not an absolute thing where you have them or you don't. In legal matters they are a difficult balancing act where the rights of the accused must be weighed against the rights of the general public to be protected from a perceived danger. This is the conundrum. No, it's not a mindless argument. If you have done any reading about this, you will find that it is a difficult balancing act between the rights of an individual, the accused, and the rights of society to be protected. Liberal judges and politicians lean one way and conservative politicians generally lean the other way. Depends how one views it. There have been cases of judges letting people out on bail and these accused went on to murder people. This can't be right.

He's obviously doesn't agree with the assertion, but he's free to give his reasons why. My view is it has more to do with the liberal ideology and belief in an accused's rights. Everyone believes in rights but how far do you go with rights when it comes to putting society in danger?

It's up to you. It is simply a title to start discussion. Nobody else created the topic so we should give him/her credit for starting the subject.

The fundamental problem with the liberal position is they view an accused person as an underdog or coming from a disadvantaged group of society and therefore needs special protection of the Charter of Rights. Many judges are guided by this philosophy as are of course many liberal and left politicians. That is why it is so hard to get any law changed or created which might somehow reduce the underdog rights and give more protection to socieity. To these people it is a contest between individual rights and state's rights (or society's rights). The problem is often the safety of the public is not given the consideration it requires. The classic liberal view would be that if a prosecutor is going to bring in a criminal's record, then anything that is said is open to be challenged by the defense. This of course carries the bail process to the scenario where, if the system permits, there must be a trial just to determine whether bail should be given or not. At some point society (or the state if you prefer) has to say enough is enough and it cannot be dragged on endlessly. If requiring an accused person's criminal record will make it possible for a judge to make the right decision, that should be required. The defense could be given several minutes to make any counter-argument, but the law should require it ends there and the judge must make a decision based on the information put before him with the safety of the public being paramount, not the individual's rights. Updating the bail system to protect society may end up requiring a change to the Constitution which is a very difficult if not impossible process. Of course anything that might be seen as reducing individual's rights in favour of state's rights (even to protect society) would be vigorously opposed by liberal and left politicians.

Defense wants justification for any decision where the accused person's rights are effected. The judge could examine the criminal record and if he feels the accused does represent a risk to the public, he should be able to deny bail and give his reasons for doing so. I understand an accused person has certain rights, but the public has a right to expect their safety will not be put at risk in the administration of justice. But that's just my opinion; I'm not a lawyer.

Bail conditions didn't do much good for the victims of criminals who killed them while out on bail did they? But who cares about public safety?

If someone is charged with a serious crime and they receive bail, there is nothing to stop him from going out and trying to shot or intimidate witnesses or police officers involved in the case or others. Obviously this is something which should not be allowed to happen.

If in the opinion of a prosecutor and the judge the public would be at risk, yes. It is the job of the judge to make the final decision on whether a person should be given bail or denied on the basis of what information he has in order to protect the public. The justice system must protect the public foremost when there is reason to believe there is a risk of committing an offense. This is a temporary incarceration until the actual trial can be held for the charges. The best solution in such cases is to have the trial as soon as possible.

If a suspect has a criminal record, there may be good reason the judge should be told and the person not receive bail to avoid putting the public at risk. There have been cases where the judge was not informed and it has had dire consequences. It is better to keep someone incarcerated if there is any question about a suspects record until the matter is settled, rather than to put the public at risk.

I posted a link to an article entitled "Judge Bertha Wilson, a Classical Liberal Judge" an hour or so ago, but can't see it on here now. Wonder if my post was deleted for some reason. Never received any notification about it. Here is the link. https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Roach/_08_Roach.Wilson.pdf

I'm glad you mentioned Bertha Wilson. I googled her name and found an interesting essay for anyone who would like to have a little peek into what liberalism is and how it has effected some of our Supreme Court rulings and justice system. "The Andrews approach to equality also illuminates Justice Wilson’s approach to criminal law because she was well aware that those accused of crime are themselves an unpopular group and that other disadvantaged groups were overrepresented in their numbers. " Full essay: https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Roach/_08_Roach.Wilson.pdf It is easy to see why liberalism places a high emphasis on the rights of accused and disadvantaged groups. This is an important part of their philosophy and constituency. They also realize if these disadvantaged groups vote at all, they most likely will vote for the liberal or further left. This is an important part of the liberal constituency. On some issues, like the Wynn law debate though, it seems like they are shaking hands with the devil.

I don't buy the argument you and Dialamah are making. It's the liberal way of avoiding doing something to keep criminals behind bars. The liberal minister says he can't support Wynn's law because it make the bail process too complicated and delays it. I can't agree. The judge in Edmonton let an accused person with a long criminal record out on bail because he did not have the long criminal record. That doesn't sound complicated. It should have been given to him. It's simple. Liberals are known to want to give more rights to criminals at the expense of victims. This is the history of parliamentary votes on criminal justice laws.

This is a no-brainer to use an old hackneyed expression. But like every issue. there are liberals who will find a way to rationalize not requiring a judge to know a criminal's record before deciding on bail. This is because of liberal's deep sympathy for the so-called "rights" of criminals opposed to protecting the victims of crime. If you doubt this is true, just look at the voting record of liberals and NDP on criminal justice issues.

I read a news article in connection with this that said in one case a judge had released a criminal with a serious record and the criminal had gone out and killed a police officer while out on bail.

Well, I can honestly say I have spoken in favour of responsible resource development and opposed radical environmentalism on comment sections on the internet. But it seems so little in the face of the big foreign money that funds World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, and other envirnomental organizations. Canada is really getting propagandized by radical environmentalist organizations, which have rich foreign backing. B.C. is taking the brunt of it right now. These are dark times we are living in. Trudeau is an impotent Prime Minister and seems paralyzed on the Energy East pipeline. He is probably afraid of losing Liberal votes in Ontario and Quebec. A lot of people are inward looking and don't care about the rest of the country. We need a PM who can show strong leadership and get these pipelines built, but I am not too optimistic. A lot of people want better health care, education, better government pensions, old age homes, affordable housing but a lot of these people are doing everything to prevent resource development by going out and voting for the NDP and Greens. Therein lies the problem. They get what they vote for. Margaret Thatcher once said the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

People that want to ban pipelines, oil, natural gas, and other industries are living in an alternate reality. Not sure who is supporting them, but almost every job is somehow dependent on these industries and resources.