blackbird
-
Posts
6,692 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
On 2017-05-16 at 7:21 PM, dialamah said:
This from the guy who styles himself an expert on immigration, the legal system, how "leftists" think and how Muslims think.
But you have to admit he makes excellent points.
-
17 minutes ago, Omni said:
Ok so if you want to play the politics game, I can assume then that conservatives would simply do away with the rights of the accused. The fact is, once you study it a bit, the bill could actually cause more of the danger you speak of, but the bias from the outset would prefer to ignore that, since it doesn't fit the bias.
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.
11 minutes ago, dre said:This is just a mindless strawman and mis-characterization of someone elses position. I think EVERYONE needs protection from some form of constitution and that governments needs to be LIMITED in what they are allowed to do to any of their citizens, and governments that are not constrained by rules have a history of doing terrible things to people.
I think the judge in criminal case needs to have a list of convictions when considering bail, but nothing else, and definitely not arrests or cases where the accused was found not guilty. The presumption of innocence is one of the more important pillars of our legal system, so the courts should only consider pre-existing convictions where that presumption of innocence has been credibly overcome by the prosecutor in a court room.
Also I believe bail should almost always be granted unless a person poses an immediate danger to others, or there is good reason to believe there is a risk of flight. Remember... a guy in a bail hearing hasn't been found guilty of a god damn thing.
As for complaining about the constitution... Move to a country without one, and see how that works out for you.
I HATE criminals BTW, especially violent criminals, and financial criminals. But that doesnt mean people should be stripped of their rights just because they are accused of something. And the reality is, we have struck a pretty good balance between maintaining constitutional rights and keeping the public safe from criminals.
Our system appears to be working pretty well...
Of course Argus will just tell you that people don't report murders anymore LOL.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Omni said:
You don't see the blatant bias in the title?
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?
-
13 minutes ago, dre said:
The title of this thread underscores the dysfunctional nature of the debate around here. Its like something somebody in grade 3 would write. Without even really reading the article we start off with the bold proclamation that liberals MUST love criminals. To stupid to even bother with.
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.
-
15 hours ago, kimmy said:
Sometimes stuff that seems like a great idea actually has unintended consequences. As Dialamah posted, there seems to be a possibility that these changes could actually create a higher evidenciary burden and make it harder for the prosecutor to have bail denied.
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.
-
32 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:
....except bail conditions. This isn't "Law & Order" Canadian Victim's Unit.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Bob Macadoo said:
.....so a person with a record automatically puts the public at risk?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Bob Macadoo said:
If it is a must in court proceedings then it becomes a point of focus, attention and dispute....thereby lending evidence in its ability to delay bail decisions. Both improving a guilty's 2-1 pretrial incaceration....and delaying justice for the innocent. If its not a mandatory inclusion....although used by the judge anyway....win win. I notice people only want things over regulated and prescribed when they think it won't affect them.......otherwise discretion and judgement should reign.
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
-
29 minutes ago, Argus said:
You can do both. You can do your best to keep them out while also speeding up the processing. Unfortunately, here in Canada, since the Bertha Wilson decision, anyone who sets one inch across the border has all the rights of native born Canadians. Which means they have multiple ways to appeal and delay being removed, and their legal fight to stay is paid for by us.
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 arethemselves an unpopular group and that other disadvantaged groupswere overrepresented in their numbers. "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. -
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:
The argument is NOT to find a way to hide a criminals record from a judge. Why would anyone want to do something like that? We all have families and we want them protected, whether liberals or conservatives. What the article shows, and what Dialamah posted indicates the issue is far more complex than the simple-minded opinion of the OP. One should read carefully and decide based on what little we know. Use reason. But one good point that he raised is why there are not enough appointed judges. I find this inexcusable. Get to work.
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.
-
19 hours ago, dialamah said:
Here's the argument against the bill.
Here are a couple of pertinent excerpts:
I haven't read the entire debate (didn't even know you could access them online! That's cool!) so I don't actually have an opinion about whether it should have passed or not, but may as well have both sides of the argument if you want to talk about it. It seems to me that a newspaper article reflecting the concerns of the widow is designed more to garner knee-jerk emotional reaction and to slag the Liberals, than to actually consider the merits of the legislation itself.
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.
-
9 hours ago, overthere said:
It is not wild speculation to assume that there will be zero pipelines or LNG facilities built in BC. There is no scenario available now that would see political approval of anything in the province, and several that would see outright rejection of both approved and proposed projects. Even if Clark wins another seat, her majority is so thin that every government backbencher could blackmail her or be bribed to cross the floor.
More likely or perhaps almost certainly big money in oil and LNG like Petronas and Kinder-Morgan will take the strong hint and just decide not to invest in Canada. They will join the already huge flight of capital by multinationals who recognize that Canada is just not a friendly place for them in the resource industry.
We have only ourselves to blame. We are simultaneously unwillingly to recognize how our fat, comfortable social contract is funded(hint: it is not through deficits), and then constantly elect fools that reinforce our bad choices. And... here we go again.
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.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
I'm curious where you think the limit is and at what point an expense to the environment is great enough to not make it worth the price?
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.
-
6 hours ago, overthere said:
LOL. Nobody in Alberta expects anything from anybody in BC.
That is not how Canada has worked, for a long time
I also have to laugh at the notion that Trudeau has any real interest to 'show some leadership' on pipelines. He would be privately delighted to see the entire oil and gas industry in the country closed forever. At the first sign of dissent on Energy East, he shut down the hearings and the entire process remains paralyzed. He'd love to see the same thing with Kinder-Morgan/Trans Mountain, and now his wildest dream will be realized. The project will not move ahead, and he won't be blamed. I expect Kinder-Morgan the corporation will look at this result , review the roles and actions of the provincial and federal governments, and conclude: why bother with Canada at all?
It is tragic. I just skimmed through the BC Green Party website and if they have their way, it looks like BC will be under a very heavy hand of environmental regulations, increasing carbon taxation, and elimination or blocking of pipelines, and liquid natural gas (LNG). It's a mystery where people think the huge amount of money and jobs are going to come from if they stifle industry in B.C. Companies and investment will simply go somewhere else in the world.
It looks like the BC Green Party will hold the balance of power which means they can exercise influence and control of some government decisions far beyond the percentage of vote they received to hammer resource development and impose carbon taxes simply in exchange for them to keep the government in power. We may have another election sooner than we expect.
-
12 hours ago, The_Squid said:
I'm pretty sure he's not a "fan of climate change"...
I guess I should have made in clear Green leader Weaver is said to be a "climate change" scientist and as head of the BC Green party, we can assume he is an environmentalist who is a believer in man-made climate change. The name "Green" should tell us they exalt the environment, maybe at the expense of resource development and jobs.
-
At the moment , 10:25PM, the election results are showing the B.C. Liberals leading in 42 seats, NDP 42 seats, and Green Party 3 seats. This is probably the closest election race in B.C. history. This will have Albertans on edge because the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion to ship Alberta oil to Asian markets could be threatened if the NDP and Greens together form a majority, which is 44 seats. The NDP Alberta government, must be on pins and needles tonight because there are 100,000 people out of work in Alberta. Getting a lot of these people back to work may depend on the pipeline expansion so that Alberta can sell their oil to Asian markets. What we need is a strong Federal government who can show some leadership and get these pipelines built, including Energy East regardless whether provincial governments oppose them. Pipelines are a national enterprise, much like railways and require Federal leadership. This NDP/Green win does not bode well for the economy and jobs in B.C.
The Green Party leader in B.C. is likely a strong believer in man-made climate change and believes more should be done on fighting climate change. It shouldn't be a surprise because isn't that the reason for a "Green" party. With the B.C. carbon tax the last eight years, I have already paid directly about $2100 in carbon taxes which is very discriminatory for several reasons. A small minority of people pay most of the carbon taxes in B.C. and almost nobody in the rest of the world even pay any carbon taxes. So people in B.C. may be hit with more costs for the climate change scam.
-
7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Hey @blackbird I fear you are drifting the thread into yet another on the same topic that is covered elsewhere. Please try to keep this to 'Responsibilities of Citizenship' thanks.
The Islamization of the world and of Canada is directly connected with the duties of Citizenship of Canada. Those of us who are concerned about the Islamization of Canada see it as a duty to be concerned with immigration policies of Canada and this is a duty of citizenship.
-
44 minutes ago, taxme said:
But yet do our Canadian Caucasian politicians really care? Not. It's like our Canadian Caucasian politicians are trying to commit racial suicide against themselves and their own people. Shocking indded.
Exactly. I raised the issue of the Islamization of the world because this is directly to do with the Responsibilities of Citizenship, but Michael claimed I am drifting the topic. I think it is a responsibility of citizenship to support immigration policies which will not contribute to the Islamization of Canada. This is a central duty of citizenship.
-
"Two Muslim politicians who won municipal elections in Belgium's capital, Brussels, on 14 October 2012, vowed to implement Islamic Shari'a law in Belgium. Redouane Ahrouch declared: "We are elected Islamicists, but above all we are Muslims… we embrace the Quran and the traditions of the prophet Muhammad. We believe Islam is a universal religion." He said that he will strive to make sure that the town councils' motions and solutions all emanate from Islam. He said that his ultimate goal was creating an Islamic state in Belgium based on Islamic Shari'a law."
-
31 minutes ago, Omni said:
I don't know anyone who tries to hide the fact. And I don't "prefer" my decision, unfortunately it seems to apply more accurately.
32 minutes ago, Omni said:I don't know anyone who tries to hide the fact. And I don't "prefer" my decision, unfortunately it seems to apply more accurately.
The Islamization of the world is progressing as demographics confirm. Belgium is one of the leaders. The actual percentage of Muslims in Belgium is 6% but in the city of Antwerp the Muslims make up for 25% of the population. Some schools are 40% Muslims.
The traditional giant Christmas tree was not put up in the town square recently because a number of town councilors are Muslim and so some kind of lighted statue was put up instead. It is a matter of decades before Europe is taken over but it is coming.
Quote With the low birth rate of Belgians, and extremely high abortion rates, the indigenous Belgian population is in steep decline. However, the Muslim community continues to grow through both high birth rates and marriage migration. Nearly 35% of the Moroccans and Turks in Belgium are below 18 years of age, as compared to 18% of Belgians. In Antwerp, Belgium's second largest city, 40% of elementary school children are Muslim. Unquote
Canada also has a low Caucasian birth rate and high Caucasian abortion rate.
Islamophobia in Canada
in Federal Politics
Posted · Edited by blackbird
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.