charter.rights

That is why the Charter focuses on equality where it concerns the law and basic human rights but the courts focus on equity in order to strike a balance between the inequality of different groups of people. As an example the requirement for "barrier-free" access and travel within new buildings make those buildings available to people who have hearing, seeing or physical impediments and is not unreasonable in a civil society. However, providing access to existing buildings creates a more difficult problem, since there may be doctors, or other health professionals in those buildings that are inaccessible to physically impaired patrons. Then we have to weigh out the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the building owner. Should renovation take place, then again it is entirely reasonable for the owner of the building be required to comply with upgrading. In the case of other inequities, it is important that we focus on finding a balance and reconcile their needs as much as possible. There should be no artificial barriers, such as building accessibility or workplace policy that restrict people with impairments from working there. Just as well, we must insist that hearing or seeing impaired do not hold mental disabilities, or other physical disabilities that prevent them from most workplaces, or access to buildings regularly used by the public. Business owners must be made to accommodate the disabilities and not use excuses to deny the individual equal opportunity. Equity (as a tenet of equality) within society is different than trying to make everyone the same - which is not the purpose of the equality movement. It is to recognize that there are in fact differences in people and that as a tolerant society we must make accommodations for their differences. Certainly we wouldn't support a pub that demands a red-haired Irish-Canadian die his hair green on St Patrick's Day or be fired to be within reason nor would we expect a blind telephone operator to be denied a job simply because she can't see the computer screen in front of her when there are lots of compensating technologies available to accommodate her difference.

Was it because she wasn't native?

Yes, I understand but when the written notes come out could you post them. This is a remarkable turn of history.

Those of us whom have studied law and researched Six Nations knew that years ago. I'm glad the courts are finally acknowledging it. So Six Nations protesters can legally go back calling them the Haldimand Treaty and the Simcoe Treaty. When you get a chance can you provide the reference?

Plea bargins don;t fall within the principles of justice. They are a blatant method of reducing court (and Crown attorney) workloads. They don't expedite sentences or benefit the public from having a fair trial. However, they are a reality in our system. They do produce failures and let criminals go free. Sentencing circles are in every aspect the epitome of what justice is supposed to be since they offer the victim, the community and the families of the victim and offender a say in what happens as a result. The unique thing about these kinds of processes is that there is no intimidation and the offender fully owns up to the crime and the circumstances that led up to it. Once this happens and once the initial anger dissipates into compassion and understanding judgment becomes a moral and intellectual process. I have seen these types of phenomena occur in mainstream groups under Community Justice Forums. And after the agreed upon restoration has been completed the offender is welcomed back after "serving his time" so to speak. With a success rate that is better than 80% why would any one criticize what works?.....Realizing of course that CJFs and sentencing circles are not appropriate for all crimes, or where the offender is reluctant to confront his demons.

Well you did. You left no room for discretion by the courts. Even if the two crimes were committed under similar circumstances there could be extenuating issues that make sentencing dissimilar, such as a guy who steals a loaf of bread. If one of the guys who stole a loaf of bread had money in his bank account that could be extenuating even if the guys lived side by side and both were hungry. And what about the guy that wasted bread? Is he not morally guilty for withholding food from a hungry person? Could the motivation for the theft from this particular guy not have arrived because he hoarded and wasted food in the face of hunger? The point is (and one the SCoC takes particular care of) there are no universal and just one-off sentences for crimes. Each case is individual and in it we must examine not only our Charter rights, our human rights not defended by the Charter but also the moral circumstances that led to a crime. The court owes the defendant a duty of care in examining all of the facts and not excluding them because of personal bias or repugnant superiority. And lastly couldn't a crime be avoided entirely if the owner of the bread simply handed the bread over willingly? In these types of criminal acts - thefts, robberies etc - the unwillingness to part with personal possessions is actually what creates the crime in the first place. If we are willing to hand over or share our possessions it is unlikely that some crimes would even exist.

Political equity is not undermined by lobbyists. It is a way where groups of people can come together gain political and legal influence (and sometimes economic influence) to change government policy. They are as vital to a free and working democracy as voting....and perhaps even more so since an individual in our system has no chance against corporate influence of government, of politician and of bureaucrats.

WE don't have the use for sentencing circles perhaps, but native people do. They are a form of justice which the Supreme Court of Canada accepts as equal to our system. And in fact a similar type of alternative justice forums are available to youth offenders called family circles which emulate the same process as aboriginal sentencing circles. As far as equality before the law it cannot be realized unless there is equity before the law as well. That means that extenuating circumstances must always be considered at trial and during sentences. In the example I cited to your under your thinking theft is theft and there is no room for moral judgment. Accordingly all sentences should be equal for theft. So is the hungry man guilty? And what sentence would you impose on him?

You can't have that in a civil society. There are different levels of the same crime. Different degrees of the people that commit them and different social, economic and political circumstances under which they are committed. There are two basic premises behind sentencing. 1. Is to ensure that there is a sufficient period in which the offender is rehabilitated and society is protect in the interim, and 2. the sentence acts as a deterrent for repeat offense and to others for committing an offense. The judiciary has built in discretion in both convicting and sentencing offenders. That is what a civil society provides and just as politicians have no business in the bedrooms of our soceity they have no business behind the bench of a court of law. If a hungry man steals a loaf of bread from a rich man who wastes at least two loaves per day, who is really guilty? What sentence could you possible give that would make this right?

As I understand it the US has limited top execs to $500k a year with no bonuses for those companies receiving assistance. The CEOs of major banks here cut their wages from $7m to $4m plus bonuses. They are taking our money and padding their own pockets while the banks they control foreclose on mortgages and call in loans from struggling taxpayers.

Even if there is no effect? What would that prove except to satisfy your thirst for blood?

Traditionally political equity and judicial equity have been undermined by economic inequity. The rich hire the best lawyers and use their influence to buy their ways into political institutions. Whereas those on the lower end do not have the same opportunity for advancement, often being rejected by the upper class because of their economic and social status. One would hardly engage a homeless person to be a politician or lawyer to represent them even though they may have once been successful politicians or lawyers in some capacity. Their economic status presents a barrier to social status and thus denies them equal and equitable representation on political or legal matters.

Alcoholism is a mental disorder and a father who risks his children's lives while in a psychotic episode - whether alcohol induced, drug induced or psychotically induced requires treatment. Punishment doesn't do any good, nor does it serve as a deterrent in these kinds of cases. Putting Pauchay in a sentencing circle has the community looking at not only his illness but the extent to which it has harmed the children and ultimately the community. It may very well be that the circle will recommend some sort of banishment, or incarceration but I guarantee the focus will be on treating the disease and not killing the Indian, so to speak. The Hollow Water Circle model of restorative justice has had great success dealing with the kinds of social misbehavior that leads to these kinds of events. By using an restorative approach the offender and victims (there are more victims in this than just the children), the families of the survivors and the community all participate in controlling and monitoring the behavior of the offender. They all take responsibility for what happens in their community and in turn help prevent similar events from happening in the future. The sentencing circle is a way for Pauchay to received the help he needs, protect the community they way they need protection and provide an avenue where it will be possible for him to return to the community as a whole person. No one expects everyone to "get it" since our western worldview contaminates our thinking towards violence and using a seemingly obtuse process to correct the problem appears foreign and inadequate. That isn't a problem with the process since the recidivism rate is below 20%, but it is a problem with our filters which prefers to mete out an eye for an eye even though Biblically they even get that wrong.

Hell...corporate Canada embraces the cocaine snorting executives that fit in or those that get drunk at company parties. It truly is a double standard where the mainstream authorize and excuse their hate towards those they don't know and blame them for all the ills of society. No one cares for children of drunks, gamblers or addicts that leave their children cold and hungry. This isn;t a race issue it is an ignorance issue.

Actually it is the system's fault...or rather the people in the system that are to blame. In the justice system, as well as the law enforcement system racism has been institutionalized. see. the recent case were aboriginal people were beaten into unconsciousness at St Michaels in Toronto....or the Saskatchewan police officers that left a native in sub-zero temperatures on the outskirts of town without a coat or shoes to die....or Dudley George and the Ipperwash hearings that found that the OPP was rampant with racism and bias against natives. The Supreme Court has recognized that native people are treated differently under our justice system and so there needs to be an extra effort to "reconcile" their cultural differences with our legal system.

Prison doesn't work as a deterrent or as a punishment, regardless of race. The guy didn't murder his children. His negligence (which is a different concept under the law) caused their death. And you just proved how ignorance often prevails in this sort of thing..... Again, you believe that a sentencing circling is light stuff. It isn't and is often a more difficult process than 6-10 years in prison.

"Should be...." but it isn't. Natives are over represented in our prisons because courts have traditionally gone harder on minor offense natives than say white collar criminals. Plus poverty and social conditioning make them easy targets for Crown attorneys and judges who want to set an example of them. Lastly there are different principles involved in culture that make it impossible for our courts to treat some crimes on a equal footing.

Justice. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, alternative justice systems and sentencing circles are encouraged with natives for some crimes. So the outcome - whatever it turns out to be - is well within Canadian law, and is a just way of dealing with the offender. Here is a situation where incarceration is unlikely to have any effect. However the shame of facing a sentencing circle in one's own community is considered by psychologists to be more stigmatizing than any jail sentence would ever achieve. The benefit is that after the sentence is completed the chances are not only will the offender be a better person but by engaging the community, it benefits as well. It is easy to criticize a system you don't understand because well, ignorance has no foes. The point is that Pauchay is not "getting off", or going easy. It is likely that the final sentence if approved by the court, will be equal to the negligent act. That is why the judge has the final say. However, I do understand the where the anger comes from. No one really cares about the children, or the outcome. They see it as a heinous crime and want revenge, believing that justice means that they get a say in meting out that revenge. I say get over it. It is out of your control. Had you cared about the children in the first place, of the community and living conditions they exist in, chances are this never would have happened. It is indeed unfortunate but some of the suggestions for revenge are just way out of line. Justice will be served, whether you agree with it or not. And since most of you don't really know all the facts of the case other than what was sensationalized in the media, none of you are in a position to judge.

Actually is has always been the women who raise the young boys to become men. Traditionally the fathers were absent working to support their families and except for a time in 60s and 70s most men were emotionally unavailable and incapable of of teaching anything but their own selfishness.

Wrong. They are not pre-screen or preferred to the program. All they have to do is tell the police and the judge that they want to participate in a CJF. If the victim is willing then it is automatically arranged (qualifies under the alternative justice program). Certainly it is not for every crime but it works well for most youth crime.

Community Justice Forums Less than 20% recidivism rate compared to 60% using mainstream methods. Participation by the victim provides closure. Non-stigmatizing shame tends to correct the behavior in the offender and his peers. It hasn't caught on because it basically eliminates (prohibits) lawyers from participating and courts are reluctant to enter into them once the offender has been booked, although they are sometimes recommended for sentencing purposes as a restorative solution.

You are in fine company then, since you are no different in your views than sovereignists are (or Castro is) in theirs. {message to Canadien} No he doesn't really get, does he.....but then again neither do sovereignists....

Actually the suggestion was that YOU think exactly like the sovereignists in Quebec. Perhaps if a moderate Canada is not to your liking then moving away say to someplace like Cuba were equality rights and language freedoms are denied might be better to your liking....Casto might just like another fascist in his midst.

The first thing the budget should have done was to build confidence in the markets. It has failed to do that and so Ignatieff says "its not working". It is an accurate observation.

You'll find that only the name "Kengs333" is banned. My bet is that poster is still here under a couple of other monikers......