Sir Bandelot

In the meantime instead of right-click to paste, try ctrl-v.

"Three justifications are offered for mandatory penalties: evenhandedness, transparency, and the prevention of crime. None withstands careful scrutiny. There is substantial evidence demonstrating that when mandatory penalties are seen as being too severe, prosecutors and judges will often (but not always) circumvent them, in effect moving sentencing decisions from the open courtroom to dark hallways and private offices. This ensures that the penalties handed down are neither consistent across similar cases nor transparent to anyone. That mandatory sentencing laws are often nullified when their application would be unfairly harsh has been known for at least 3 centuries." http://criminology.utoronto.ca/lib/CrimHighlightsV11N1.pdf http://criminology.utoronto.ca/lib/criminological_highlights.html An interesting read of a study that was funded by the federal government. Ironically it flies in the face of the governments proposed mandatory minimum sentencing. Tough-on-crime policies don't work, study finds Research at odds with Tories' crime agenda The Canadian Press Published On Mon Mar 15 2010 The most recent issue of Criminological Highlights, published last month, with federal assistance, by the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology, blows gaping holes in several of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's most cherished anti-crime measures. Mandatory penalties, says the research digest, "undermine the legitimacy of the prosecution process by fostering circumventions that are wilful and subterranean. They undermine ... equality before the law when they cause comparably culpable offenders to be treated radically differently." In other words, people who can afford good lawyers agree to backroom plea bargains to avoid harsh mandatory sentences, while the average Joe is hit hard.

I don't know about a "large" number of people since I have no statistics to back up any assertions like that. But some don't want him or anyone to get mandatory minimum sentencing without specific consideration of the particulars of each case. Rather they want to use this to show how mandatory minimums would have criminalized a person who otherwise contributes in a positive way to society. (Although, one can argue the point in this case since he's a CPC'er...). Lets put partisanship aside for a moment, if we can, and look at this. Here is an esteemed member of parliament. He has a drug problem. I'm guessing his political career is over because of this but had he not been caught, how would he have done in his job, would he have been able to continue as a functioning member of society? Should his career be over, or should he enter rehab, and carry on. HOWEVER, I must say that compounding his problem of drug possession is the fact that he was intoxicated and possibly high while operating a motor vehicle, which means that his substance abuse problem goes beyond the damage it might do to himself. He poses a threat to others, and for that alone he should have received a more serious penalty, in my opinion.

What do you mean , explained to me a number of times. It's the first time I'm commenting on this point, questioning whether the break given him would not be allowed if there were mandatory minimums. This case is an example where reasonable discretion was used, that's why it's a perfect example. Ironically it seems that Jaffer was staunchly pro-mandatory minimums and against drug use, all the while doing illegal drugs himself and then given a break himself. I would not be surprised if he still votes for it if given another opportunity to do so.

Rahim Jaffer was "given a break" by the judge (judge's own words), but this must raise the question, how would this have been possible under the new mandatory minimum drug laws being proposed by the Conservative government? I assume ther could be no judges discretion as there was in this case. "I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," Justice Doug Maund told Jaffer. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jSgx5mFBuvGNhTCnr6H0YF2vPYww

It's those who approve the actions of the empire, and those who do not.

If the stimulus worked, it only worked to line the pockets of bankers and investors. The banks are holding back the money from the consumers, who are the most important part of the economy. Without consumer spending, you are just playing games with numbers. There are reports that the next housing bubble is about to burst. It does not appear that anything substantial was fixed, the same system with its flaws is still in place, so why shold anything have changed? Taxpayers should be upset that their money was taken to shore up failing banks and business, while the tycoons walk away from the debacle they created, complete with hefty bonuses. All they have done for now to keep people quiet is to hide the real nunbers, and stall impending foreclosures for a while. But they will not be able to do this indefinitely. New wave of foreclosures threatens market "Some of the positive housing data may not be signaling a true turning point, as many servicers are holding back on foreclosures and the related houses are not yet being offered for sale," said Diane Westerback, a managing director at Standard & Poor's. While banks repossessed fewer homes in February than a month earlier, borrowers continued to fall behind on their payments, adding to the inventory of properties headed toward foreclosure that have yet to be put on the market, said Daren Blomquist, RealtyTrac's spokesman. "Just looking at the numbers, we would expect there to be a bigger percentage of properties" repossessed by banks by now, he said. The problem is now eating its way up the food chain- Today's delinquent borrowers, for the most part, differ in a key regard from those who were caught up in the surge of defaults in 2008. That earlier wave, which precipitated the financial crisis, consisted largely of subprime borrowers who defaulted when their risky loans became unaffordable. The borrowers in trouble now are, for the most part, people who have better credit and safer loans and have become delinquent because they've lost their jobs or are dealing with other economic setbacks, economists said. More than 75 percent of the borrowers who are now seriously delinquent — meaning they have missed at least three monthly payments — have traditional prime loans, according to First American CoreLogic.

You just don't unerstand what it means for a gay man to be truly "proud".

What kind of action?

It will possibly end soon, unfinished. March 10th, 2010 CNN Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted Wednesday that U.S. troops could be leaving earlier than the announced July 2011 troop withdrawal date. Without giving details, Gates said that any early pullout and hand over of control to Afghan forces "would have to be conditions-based." "We will begin that transition no later than July 2011, but the pace will depend also on conditions on the ground," Gates said after watching training exercises at Camp Blackhorse, where Afghan soldiers are trained by U.S. and British forces. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has said Obama's additional goal to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in July 2011 will force Afghan officials to take the lead on ensuring their country's security. The U.S. hope is to grow the Afghan National Security Forces to their authorized size of 170,000 soldiers and 134,000 police by the pullout date. Gates' visited Afghanistan as NATO-led coalition forces are pressing an offensive against Taliban forces around the town of Marjah in southern Helmand province. Dubbed Operation Moshtarak, the offensive was launched in February by an international coalition of 15,000 troops, including Afghans, Americans, Britons, Canadians, Danes and Estonians. Gates thanked the Afghan soldiers for their service. "We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," he said, concluding a two-day unannounced visit to Afghanistan. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/gates-hints-at-possible-early-pullout-of-u-s-troops/?hpt=T2 "We will be your steadfast brothers in arms and friends," ... from a distance. I'm sure there will be lots of spin on both sides, peace lovers and war lovers as to why they wish to pull out early. But I don't understand how such a deep seated problem will come to any kind of long term stability within the next 12 months. One rather negative indicator of the effect of this surge is the recent battle for Marjah. This was touted as a major turning point for the war, and there was much confidence that the battle would be over in one or two days, that tomorrow would bring a new dawn for Marjah and Afghanistan. But that was back in February, when 15,000 coalition troops attacked some 2000 Taliban. The battle still continues sporadically to this day. What appears to have happened is what more or less always happens- when a large scale attack is planned the Taliban simply fade into the background, they simply disappear, not stand and fight. That might seem fine, but they are not gone and as soon as the troops move elsewhere they come back again. All they need to do is wait out the coalition until they become tired of fighting, or run out of money and leave Afghanistan. The question will be, then what? Will Afghanistan become the pearl of the middle east for democracy and human rights? Because without it, all we have is the same old story, harsh theocratic rule and breeding ground for those who have contempt for the west. So if indeed the Taliban are on the ropes, it looks like they are actually using the "roper-dope".

Sounds good baby. Will you be wearing some leather chaps too, with the rump removed?

Well this is anecdotal information, but a police officer friend of mine once told me that its common to train rookies on arrest procedures, by busting pot heads. She said that most pot heads are considered easy to arrest, as they don't fight much compared to drunks or the actual violent offenders. Of course there are exceptions. But generally considered an easy bust and makes you look good as a cop when youcan make more arrests, leads to things like career advancement, promotion. My perception as a non-smoker is, the attitude towards pot was becoming more relaxed under Jean Chretien. It was almost to the brink of decrim, but now under the Stephen Harper government they have done almost a complete about-face. The proposed mandatory minimums for pot possession or cultivation are clear examples of this. So, I don't think you all know what you're talking about. Pot laws are not ignored in this country. If they are in your area, they won't be soon.

I'm pretty sure it's not much consolation, to nations that consider the gold medal the only one that's worth anything. Just to clarify this point, not only a record for Canadian gold medal wins, but more gold medals than any country has ever won, in the winter olympics.

Mauritzio, Why don't you test your theory and go walk down Yonge street with your balls hanging out, see what happens...

And you were the fairy, for free...

And you were the fairy, for free...

I concede that I introduced the topic of drug tourism, but it was in comparison with what kimmy said, to show that the problem in my view is not funding parades where there is good money to be made by the city, but where said events condone illegal activities. But heck it's your thread. If you want to bring in Hitlers birthday as a side discussion, please proceed to do so. Most of the important points have already been made in this, so now it can only degenerate into the shit blizzard that our threads eventually become. adieu

I agree you are not criminals, and the drug laws are archaic and imposed arbitrarily. The drugs of preference, the ones more destructive than cannabis are allowed. I'm talking about booze and tobacco. There is no government funding for 420 day, I presume. Mr. Canada- "April 20th is Hitlers Birthday" That is irrelevant. Stay on topic dude, else your own thread goes to crap. It's not about Hitler. There are no Nazi flags flown at 420 protests, that I'm aware of. The reason 4/20 is the day that potheads gather to protest has to do with something else, I think. It started with the police code 4-20, or something. "4-20, someone blowing a joint. Beat their friggin heads in..."

The comparison is based on illegality, as compared to events like the buskers, which is not illegal. It's not a criticism of being gay, I don't oppose gays. Of course I don't expect you to get it. As usual I have to explain these things to you.

Cool, so how about some drug tourism then. I'm sure it would be very popular for a place like Toronto, despite the fact that it's illegal. But as you say, as long as the resulting benefits will be worth the price tag, let's go for it. Hashiss, anyone??

Tinfoil, eh? I like to make my claims based on reasoning and evidence, using real news websites. I try to do it without ridiculing others, even when they're point of view is different from mine. Now, where are your links, smallC? I expect more from you. Provide the evidence that disputes the claims of UN assistant secretary general Edmond Mulet. The ones that dispute the statements made by prime minister of Haiti Jean-Max Bellerive, and even the ones made by Bill Clinton. All of them are listed in the article above, by the CBC. Perhaps you think they are all wearing their tinfoil a little too tight?

The governments and militaries of foreign countries know that these things would happen, as they happen all the time. War means money and good business, for the profiteers. They make a killing on the arms deals, the land and oil contracts, the security contracts. And they steal it outright from government funds intended to be used for infrastructure re-building. Even when they do build something, it's usually a billion dollar piece of crap. So now here we see, it's not just the Afghanis who are corrupt, it's also the foreigners who are involved in the business side of this mission. That is not a big surprise to me. The irony is that we can't win, if our own greed and corruption is being used against us. The snake finally eats its own tail.

Not really surprised. Upset, disappointed, perhaps. I seek to expose the liars and disillusion those who think it's all good. The sad fact is that a lot of good people donated money in the hope that it would be used to help others, meanwhile it is mostly being used to help line the pockets of profiteers.

I think you've got that one completely ass-backwards. They should be the ones who stay at home, where they can have all the fun they want as consenting adults, behind closed doors. Anyone should be able to walk down a public street with their family, grandparents and kids, without being offended by acts of public lewdness and promiscuity. The message they are sending with their "anything goes" hedonistic lifestyle is already proven to lead to the spread of some very nasty diseases. Young children are not mentally developed yet to be exposed to watching acts of sexuality. It is considered harmful to their development. I'm sure most normal people wouldn't advocate child pornography, despite some who might assert it is "not harming anyone".

Technology may provide part of the solution, but will it come in time? I do not hold such "faith" in our good use of technology. We have much still to learn, and the Earth's biosphere is a complex system. We do not know about the effect we are having on the environment, when we use technology because it often interacts with nature in surprising, and often harmful ways. Simple example- The use of advanced pharmaceuticals has gone a long way to improving human health and happiness. Yet we now know that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals are being detected in our water systems, as they are excreted in our urine when we take pills. And the treatment facilities are not yet able to deal with that, to remove these chemicals. Result is, not only are the lakes filling with traces of drugs and hormones, which affects the natural wildlife, but its coming through in the tap and well water. This is a complex "soup" of drugs that is very low in level, but it's always there. We may be able to develop a technology to deal with this, but the sheer expense of it becomes another obstacle. Not only would he have to treat the water coming into our homes, we have to prevent it from getting out there. The existing infrastructure is not built that way. Technology is primarily motivated by consumerism, and where there is no motivation to clean up the environmental waste, because there's no money in it and no interest from the consumer, there is far more interest in developing a new cell phone or a new computer because of the potential market. We need to find a way to make this kind of development "profitable" for it to be successful. Meanwhile the report from CNN provided in the original post flies directly in the face of what we need to continue with our current civilization. The latest economic reports indicate that consumer spending is still down, way down and without it picking up, there will be no full economic recovery. Worse, we may be on the road to a second financial collapse.