canfan

I agree part of justice is having someone pay for their crime. I agree the families of victims deserve to have their views heard at faint hope hearings. And they do have their views heard. But justice is about more than just the victim and involves seeing if a criminal has rehabilitated. If you leave the criminal's fate only in the hands of the relatives of the victim as was suggested then that's where I see a problem.

That's not even remotely true. Juries are selected the same way. There's not 1 type of jury for murder trials and another for faint hope clause hearings. If you've got proof of jury bias then show it otherwise please stop spreading misinformation. And just because a jury when looking at the real facts of a specific case reaches a conclusion you don't like despite not knowing the specific case that doesn't make the jury biased.

That's bad logic. If it was true then the first jury would all have to be open to a finding of not guilty or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a "liberal" jury that favours a finding of not guilty. Obviously not true since the person was convicted in the first place. Or you can turn your argument around and say that the second jury would all have to be open to not changing the prisoner's parole eligibility or they would be challenged and dismissed. As a result you'd end up with a "nonliberal" jury that favours the 25 year eligibility date. That's equally untrue. People with extreme views will probably be dismissed but most juries are made up of people who are capable of looking at the facts and deciding on those facts which way to decide. The fact is there's no real difference between the 2 juries that I've seen so how can you praise juries for 1 decision and not the other? And remember we're talking about early eligibility for parole and not early release. Just because a prisoner is successful in their faint hope application that doesn't mean that they will get parole. Leaving justice only in the hands of the victims of crime is a bad idea. Instead of justice you just get revenge. A jury of regular Canadians who hear from all sides including the families of the victims has a greater chance of seeing justice done.

Another favourite internet tactic: declaring victory without saying anything else. I pointed out the inconsistency in your original argument yet you ignore it. For the unintelligent the best way to make a point is to actually make your point instead of undermining your arguments with inconsistent statements and moving the goalposts. I only include the unintelligent comment because it appears that's how you like to argue: if someone disagrees they must be unintelligent. Never mind that you know nothing about me. The only thing "complex" about your argument is how you've twisted your original inconsistent statements into a declaration of victory about how you've shown that people can't say things against gays without being hauled in front of a tribunal. Even though you've said these things and haven't been hauled in front of a tribunal. I hear people speak freely on these subjects all the time. But feel free to continue to ignore reality just because a few cases that you think inappropriate have been started. If you don't understand it then how can you say it's abnormal?

For all those who think this is a problem that needs addressing why don't you look at some actual numbers. This attempt to repeal the faint hope clause is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the more pressing issues that Canada is facing and an attempt to remove discretion from the justice system. Discretion that lies in the hands of regular Canadian citizens. From http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:itgU8I...=clnk&gl=ca The report is dated December 2001. The faint hope clause only means that a convict might be eligible for parole before 25 years. It doesn't mean that they get parole. 488 people could have used the faint hope clause. Only 103 applied. 84 of those 103 had their eligibility for parole moved up. The rest were unsuccessful. Their eligibility for parole was moved up to anywhere between 15 and 24 years. Some only had their parole eligibility moved up to 24 years instead of 25 years. Of the 84 successful applicants 14 were on day parole and 39 were on full parole. 6 hadn't served enough time to reach their new parole eligibility date, 17 were denied parole, 2 had their parole revoked and 2 had their parole revoked and are unlawfully at large. 3 were dead and 1 deported. Of the 4 people who had parole revoked the infractions were 1 armed robbery, 1 serious drug offence and 2 less serious drug offences. For all of you worried about violent offenders only 1 person under the faint hope clause recommitted a violent offence. That was 0.2% of the eligible people. Only 11% of the people who could use the faint hope clause were released on early parole. 93% of those did not reoffend at all and 98% of them did not commit any other violent crimes. Obviously these numbers only go to the end of 2001. People here seem to be quoting the number 97. So in the last 8 years another 13 people have been successful under this clause. But remember this means that 97 people were given the eligibility to apply for parole early they were not granted early parole. There's a huge difference.

I do trust juries to do both jobs. I'm not the person saying that they're somehow super smart to convict but easily duped when it comes time to consider early parole. Why is it you only trust them to convict and not to consider early parole? The numbers may be curious to you but obviously these juries don't agree with your viewpoint. Maybe you need to reevaluate your opinion of Canadians. What I do find curious is all the people who talk about how horrible something is and how the system is so broken but they don't know how it works. How can you be so against the faint hope clause and claim the system doesn't work when by your own admission you don't know how it works? It's not even that hard to find the criminal code online and get some basic information on this. All this says is you don't like lawyers or the fact that the police have to follow rules. Personally I'm glad we live in a society where lawyers are required to do the best they can within the bounds of the law to serve their clients. And I'm glad the police have to follow rules. None of this has anything to do with the faint hope clause though.

Unsurprisingly you missed the point. You're talking about how normal or abnormal it is to be gay then tried to say it was a mainstream view by linking to an article on gay marriage. It's obvious that gay marriage is a different issue for most people than simply being gay. Not only that but an almost 50-50 split in opinion means that you can't say 1 opinion is mainstream and the other isn't. Funny how it wasn't the crux of the issue in your thread title or op. No. Human rights tribunals aren't kangaroo courts. There are cases that they hear that in my opinion shouldn't be heard but there are also lots of cases where they do good work. Expecting any organization to do what you want it to all of the time is idiotic. People are mistakenly charged with crimes but that doesn't mean we throw out our entire justice system. So it's the "I have such an important point to make that I won't make it until someone points out that what I'm actually saying doesn't make sense" approach to discussion. You moved the goalposts just admit it. You called gays abnormal then complained that your viewpoints were considered abnormal by the left. Only then did you start talking about human rights tribunals. Noone has said they want to take you before a human rights tribunal so you didn't even make that point. We're letting you express your opinion here without any legal consequences.

If your definition of normal is to compare one specific trait against the rest of the population then everyone is abnormal. It's important to realize that within a population it's perfectly normal to have variations. Nature shows us that it's normal for a certain percentage of a population to be homosexual.

Of course since you don't agree with me I must lack intelligence. I forgot that's how the internet works. Here's a link you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts I didn't talk about human rights tribunals because you hadn't talked about them up until that point. You didn't talk about them until you needed a way out of the corner you had painted yourself into. Speaking of flawed logic you can't support your claim that mainstream views are that gays are abnormal by linking to a story on gay marriage. Especially where the vote was 52% to 48%.

You can't say you've got the right to call someone abnormal and then say that someone else doesn't have the right to call you a bigot. And that has nothing to do with human rights commissions since the people on here implying you're a bigot aren't hauling you before a commission. Everyone is entitled to their opinions including you and the person who disagrees with you. It's hypocritical for you to say that people can't tell you to shut up when in your 1st post you implied that gays should shut up and not even show a rainbow flag or bumper sticker.

I have. Have you? You claim the Charter denies rights to people so point out where in the Charter it says that. Seems like that means everyone has the right to not be discriminated against. Lots of nonminorities have had their rights protected by the Charter. To say otherwise is to ignore over 20 years of history.

We don't trust the people who make these decisions? Really? The people who make the final decision on faint hope applications are people who make up a jury. Not judges or parole officers. Regular people. Why is it that you think a jury can't be trusted in a faint hope application when it's a jury who convicted the person in the first place?

Your posts would carry more weight if they didn't devolve into anti-Liberal rants. It's hard to say you're not a "frothy right winger" when your next paragraphs rant about how Liberals are all dishonest criminal lovers.

I asked why we're getting rid of discretion and you responded with "because of a concept known as justice." That's why it sounded like you want to get rid of discretion. The faint hope clause isn't even remotely a catch and release system. It affects 6 to 8 people a year. That's hardly a revolving door. That's just wrong. The Charter doesn't deny rights to anyone. A white man who is actually discriminated against has the same rights under the Charter as anyone else.

Rights are lost. But thanks for continuing to add nothing to the discussion.

You're asking the wrong question. Obviously noone is happy with paying taxes. Noone I know is happy they have to wait in line to renew their drivers license either. It doesn't mean that people think we shouldn't have renewable drivers licenses. If taxes were $1 for everyone there'd still be people who'd be unhappy. There are people who pay taxes who acknowledge that our taxes aren't as bad as what some would like us to believe and who don't begrudge the fact that we pay those taxes to live in Canada. And before you ask yes I do pay taxes.

Typical attempt at deflection by someone without anything to say. If you don't want people saying you support slave labour then stop saying "slave labour works for me". Repeating your opinions without anything to back them up only shows the irrelevancy of your posts.

Let's recap your points so far. You think being gay isn't normal. You think that people should have the right to say something isn't normal. You think that the "left" is saying your opinions aren't normal. You are now offended at being accused of abnormal discourse. Congratulations on successfully arguing against yourself. If tolerance means tolerating opinions you don't like then why did you even start this thread with a post that essentially says you're tired of tolerating the gay lifestyle?

In your opinion maybe but your opinion doesn't seem to be based in reality. Although since you support slave labour it looks like reality isn't really your concern.

Yes. The government is also responsible for finding out when those risks are no longer there. The government is also responsible for protecting its citizens from being unnecessarily confined.

You're saying that justice requires we get rid of discretion in the justice system? It's actually the opposite. Any decent justice system needs to look at the unique facts surrounding each person and crime. Otherwise justice will never be done. That little concept known as justice requires discretion in the system not rigid and inflexible rules that can't take into account reality.

And that's why noone smart or worth being in politics will step forward. Why would you want to enter public service if people are just going to snoop into your private life. Their private lives make no difference to the policies they introduce. Politics isn't the same as celebrity and public servants don't get any benefits of celebrity. Don't confuse Paris Hilton celebrity with a politician's public job.

The faint hope clause effects so few people it's not like Canada is letting lots of murderers out on the street today. If a judge and parole board find that someone has rehabilitated and can function in society that's better for society. Why should we needlessly get rid of discretion in the justice system?

This one from http://www.ignatieff.me/news/?p=5 What Liberal agenda is that? Ignatieff said that he doesn't want to load a deficit onto future generations, that honest politicians shouldn't rule out tax hikes as an option to recover from deficit spending and that you can't raise taxes if it'd hurt economic recovery. That's not an agenda to raise taxes it's an honest assessment of how Canada might have to deal with its current record deficit. Ignatieff has said lots of stuff that can be used against him because he's had a career where's he's said lots of stuff publicly but the Conservatives still resorted to taking quotes out of context to try and paint Ignatieff as something he's not.

Didn't take you long to go straight to personal insults. It's amusing to read your response when the 1st thing you did in this thread was agree with the op just like a good lemming. Instead of posting cbc = bad maybe you can explain why the CBC are Liberal flunkies by sticking to their nonpartisan policy.