dre

The decision wasn't about whether mandatory minimums are constitutional or not. The decision was that this particular law could result in cruel and unusual punishment as defined in Section 12, and affirmed in case-law in Latimer and Smith. The conservatives wrote a law that could result in jail time for extremely minor offenses. You could sell two joints and end up in prison. I doubt they actually intended for this to happen... no sensible government would want to pay 120k per year to incarcerate someone in this case, but its still a problem that needs to be addressed.

Your'e trying to talk about a solution before you even establish there's a problem. What evidence do you have that judges in Canada ignore sentencing guidelines to the extent a remedy is required? And legislators should not have "certainty". They don't know the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of any cases. And furthermore mandatory minimums don't provide "certainty" anyways. They just move the discretion from one human to another.

Not necessarily sneaky or underhanded at all. Sneaky and underhandedness is a thing for sure, but for the most part those people just played the game on the playing field provided and won. Most of them were just smart, savvy, and industrious is what I choose to think. That's certainly true in lots of cases, and not true in others. You cant generalize the motives or behavior though. The problem isn't people have done well under the current system. Every game has winners and losers and everything in between. The problem is that the economic playing field is slanted. Its incredibly easy to make money if you have money and credit so wealth is concentrated very quickly. Its that wealth concentration that sets us up for the kind of political situation you describe. If you have high wages for workers and an affluent middle class then those people basically have the same voting interests that the wealthy have. You end up with business oriented governments that protect the current system and those that benefit from it. If things go to far the other way though you will get exactly what you're worried about... a big voting block that votes for redistribute policies. You complain that the bottom 5 deciles pay no income taxes... but they only command 6% of the nations wealth. The top 10% has about 8 times as much wealth as the bottom 50%. Even the 7th, 8th, and 9th deciles are paupers compared to the 10th. This is not going to go on for long. Its just a matter of time until that wealth gets de-concentrated.

They aren't carrying this country, they have simply found a way to marshal almost all the profit and wealth generated by productive behavior and share less and less with workers. Of COURSE they are going to pay almost all of the taxes they have almost all the STUFF.

That's usually what the SCC does (assisted suicide for example). And you're the one posting partisan talking points, not me. I'm not a much of a partisan at all, unlike you. In the last four elections Iv voted Conservative once, Liberal once, and abstained from twice. There's no way I would ever be a member of any of them. Your opinion of the court is really just an extension of your usual shtick. Any group that doesn't tell you what you want to hear is part of some grand conspiracy. Judges, Lawyers, Scientists, Teachers, the Media, Universities, Governments, International bodies. Your persecution complex runs so deep that it could be tapped to provide geo-thermal energy.

Who cares about your rhetorical questions? The reality is they don't. Plenty of those low income earners vote Liberal and Conservative even though both those parties produce business oriented governments that favor lower taxation rates. And a large share of those <50% earners don't even go to the polls.

No most of these problems were totally avoidable if the authors of the legislation just thought things through and got some legal advice.

I cant speak for the imaginary people in your head that you call "the left". But I certainly don't think Harper invented MMS's. Most of our MMS provisions were part of C-68 that was passed in the mid nineties by the liberals. The Harper government was so inept at writing legislation that it left behind almost no substantive legal legacy at all.

Absolutely, which is why neither defense attorneys or prosecutors should have any discretion in terms of sentencing. That job should be done at a sentencing hearing lead by a judge.

I don't think its really a suspendable offense, but you WILL get a reputation for being a guy that cant back up his own spiel.

Parliament should provide sentencing guidelines. But the final determination should be made by people with intimate knowledge of each cases facts. The judge needs to be able to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors, hear victims impact statements, etc etc. Mandatory minimums are especially bad because they don't remove discretion in sentencing the sentencing process... They shift it from judges to prosecutors, who have no training in sentencing, and who's decisions are not reviewable or transparent. A prosecutor can trade away counts that carry MMS's during the plea bargain process... or not... based solely on their own whims, and prosecutors have no inherent concern for the functioning of the justice system as a whole. They build careers by chalking up "wins" and fairness and proportionality are not part of their mandate.

Cool story bro!...But that graph is inflation adjusted. Seriously though... Do you ever find it a bit surreal that we might spend 100 million dollars on a plane that costs another 35 thousand per hour to fly... even though the chance of it ever being used to defend the country is about as remote as the chances of being struck by lightening?

Canada should probably buy this plane because at the rate at which costs are increasing if we wait for Generation 6 we will probably only be able to buy one plane. A generation 7 plane with probably cost more than Canadas entire GDP. Truly an outrageous scam. By Generation 8 only Russia and the USA and China will be able to buy them... theyll each have one.

The courts don't just look at the constitution they look at existing case-law as well. In the case of CAUP they look at Latimer and Smith, etc And whether or not you like the judgements the court makes... There's simply nobody else available to make them. They are the ones hearing the cases... they are the ones that know the facts. They already did. R V Latimer is a case where a guy killed his disabled daughter. No it isnt saying that. They are saying it possibly COULD be. That's why MMS is such a horrible idea. A "repeat drug trafficker" could be a guy that sold two tiny bags of weed to his adult friends or it could be a guy that sold large amounts of crystal meth to children. The last thing we want is politicians deciding sentences for cases without hearing any of facts of the case.

Nice of you to demonstrate exactly what I was referring to.

You just described yourself perfectly. You're probably the biggest user of those kinds of terms here. You barely write a single post without using "the left" in the pejorative.

You didn't read the article. The owners DO have skin in the game.

The asset wasn't abandoned it was sold. And workers only own a part of it, the rest is owned by investors. And the business lost money under the old model but it makes money now. But more importantly the adversarial relationship that often exists between owners and workers is gone. Workers have a stake in profitability and they can see the books. That makes workers more likely to make concessions if those concessions are required to keep the business profitable. And its not a zero sum game... both owners and workers make more money with this model.

I look at innovative ownership structures being more like this... http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/09/23/BC-Mill-Success-Story/

No, but very few (if any) women are going to tell their doctor they want an abortion because the fetus is female... especially if they knew that it would result in them being rejected for the procedure they want or denied funding. This whole idea is rather pointless.

The bill is pretty good, and more or less what I knew we would get. It IS a limited implementation and the courts may force the government to broaden it once there's some cases. But it was clear from the outset that this is what we would start with.

Canadian government, consumers, and companies of today would have gladly done business with the Nazi's or bought products made in Soviet gulags if it was the best deal going.

No it lets them know that the things they do more or less reflect the will of the people. If you are doing a job for people it would be kinda retarded not to ask them what they want.

We bring a hell of a lot more than we ask in return. Anyhow... NATO is a joke. It was designed to counter Russia, but when Russia started invading its neighbors NATO just whimpered and whined. All it does now is bomb random dark-skinned folks for political reasons. Lets get out before we waste another dime. A North American defense pact with the US and Mexico might make some sense.

Gee... Can I translate that as... Image and influence? ROFLMAO.