Bob

I can't resist addressing some of the lies in this long post. I'd like to start with these assertions from you (and from Sir Bandelot, if I recall correctly) about the validity of Khadr's guilt. All we need to do is consider the circumstances of his capture. There was a firefight between American soldiers and terrorists (whom you label as "irregular armed group", much like the leftist vermin who describe illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers"). The firefight ended. Unbeknownst to the American soldiers at the time, Khadr had been the sole terrorist survivor, who then murdered an American medic through treachery by waiting for him to approach. After throwing the grenade which murdered the American medic, the other soldiers responded rapidly and shot Khadr. Unfortunately, Khadr survived. He was saved by another American medic who tended to his wounds. The American soldiers present saw Khadr, the sole surviving terrorist of the original firefight, throw the grenade and shot him. There is no question about Khadr's guilt in the throwing of the grenade that murdered the American medic - there were no other terrorists alive at this point in the conflict and the other American soldiers saw Khadr throw the grenade. These lie from the rats on the left about the supposed innocence of Khadr needs to end. Full stop. Beyond that, you are trying to advance this sick narrative of Khadr not being responsible for his actions because of how he viewed the world. That's literally what your argument boils down to, that those around him believed that the West was at war with Islam, so that Khadr had no choice but to accept this narrative. I guess Osama Bin Laden, Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, and Ramzi Bin Al Shib can all be forgiven for their crimes of mass murder because, well, that's just how they saw things. Nevermind the fact one of Khadr's brothers has completely rejected the Islamist narrative of his family and has since been disowned, despite being raised around these rats who you are trying to make excuses for. Nobody knows what "child soldier law" you are referring to. Are you referring to an addition to the Geneva Conventions which encourages signatory countries to do whatever they can not to utilize children under the age of fifteen in their operations, without expressly prohibiting their participation? According to this "law", Khadr is offered no special protections, aside from the fact that he was not fighting with a force that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions,, therefore he is not to be afforded any of the protections provided by it. Beyond that, nobody cares was some likeminded leftist apparatchik at the UN charged with managing the "child soldier" department had to say about this. Your above post is about 50% lies and 50% misdirection. I really don't have the energy at the moment to go through it point by point. But I have followed this case very closely. I have read all sorts of articles from Amnesty and HRW regarding Khadr. I have read declassified documents from Canada and the USA outlining their correspondences about the treatment Khadr was being afforded at Gitmo. I read the decision from the SCoC stating that Khadr's rights had been violated, but not ordering his repatriation. I'll just say one last thing, Khadr was never tortured, but was subjected to limited sleep deprivation. What is limited sleep deprivation, you may ask? It means not being permitted to sleep more than three hours without being woken up and moved to another location. Although I can't remember the length of time to which Khadr was subjected to this, I think it never lasted more than a few days, and didn't total more than two weeks. Of course, in your view, that is sadistic torture. Go watch the PBS documentary, Frontline: The Al-Qaeda Files, part 6 of 7, Son of Al-Qaeda, and see where Khadr's brother talks about being an informant for the CIA at Gitmo and how his brother was 110% AL-Qaeda.

Although Toadbrother's definition of "Islamism" leaves something to be desires, he's absolutely right in mocking you for being oblivious of this term - as it is clearly something new for you. Islamism, put simply, is political Islam. Those who subscribe to Islamism (which clearly overlaps greatly with Islam) desire and expansion of Islam and an establishment of Islam as the law of the land. Again, you being dumbfounded by this term and asking for help tells us exactly what ToadBrother was alluding to - that you clearly don't pay any serious attention to these issues. If we needed any reason to devalue your commentary on this board any further, we just got it.

Well, we don't choose the world we live in or all of the circumstances that affect us. It is what it is, and the fact that there is a thousand to one ratio in this trade is a perfect illustration of the value (justifiably) we attach to the lives of our own, and the worthlessness (also justifiably) that the "Palestinians" attach to their own.

You're stating your speculation as fact. Israel's reception of foreign aid from the USA, averaging about two and half billion dollars per year since 1979, may or may not be contingent on Israel's supplying of Gaza with water and electricity (which Israel is paid for with foreign aid money allocated for the "Palestinians", since they have a broken economy). Nobody knows about these other billions of dollars that Israel is receiving in "charity" that is somehow contingent on Israel not "offending" these unspecified people you're referring to. The "international boundary" Bonam is referring to is simple - the Gaza-Israel border. Of course, the geography of Israel and the territories eludes you. Just another minor detail you can remain ignorant of. As far as "recognition" of "Palestine", nobody really know what you're talking about. There is no "Palestine", there are just pockets of land where Arabs/Muslim who recently labelled themselves "Palestinians" currently live with varying degrees of autonomy.

I can't believe that there is someone actually asserting that government information is easily accessible online. It is labyrinthian by design, and extremely difficult to find information regarding costs and results. There is no question in any reasonable person's mind that the government, intentionally, makes their operations anything but transparent.

Yeah, the oh-so-powerful Israeli lobby, just another manifestation of the age-old perception of excessive influence of Jewish people on our societies. The Arab/Muslim lobby, however, claiming to represent a global population one thousand times larger, isn't what's driving Israel to the front page of our newspapers. Don't forget, the Jews also control the media. And since all Jews think alike (in reality, North American Jews are largely left-wing), they must be operating in some sort of cohesive framework to frame the narrative of Western media's coverage of Israel in a "pro-Israel" manner. Have I got that right?

I don't see the costs associated with delivering this "benefit" of reduced deaths from overdose in and around Insite as justifiable expenditures in the context of healthcare while other Canadians suffer, and occasionally die or experience irreversible worsenings of their conditions as a consequence of more important healthcare shortages. For example, I think it's more important to lessen the suffering and increase the productivity of a Canadian suffering from disabling pain who waits on disability by giving him or her a timely surgical procedure than to reduce the likelihood of a drug users dying from an overdose. I won't even get into Canadians that are dying because of healthcare shortages, who are in such situations due to no fault of their own, as opposed to drug addicts who cause harm to themselves by their own volition and try to avoid responsibility by hiding behind the designation of addiction as "disease". Moreover, we haven't even touched on the harm caused by Insite to its patrons and to its surrounding community, aside from the unjustifiable expenditure of public funds.

That's not what I said. It isn't conspiratorial. It's just the SCoC, clearly, views itself as a tool of social change, broadening its scope of responsibility far beyond applying the law as its been written. This comes down to the two competing visions of the role of the courts in society, with the leftists on the one hand viewing the courts as tool of social change that should engage in results-based decision-making, and those on the right with a much more constrained vision: that the courts are there to apply the law as it's been written to cases brought before them. We are now defining the most basic rights guaranteed to us in the CCRF with sociological research, with cheers from the leftists about "science" and "research" winning the day, as if this is the ideal role of the courts. Just another stop on the long road to self-destruction for Canada.

Well, you can punish whoever you want to. This "can't punish" statement of yours is self-limiting. Israel can do whatever it chooses to do, and it chooses not to do what I think it should do. Aside from that, don't think for a second that the population of Gaza isn't largely in support of the abduction of Gilad Shalit, past abductions, and ongoing efforts to abduct others. As far as "collecting" Hamas officials and leaders, you do realize that Gaza isn't a place where Israeli police can just walk into and start knocking on doors, right? Israel only enters Gaza with its military, and typically only with armoured vehicles while blowing holes through the walls of buildings and holing up in apartments, with or without Gazan residents. It is like our own little Wild West, where every window and rooftop is a potential threat. Gaza isn't an ordinary place with ordinary people. It is a territory run by terrorists, with mass support (material, not just political) from the populace. It takes a lot of hard work just to identify where a given target is likely to be, and even then, he (almost never a she) is taken out with technology (some sort of air strike, drone or otherwise). I understand your perspective that releasing convicted mass murderers is difficult, although I wouldn't describe it as unconscionable. But these mass murderers are the very same rats that Hamas is demanding in exchange for Shalit. They are the heroes that will be celebrated when they return to Gaza, just like Meghrabi was when he was returned to Libya and as Samir Kuntar was when he was returned to Lebanon. Arabs/Muslims celebrate their mass murderers as heroes. It's who they are and what they do. Remember that the PLF, a "Palestinian" terrorist group, hijacked an Italian cruise ship with hundreds of passengers and murdered a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger in order to demand the release of hundreds of their terrorist homeboys along with Samir Kuntar. I said it before and I'll say it again, the life of one Israeli (Jewish) is worth more than all the lives of all the Muslims in the Middle East. Of course Israel's current administration is not even close to "hard-line", but you're smart enough to realize that the vermin in the media throw around terms like "ultra-nationalist" (as if they would ever describe anyone as "mild-nationalist"), "hard-right" and "far-right" around ridiculously. Still, I support the exchange if Israel is confident that it can keep tabs on these rats and neutralize them accordingly in the short-term before they have a chance to kill again.

Of course we can understand motivations of Hamas and the innumerable other terrorist organizations that constantly try to abduct people to use as hostages. They will never stop trying to do this, and Israel knows this. All Israel can do is its best towards prevention. Or, alternatively, Israel could untie its hands from behind its back and actually forcefully respond to such attacks. If it was up to me, Gaza would not receive any electricity, water, or aid, at a minimum, until Gilad Shalit's return. Unfortunately, the Israeli government has never had the courage to do what's necessary in most circumstances.

I was referring to the summary at the beginning. I've read other parts of the ruling, as well. Clearly, you don't have anything relevant to share and can't grasp what it is I'm saying. You want "scientific research" (in effect, sociological research demonstrating "harm reduction") to now determine the proper legal application of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Basically, we can now define any healthcare "investment" that reduces the likelihood of harm or death of a particular group of people as a protect right guaranteed under Section 7 of the CCRF. And a leftist like you is totally fine with that. Keep expanding those "rights", while continuously ignoring the negative externalities of such social programs as well as the obligations placed on others without their consent to provide for and protect these new "rights".

So now the right to life, liberty, and security of the person is defined by research studies from sociologists. Gotcha. This is just a dishonest way of justifying the SCoC's ability to determine public policy as they see fit, in order to achieve outcomes they perceive as ideal, and not to do the only thing which they should be doing - application of the law. Several times. It take about two minutes to read it.

Those categories of evidence should only be applicable in a criminal trial towards proving the guilt of the defendant, not when determining the constitutionality of a public policy that is being challenged. The SCoC essentially used sociological "studies", which tell us what we already know while ignoring all negative consequences of Insite, to justify a new legal application of Section 7 from the CCRF. It's becoming more and more apparent that you don't really grasp what's at stake here. If you did, you wouldn't have asked such a question, pretending as if this is some sort of criminal trial with a bloody glove.

There is a difference between a capture and an abduction. Abducting people to use as hostages is an old tactic of these terrorists, they've been doing it for decades.

Well, the life of one Israeli is worth more than the lives of all the people in the Middle East. Hopefully Israel will keep tabs on the convicted terrorists they are releasing, and neutralize them afterwards in the near future before they are able to harm more Israelis. Some in Israel are unhappy with this arrangement, but that's how things are in Israel when your enemies are the Arabs/Muslims. This is the nature of the neighbourhood. Israel has done such things in the past, even for the remains of fallen soldiers. There is no comparison between us and them with respect to the degree to which we value our lives.

Not non-legal "evidence" in order to justify a decision based on achieving the court's desired outcome. There is bloody glove evidence used to try to convict a former professional athlete of murder, and then there's sociological "evidence" used to justify a decision on public policy in order to support the rendering of results-based decisions. Don't you get it? The SCoC is invoking "evidence" of "harm reduction" in order to justify an application of Section 7 rights from the CCRF. In other words, any social endeavour that reduces the likelihood of harm befalling a Canadian or group of Canadians in the context of health care can now be defined as an inalienable right. Let me put this a different way, the SCoC is telling us that having a dedicated team of medical technicians on-hand at Insite to intervene when drug users overdose reduces the likelihood of drug users dying via overdose, and that this is proven via "research" and "studies" (as if anyone needed research for that!). Consequently, since Insite provides "harm reduction" to these people, that the federal Minister of Health is violating the Section 7 rights of these Canadians from the CCRF by refusing to extend their immunity to parts of the CSDA. If that is the argument used to deny the federal government's wishes, then the same argument could be advanced towards possible future efforts from the province to scrap the program altogether. The SCoC is explicitly using social outcomes, which it perceives as positive, as the justification for its new application of Section 7 rights from the CCRF. What we have here is, essentially, social outcomes as perceived by the SCoC determining application of constitutional rights, at least with respect to healthcare-related cases.

You'd think so, but there's a nuance to be seen here that differentiates possession from use. To be very specific, there are moments during use where possession is still occurring. Once the joint is finished or heroin is all shot in, however, and there are no more drugs left in possession, the drugs in the person's bloodstream don't amount to possession. I think, on further reflection, that there is a disconnect between you and your detractors in this thread. They think, perhaps accurately, that "use" is still occurring even after the joint has been completely consumed and the heroin has been completely injected. So seconds, minutes, or hours after the drug user has finished his consumption, and is no longer in possession of drugs on his person, he is still "using". Maybe your thinking, which is also perhaps accurate, is that when a drug user is in the midst of his or her consumption, with some drugs still in his or her joint or some drugs still in his or her needle, that he or she is guilty of possession - and you'd be right about that. In other words, it seems like maybe you think "use" is no longer occurring once the joint or needle is finished, while your detractor think "use" occurs until the drug user is no longer intoxicated. Am I right?

So as you folks have probably seen, Israel struck a deal with Hamas to have Gilad Shalit returned in exchange for the release of about 1027 terrorists. I want to direct your attention to the language used by most media outlets when describing the events of Gilad Shalit's abduction. The reality is of course that Hamas and other terrorist outfits have been, for decades, embarking on attempts to abduct Israelis and others as hostages. Gilad Shalit, unfortunately, was the victim of one of these abductions, where he was smuggled through a tunnel dug underground that connected Gaza to Israel. How are these events described by the vermin in the media, who use the same language as Al-Jazeera? It was not an abduction, it was not a kidnapping, it was a "cross-border raid". Gilad wasn't abducted or kidnapped, he was "captured". Anyways, here's a recent CBC article about the good news.

But the evidence certainly wasn't legal, was it? And it certainly didn't take into account negative externalities of the social project that is Insite. Again, results-based approach to rendering judgements, masquerading as being grounded in legality.

Took about two seconds to find these stories. http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13747&Itemid=86 http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/24/canada.health.dispute/index.html There is also a recent story about a Muslim family trying to save their father, while the hospital wants to terminate current life-saving measures. Found this in about three seconds: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/993710--should-doctors-be-permitted-to-unilaterally-pull-the-plug Perhaps you should get back to watching Survivor, or whatever else it is you do to keep yourself ignorant of current events.

My mistake, the federal Minister of Health. Actually, it takes away their authority to remove it in this instance. Most importantly, the "evidence" used to justify this legal decision constituted sociological "studies" and "research". In other words, the SCoC determined the legality of a case brought before it on sociological "studies" of "harm reduction", and not on the law. In other words, this decision was based on the perceptions of ideal social outcomes as described by "research" and "studies", invoking perceptions of consequences in other countries with similar program, while concurrently ignoring negative social outcomes that would impugn these very same "rights" as perceived by the SCoC from other stakeholders. So the foundation of this decision was the SCoC's perception of the ideal social outcome, which as I've said several times already amounts to textbook judicial activism. I guarantee that this ruling will lay the groundwork for future constitutional challenges to the termination of Insite, which unfortunately is in the hands of leftists (the LPC and NDP) as it is being funded by the province as healthcare is largely under the auspices of the provinces. If BC's Ministry of Health ever gets it act together and moves to terminate the Insite program, we'll see that same fraudulent constitutional challenges, which will probably be indulged by the SCoC that sees itself as a tool of social change by its own description.

Your ignorance of instances where Canadians have been forced to die because of the decisions of medical practitioners and/or judges is your problem, not mine.

Are you serious? You do live under a rock, don't you? I suspected it before, but know I know for sure.

I already addressed this, specifically, MANY times. I know what the decision was. Do you want me to quote the fifty times I have already stated, explicitly, that the SCoC's decision was a refusal of BC's Minster of Healt to terminate the immunity of all people at Insite and the surrounding area of their immunity to parts of the CDSA? It's becoming more and more apparent that the leftists in here who choose to take me on refuse to actually read my posts. What is being implied by the SCoC, however, is that access to these types of sites is also some sort of protected "right" according to their expansion of the breadth of Section 7 from the CCRF. What is being done by the SCoC is a laying of the groundwork for legal protections to access to such sites by drug users, in order to protect the "rights" of drug addicts. And of course, since we have no way of discerning which users are addicted and which aren't in an economical or meaningful manner, it's a free-for-all.

I'm glad that I can offer some entertainment value to the forum.