Bob

I'm not trying to bait or troll anyone. I'm honestly telling you that you I love watching videos on YouTube of Islamist scum being killed by American and coalition soldiers. In another lifetime, I would've loved to have been a military pilot reigning death and destruction down upon our enemies.

It must feel cool to be the President. Think of him, conferring with his intelligence and military liaisons, and giving the order, "take him out" while signing a document that will be confidential for a few decades. Obama must feel pretty hardcore sometimes when he gets to declare the successful neutralization of filth like Osama and Awlaki, while the leftists shout in outrage (or stay silent, because it's Obama) over "human rights" being violated.

Is that why judges have ordered that life support be removed from ill Canadians of all ages many times? The problem is simple, that drug users and drug addicts certainly don't have the "right" to have access to heroin shooting galleries is an extension of Section 7 from the CCRF, which is what the SCoC is trying to grant them by denying BC's Minister of Health from terminating the immunity given to people at Insite and within the surrounding area from parts of the CSDA. There was this ridiculous statement that since drug addicts have impaired control over their behaviour, that somehow they are not responsible for their actions. Imagine if such an argument was advanced for rapists or murderers who likewise suffer behavioural impairments because of their broken minds. It is ridiculous on every level, and the attempt to justify it on the grounds of "evidence" and "research" of perceived positive outcomes (while making no mention of the harmful social outcomes of Insite), while referencing "successes" in foreign countries tells us everything we need to know about today's SCoC - they are results-based judges who embrace their perceived roles as agents of social change.

How is that trolling? Does it offend you that people like myself love watching our enemies get destroyed? Perhaps you will be attending a candlelight vigil to memorialise Awlaki and his comrades and advance the cause of the late propagandist's "human rights" that were violated by Obama's executive order.

You're making a very big assumption in that I support current drug policy in Canada.

He's rehearsed, now. That's all. He's an empty suit, a potential emperor without clothes. Just like Obama, but this time with a supposedly conservative flavour.

Constitutional rights don't extend to Yemen. Maybe at the embassy, if there is one.

Oh, I get it, because I oppose Insite as a ridiculous and harmful social endeavour, it couldn't possibly be that this recent SCoC decision is a textbook example of judicial activism? I make no secret about how I feel about Insite and my accurate and honest description of its real outcomes. That doesn't mean that there aren't broader arguments that support my position, namely an analysis of the proper role of the courts and competing visions of this from the left and the right. I'll mention it again, your very own opening post when you created that thread referenced "science and reason" winning the day, clearly demonstrating the ideals of the typical leftist with respect to the courts - results-based judgements. You don't give a damn a law, and you still refuse to admit it.

It's quite a stretch to assert that rights granted to them from Section 7 of the CCRF are violated when places like Insite and the surrounding area aren't given immunity from portions of the CSDA, which almost asserts that Insite itself is some sort of right to which drug users should be entitled. Moreover, the court suggests that it is drug addicts who have their freedom of choice limited because they are addicted. What about drug users, then? How do we discern between which Insite patrons are actually addicted and which are not? According to the SCoC ruling, only drug addicts would have their rights violated in the event of a termination of Insite's (and the surrounding area's) immunity to portions of the CSDA, not ordinary drug users. Of course, this is a question that is too difficult for the SCoC to address. Aside from this recent ridiculous decision from the SCoC, and more broadly, I've already demonstrated how the SCoC proudly proclaims its judicial activism by declaring itself as a forum for the discussion of "pressing social issues", as if that is the business of the courts, and as if the Justices have the knowledge or expertise to evaluate such issues. The SCoC should be about one thing - the law. Of course, their self-aggrandizement places them as the anointed ones who are now charged with formulating public policy when possible, effectively undermining the government. Like I said, hopefully the BC government will simply shut down Insite.

The very fact that the SCoC's decision accepts the narrative of "the research" about "harm reduction" illustrates that the SCoC sees the reduced likelihood of death from overdose among drug users at or near Insite as a positive social outcome, while completely ignoring all the externalities. Moreover, the same argument can e made for an infinite number of potential public endeavours. How about having a dedicated team of medical specialists in every apartment building where there is a considerable amount of senior residents? Virtually any increased expenditure on health services can now be interpreted as an inalienable "right" in accordance with Section 7 of the CCRF on the same grounds. This is absolutely absurd. The fact that the court states that a certain stage in their decision-making process that "morality of the activity" regulated by the law is irrelevant clearly demonstrates that they think their own sense of personal morality justifiably informs their decision-making process. A judge is supposed to divorce him or herself from these personal considerations and apply the law as it's been written. I'll share a partial quote I shared earlier, as you've clearly ignored all of my posts, where all that is required to be a good judge "is to read English intelligently" (Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes). The desperate attempt from the SCoC to greatly expand the rights provisioned to Canadians via Section 7 of the CCRF sets a ridiculously broad precedent. This judgement seems like it was written by law students and not serious jurists.

I care about accurate application of the law, thank you very much. It's a foundational component upon which our society is built. If we have bad laws, we change them. Considering that Insite is a terrible expenditure of taxpayer money that causes much more harm than good, on balance, a moral government has an obligation to terminate this program. Ceasing funding is a moral, and legal, avenue towards achieving those ends. Keep on cheering for "science and reason" to be the reasoning for SCoC judgements, rather than the actual law of the land. Results-based judicial activism is what you and the rest of the suicidal left want, and you got it. Like I already said in a previous post, the SCoC's very own welcome page informs us that the SCoC views itself as a forum where "pressing social issues" are to be discussed, in order to affect social change. They view themselves as the anointed ones whose mandate isn't simply applying the law as its been written, but to stretch the law through verbal virtuosity (a phrase borrowed from Thomas Sowell) towards achieving what they view as desirable social outcomes. Canadians, by and large, seem to be quite comfortable with this greatly expanded scope of responsibility for the courts - essentially granting unelected legal experts the authority to form public policy. Just make sure you don't get upset when they "apply" the law in a manner you disagree with, because that's what you're gambling with when you give such power to the SCoC.

I would love to see the video of the drone strike. Sometimes I just spend like thirty minutes watching videos on YouTube of American and coalition soldiers killing the enemy (helicopter strikes, drone strikes, airplane strikes, live on-the-ground video, etc). Love it, love it, love it.

No, war is not a new thing.

He has no constitutional rights outside of America, for starters, and certainly has no rights when he is actively involved in war against America.

To Argus, this decision already has expanded judicial activism. Thankfully, simply terminating funding for Insite still seems like a possibility. What was denied here by the SCoC was simply the withdrawal of the provincial Minister of Health's termination of immunity from certain laws in the CSDA. That's fine, as things stand now, Insite can still be shut down. Let's assume that shutting down Insite gets challenged on similar grounds, though. That would certainly set a ridiculous precedent.

Whether or not he was armed is irrelevant. Especially in the context of a war.

Not to use "evidence" to support their perceptions of ideal social outcomes - in this case, "harm reduction". This is a new phenomenon we've seen in approximately the last half-century. Evidence in the prosecution of a crime is one thing, "scientific research" used to justify perceptions of ideal social outcomes is another. It's clear that you don't grasp the core debate that this thread is predicated on, which are the competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. Again, go read my posts, as they articulately outline these competing visions. EDIT - In other words, you're comparing evidence that is used in a criminal trial to convict to "scientific research", basically sociological silliness, to support public policy. It's really quite telling that you can't discern the difference between, say, a bloody glove, and "sociological research" that is shaped to support a certain public policy endeavour by "proving" favourable outcomes (less drug users dying from overdose because they have dedicated emergency medical teams provided to them by the taxpayer).

I'm not going to waste my time when you blatantly mischaracterize everything I said. I said nothing even remotely close the crap in the post above. Put your ADD on hold and read my earlier posts in this thread if you spare a fe minutes. What's being discussed here is the long-standing dispute between competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. If you don't understand the debate that is at the core of this thread, you're wasting everyone's time with your posts.

Here's another example of these rats in NYC, sleeping in the streets, littering everywhere, and basically just spreading their disgusting presence. Listen to the rhetoric from these losers with no skills, no education, no talent, and obviously no money, crying on and on about what's owed to them, all the while masquerading their concerns as being rooted in "the collective" and the "greater good". Again, these are typical loser leftists who have nothing of value to offer society except their opinion, while demanding something for nothing. Of course, this stunt gives these idiots a chance to hook up and maybe get laid in a filthy alley because they can't get any privacy in their mothers' basements where they typically reside. Listen to the girl at 4:35 talking about "demanding rights", and then the girl after her whining about "corporate greed". Check out the guy at 5:58, high out of his mind, talking about building a "new society". If you wanna build a "new society", you better get some skills and talents. If you can't provide anything of value, what role do you have in this "new society"? Maybe he can roll the joints in this "new society". It's unreal.

Actually, you're the one living in fantasy world about the true nature of these demonstrations and the common denominators among most of the participants. Here's a video of a typical leftist at these demonstrations, trying to sell us on socialism and/or communism. This guy is a typical idiot, one whom you probably see eye-to-eye with.

Well, I already mentioned that the law is established by the democratically-elected government about twenty times in this thread and the other thread. My mentioning of the electorate doesn't need correction from you in this instance. The electorate votes for, directly and indirectly, the people who compose the law. Happy with the clarification? Now you can go back to your corner and lurk waiting for the next opportunity you'll have to come out of the shadows and make an irrelevant "correction", while avoiding the thrust of the thread which is beyond your grasp.

If the SCoC was only "applying the law", then it wouldn't have invoked "evidence" of perceived desirable social outcomes, while referencing the "successes" of similar programs in foreign countries. This may be considered an application of the law to a deranged leftist, but in reality it is just a ridiculous expansion of the rights provisioned to Canadians under Section 7 of the CCRF. Put your ADD on hold and spend five minutes and go read the decision. Or, alternatively, pretend to know what actually happened and what is contained within the decision from the SCoC.

You folks obviously remember the recent news about the killing of Awlaki in Yemen by a drone. Anyways, his right-hand man, also an American citizen and a fellow Jihadi propagandist who was obviously involved with these terrorists in several capacities, named Samir Khan, was also killed in the September 30 airstrike that killed Awlaki. So what did the State Department do? Well, they called up his family and apologized for his death and delay in contacting the family, of course. Also pathetic is how the Samir family issued a statement after the death of their vermin relative, condemning the "assassination", and inferring that his "rights" had been violated. It's telling when we live in a society where the enemy within has no reservations about proudly declaring their complicity in Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, Comedy Central is terrified to release a cartoon that would depict an animated Muhammad. This is how far we've fallen....

As if we didn't already know, but this is typical of the leftist. Just reflexively oppose all "bad" things - money, the creation of wealth, employment, personal responsibility, and freedom.

Although somewhat tangential, I want to share an observation that is probably obvious to many. Isn't it interesting how licensed professionals can lose their license(s) if they act immorally or incompetently? Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and all other manner of professionals and perhaps even tradespeople can be booted from their professions and liable for damages under such circumstances. Leftists, their sociologist "expert consultants", and their entourage? Nothing. Look at the EHealth scandal as a recent example, where the former Ontario Minister of Health (who certainly was unqualified for the position) Kaplan (I forget his last name) and his sidekick Sarah Kramer were responsible for a billion-dollar-plus theft of taxpayer money. Jail time? Nope. Seizure of assets? Hell no.