fellowtraveller

No of course it is not the only reason or even the most important, the most important reason for incarceration of a sexual predator is not rehab, but protection of the public. You, the judge and supposed experts cannot ensure we are safe with promises that he won't reoffend. Only incarceration guarantees that. I agree that balance is paramount, but any sentence must lean heavily and inevitably toward public safety. The sentence he got for kennedy and the one he got yesterday were far too light and the judge failed miserably in her work. There are few crimes more serious than this one. If a man had sexually assualted women 350 times while in a position of trust would you think 2 years(eight months in reality) is enough? This crime is worse.

No, those who do the inviting are part of a commercial enterprise, not the public. The 'public' I refer to are taxpayers who pay the salaries of police and other security staff, not ticket buyers. My meaning is that the organizers of any event should cover the costs, inclduingnthat of police, all police. If you put on a rock concert, the venue will require that you hire cops, and the cops require you pay them. If the cost of the security or insurance is huge and makes the tickets unaffordable, oh well.This should apply further afield than rock concerts to political events, so when the riot breaks out, the organizer pays. It does not matter if the cause of the riot is Galloway, Cheney or the Vancouver Canucks. if the organizer is the govt, same thing. Of course, the govt aleady does this.

You were OK until the second sentence. Fear of negative outcome does not stop people or countries from breaking deals, depends on the consequences. Negotiations are not an inevitable outcome. Eventual agreement of everybody is certainly not guaranteed. Negative consequences are in the eye of the beholder. Think about it. Quebec decalres itself sovereign. What exactly does Canada and the remaining provinces do? Sue them for damages? Where? How would damges be enforced? Quebec would have a 'first 30 days' strategy and that would certainly include prearrangement of recognition by a few countries, it doesn't matter which ones. Think on countries that Canada is at odds with, like anybody that opposes Israel. Once Iran or Syria acknowledges the Republic du Quebec, it is effectively over and out for bullying the Republic into anything. If Quebec leaves, Canada will have two choices only: armed response or bilateral negotiation. There won't be any blood, and bilateral means just that: two sovereign nations speaking to each other. Quebec won't speak to Canada until they are bilateral negotiations, they won't have anything much to say to any province because that is not how nations speak to each other.

You have the cart well before the horse. Having legal ramifications does not prevent anybody from breaking a contract. If the cost is too high, it may slow somebody down. IMO, getting sued by Canada or PEI for breaking the federation contract with a unilateral withdrawal would be way down the 'to-do' list for Quebec with a unilateral separation. If you claim lie others here that the 11 party contract cannot be unilaterally broken, you are wrong. It happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day in Canada. That the scope of the contract is smaller than this one does not matter at all in a legal sense. My point is that nobody sane would depend on legal niceties like the Clarity Act to keep Quebec or any party from acting.

No, that does not come remotely close to paying for public security. For somebody like Cheney for example, the RCMP VIP security detail and Secret Service would be involved as well as hordes of local police. Even without the damge caused by the riot tourists who flock to events like this, a ticket would not cover it. The organizers would have to put up large cash bonds and proof of liability insurance Um yeah, that is what I said.As it is now, the public pays for nearly all this BS. As of now, the folks who invite the Galloways or Cheneys expect the cops/public to work for free.

Yet you yourself make that very argument when you state: If he is fully rehabilitated as you and your trusted, anonymous and unaccountable experts claim and represents no danger to children whatsoever, what is the purpose of any sentence? You are staggering in circles. Please try again. Harder this time.

I have no problem with anybody coming to speak in Canada, with one requirement applying to everybody. If you require public security beyond the usual contingent of police on normal duty that day, you pay for it yourself. If Cheney or Galloway want to come and speak as a private citizen and it will require lots of cops and private security to ensure public order and personal safety, they pay for it all. If security is inadequate and property or people are damaged, their extensive , preapproved liability insurance pays. If they can't afford the security or insurance , they can stay home. If Cheney or Galloway or anybody is here at the invitation of our government, the public purse coughs up.

You are wrong. The basis of any contract is essentially the goodwill of the parties to the contract. Any of them can choose to abrogate the contract unilaterally. That includes Quebec. What happens after that are consequences: negotiations, agreements, lawsuits, armed warfare, holding hands around the campfire- is secondary to the reality that any of the parties can choose to break the contract on any or no terms they see fit. No doubt Quebec would see the Clarity Act as a law pertaining to somebody else i a different country, nothing to do with their soveriegn state which has its own laws. And it would take years if not decades to sort out all the legal niceties- all in the face of a fait accompli.

Incarceration protects the public directly by ensuring that people who are convicted criminals, who have actually committed crimes, are unable to do it again for a specified time. The police do nothing of the sort, they mostly investigate crime and react to acts already committed. That does not protect the public, except in the sense that criminals fear getting caught. The cops cannot punish or really protcet since what they do is after the fact, they only collect evidence for the courts to act upon. Incarceration does protect the public, though it sometimes does the opposite for prison staff and other inmates.

Then those more quailified persons should be criminally and civilly liable if he ever does anything similar again for the next 6 years and 4 months.. The only thing that guarantees he will not commit this crime again for any period is a stretch in jail that is commensurate with his crimes. The courts cannot ensure his good behaviour after he is released from any sentence, but the certaintyof a lengthy prison sentence might influence his conduct. If 350 sexual assaults gets you 2 years which is actually 8 months, it might be worth it to him. If 350 sexual assualts gets you 10 years with 7 served, there might be a different perspective on where he puts his dick. In the meantime, we all have a pleasant extra 6 years and 4 months of not worrying about this evil f*cker. Works for me.

Actually, protection of the public is a primary role of the court in some cases, including those where sexual predators are involved.It is the role of the justice system overall to offer an opportunity at rehabilitation to offenders, and the responsibility of the offender to take that opportuniy.

They can call him Magic Mulcair when he hacks development and stimulates the economy at the same time. In the meantime, the laidoff oilpatch workers can go back to Ontario to work in a flourishing manufacturing industry. Would you like to try some of this lovely crack I am enjoying?

Not working with children does not effectively restrict him from molesting children. Being in prison does.

Looks like Mulcair will win pretty easily. I'm going to pop some popcorn and enjoy the gong show when he attempts to explain how he'll manage oil sands development when he becomes PM. Actually, he'll be explaining how he'll manage Canada and pay for all those new social programs without any money.

Actually, you described the problem, not the fix, in that reply by comparing this sentence to others for similar crimes. That implies that those sentences are appropriate too. It also introduces a terrific grounds for appeal, as all a clever defence attorney has to do for a successful appeal of a harsh sentence is to find one that is lenient. One of the stated reasons the judge in this instance gave James two years only was that it was consistent with the sentence he got for raping Sheldon Kennedy when convicted over a decade ago. That does not make either sentence appropriate, except with you.

"Authoritarians" Do you mean the unions trying to bully the owners of the company with punishment, force them into agreements they cannot afford?Yet you get all pissy when the people paying the bills push back.... typical. You are dreaming if you don't think union action is not all about control and power......that too is part of negotiation. Where the unions totally f**k up is failing to recognize the strength and weakness of their own situation. They've been used to corps just rolling over, when one pushes back they get as hysterical as you. CAW is an example of one union that cannot recognize the situation they are in, although it is in significant part one of their own creation.

There a a lot of viewers, including me, that don't fit either camp.I have never read or heard of the comics, and I don't care if I see zombies every time out. If they make compelling TV, they don't have to worry about either faction.

Note that none of the better series mentioned in this thread is on network TV. I have enjoyed the second season of Walking DEad more as it progressed, but is it only me that wishes I could tie a raw pork chop around Loris neck? She is getting really irritating.

Nugent hopkins has not had any impact to his offence due to repsonisbilyt, it is because he has missed a bunch of games due to injury. Tambellini has so far failed to find the right role players, the OIlers are much too small and passive in their first three lines. The only real acquisitions have been Hall and Hopkins, and both of those were no-brainers on draft day. The rest.... not so good. Belanger is a bust with a three year contract. Barker is uselss, Sutton OK but old. Smyth OK+ but old. Whitney was great but his career may be over early, Potter a career minor leaguer now with a 3 year deal, Peckham failed to develop, Pavaarvi failed to develop and so on. The team needs many of the same things it has needed for years: 3 Top Four defencemen, much more toughness on the wings and a much better goalie duo. Having said that, they may make the playoffs next year. It looks like Tambellini will be rehired and Renney fired. It should be the opposite, Renney has done OK with what he has, which is not enough. Tambellini hasn't done good enough in getting secondary players. But if he is fired, Kevin Lowe looks like a mutt, so Tambellini will get another chance.

You must have fallen asleep early. The movie showed pretty much only what the producers see as her failures: IRA, economy, union busting, demonstrations on the street, dissent in the party, character failings and her failure as a parent. A biopic need not be a hagiographic, but it should at least have some form of balance, some faint sense of evenhandedness. Her global influence and turnaround of a horrific UK economy were barely mentioned and that was no accident given the people involved in the production. If her words and actions stand, it will be in spite of this hatchet job, not because of it.

Not a big problem, US airlines have been in turmoil for decades, many pilots laid off there and many earning much less than what Air Canada pays.They could staff quickly and relatively easily. Thanks for raising this option.

The topic is media coverage. Please try and stay on topic.

Agreed. One of them should be to immediately set up an eligibility list and hire many hire new pilots. If the existing crew of AC pilots is not physically or mentally up to the task of coming to work, they are easily replaced. They will surely agree that the safety of passengers is paramount and if the stress is too much for them, they have no choice but to step aside immediately. Anything less would be irresponsible if not criminal. They can negoatiate medical leave and retirement benefits from the insurance company and everybody is happy.

Is there any way we can travel back in time and delete the hundreds of hours on CBC devoted to Saint Jacques Layton worship? I know you would agree that is only fair.

wrong. The script was horrible and misleading.