BC Judge Rules

[CANADIEN]

Our governments have a legal (constitutional) responsibility to protect the life, security and liberty of each and everyone of us. But, while there can be arguments as to whether or not "safe houses" is the way to protect the life and security of addicts who use them, how to best protect their life and security is a matter of law-making, not law interpretation. Unless it can be demonstrated that the federall government is wilfully neglecting the life and security of the clinic's clients, there is no basis to the claim that it is violating their constutitional rights.

[CANADIEN]

Our governments have a legal (constitutional) responsibility to protect the life, security and liberty of each and everyone of us. But, while there can be arguments as to whether or not "safe houses" is the way to protect the life and security of addicts who use them, how to best protect their life and security is a matter of law-making, not law interpretation. Unless it can be demonstrated that the federall government is wilfully neglecting the life and security of the clinic's clients, there is no basis to the claim that it is violating their constutitional rights.

[blueblood]

Our governments have a legal (constitutional) responsibility to protect the life, security and liberty of each and everyone of us. But, while there can be arguments as to whether or not "safe houses" is the way to protect the life and security of addicts who use them, how to best protect their life and security is a matter of law-making, not law interpretation. Unless it can be demonstrated that the federall government is wilfully neglecting the life and security of the clinic's clients, there is no basis to the claim that it is violating their constutitional rights.

Wouldn't throwing the addicts in the crazy house for a year or two also protect their life and security???