Tories widening criminal code

[g_bambino]

No...He's the guy who advocates for a Fascist dictatorship...Franco seems to be the Fascist blueprint he would use...

Oh yes, quite right; my mistake. It all makes sense now.

[Oleg Bach]

WIDENING THE SCOPE OF THE CRIMMINAL CODE IS OPPRESSIVE....Let them repair the existing laws and let justice occur in the conservative courts..that would be refreshing - the crimminals want more laws so the crimminals can have more power to commit more crime on the population.. Most judges and lawyers that I have seen function of some strange policy handed to them from some back room...for all intent and purpose...they are crooks - they lie they use they extort and they release dangersous people to harrass us.

[Argus]

So persons A and B each throw in $10 and approach person C to buy a quantity of marijuana less than 3 kg with their combined money. The (temporary) association of all three people would appear to exist for the main purpose of completing this transaction, which offers a financial benefit for person C and material benefits for the other two. In the case of a poker game between at least three people, it would not be impossible to make a similar argument, although personally I don't believe enforcement is very likely in that case.

I think that's pretty unlikely. Remember that judges are still going to be determining whether people have formed a "criminal organization". I found this in looking for definitions. The first part is merely a repeat of what you've already posted defining criminal organizations, but the second part is more iluminating.

.....

It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

Factors to consider

In determining whether an individual participates in OR actively contributes to any activity of a criminal organization, the Court may look at the following:

•If they use a name, word, symbol, or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, that criminal organization;

•If they frequently associate with any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization;

•If they receive any benefit from the criminal organization;

•If they repeatedly engage in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization

It's also interesting to see that trafficking or posession of large amounts of drugs, be it cocaine or grass, can carry a life sentence. Can anyone recall that EVER happening? EVER?

[P. McGee]

Argus, the quote you gave does seem to give more credibility to your position, care to share a link to the source?

I still haven't been able to find much on past use of the method that was used to make this into law, largely because I'm not sure where to look. "Executive privilege" seems to be a similar concept but I'm not aware of a corresponding Canadian term. Have other minority governments changed the Criminal Code by passing similar regulations, bypassing the need for majority support with a proposed bill?

[DrGreenthumb]

Further clarification: Schedule IV is steroids, and barbiturates-- mild hypnotics, muscle relaxants, sleeping pills...Valium, khat... Schedule V is a nasal decongenstant. Schedule II is marijuana and it's derivatives and schedule VII specifies 3 Kg.....

So the regulations new 'serious offenses' are: selling, importing, exporting or producing steroids, mild hypnotics and nasal decongestants;

and trafficking in (pot or hash) in an amount (less than 3 kg.)

Dr. Greenthumb? What say ye?

I say that this is just another example of Harper's contempt of parliamentary procedure. The man is a tyrant and he knows damn well that these changes to the criminal code would never pass parliament. Canadians as a majority do not consider pot offences, hockey pools, or poker games "serious offences". Hell a growing number of us do not even support criminalization of prostitution. These changes to the law, done in an underhanded and undemocratic way will have serious negative consequences and will push this country further into debt, while increasing the danger and damage caused by crime. Consider that the changes to the prostitution law making it illegal for working girls to live and work communally will push them back into the mean streets and back alleys of the inner city, making them much easier pickings for the Pickton's of this world. Saying that this will only apply to "organized crime" is just a bullshit distraction. The definition of organized crime is so broad that any of these offences will automatically be considered to be organized. Any crime that involves three or more people and is done for financial or other benefit of one or more of the parties? How many poker games or hockey pools have you ever participated in that involve less than 3 people? If a hooker charges someone for a handjob, recieves his money and then pays rent to her landlord for the apartment she gave the hanjob in, that is 3 people already. These changes are a direct attack on personal freedoms on many fronts. Harper and his authoritarian fascist party must be thrown out now!

[Keepitsimple]

Argus, the quote you gave does seem to give more credibility to your position, care to share a link to the source?

I still haven't been able to find much on past use of the method that was used to make this into law, largely because I'm not sure where to look. "Executive privilege" seems to be a similar concept but I'm not aware of a corresponding Canadian term. Have other minority governments changed the Criminal Code by passing similar regulations, bypassing the need for majority support with a proposed bill?

Here's a link: http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/CommunityPolicing/OrganizedCrime/Gangs/OrganizedCrimeLegislation.aspx

[PIK]

So you're arguing in favor of illegal gambling, prostitution, hard drugs and gangs. Ok we got it. Many Canadians aren't in favor of these things and applaud some harsher laws. The Liberal plan from the 70's of being lenient on crime especially vice hasn't worked. Time to try a new approach.

Topaz is in favor of vice ruining our urban centres. You wonder why many people leave the city centres to live in the burbs. It's because of attitudes like yours make it unsafe for most people.

Restorative justice ,is that what the liberal called it back then, I remember the libs saying back then that by now we won't have any use for jails. And as I see in the papers everyday, judges being soft on the criminal, it is like the victim means nothing. That is why harper is going to build jails, because eventually more conservative judges will be on the bench and start putting people away.

[ToadBrother]

Restorative justice ,is that what the liberal called it back then, I remember the libs saying back then that by now we won't have any use for jails. And as I see in the papers everyday, judges being soft on the criminal, it is like the victim means nothing. That is why harper is going to build jails, because eventually more conservative judges will be on the bench and start putting people away.

Because the sensible thing to do is to lock more and more people away. Why, the United States is virtually crime free now because of its extensive state and federal prison systems.

[Argus]

Because the sensible thing to do is to lock more and more people away. Why, the United States is virtually crime free now because of its extensive state and federal prison systems.

I had a headache the other day and wanted to take some Tylenol, but my buddy said that was pointless. Back when his arm was cut off by a threshing machine he took a couple of Tylenol and it really didn't help much.