Insite Ruling poses danger on a number of fronts

[Bob]

And what evidence is there that the evidence supported the shared ideal social outcome of nine Supreme Court justices? Or, was it that the evidence affirmed that there was an observable, tangible reduction of risk to health and life of drug addicts by allowing them access to supervised injection sites, thereby making it counter to S.7 of the Charter for the federal Crown-in-Council to deny them that access? From reading the ruling, it seems to be the latter; it is full of references to the "life and security of the person". In fact, it flat out states "the morality of the activity the law regulates is irrelevant at the initial stage of determining whether the law engages a s. 7 right... While it is for the relevant governments to make criminal and health policy, when a policy is translated into law or state action, those laws and actions are subject to scrutiny under the Charter. The issue is not whether harm reduction or abstinence-based programmes are the best approach to resolving illegal drug use, but whether Canada has limited the rights of the claimants in a manner that does not comply with Charter."

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.

[Black Dog]

And here you're finally up front about what your issue is: The constitution doesn't allow for you to have your ideal social outcome to be implemented as easily as you'd like, and because the Supreme Court based its ruling on the constitution, rather than overriding it to suit your personal preference, the Supreme Court is a cabal of unelected leftards with no legitimacy.

Bang on. If you go back to the original thread, Bob's initial objections had little to do with the proper application of the letter of the law or activist courts, but his moral outrage over the ruling, his personal disgust for drug users and some bullshit window dressing about opportunity costs. Only later does he seize upon the "judicial activism" angle, but if we apply Bob's own "two paragraph rule" the real motivation is apparent.

[Black Dog]

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 SCoC does not deal in bullshit slippery slope hypotheticals (that's your domain), only the cases before them.

[Bob]

And here you're finally up front about what your issue is: The constitution doesn't allow for you to have your ideal social outcome to be implemented as easily as you'd like, and because the Supreme Court based its ruling on the constitution, rather than overriding it to suit your personal preference, the Supreme Court is a cabal of unelected leftards with no legitimacy.

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.

[Bob]

Bang on. If you go back to the original thread, Bob's initial objections had little to do with the proper application of the letter of the law or activist courts, but his moral outrage over the ruling, his personal disgust for drug users and some bullshit window dressing about opportunity costs. Only later does he seize upon the "judicial activism" angle, but if we apply Bob's own "two paragraph rule" the real motivation is apparent.

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.

[olp1fan]

Drug addicts don't belong in Prison Bob where there are probably more drugs... they need to get treated and Insite lets them shoot up in an environment that encourages rehabilitation

you might think that sounds ridiculous and you are allowed to be able to feel that way

However your way hasn't been working, lets try something different

[Bob]

Drug addicts don't belong in Prison Bob where there are probably more drugs... they need to get treated and Insite lets them shoot up in an environment that encourages rehabilitation

you might think that sounds ridiculous and you are allowed to be able to feel that way

However your way hasn't been working, lets try something different

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

[olp1fan]

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

Okay sorry Bob, what is your view on the current drug polciy

[g_bambino]

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..

Generally, prevention of death is seen as a positive social outcome. However, that's still irrelevant to the SCC's ruling, which was based on evidence and Section 7 of the Charter, as affirmed in the ruling itself. What do you have a problem with? Section 7? Or the evidence?

[+]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

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?[

It could be, but coming from you, I wouldn't believe it to be so. You live and breathe ideology as much as any communist True Believer.

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.

The proper role of the courts in your view is to uphold those laws you believe in and strike down those you are against. An instrument of Bob's will. Your very existences is predicated upon your side winning (and pumping your own tires): pretending it to be otherwise makes you looks foolish. Well, more foolish.

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.

I care about the law and I'll trust the legal minds at the BC Supreme Court, the BC Court of Appeal and every single one of the SCoC over some sociopath on the internet.

[Bob]

Generally, prevention of death is seen as a positive social outcome. However, that's still irrelevant to the SCC's ruling, which was based on evidence and Section 7 of the Charter, as affirmed in the ruling itself. What do you have a problem with? Section 7? Or the evidence?

[+]

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.

[g_bambino]

[D]rug 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...

The question wasn't whether or not drug addicts had the right to access supervised injection sites, but whether or not the federal Crown-in-Council has the right to deny a drug addict access to supervised injection sites. Since the evidence apparently proves that denial of access to a supervised injections site would cause more health detriemnt than benefit to an addict, the denial is counter to Section 7 of the Charter. (And the court further found that allowing access to the sites doesn't impinge on Section 1 of the Charter.)

[grammar]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[Black Dog]

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.

The decision doesn't give heroin users the "right" to access shooting galleries or represent any sort of extension. Rather, the Tories' attempt to revoke Insite's exemption to the CSDA compromised Insite users’ existing, Charter-guaranteed rights to life, liberty and security of the person.

[guyser]

Is that why judges have ordered that life support be removed from ill Canadians of all ages many times?

Cite please, thanks.

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[Bob]

The question wasn't whether or not drug addicts had the right to access supervised injection sites, but whether or not the federal Crown-in-Council has the right to deny a drug addict access to supervised injection sites. Since the evidence apparently proves that denial of access to a supervised injections site would cause more health detriemnt than benefit to an addict, the denial is counter to Section 7 of the Charter. (And, since allowing access to the sites doesn't impinge on Section 1 of the Charter, there's further argument against the government's denial of access.)

[grammar]

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.

[Bob]

Cite please, thanks.

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

[guyser]

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

whats the problem bob, can find anything to back up your assertion?

You have a serious credibility issue. You are the purveyor of BS.

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[Black Dog]

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?

The decision to grant immunity from the CDSA to InSite users rests with the feds

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.

Nope. What's being stated in black and white by the SCoC is that revoking the already-granted immunity from the CDSA would constitute an infringement of the Charter Rights of InSite users. The decision actually reaffirms the feds' authority to grant or deny such exemptions to criminal law under the CDSA.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Black Dog

[g_bambino]

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...

Given that the ruling affects the federal minister of health, and you thought the ruling was about drug addicts' "'right' to have access to heroin shooting galleries", do you really know what the ruling is about?

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.

Oh, implied... As in, the way you interpret the ruling, the Supreme Court has invented a new right for drug addicts. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. However, it's quite clear that the only relevant addicts' rights are those that already existed in Section 7 of the Charter; no additional rights, no expansion of the section. The court found that the Minister of Public Health and Safety is not above the constitution and, accordingly, cannot make a policy decision that evidence shows would not improve public safety in any way and would be detrimental to the health and lives of drug addicts and those around them.

In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where, as here, a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Health for Canada vs. PHS Community Services Society et all

It seems you're so caught up in accusing people of not reading your posts that you've neglected to read the ruling your posts are trying to tear apart.

[Bob]

whats the problem bob, can find anything to back up your assertion?

You have a serious credibility issue. You are the purveyor of BS.

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.

[guyser]

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.

Ignorance is all you have.

No your problem is spouting inane bullshit until called on m, then you whine like a baby and m,ove the goal posts.

Now its med practitioners too ? Will it be ambulance personnel tomorrow, plumbers Friday?

bs bob, at it again.

Didnt think you could back up your bs....once again.

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[Bob]

The decision to grant immunity from the CDSA to InSite users rests with the feds

My mistake, the federal Minister of Health.

Nope. What's being stated in black and white by the SCoC is that revoking the already-granted immunity from the CDSA would constitute an infringement of the Charter Rights of InSite users. The decision actually reaffirms the feds' authority to grant or deny such exemptions to criminal law under the CDSA.

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.

[g_bambino]

Most importantly, the "evidence" used to justify this legal decision constituted sociological "studies" and "research".

The evidence used was scientific and empirical.

[Bob]

Ignorance is all you have.

No your problem is spouting inane bullshit until called on m, then you whine like a baby and m,ove the goal posts.

Now its med practitioners too ? Will it be ambulance personnel tomorrow, plumbers Friday?

bs bob, at it again.

Didnt think you could back up your bs....once again.

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.

[Bob]

The evidence used was scientific and empirical.

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.