Insite Ruling poses danger on a number of fronts

[Michael Hardner]

Guyser, and Bob - all you need to do is ask for cites and debate the facts at hand.

The insults sully the discussion, don't you know ?

[g_bambino]

But the evidence certainly wasn't legal, was it?

Do you want the Supreme Court of Canada to be the only court in the world that isn't allowed to accept evidence in the process of rendering its decisions?

[Bob]

Do you want the Supreme Court of Canada to be the only court in the world that isn't allowed to accept evidence in the process of rendering its decisions?

Not non-legal "evidence" in order to justify a decision based on achieving the court's desired outcome. There is bloody glove evidence used to try to convict a former professional athlete of murder, and then there's sociological "evidence" used to justify a decision on public policy in order to support the rendering of results-based decisions. Don't you get it? The SCoC is invoking "evidence" of "harm reduction" in order to justify an application of Section 7 rights from the CCRF. In other words, any social endeavour that reduces the likelihood of harm befalling a Canadian or group of Canadians in the context of health care can now be defined as an inalienable right.

Let me put this a different way, the SCoC is telling us that having a dedicated team of medical technicians on-hand at Insite to intervene when drug users overdose reduces the likelihood of drug users dying via overdose, and that this is proven via "research" and "studies" (as if anyone needed research for that!). Consequently, since Insite provides "harm reduction" to these people, that the federal Minister of Health is violating the Section 7 rights of these Canadians from the CCRF by refusing to extend their immunity to parts of the CSDA. If that is the argument used to deny the federal government's wishes, then the same argument could be advanced towards possible future efforts from the province to scrap the program altogether. The SCoC is explicitly using social outcomes, which it perceives as positive, as the justification for its new application of Section 7 rights from the CCRF. What we have here is, essentially, social outcomes as perceived by the SCoC determining application of constitutional rights, at least with respect to healthcare-related cases.

[g_bambino]

Not non-legal "evidence" in order to justify a decision based on achieving the court's desired outcome.

So, no medical evidence, physical evidence, testimonial evidence, or any kind of evidence except that which falls within this ill-defined and hitherto unheard of category of "legal evidence"?

You keep making this assertion that the Supreme Court justices all together scheemed to present their own evidence to themselves in order to justify their pre-determined ruling. I wonder: Do you have a shred of evidence to support this ridiculous idea of yours?

The SCoC is explicitly using social outcomes, which it perceives as positive, as the justification for its new application of Section 7 rights from the CCRF

No, the Supreme Court is using evidence of benefit to wellbeing and safety, which it perceives as a Charter guaranteed right, as the justification for telling the federal Minister of Public Health and Safety that she can't deny addicts access to safe injection sites. Would you like me to quote from the ruling again?

[sp, +]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bob]

So, no medical evidence, physical evidence, testimonial evidence, or any kind of evidence except that which falls within this ill-defined and hitherto unheard of category of "legal evidence"?

You keep making this assertion that the Supreme Court justices all together scheemed to present their own evidence to themselves in order to justify their pre-determined ruling. I wonder: Do you have a shred of evidence to support this ridiculous idea of yours?

[sp]

Those categories of evidence should only be applicable in a criminal trial towards proving the guilt of the defendant, not when determining the constitutionality of a public policy that is being challenged. The SCoC essentially used sociological "studies", which tell us what we already know while ignoring all negative consequences of Insite, to justify a new legal application of Section 7 from the CCRF. It's becoming more and more apparent that you don't really grasp what's at stake here. If you did, you wouldn't have asked such a question, pretending as if this is some sort of criminal trial with a bloody glove.

[g_bambino]

Those categories of evidence should only be applicable in a criminal trial towards proving the guilt of the defendant, not when determining the constitutionality of a public policy that is being challenged.

Why? The issue revolves around persons' "right to life, liberty and security of the person". It has to be determined in the course of rendering the ruling whether or not those rights are impinged upon by a government policy. It is therefore necessary to look at the medical and numerical evidence.

The SCoC essentially used sociological "studies"

Have you read the ruling in full?

[sp]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[guyser]

Took about two seconds to find these stories.

Perhaps you should get back to watching Survivor, or whatever else it is you do to keep yourself ignorant of current events.

Figured you would pull these out.

Here is what you said...

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

Not one of your links backs up the assertion of yours above.

The Judge in all rulings was asked to decide if the Hospital had the right to pull the plug or not.

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[Bob]

Why? The issue revolves around persons' "right to life, liberty and security of the person". It has to be determined in the course of rendering the ruling whether or not those rights are impinged upon by a government policy. It is therefore necessary to look at the medical and numerical evidence.

So now the right to life, liberty, and security of the person is defined by research studies from sociologists. Gotcha. This is just a dishonest way of justifying the SCoC's ability to determine public policy as they see fit, in order to achieve outcomes they perceive as ideal, and not to do the only thing which they should be doing - application of the law.

Have you read the ruling in full?

[sp]

Several times. It take about two minutes to read it.

[guyser]

Guyser, and Bob - all you need to do is ask for cites and debate the facts at hand.

Gee ya think?

It has been asked...and ignored.

The insults sully the discussion, don't you know ?

His manner in which everyone is wrong, including 9 SC Justices, Medical professionals,ther Lawyers, the Dr's, the evidence is insulting to the core.

[g_bambino]

So now the right to life, liberty, and security of the person is defined by research studies from sociologists.

Several times. It take about two minutes to read it.

It's 78 pages long. The evidence within it is medical and numerical. You obviously haven't read the ruling.

[Bob]

It's 78 pages long. The evidence within it is medical and numerical. You obviously haven't read the ruling.

I was referring to the summary at the beginning. I've read other parts of the ruling, as well. Clearly, you don't have anything relevant to share and can't grasp what it is I'm saying. You want "scientific research" (in effect, sociological research demonstrating "harm reduction") to now determine the proper legal application of the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Basically, we can now define any healthcare "investment" that reduces the likelihood of harm or death of a particular group of people as a protect right guaranteed under Section 7 of the CCRF. And a leftist like you is totally fine with that. Keep expanding those "rights", while continuously ignoring the negative externalities of such social programs as well as the obligations placed on others without their consent to provide for and protect these new "rights".

[Argus]

Why should I suppose such a stupid thing? It would never happen, since legalising rape would be counter to multiple sections of the Charter and the courts cannot declare a part of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

The Court can quite literally declare anything unconstitutional: Blonde hair, for example. There is no appeal beyond them. They don't actually need to have a legal basis for their rulings. They can 'interpret' any legality they want.

You understand neither the role of the courts nor that of the government. Laws are made either by parliament (Acts of Parliament), the Cabinet (Orders-in-Council), or precedent (convention). The constitutionality of any of these isn't tested by the Cabinet, which would obviously create a conflict of interest; analysing the legality of various laws is the job of the courts.

Except that the courts have given themselves the power to create law, and they have continually stretched the interpretations of the Charter over the years towards ever more broad interpretations of what constitutes constitutionality. Very little of what the Courts have found in the constitution over the last decade was ever intended by those who wrote the constitution, let alone those who voted on it.

[Shwa]

The Court can quite literally declare anything unconstitutional: Blonde hair, for example. There is no appeal beyond them. They don't actually need to have a legal basis for their rulings. They can 'interpret' any legality they want.

Don't they have to be asked a question first?

Except that the courts have given themselves the power to create law, and they have continually stretched the interpretations of the Charter over the years towards ever more broad interpretations of what constitutes constitutionality. Very little of what the Courts have found in the constitution over the last decade was ever intended by those who wrote the constitution, let alone those who voted on it.

What laws have the courts created? Name a few so we can examine them.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Shwa

[g_bambino]

I was referring to the summary at the beginning. I've read other parts of the ruling, as well. Clearly, you don't have anything relevant to share and can't grasp what it is I'm saying.

Clearly what you deem to be relevant is only that which fits with your irrational and ill-founded viewpoint and you think grasping means agreeing without question.

You've done the very thing you falsely (and insanely) accuse numerous courts in two separate jurisdictions of doing: selecting evidence in order to prop up a pre-determined conclusion. You feel you don't need to read the entire Supreme Court ruling before making a conclusion about it. You don't even need to employ basic logic. It's simply enough that your own imagination came up with the idea that the nine justices of the Supreme Court (despite the fact that not all were appointed on the advice of prime ministers of the same political brand) have collectively taken it upon themselves to employ only "sociological", "non-legal" evidence as a means to extra-constitutionally empower themselves to override "the electorate" and impose the continuance of a programme you personally disapprove of. When nobody buys it, you think everyone else are all lunatics in on the conspiracy. It's creepy.

[sp]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

The Court can quite literally declare anything unconstitutional

Nope, it can't.

Except that the courts have given themselves the power to create law.

Nope, they haven't.

[Argus]

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

I bet that giving everyone on welfare five thousand a month and a free house would have an observable reduction in a variety of risks to their health. Is it thus unconstitutional to do that?

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...

In other words, the SC just legalized almost all aspects of prostitution. I don't see how any government can now enforce the 'bawdy house' provisions of the laws, nor any aspect of the communicating provisions. Prostitutes will now be able to set up in their houses, or in other properties, and openly advertise their services. Just one of the numerous laws which will be soon affected by this decision.

Some might welcome that. But most of us feel those sorts of grand, societal decisions ought to be made by our elected representatives, not by unelected, unanswerable judges.

[Argus]

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

And it's done such a bang-up job. Why, there are hardly any addicts in Vancouver any more...

[Argus]

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?

[+]

Speaking for myself I'd burn the Charter in the nearest fireplace. It was crap when it was written, and it's ten times worse now.

[g_bambino]

I bet that giving everyone on welfare five thousand a month and a free house would have an observable reduction in a variety of risks to their health. Is it thus unconstitutional to do that?

It's not unconstitutional to hand out money or give away free houses. It happens quite often: lotteries.

In other words, the SC just legalized almost all aspects of prostitution. I don't see how any government can now enforce the 'bawdy house' provisions of the laws, nor any aspect of the communicating provisions. Prostitutes will now be able to set up in their houses, or in other properties, and openly advertise their services. Just one of the numerous laws which will be soon affected by this decision.

That is an argument before a court somewhere in Canada, I believe. Legal but regulated prostitution works just fine in Australia.

Some might welcome that. But most of us feel those sorts of grand, societal decisions ought to be made by our elected representatives, not by unelected, unanswerable judges.

Right. So, it's up to parliament to change the constitution. All this anger hurled at the Supreme Court is entirely misdirected.

[+]

Edited October 12, 2011 by g_bambino

[Argus]

The evidence used was scientific and empirical.

Junk science.

[Argus]

Nope, it can't.

And what's to stop them?

Nope, they haven't.

You say Tomato, I say TomAto. When they rewrite a law they're making law, as they did with the marriage act, for example.

[Argus]

It's not unconstitutional to hand out money or give away free houses. It happens quite often: lotteries.

I mistyped. I left out the 'not'. As in, is it now unconstitutional to NOT give them the house and money.

Right. So, it's up to parliament to change the constitution. All this anger hurled at the Supreme Court is entirely misdirected.

[+]

The Constitution was crap when written, but once the judges got at it the thing turned into a septic tank. There's no reason to believe another charter would make much difference unless it somehow made it almost impossible to stretch or alter the bare, written words. Ie, if the Charter says you can't discriminate on THIS basis, than that is the ONLY basis you can't discriminate. But there are so many ways to interpret words stupidly -- and lawyers will find every one of them. My favorite was when the courts found police could not tape drug deals and use it as evidence because that violated the suspects right to privacy.

[g_bambino]

And what's to stop them?

The constitution and the parliaments, obviously.

When they rewrite a law they're making law, as they did with the marriage act, for example.

The Supreme Court doesn't rewrite laws, it scrutinises them within the framework of other laws (especially the constitution), precedent, and convention. In reference to the Civil Marriage Act, in particular, it was parliament that wrote the law, not the Supreme Court.

[g_bambino]

I mistyped. I left out the 'not'. As in, is it now unconstitutional to NOT give them the house and money.

I don't see how. It might be unconstitutional, however, for a government to deny a homeless person access to a home that was being provided to them.

The Constitution was crap when written, but once the judges got at it the thing turned into a septic tank. There's no reason to believe another charter would make much difference unless it somehow made it almost impossible to stretch or alter the bare, written words. Ie, if the Charter says you can't discriminate on THIS basis, than that is the ONLY basis you can't discriminate. But there are so many ways to interpret words stupidly -- and lawyers will find every one of them. My favorite was when the courts found police could not tape drug deals and use it as evidence because that violated the suspects right to privacy.

I'll assume that by "the Constitution" you mean the Charter, since the Charter is only but a part of the constitution, which has been written in parts over a thousand years and also includes a lot of unwritten conventions.

Well, like I said, your beef is with the actual lawmakers: the parliaments. It's only the federal and provincial legislatures that can amend or repeal the Charter, not the Supreme Court. The courts can only interpret it as written.

[WWWTT]

The Constitution was crap when written, but once the judges got at it the thing turned into a septic tank. There's no reason to believe another charter would make much difference unless it somehow made it almost impossible to stretch or alter the bare, written words. Ie, if the Charter says you can't discriminate on THIS basis, than that is the ONLY basis you can't discriminate. But there are so many ways to interpret words stupidly -- and lawyers will find every one of them. My favorite was when the courts found police could not tape drug deals and use it as evidence because that violated the suspects right to privacy.

I don't think venting out your frustration over the Canadian constitution, how it is interpreted and applied will change anything?

Do you really believe if you get mad or angry enough people will actually turn around and say "hey wait a minute,maybe this guys onto something.we should all listen"?

Man thats freekin funny

WWWTT