Insite Ruling poses danger on a number of fronts

Bob · October 12, 2011

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]

That's not what I said. It isn't conspiratorial. It's just the SCoC, clearly, views itself as a tool of social change, broadening its scope of responsibility far beyond applying the law as its been written. This comes down to the two competing visions of the role of the courts in society, with the leftists on the one hand viewing the courts as tool of social change that should engage in results-based decision-making, and those on the right with a much more constrained vision: that the courts are there to apply the law as it's been written to cases brought before them.

We are now defining the most basic rights guaranteed to us in the CCRF with sociological research, with cheers from the leftists about "science" and "research" winning the day, as if this is the ideal role of the courts. Just another stop on the long road to self-destruction for Canada.

cybercoma · October 13, 2011

the SCoC sees the reduced likelihood of death ... as a positive social outcome

You don't say! :lol:

Would you characterize that as a negative social outcome? If so, I think you should probably be locked up.

Bob · October 13, 2011

You don't say!

Would you characterize that as a negative social outcome? If so, I think you should probably be locked up.

I don't see the costs associated with delivering this "benefit" of reduced deaths from overdose in and around Insite as justifiable expenditures in the context of healthcare while other Canadians suffer, and occasionally die or experience irreversible worsenings of their conditions as a consequence of more important healthcare shortages. For example, I think it's more important to lessen the suffering and increase the productivity of a Canadian suffering from disabling pain who waits on disability by giving him or her a timely surgical procedure than to reduce the likelihood of a drug users dying from an overdose. I won't even get into Canadians that are dying because of healthcare shortages, who are in such situations due to no fault of their own, as opposed to drug addicts who cause harm to themselves by their own volition and try to avoid responsibility by hiding behind the designation of addiction as "disease".

Moreover, we haven't even touched on the harm caused by Insite to its patrons and to its surrounding community, aside from the unjustifiable expenditure of public funds.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Bob

cybercoma · October 13, 2011

I don't see the costs associated with delivering this "benefit" of reduced deaths from overdose in and around Insite as justifiable expenditures in the context of healthcare while other Canadians suffer, and occasionally die or experience irreversible worsenings of their conditions as a consequence of more important healthcare shortages. For example, I think it's more important to lessen the suffering and increase the productivity of a Canadian suffering from disabling pain who waits on disability by giving him or her a timely surgical procedure than to reduce the likelihood of a drug users dying from an overdose. I won't even get into Canadians that are dying because of healthcare shortages, who are in such situations due to no fault of their own, as opposed to drug addicts who cause harm to themselves by their own volition and try to avoid responsibility by hiding behind the designation of addiction as "disease".

Moreover, we haven't even touched on the harm caused by Insite to its patrons and to its surrounding community, aside from the unjustifiable expenditure of public funds.

Take it up with the government of British Columbia then. The funding of Insite has nothing to do with the Supreme Court or their decision.

But you knew that already, since you apparently read it.

capricorn · October 13, 2011

I am still on the fence as to whether judicial activism had anything to do with the Insite decision. I may never even work it out in my own mind.

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.

I find merit with what bambino says, especially the part "interpret as written". This reminded me of the Singh v. Minister of Immigration decision, which relied heavily on the wording of Section 7 of the Charter.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Text

As written, everyone has the right to such protection, not just Canadians. As a result of the Singh decision, anyone setting foot on Canadian soil is guaranteed Charter protection, regardless if such person arrived legally or illegally. Was this the intent of our legislators at the time of writing? If it was not the intent you'd think, someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy or in Parliament would have foreseen and raised the implications of such open ended wording before the Charter was made law.

cybercoma · October 13, 2011

I am still on the fence as to whether judicial activism had anything to do with the Insite decision. I may never even work it out in my own mind.

I find merit with what bambino says, especially the part "interpret as written". This reminded me of the Singh v. Minister of Immigration decision, which relied heavily on the wording of Section 7 of the Charter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Text

As written, everyone has the right to such protection, not just Canadians. As a result of the Singh decision, anyone setting foot on Canadian soil is guaranteed Charter protection, regardless if such person arrived legally or illegally. Was this the intent of our legislators at the time of writing? If it was not the intent you'd think, someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy or in Parliament would have foreseen and raised the implications of such open ended wording before the Charter was made law.

I think as well the important part of s. 7 here is that people not only have the right to life, liberty and security of the person, but they also have the right not to be deprived of those things either. By not considering the application of Insite, as a medical clinic, under s. 55 and 56 of the CDSA, the Minister of Health deprived the patients of Insite their right to life, as it would cause arbitrary and undue harm. For those that continue to roll out the argument that it has not been proven to make addicts safer, I still suggest that they petition their provincial governments to re-use needles in hospitals.

WWWTT · October 13, 2011

There is a show on TVO right now "Raw opium, Part 2"

Watch it!

WWWTT

Black Dog · October 13, 2011

I don't see the costs associated with delivering this "benefit" of reduced deaths from overdose in and around Insite as justifiable expenditures in the context of healthcare while other Canadians suffer, and occasionally die or experience irreversible worsenings of their conditions as a consequence of more important healthcare shortages.

...

I won't even get into Canadians that are dying because of healthcare shortages, who are in such situations due to no fault of their own, as opposed to drug addicts who cause harm to themselves by their own volition and try to avoid responsibility by hiding behind the designation of addiction as "disease".

This was a bogus false choice the first time you brought it up and remains so now.

Let's use another example. Direct health-care costs related to smoking run the system several billion dollars each year. Given that smoking is a choice in much the same way heroin is, it seems absurd that we should spend money on helping these people when so many other Canadians suffer because of the shortages stemming from the tremendous drain on our system that is smoking. And let's not even get started on the fatties.

Moreover, we haven't even touched on the harm caused by Insite to its patrons and to its surrounding community, aside from the unjustifiable expenditure of public funds.

It hasn't been touched on because you continue to fail at bringing any evidence forward to support your contention that InSite is harming its patrons (presumably from keeping them from a quick death in some back alley) or the community (which was a shithole long before InSite thanks in no small part to the deliberate policies of moralizing turds like yourself).

g_bambino · October 13, 2011

It isn't conspiratorial.

When a number of judges in a number of courts in more than one jurisdiction are all consistently aligned on the same path to implementing what you call "social change" without the scrutiny of parliament, yea, it pretty much sounds like you feel a conspiracy has taken place.

It's just the SCoC, clearly, views itself as a tool of social change.

No, you view the Supreme Court as a tool of social change, without anything more than your admittedly badly founded opinion as justification.

We are now defining the most basic rights guaranteed to us in the CCRF with sociological research.

Well, you certainly are consistent. Consistently ignorant. But, consistent, nonetheless.

Bob · October 13, 2011

This was a bogus false choice the first time you brought it up and remains so now.

Let's use another example. Direct health-care costs related to smoking run the system several billion dollars each year. Given that smoking is a choice in much the same way heroin is, it seems absurd that we should spend money on helping these people when so many other Canadians suffer because of the shortages stemming from the tremendous drain on our system that is smoking. And let's not even get started on the fatties.

False choice? It's a very real choice. Every dollars spent in one place is a dollar not spent somewhere else. And although leftists like you don't seem to realize it, dollars are a limited resource.

Although your "example" has nothing to do with a "false choice", I think that's a great way to add much-needed responsibility to Canadians with respect to their own health, considering all Canadians have access to a public health care system. Don't pay for injuries in car accidents caused by drunk drivers. Send a bill to smokers who develop lung cancer. Refuse to pay for alcoholics with cirrhosis. There are many opportunities to hold people accountable for the repercussions of choices they make that affect the broader public's purse.

Bob · October 13, 2011

I am still on the fence as to whether judicial activism had anything to do with the Insite decision. I may never even work it out in my own mind.

I find merit with what bambino says, especially the part "interpret as written". This reminded me of the Singh v. Minister of Immigration decision, which relied heavily on the wording of Section 7 of the Charter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Text

As written, everyone has the right to such protection, not just Canadians. As a result of the Singh decision, anyone setting foot on Canadian soil is guaranteed Charter protection, regardless if such person arrived legally or illegally. Was this the intent of our legislators at the time of writing? If it was not the intent you'd think, someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy or in Parliament would have foreseen and raised the implications of such open ended wording before the Charter was made law.

There is no question about this being an example of judicial activism. As soon as the SCoC references "studies", "research", and "evidence" regarding what it perceives as positive social outcomes, and perceptions of similar successes from similar programs in other countries in order to define the right to life, liberty, and security of the person - we know we're dealing with a radical departure from the law and textbook judicial activism. In other words, we're now defining foundational legal rights with politicized sociological research. Don't you see how absurd that is? Basically, any healthcare expenditure, masquerading as an "investment", that tangibly reduces the likelihood of harm or death befalling certain people can now be defined as an inalienable right - forget about the cost, forget about the opportunity cost, and forget about negative consequences/externalities. All that matters is the benefit that certain people reap!

Edited October 14, 2011 by Bob

guyser · October 13, 2011

There is no question about this being an example of judicial activism.

Only said because they didnt do what you wanted bs bob.

Your argument goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. See you last post for that.

cybercoma · October 14, 2011

False choice? It's a very real choice. Every dollars spent in one place is a dollar not spent somewhere else.

Except if you had actually read the SCC decision like you claim you did, they note in there the findings of the federal committee on Insite that state there was an positive cost-benefit to the site. So you're wrong, but keep trotting out this pile of BS as though it were the truth.

cybercoma · October 14, 2011

There is no question about this being an example of judicial activism. As soon as the SCoC references

Let's get something straight, Bob. The SCC doesn't do anything. There are 9 independent justices that make their own decisions.

Black Dog · October 14, 2011

False choice? It's a very real choice. Every dollars spent in one place is a dollar not spent somewhere else. And although leftists like you don't seem to realize it, dollars are a limited resource.

You don't know what a false choice is, then. Okay.

Although your "example" has nothing to do with a "false choice", I think that's a great way to add much-needed responsibility to Canadians with respect to their own health, considering all Canadians have access to a public health care system. Don't pay for injuries in car accidents caused by drunk drivers. Send a bill to smokers who develop lung cancer. Refuse to pay for alcoholics with cirrhosis. There are many opportunities to hold people accountable for the repercussions of choices they make that affect the broader public's purse.

For someone who fancies himself such a know-it all, you sure have a poor understanding of human psychology if you think they are capable of realistically assessing risk and using that assessment to guide behaviours.

Furthermore, how far shall we take this ridiculous scheme of yours? Shall we send bills to children falling off swingsets, the elderly who slip on icy sidewalks and anyone injured in a motor vehicle accidents?

There's really no limit on the ways you can hold people accountable for the "choices they make that affect the broader public's purse." Thank goodness, we're not all sociopaths like you.

Basically, any healthcare expenditure, masquerading as an "investment", that tangibly reduces the likelihood of harm or death befalling certain people can now be defined as an inalienable right - forget about the cost, forget about the opportunity cost, and forget about negative consequences/externalities.

It's clear by now (this being the nine hundredth time you've made this assertion) that you either didn't read the decision (stalled after the first two paragraphs perhaps?) or read it, but don't understand it.

Argus · October 15, 2011

You don't say!

Would you characterize that as a negative social outcome? If so, I think you should probably be locked up.

I would think that a decrease in the number of heroin addicts in any given city could be widely interpreted as a good thing...

Argus · October 15, 2011

As written, everyone has the right to such protection, not just Canadians. As a result of the Singh decision, anyone setting foot on Canadian soil is guaranteed Charter protection, regardless if such person arrived legally or illegally. Was this the intent of our legislators at the time of writing? If it was not the intent you'd think, someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy or in Parliament would have foreseen and raised the implications of such open ended wording before the Charter was made law.

Assuming competence, you would indeed think so. But do you honestly believe those who voted on the Charter would have knowingly approved of a constitutional process whereby it would take us five to ten years to deport a criminal who arrived here illegally?

cybercoma · October 15, 2011

I would think that a decrease in the number of heroin addicts in any given city could be widely interpreted as a good thing...

Write a letter to your MP and see if they'll send the military in to execute them in the streets then. That ought to decrease the number, since the end justifies the means in your twisted view of ethical morality.

scribblet · October 16, 2011

Let's hope that the next Insite site to be built will next to the judge's homes.

October 16, 2011

Let's hope that the next Insite site to be built will next to the judge's homes.

Interesting idea;- I wonder if they would rule the same - if they would have the same conviction/confidence that there isn't a rise in crime/drug use/negative effects in the neighborhood?

scribblet · October 16, 2011

Interesting idea;- I wonder if they would rule the same - if they would have the same conviction/confidence that there isn't a rise in crime/drug use/negative effects in the neighborhood?

Somehow I doubt it.

Argus · October 16, 2011

I think as well the important part of s. 7 here is that people not only have the right to life, liberty and security of the person, but they also have the right not to be deprived of those things either.

I think most of you have missed the point that in this case, what the court did was to say that NOT providing or allowing a government program for people was unconstitutional. This decisions is actually binding on the provincial government now, as well. Suppose they decided to stop funding this clinic. Well, they can't. That would be unconstitutional. The SC have, in effect, ordered government to pay for a clinic so illegal drug users can conduct their illegal habits more safely, and ordered government not to arrest them for doing so.

That is patently ludicrous.

g_bambino · October 16, 2011

what the court did was to say that NOT providing or allowing a government program for people was unconstitutional.

No, the court said people could not be denied access to an existing facility, not that a facility had to be provided.

cybercoma · October 16, 2011

I think most of you have missed the point that in this case, what the court did was to say that NOT providing or allowing a government program for people was unconstitutional.

That's not at all what they ruled. Nowhere in the decision does it say that Insite must remain open or that the government must fund it.

October 16, 2011

The SC have, in effect, ordered government to pay for a clinic so illegal drug users can conduct their illegal habits more safely, and ordered government not to arrest them for doing so.

That is patently ludicrous.

I couldn't agree more. I can't understand why the money isn't going into mandatory rehabilitation. Furthermore, where do we draw the line in the name of 'looking out for the health and well being of those breaking the law while they're breaking the law?'