Jump to content

Bus beheader Vince Li should be allowed to go to the beach: doctor


Recommended Posts

What am I supposed to be substantiating in this case waldo? Am I supposed to substantiate that the Charter does not guarantee Mr. Li's beaching rights, as I implicitly challenged eyeball? From my recollection, the Charter generally outlines what rights people do have, not which ones they don't have!

In any case, your broken-record hypocrisy, is cute! You're all too happy to inundate people with charts, graphs and walls of quotations/re-quotations when not asked, but as we've all seen you're far more slippery when someone offers a direct and specific challenge!

your comprehension difficulty is surfacing again... read my reply again! I'm not asking you to substantiate anything... my chuckle-fest had to do with you, the guy who never offers any references/citations to support your ongoing stream of unsubstantiated claims, asking someone else to substantiate something. This reply of yours is gravy to add to the earlier main course of your collective hypocrisy. :lol:

.

Brilliant! I love when your citations are this dumb! Would you care to explain how Mr. Li's imprisonment would be considered 'arbitrary' or how Section 9 pertains to his beaching rights!? Unfortunately for you, there's more to a good argument than the quantity of your reference material (which often sucks). Sometimes you're actually...required to...put a coherent...argument...together.

Don't dodge now waldo! That would be pretty funny considering what you just wrote above!

dumb citation? Coming from you that certainly stings... a real burner - NOT!!! Really, buddy... googly can be your friend here - it can really save you further embarrassment on top of what's already shining through.

first, we need you to step-up here. Following on Bubber's lead, do you believe someone found 'not criminally responsible (NCR)', should be punished... or treated? Punished... or treated - which one, hey?

as for the Charter challenges:

- no less than the Canadian Bar Association suggests an Article 7 challenge would associate with the passage of the Harper Conservative Bill C-54 into law... Article 7: right to life, liberty and security of person.

- as for my earlier reference: Article 9 challenge - the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment... that presumes upon the proposed law changing the existing NCR policy on review frequency and related detainment protocols; more pointedly, shifting the mentally ill into the regular prison populace and significantly changing the frequency of mental review, and how that might affect treatment. Treatment! Not Punishment!.

- Article 15 challenge: prohibiting discrimination on the basis of mental disability

and... just why are Harper Conservatives pushing Bill C-54 forward? Anyone... anyone... anyone...

on edit: the "dodge" reference is a cutey considering your abandonment of the Hansen thread after I challenged you to support your claim concerning the Ontario Green Energy Act, wind and your claimed "significant cost impact to electrical bills". Is there a problem?

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The guy is under the care of doctors who decide what his treatment should be, including trips to the beach. If they decide he's cured, then he's free. (doubt that will happen very soon). That's the danger - there is no cure, and he should be watched for the rest of his life to make sure he takes his meds and doesn't go off the rails. He doesn't need to be locked up for that to happen, but there needs to be a structure in place that makes sure it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't know then? That's what I thought!

I'm pretty sure the equalization provisions in the Charter ensure that Mr Li receive the same level of care that any other Canadian with an illness is entitled to - something that would also include not being called a morally reprehensible monster by the way.

Given your comment about taxpayer expense I suspect it won't be long until you and the rest of Harper's yahoos are lumping in just about any crime that involves a mental health issue with Vincent Li and attempting to employ the same style of mental health system the US uses. The cost of mental health to our economy is already huge and your head must be screwed on backwards if you think the portion of taxes you're paying now towards mental illness won't increase all the more. The only excuse for going Harper's route is that the current system we use doesn't include an element of vindictiveness to it.

To be perfectly honest I think you people are morally reprehensible monsters for pursuing this.

So when your kid comes home with a fever do you humiliate and banish him to his room with no supper? What about repeat offences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be true if he were found guilty and was not found to be not criminally responsible.

I'm not sure if this Li person does have a full range of rights as any other Canadian citizen.

Our justice system has to ensure the safety of Canadians,and someone who has taken a human life in an unprovoked attacked will still be deemed a threat.Regardless of criminal intent.

This is a very special case and I find it very horrific!I sincerely hope that our society, justice system and health/medical institutions can learn to better deal with similar cases to better prevent!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given your comment about taxpayer expense I suspect it won't be long until you and the rest of Harper's yahoos are lumping in just about any crime that involves a mental health issue with Vincent Li and attempting to employ the same style of mental health system the US uses.

Oh no...not that...anything but THAT !! Better to have more cannibalism and beheadings than "U.S. style" mental health practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not asking you to substantiate anything... my chuckle-fest had to do with you, the guy who never offers any references/citations to support your ongoing stream of unsubstantiated claims, asking someone else to substantiate something. This reply of yours is gravy to add to the earlier main course of your collective hypocrisy.

except the flow of the discussion was:

1. I stated an opinion.

2. eyeball told me the Charter guarantees protections from my 'feelings and opinions'

3. I implicitly stated he did not, nor would be able to apply the Charter to this discussion in any worthwhile way.

4. He told me my position was 'unaccountable'

5. I asked him to explain his Charter argument (not even quote it, just make an argument from it), which he refused.

6. You mocked , and then attempted a challenge with a stupid argument from the Charter (at least better than eyeball managed) and refuting it couldn't have been easier.

I know I've upset you by opposing your Green Crusade waldo, but nobody's interested in your baggage from completely unrelated environmental threads, okay?

first, we need you to step-up here. Following on Bubber's lead, do you believe someone found 'not criminally responsible (NCR)', should be punished... or treated? Punished... or treated - which one, hey?

In terms of mental health issues, I'd lean towards treatment, but in someone like Mr. Li's case not for the purpose of re-integration, but rather because he doesn't belong in the prison system.

as for the Charter challenges:

- no less than the Canadian Bar Association suggests an Article 7 challenge would associate with the passage of the Harper Conservative Bill C-54 into law... Article 7: right to life, liberty and security of person.

Oh it's Article 7 now? Nice dig! At least here you've a better leg to stand on, but I wasn't arguing about Bill C-54. I was arguing about whether Mr. Li should have beaching visits! Even if we're talking C-54, the CBA's challenge isn't exactly a slam-dunk! Bill C-54 merely leans the balance further towards public protection for "high risk NCR's", instead of towards the preservation of the accused's dignity and liberty, which in cases like Mr. Li could have reasonably determined limits.

- as for my earlier reference: Article 9 challenge - the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment... that presumes upon the proposed law changing the existing NCR policy on review frequency and related detainment protocols;

The review frequency change still wouldn't arbitrary, so that's a swing and a miss.

more pointedly, shifting the mentally ill into the regular prison populace

I agree with you on that this is a dumb idea, but that's still not really a Section 9 argument.

- Article 15 challenge: prohibiting discrimination on the basis of mental disability

Another dud. Stick to Section 7 for your Charter challenges. Mr. Li isn't being detained because he has a mental disability. He's being detained because he beheaded and ate someone.

and... just why are Harper Conservatives pushing Bill C-54 forward? Anyone... anyone... anyone...

on edit: the "dodge" reference is a cutey considering your abandonment of the Hansen thread after I challenged you to support your claim concerning the Ontario Green Energy Act, wind and your claimed "significant cost impact to electrical bills". Is there a problem?

Waldo you'll almost always get the last word in our arguments. I don't have the energy to keep going back and forth with you, nor does most of the board. I know you take that as victory, but boredom and exhaustion are your friends on this board, as I've indicated before. Perhaps I'll revisit the thread at some point soon, or perhaps not. It all depends on if there's more interesting things to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you upset that I called you out on your doltish use of the Charter in the conversation?

I'm soo sorry your feelings are hurt.

Look, I happen to like Eyeball as a poster, and I know he feels strongly about mental health issues. So do I. I worked at a camp for disturbed children for two summers, 1974 and 1975, a camp then called Camp Rainbow, in Croton-on-Hudson. My wife is particularly active in our school district advocating for the mentally disabled. I am interested in the issue but less active.

Where I do differ is in the proper allocation of mental health dollars. I think it is folly to shovel dollars into trying to cure the Mr. Li's of the world, after he butchers someone. I would far rather use the limited available resources for more promising projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except the flow of the discussion was:

1. I stated an opinion.

2. eyeball told me the Charter guarantees protections from my 'feelings and opinions'

3. I implicitly stated he did not, nor would be able to apply the Charter to this discussion in any worthwhile way.

4. He told me my position was 'unaccountable'

5. I asked him to explain his Charter argument (not even quote it, just make an argument from it), which he refused.

6. You mocked , and then attempted a challenge with a stupid argument from the Charter (at least better than eyeball managed) and refuting it couldn't have been easier.

:lol: how mind-numbing anal of you to put a 'blow-by-blow' together!!! This point really, really, must be important for you. Of course, at the end of your silliness, my same chuckle-fest stands strong. Here, let me dumb it down for you: in your anal account, just quoted, where does the following fit:

- I said: "that's rich... you calling someone out to substantiate something!"

- you said: "What am I supposed to be substantiating in this case waldo?"

- I said: "your comprehension difficulty is surfacing again... read my reply again! I'm not asking you to substantiate anything... my chuckle-fest had to do with you, the guy who never offers any references/citations to support your ongoing stream of unsubstantiated claims, asking someone else to substantiate something. This reply of yours is gravy to add to the earlier main course of your collective hypocrisy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I've upset you by opposing your Green Crusade waldo, but nobody's interested in your baggage from completely unrelated environmental threads, okay?

your so-called 'opposition' is so weak, baseless and of no consequence... I really only bother to respond to you to let you think you're still in the game!

as for this latest gem of yours, when you throw down a statement like your, "Don't dodge now waldo!"... I most certainly will point out your own recent days dodge... where you , as I stated, bailed right out of a thread after being called on your repeated nattering about the Ontario Green Energy Act. But really, don't worry about having to go back to that thread to substantiate what you were called on... the concurrently running Ontario wind power thread would be the perfect vehicle for you to step on up into. Go for it... sure you can! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh it's Article 7 now? Nice dig! At least here you've a better leg to stand on, but I wasn't arguing about Bill C-54. I was arguing about whether Mr. Li should have beaching visits!

what a stoopid comment! Did I not mention Article 9? Yes, yes I did... right after an Article 7 reference and right before an Article 15 reference.

as for Article 7, this is really quite charitable of you to actually give credence to a Charter challenge, particularly when you went off on another of your patented tirade's, stating to MLW member eyeball:

Are you upset that I called you out on your doltish use of the Charter in the conversation?

I'm soo sorry your feelings are hurt.

After that, feel sorry for yourself. By now you've been around the forum long enough to know how lame the clichéd "Boo hoo! Charter!" defence is, and how it's usually employed by people who can neither make a compelling argument nor interpret how it applies to the discussion at hand.

but was your new-found acceptance because I happened to attach the Canadian Bar Association as a reference to the Article 7 challenge validity? Does this mean you now retract your earlier labeling of MLW member eyeball's generalized mentioning of the Charter as, "doltish, lame, cliched, no compelling argument, no interpretation of application to the discussion at hand"?

as for my bringing Bill C-54 up, how obtuse are you, really? Are you seriously going to suggest MLW member eyeball mentioned the Charter over a concern for a "breach of beach visits"? :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The review frequency change still wouldn't arbitrary, so that's a swing and a miss.

no - within the summation of the 3 possible Charter challenges I (again) provided the high-level description of Article 9... and mentioned what it presumes upon. I didn't qualify the "arbitrary" aspect that associates with the presumptions mentioned. I said:

- as for my earlier reference: Article 9 challenge - the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment... that presumes upon the proposed law changing the existing NCR policy on review frequency and related detainment protocols; more pointedly, shifting the mentally ill into the regular prison populace and significantly changing the frequency of mental review, and how that might affect treatment. Treatment! Not Punishment!.

the arbitrary attachment reflects upon the shameful Harper Conservative Bill C-54 (Section 672.64(1b) provision that would have courts designate the actions of certain persons found 'Not Criminally Responsible (NCR)" as "Brutal"... to which an accompanying 'high risk offender' designation would associate, relative to the risk of "grave physical or psychological harm to another person". The 'Brutal designation' is woefully subjective and open to the interpretation of differing court considerations/opinion..... that designation is the arbitrary basis for the Charter Article 9 challenge. Of course, this really zeros in on just what Harper Conservatives are trotting out here! By definition, those found NCR are... not responsible... they're not able to form the rational intent! This is no longer about treatment of the mentally ill - this now becomes Harper Conservatives punishing the not responsible NCR persons and their 'Brutal actions'. Most pointedly: how does a 'Brutal Action' designation (and the accompanying high-risk offender status... and the implications of that labeling) affect a determination of the individuals current/ongoing risk and threat to society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another dud. Stick to Section 7 for your Charter challenges. Mr. Li isn't being detained because he has a mental disability. He's being detained because he beheaded and ate someone.

another dud? You're declaring an Article 15 Charter challenge as... "another dud"? Why, that's very easy for you to throw back, hey? A short couple of words is all it takes for you to summarily dispatch it. Clearly, your unsubstantiated opinion means diddly! If only you could form an actual cogent argument to support your... unsubstantiated opinion.

no - he's being detained because... he's mentally ill with a finding of 'Not Criminally Responsible'. Clearly, you have no clue here! None whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo you'll almost always get the last word in our arguments. I don't have the energy to keep going back and forth with you, nor does most of the board. I know you take that as victory, but boredom and exhaustion are your friends on this board, as I've indicated before. Perhaps I'll revisit the thread at some point soon, or perhaps not. It all depends on if there's more interesting things to discuss.

I will note that you have attributed your inability to substantiate your 'Ontario Green Energy Act wind power related claim' to your collective 'boredom and exhaustion' excuse! :lol:

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo you'll almost always get the last word in our arguments.

If it makes him feel like the victor, let him rant... If given the opportunity he would defend that the Earth is flat as long as it served his liberal ideology and arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what a stoopid comment! Did I not mention Article 9? Yes, yes I did... right after an Article 7 reference and right before an Article 15 reference.

Yeah you brainlessly brought up Section 9, and then after having it thrown back in your face and realizing it for the failure it was, you went digging on the internet and gave us another stupid Charter argument (Section 15) and then got lucky finding the CBA criticisms of bill C-54 (which once again I was not defending). You're 1/3 waldo! Good job! If you swing enough times, you're bound to hit a couple!

as for Article 7, this is really quite charitable of you to actually give credence to a Charter challenge, particularly when you went off on another of your patented tirade's, stating to MLW member eyeball:

I gave credence to there being a sensible challenge to Bill C-54 as currently presented, not that eyeball presented a good explanation for his "Charter!" response, or any argument for Mr. Li's beaching rights (which is what we were talking about, after all!)

but was your new-found acceptance because I happened to attach the Canadian Bar Association as a reference to the Article 7 challenge validity? Does this mean you now retract your earlier labeling of MLW member eyeball's generalized mentioning of the Charter as, "doltish, lame, cliched, no compelling argument, no interpretation of application to the discussion at hand"?

Why would I retract it? Did eyeball come forward with anything? Nope!

as for my bringing Bill C-54 up, how obtuse are you, really? Are you seriously going to suggest MLW member eyeball mentioned the Charter over a concern for a "breach of beach visits"?

Let's see...

First we have the thread title, then we have me specifically quoting Bubber on Mr. Li being allowed to go to the beach, saying, essentially, that aren't or shouldn't be required to give him that consideration, and then eyeball directly quoting THAT statement and getting into the Charter.

If I misinterpreted him, there's been ample opportunity to clarify. I hadn't made any arguments on constitutional merit of Bill C-54, so I'm not sure why eyeball would quote me with the Charter argument....

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The 'Brutal designation' is woefully subjective and open to the interpretation of differing court considerations/opinion..... that designation is the arbitrary basis for the Charter Article 9 challenge.


Okay now that's just hilarious! Section 9 (it goes by Sections, not Articles fyi) applies mainly to police conduct in terms of arrest and detainment, ensuring that police aren't able to arrest and detain people arbitrarily.

The CBA's criticism of Bill C-54 stated that some of the terminology and designations aren''t clear enough . The criticism is, specifically:
"Vagueness and Arbitrariness – Subsection 672.64(1)(b)"

regarding the term 'brutal' and its lacking clarity and specificity. The fact that they used the word 'arbitrary' in their argument, and that 'arbitrary' is a word used in Section 9 of the Charter, does not mean you made a successful Section 9 argument. What it does do, however, is make it clear that you're clueless, since Section 9 deals primarily with police conduct, and this entire discussion has nothing to do with that.


another dud? You're declaring an Article 15 Charter challenge as... "another dud"? Why, that's very easy for you to throw back, hey? A short couple of words is all it takes for you to summarily dispatch it. Clearly, your unsubstantiated opinion means diddly! If only you could form an actual cogent argument to support your... unsubstantiated opinion.


What am I not substantiating here, exactly? Refuting your brainless "Article 15" (lol) challenge is child's play, because it once again has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Section 15 deals specifically with ensuring individuals are treated equally before and under the law, and that they all benefit from it and are protected by it equally.


no - he's being detained because... he's mentally ill with a finding of 'Not Criminally Responsible'. Clearly, you have no clue here! None whatsoever.


Right, so was it discriminative to have him placed in the mental health system?

Wow! Too funny! Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First we have the thread title, then we have me specifically quoting Bubber on Mr. Li being allowed to go to the beach, saying, essentially, that aren't or shouldn't be required to give him that consideration, and then eyeball directly quoting THAT statement and getting into the Charter.

If I misinterpreted him, there's been ample opportunity to clarify. I hadn't made any arguments on constitutional merit of Bill C-54, so I'm not sure why eyeball would quote me with the Charter argument....

What I actually said was that the Charter protects Canadians (us is the word I used) from your feelings and concerns. Obviously any changes you're proposing that diminish Mr Li's rights will diminish every other Canadian's rights as well.

You didn't misinterpret me, you just deliberately pretended to be ignorant. You seem to be possessed of a notion that there is or should be a caveat in the Charter specific to beheading and cannibalism that nullifies Li's rights to the same treatment any other ill Canadian is entitled to. Allan Schoenborn and Richard Kachlar didn't behead or cannibalize anyone yet their names are also cited by proponents of bill C-54.

People like Mr Li, Allan Schoenborn or Richard Kachkar are simply the most visible graphic tips of an iceberg of an issue - mental illness - that the government and a good part of the right-wing it seems would just as soon exploit for the vote generating fear and loathing it can cause in the electorate as anything else.

In the meantime the right's of the mentally ill to not be subjected to demonization and stigmatization or in a word found in the Charter, discrimination, are being ignored by folks like you here in this thread and I'm quite certain behind the closed doors of the government, the current one in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I actually said was that the Charter protects Canadians (us is the word I used) from your feelings and concerns. Obviously any changes you're proposing that diminish Mr Li's rights will diminish every other Canadian's rights as well.

and my feelings, in the instance you quoted me, were directed specifically at Mr. Li's beaching rights, and whether the taxpayer's money should go towards it. Bringing the Charter into a discussion over such a mundane point was not only a goofy reach, it was not very applicable either.

eyeball, on 05 Jun 2013 - 2:42 PM, said:

You seem to be possessed of a notion that there is or should be a caveat in the Charter specific to beheading and cannibalism that nullifies Li's rights to the same treatment any other ill Canadian is entitled to.

No, I think there should be a distinction between mentally ill NCR's who commit violent and dangerous crimes, and ones that do not.

People like Mr Li, Allan Schoenborn or Richard Kachkar are simply the most visible graphic tips of an iceberg of an issue - mental illness - that the government and a good part of the right-wing it seems would just as soon exploit for the vote generating fear and loathing it can cause in the electorate as anything else.

That's one way of looking at it, but that's ignoring that there may be other issues to consider. Does anyone have any statistics on how many NCR murderers end up going free, and how successful the rehabilitation rates are? I tried looking, but couldn't find any.

eyeball, on 05 Jun 2013 - 2:42 PM, said:

In the meantime the right's of the mentally ill to not be subjected to demonization and stigmatization or in a word found in the Charter, discrimination, are being ignored by folks like you here in this thread and I'm quite certain behind the closed doors of the government, the current one in particular.

Again, they're feared for having killed people. This isn't the same thing as trying to keep gay people out of straight changerooms, for fear of getting AIDS or something. This is because they've shown themselves capable of some really scary stuff.

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think there should be a distinction between mentally ill NCR's who commit violent and dangerous crimes, and ones that do not.

What you and the CPC desire is an element of vindictive vengeance introduced to the treatment of the mentally ill. It is a depraved desire as opposed to just sick.

That's one way of looking at it, but that's ignoring that there may be other issues to consider. Does anyone have any statistics on how many NCR murders end up going free, and how successful the rehabilitation rates are? I tried looking, but couldn't find any.

Proving you're just operating on what you feel not what you know - that's what Harper is trying to exploit.

Again, they're demonized for having killed people. This isn't the same thing as trying to keep gay people out of straight changerooms, for fear of getting AIDS or something. This is because they've shown themselves capable of some really scary stuff.

Horseshit, they're demonized to generate fear, loathing and votes, nothing more and nothing less. They've also shown to their doctors that they're capable of getting better.

The rate of recidivism of NCR's is around 3 - 7%, less than half that of parolees and 5 times less than convicts who complete their whole term which suggests to me that treatment is far more effective than punishment.

The wrong way to protect Canadians from mentally ill defendant

Please note the NP article mentions the Charter challenge Bill-C54 is guaranteed to inspire.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like eyeball is discovering first hand that you never truly know how poorly informed posters' opinions are on a subject until you find them commenting on something that you've researched yourself. You're finding out that the informed opinions are shouted down by the braying masses (pun intended), while uninformed rhetoric tends to get recognized and persuade people because it doesn't involve actually thinking about things. The next step is realizing that this happens in every forum discussion and comment section across the web, even when you're not informed on the topic.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it makes him feel like the victor, let him rant... If given the opportunity he would defend that the Earth is flat as long as it served his liberal ideology and arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with him.

you're so predictable - do you... can you... ever post without including a direct reference to "ideology", "leftist", "liberal"? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you brainlessly brought up Section 9, and then after having it thrown back in your face and realizing it for the failure it was, you went digging on the internet and gave us another stupid Charter argument (Section 15) and then got lucky finding the CBA criticisms of bill C-54 (which once again I was not defending). You're 1/3 waldo! Good job! If you swing enough times, you're bound to hit a couple!

no - fortunately for Canadians, you're not the final arbiter of possible challenges to the Charter! Only your bizarro, self-serving interpretation would have you imply I'm 'backing away from my original challenge reference... because I expanded on the scope of the possible challenges... while still including the original challenge reference. Only you could do that! The Harper Conservative Bill C-54 is the crux of this complete discussion; it (will be) the legal foundation reference for any possible Charter challenge..... well, except for your mind-numbing focus on a "breach of beach visits"! :lol:

I gave credence to there being a sensible challenge to Bill C-54 as currently presented, not that eyeball presented a good explanation for his "Charter!" response, or any argument for Mr. Li's beaching rights (which is what we were talking about, after all!)

Why would I retract it? Did eyeball come forward with anything? Nope!

no - you were presented with a broad Charter reference addressing loss of rights. Clearly, MLW member eyeball has elevated his expressed concerns for mental health, for the mentally ill/challenged, for the underlying politicization, well beyond your narrow, skewed, pigeon-holed, myopic focus on "beach visits"! With nothing more than that simple broad Charter reference you immediately swung into a series of posts intended to ridicule and demean... if you persist I will play those back for you, showcasing all your child-like and derogatory phrasing. My retraction question was a most pointed opportunity to highlight that with you originally presented with nothing more than a simple broad Charter reference... in the face of you now, apparently, conceding the validity of a possible challenge, your intended ridiculing and demeaning posts should be retracted.

If I misinterpreted him, there's been ample opportunity to clarify. I hadn't made any arguments on constitutional merit of Bill C-54, so I'm not sure why eyeball would quote me with the Charter argument....

was there ample opportunity before you dropped your multiple ridiculing and demeaning posts? The MLW member had previously made several direct references to the politicization behind Harper Conservatives intentions toward those found, 'Not Criminally Responsible'... any thinking/knowledgeable person has a grasp over and above your mind-numbing simplistic "beach visits" focus! I now note the MLW member has taken the opportunity to respond.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding the term 'brutal' and its lacking clarity and specificity. The fact that they used the word 'arbitrary' in their argument, and that 'arbitrary' is a word used in Section 9 of the Charter, does not mean you made a successful Section 9 argument. What it does do, however, is make it clear that you're clueless, since Section 9 deals primarily with police conduct, and this entire discussion has nothing to do with that.

let's recap: among the several Canadian Bar Association concerns for the Harper Conservative Bill-C54, you accept the arbitrary argument concerning the 'brutal action' designation with its leading to a 'high-risk offender' status. You accept that... in the context of a possible constitutional challenge to s.7 of the Charter. I also note you now acknowledging, as you say, "Section 9 deals primarily with police conduct"... so... your use of 'primarily', obviously, concedes it deals with......... other aspects! Well done Moonbox, well done! :lol: Of course, if the arbitrary 'brutal action-to-high risk offender status', that you acknowledge/accept, leads to "arbitrary detention or imprisonment", one might challenge a loss of s.9 Charter Rights to... not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Even you should be able to follow that flow, hey?

What am I not substantiating here, exactly? Refuting your brainless "Article 15" (lol) challenge is child's play, because it once again has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Section 15 deals specifically with ensuring individuals are treated equally before and under the law, and that they all benefit from it and are protected by it equally.

well... that's it; that's exactly it! You're not substantiating anything. You throw out nothing more than a few words saying 'something is dumb', 'it's a swing and a miss, 'it's another dud', and that is the foundation of your absolute claims. That's it! That's the extent of your reach.

and yes, now when you actually take a grand leap to expound, you acknowledge s.15 of the Charter is intended to ensure that individuals are treated equally before/under the law. Here's the full context of s.15... pay special attention to my bold-highlighting as it might pertain to Harper Conservative Bill C-54's handling of those found 'Not Criminally Responsible'.

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...