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

[eyeball]

Bull puckey....you were the first to go after Jerry Sandusky in just this way until I called you on it.

When was Jerry Sandusky diagnosed as being mentally ill?

[waldo]

the past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association and a current member of its board commenting on Harper Conservatives Bill C-54:

Psychiatrist wary of Not Criminally Responsible proposal - Doctor says new "high-risk accused" category could turn mental health facilities into jails

[roy baty]

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

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck... well you know the rest. Truth usually hurts.

Edited June 5, 2013 by roy baty

[bush_cheney2004]

When was Jerry Sandusky diagnosed as being mentally ill?

Ask his shrink and attorneys....a mental illness defense was presented at his trial. So naturally I expect you to feel sorry for him in every way now instead of what you typed back then.

[cybercoma]

Ask his shrink and attorneys....a mental illness defense was presented at his trial. So naturally I expect you to feel sorry for him in every way now instead of what you typed back then.

And Sandusky was found not criminally responsible too?

[carepov]

What you and the CPC desire is an element of vindictive vengeance introduced to the treatment of the mentally ill.

I agree with your views on this issue. My understanding is that the Manitoba NDP government is behaving at least as vindictively and vengefully at the CPC, would you agree with this?

[bush_cheney2004]

And Sandusky was found not criminally responsible too?

No, but that wasn't the point. Another member suggested that Sandusky's skull be bashed into a wall upon discovering him in the shower with a child, without regard to Sandusky's mental health status. He backed off from his "vindictive vengeance" when so challenged.

Few want Li physically harmed, but public safety dictates forever supervision and institutionalization.

[eyeball]

I agree with your views on this issue. My understanding is that the Manitoba NDP government is behaving at least as vindictively and vengefully at the CPC, would you agree with this?

I need something more specific to comment on but I wouldn't be surprised to find most Canadian politician's understanding of the issue of mental illness leave most mentally ill people behind the 8 ball.

Notwithstanding Senator Michael Kirby and others who produced Out of the Shadows At Last.

Edited June 5, 2013 by eyeball

[BubberMiley]

I agree with your views on this issue. My understanding is that the Manitoba NDP government is behaving at least as vindictively and vengefully at the CPC, would you agree with this?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. i'm not aware that the NDP government has commented on the issue. The articles I've read only quote soon-to-be-suspended CPC MP James Bezan on the issue, who said: "This is an insult to the family of the man he beheaded and cannibalized, Tim McLean. Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe from high-risk individuals."

[eyeball]

No, but that wasn't the point. Another member suggested that Sandusky's skull be bashed into a wall upon discovering him in the shower with a child, without regard to Sandusky's mental health status. He backed off from his "vindictive vengeance" when so challenged.

That's horseshit not to mention it ignores the difference between using force to stop a crime in progress and applying vindictiveness in the dispensation of justice or treatment of an illness.

Few want Li physically harmed, but public safety dictates forever supervision and institutionalization.

Many are just as happy to side with these few when it comes to dictating the treatment of the mentally ill. That's the awful result of stigmatization for you - like your associating Li with Sandusky for example.

The worst effect however is how this process of stigmatization drives mental illness underground and out of sight - another bonus for governments and ideologies that cleave towards the dark ages.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's horseshit not to mention it ignores the difference between using force to stop a crime in progress and applying vindictiveness in the dispensation of justice or treatment of an illness.

Such excess force would not be required to stop the assault. Your post was full of the very same vindictiveness...to be applied in real time !

The worst effect however is how this process of stigmatization drives mental illness underground and out of sight - another bonus for governments and ideologies that cleave towards the dark ages.

Cannibalism wasn't very popular then either.

[jbg]

The worst effect however is how this process of stigmatization drives mental illness underground and out of sight - another bonus for governments and ideologies that cleave towards the dark ages.

You must have missed this:

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.

The problem is that one could waste incalculable sums on more or less futile projects such as rehabilitating the Lis and the Sanduskys of the world and have little in the way of money or professional resources remaining for people who, while mentally ill, offer some hope of recovery.

[BubberMiley]

The problem is that one could waste incalculable sums on more or less futile projects such as rehabilitating the Lis and the Sanduskys of the world and have little in the way of money or professional resources remaining for people who, while mentally ill, offer some hope of recovery.

Alternately, you could waste incalculable sums on putting the Lis of the world in prisons. A supervised walk on the beach is cheap by comparison. So your point really doesn't have one. Edited June 5, 2013 by BubberMiley

[eyeball]

You must have missed this:

The problem is that one could waste incalculable sums on more or less futile projects such as rehabilitating the Lis and the Sanduskys of the world and have little in the way of money or professional resources remaining for people who, while mentally ill, offer some hope of recovery.

I think the cost of driving mental illness back into the shadows by the stigma of associating it with public danger would make your incalculable sums look like chicken feed.

Edited June 5, 2013 by eyeball

[carepov]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. i'm not aware that the NDP government has commented on the issue. The articles I've read only quote soon-to-be-suspended CPC MP James Bezan on the issue, who said: "This is an insult to the family of the man he beheaded and cannibalized, Tim McLean. Canadians expect that their justice system will keep them safe from high-risk individuals."

"In a statement, Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan said he is pleased that Nicholson is following through on the review [of NCR laws], which the province had asked for two years ago.

Swan said the province will work with the federal government to make any changes as quickly as possible."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/17/mb-vince-li-greyhound-passes.html

"Justice Minister Andrew Swan intervened late last week on the review board's ruling...

The board's ruling would have allowed Li 15-minute escorted walks on the Mental Health Centre grounds, as long as it was with two staff members equipped with either a two-way radio or cell phone and centre security staff were informed each time Li was removed from his ward. Though the walks would initially be only 15 minutes long, they could have increased to an hour in length over time.

Swan deemed the ruling unacceptable..."

http://www.interlaketoday.ca/2010/06/09/li-to-stay-locked-up-for-now

[carepov]

I need something more specific to comment on but I wouldn't be surprised to find most Canadian politician's understanding of the issue of mental illness leave most mentally ill people behind the 8 ball.

Notwithstanding Senator Michael Kirby and others who produced Out of the Shadows At Last.

My point is that ignorance of mental health issues, failure to implement proactive policies, and knee-jerk reactionism is not a CPC issue - all parties seem to be equally incompetent. Senator Dallaire should also get an honourable mention.

[eyeball]

We obviously agree on the above but I do think the CPC exceeds ignorance by priding itself on retaining the old school vindictiveness that's been a hallmark of so much mental health treatment in the past.

Put it this way, so long as one party and it's more virulent base of support is doing so much to undermine our country's attempts to make the sorts of strides in mental health that we almost take for granted on other medical fronts, nobody has to aim very high to say they've done better on the mental health file.

[Moonbox]

BubberMiley, on 05 Jun 2013 - 7:26 PM, said:

Alternately, you could waste incalculable sums on putting the Lis of the world in prisons. A supervised walk on the beach is cheap by comparison. So your point really doesn't have one.

A supervised walk to the beach isn't cheap. For a couple hours of leisure time you'd likely need to have at least 2-3 guards accompany him.

[cybercoma]

A supervised walk to the beach isn't cheap. For a couple hours of leisure time you'd likely need to have at least 2-3 guards accompany him.

Why stop there? If you're going to just make a bunch of assumptions why not say that you need an armoured vehicle, aerial surveillance, and a K-9 unit on standby as well.

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 05 Jun 2013 - 4:22 PM, said:

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.

No, I accept that the term 'brutal' is too vague and leaves a lot up for interpretation. That's it.

waldo, on 05 Jun 2013 - 4:22 PM, said:

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!

THAT'S your argument? The fact that I used the word 'primarily'? That's pathetic waldo, even for you! The fact is that Section 9 is applied in the context of police officers abusing their authority to arrest/restrain/detain people without reasonable grounds (or arbitrarily). It has nothing to do whatsoever with Mr. Li's case post-arrest, but obviously you had no idea when you brought it up! Now you're in damage-control! Too funny!

waldo, on 05 Jun 2013 - 4:22 PM, said:

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?

That's so sad that you're even trying to make this argument. You REALLY just can't handle being wrong can you!? Again, the CBA's use of the term 'arbitrary' to highlight the vagueness of the term 'brutal' in Bill C-54 is nothing more than standard legal terminology in a Charter/Constitutional debate. All you have to do to completely throw out your argument is pull out a thesaurus and change the term 'arbitrary' in the CBA's comments to "discretionary", "subjective" or "whimsical".

The Section 7 challenge, on the other hand, has merits, as I've already stated. Section 7 would discusses how laws cannot be arbitrary (there's your pet word again) and that's where the CBA's concerns lie. The CBA suggests that Bill C-54 fails a couple of Section 7 tests in that it's too vague/arbitrary and that parts of it could be seen as "inconsistent with objectives" in the context of treating NCR's, since putting them in the prison system obviously isn't going to help. If you'd brought that up in the first place you wouldn't look so clueless, but you didn't. Your frantic efforts to support your brainless Section 9 and Section 15 arguments now are showing how desperate you are to not to be proven wrong. Sorry I bruised your ego! I know how important this is here to your self-esteem!

waldo, on 05 Jun 2013 - 4:22 PM, said:

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'.

Keep digging that hole Waldo! Keep showing us how good you are at Google searches, and how bad you are at discussing the results! Your quotation doesn't support your argument at all. You still haven't made a case that Mr. Li was discriminated against! If anything, keeping him out of the prison system in order to treat him is affirmative action! He certainly wasn't arrested because he was mentally ill. Nobody knew before that fateful bus trip!

[waldo]

THAT'S your argument? The fact that I used the word 'primarily'? That's pathetic waldo, even for you! The fact is that Section 9 is applied in the context of police officers abusing their authority to arrest/restrain/detain people without reasonable grounds (or arbitrarily). It has nothing to do whatsoever with Mr. Li's case post-arrest, but obviously you had no idea when you brought it up! Now you're in damage-control! Too funny!

no - what's 'too funny'... heeelarious, in fact, is the convenient way you attach 2 of my 3 referenced possible Charter challenges to the 'Li situation'. My complete thread focus has been on the Harper Conservative Bill C-54... when I first mentioned the single possible Charter challenge, it was in that Bill C-54 context. Similarly, when I shortly after responded with a post suggesting 3 possible Charter challenges, it was in the context of Bill C-54. In fact, I mocked your mindless preoccupation with "beach visits" and pointedly stated any/all possible Charter challenges would be predicated on Bill C-54 going into law. Of course, this was after you showed your ignorance by questioning why Bill C-54 was even being discussed!!! Yes, indeed, as you say, (you're) too funny!

pointing out your own delineation concerning s.9, your use of "primarily", was too good to pass up. Now, all of a sudden, you're adamant... repeatedly... that s.9 is singularly focused. Make up your mind buddy; by the by, what else is s.9 tailored for... you know, other than your "primarily" designated focus?

as I said, in spite of your presumed arrogance, Canadians can be thankful you're not the final arbiter of Charter challenges - ya, think! Again, in the case of s.9... following Bill C-54 (as proposed) into law, where a NCR person's actions are designated "brutal" with a high-risk offender labeling attached, detention would be founded upon an arbitrary designation - "brutal". Of course, this "brutal" designation is one you already acknowledge/accept as being arbitrary.... so, the s.9 challenge is 'half-way' there given your own acknowledgement/acceptance, hey?

Keep digging that hole Waldo! Keep showing us how good you are at Google searches, and how bad you are at discussing the results! Your quotation doesn't support your argument at all. You still haven't made a case that Mr. Li was discriminated against! If anything, keeping him out of the prison system in order to treat him is affirmative action! He certainly wasn't arrested because he was mentally ill. Nobody knew before that fateful bus trip!

again... with your stoopid move in attaching anything I've stated about possible Charter challenges directly to the Li situation. Again, s.15 presumes upon equal treatment before/under the law, preventing discrimination on the basis of, among other aspects, 'mental disability'. Again, in the context of the proposed Bill C-54, those mentally disabled persons found NCR and labeled 'high risk' based upon an arbitrary 'brutal actions' designation, will be treated differently... discriminated against in relation to their mental disability. You ignored it once already... I'll ask again... what does the high-risk offender status/labeling have to do with a NCR person's threat to society, public safety risk, treatment progress, ongoing mental health review... and mental health status improvement toward re-integration into society?

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

no - what's 'too funny'... heeelarious, in fact, is the convenient way you attach 2 of my 3 referenced possible Charter challenges to the 'Li situation'. My complete thread focus has been on the Harper Conservative Bill C-54...

This is like quick-sand! The more you struggle the dumber you sound! It doesn't matter if you were talking about Bill C-54 or just Mr. Li. Your 2/3 referenced Charter challenges were equally brainless!

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

when I first mentioned the single possible Charter challenge, it was in that Bill C-54 context.

Good for you! If you think that makes your Section 9 challenge any less clueless, you're wrong!

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

pointing out your own delineation concerning s.9, your use of "primarily", was too good to pass up. Now, all of a sudden, you're adamant... repeatedly... that s.9 is singularly focused. Make up your mind buddy; by the by, what else is s.9 tailored for... you know, other than your "primarily" designated focus?

Keep digging yourself in waldo! The fact that I used the word 'primarily' when explaining that Section 9 of the Charter applies to doesn't excuse the fact that you had no clue what it was about when you 'invoked' it, or that it applies to this argument! When I say "primarily" focused on police conduct, I allow for the possibility that there might be others with the authority to make arrests or detain people (like Border Services, Military or Intelligence Staff).

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

as I said, in spite of your presumed arrogance,

That's rich coming from you! How many snide labels have you collected in your months/years of lashing out in environmental debates???

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

Again, in the case of s.9... following Bill C-54 (as proposed) into law, where a NCR person's actions are designated "brutal" with a high-risk offender labeling attached, detention would be founded upon an arbitrary designation - "brutal". Of course, this "brutal" designation is one you already acknowledge/accept as being arbitrary.... so, the s.9 challenge is 'half-way' there given your own acknowledgement/acceptance, hey?

It's not half-way there. Its 0/10 there. Section 9 is completely useless to the discussion, because its scope is directed towards an entirely different purpose. Your initial attempt at using it in our argument was to suggest that Mr. Li's detention was arbitrary, but we all know that he was arrested and detained by the police because he hacked off someone's head and ate him, and thus a Section 9 argument is dead right there, and you proved yourself full of crap.

Going back to the CBA's Section 7 argument, which is solid, you then tried to dig yourself out of your original blunder by telling us that the Section 7 challenge, which was based on a critique of vague and arbitrary terminology (not arbitrary terms for arrest/detention which Section 9 covers), proves your Section 9 argument was good merely by word association. Thanks for showing us how full of crap you are and how far you'll go to avoid being called out on an incompetent argument!

waldo, on 06 Jun 2013 - 7:15 PM, said:

Again, s.15 presumes upon equal treatment before/under the law, preventing discrimination on the basis of, among other aspects, 'mental disability'. You ignored it once already... I'll ask again... what does the high-risk offender status/labeling have to do with a NCR person's threat to society, public safety risk, treatment progress, ongoing mental health review... and mental health status improvement toward re-integration into society?

The 'high-risk' offender status indicates an increased perceived risk of danger to society because of the NCR's past actions, not because of their mental disability. A Section 15 challenge is therefore crap too, but this has already been explained to you. If the objective with NCR's is to treat and rehabilitate, however, and Bill C-54's scope is such that it detracts from treatment while providing negligible safety benefits to society, then a Section 7 challenge may be valid because the purpose of the bill directly conflicts with the purpose and objectives of an NCR designation, essentially doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

THAT'S the argument you want to be making here if you don't want to look like a fool. That's taken DIRECTLY from your CBA reference, so maybe you should try reading and understanding your own reference material. Noticeably, the CBA is not making Section 9 or Section 15 arguments! Keep on digging though waldo!

Edited June 7, 2013 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

Why stop there? If you're going to just make a bunch of assumptions why not say that you need an armoured vehicle, aerial surveillance, and a K-9 unit on standby as well.

Good idea! Maybe a Death Star too just in case things get out of hand, right!? Assuming more than one guard would be a good precaution to take when escorting a killer is the same thing as requiring an armored brigade, right? That's how logic works, isn't it?

[waldo]

...the dumber you sound!; ...equally brainless!; ...any less clueless; ...you had no clue; ...is completely useless; ...you proved yourself full of crap; ...showing us how full of crap you are; ... therefore crap too; ...look like a fool;

your depth of your eloquence is matched only by the continued weakness of your comprehension and your woefully lacking arguments!

Instead of focusing on punitive-based measures for NCR individuals, our focus should be on helping these people heal their minds.

As former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has concluded: Bill C-54 could lead to Charter [or Rights] claims with respect to the Section 7 right to life, liberty and security of person; the section 9 guarantee that everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; and we could see section 15 challenges, as there is prohibition against discrimination on the basis of mental disability.

oh my! Moonbox, who is this guy... what does he know??? You know Cotler, right? The current MP for Mount Royal, the former Justice Minister of Canada... the former Attorney General of Canada... the guy who was significant in framing/drafting the original (and current) NCR legislation in Canada - the guy who presented it to Parliament in 2005. You know that guy, right Moonbox? As quoted above, would you care to equally apply your expressed eloquence to Mr. Cotler?

on edit - added to, once again, correct your continuing false association:

Your initial attempt at using it in your argument was to suggest that Mr. Li's detention was arbitrary, but we all know that he was arrested and detained by the police because he hacked off someone's head and ate him, and thus a Section 9 argument is dead right there, and you proved yourself full of crap.

no - again, I made no Charter related comments concerning 'Mr. Li'... my Charter comments were solely in regards to Bill C-54: Apparently, you can't be bothered to read... here, let me bold highlight it for you this time!

no - what's 'too funny'... heeelarious, in fact, is the convenient way you attach 2 of my 3 referenced possible Charter challenges to the 'Li situation'. My complete thread focus has been on the Harper Conservative Bill C-54... when I first mentioned the single possible Charter challenge, it was in that Bill C-54 context. Similarly, when I shortly after responded with a post suggesting 3 possible Charter challenges, it was in the context of Bill C-54. In fact, I mocked your mindless preoccupation with "beach visits" and pointedly stated any/all possible Charter challenges would be predicated on Bill C-54 going into law. Of course, this was after you showed your ignorance by questioning why Bill C-54 was even being discussed!!! Yes, indeed, as you say, (you're) too funny!

.

Edited June 7, 2013 by waldo

[Guest American Woman]

I have to wonder - if a person who is mentally ill is told that they needs help, and has friends repeatedly offer to get them that help, and then they commits a crime such as this - should their refusal to get help be taken into consideration when determining whether that person is criminally responsible?