Another Harper Government Law Overturned

[WWWTT]

Well thats dishonest......you've made it seem I don't know what I'm talking about without a shred of proof. I'd expect that from some here.....from my review you seem like a genuine debater. If you disagree with my premise say so but qualify that you have no idea either. Mine was based on the absence of headlines when searched......yours has none except to disagree.

Definition of true is subjective......we got a democracy......its not the perfect form of governance but its better than any alternative we've stumbled across so far.

Gay marriage!

Didn't the supreme court of Canada have some kind of say there?

But I believe that previous governments did try to stay more in line with the charter.

I pointed out the McGuinty government to show that it's just not the conservatives that treat the charter with low regard when it suits them.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

Survey after survey show that the public puts lawyers near the bottom of the "trusted professions"

Which leaves them miles above politicians.

[Moonlight Graham]

Which means he does not play the game by the rules that this out of touch legal elite wish to set. That does not make him wrong.

No it means he doesn't even know what the law is because he's never studied it. Being ignorant doesn't make you a "maverick".

Edited April 13, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

I doubt that.

Harper has well over 80+ people on his staff and consults with legal professionals all the time.

If anything, he probably argues with the legal advise and goes against their consultation for the sake of playing up to those that are making the political donations!

WWWTT

Whatever the Harper gov does, they're either complete morons when it comes to the law or they just don't give a rip and want to push legislation that is clearly unlawful and hopefully get away with it. They've proven it on so many occasions. I've talked to many people I know who are lawyers about this too. At least Vic Toews (a lawyer!) is gone..

[Argus]

Whatever the Harper gov does, they're either complete morons when it comes to the law or they just don't give a rip and want to push legislation that is clearly unlawful and hopefully get away with it. They've proven it on so many occasions. I've talked to many people I know who are lawyers about this too. At least Vic Toews (a lawyer!) is gone..

Vic Toews is now a judge, bud. He might well wind up in the Supreme Court. There will likely be a vacancy for a western judge in the next few years.

Will you still defend the SC as the home of learned legal scholars if Toews is on it?

Edited April 13, 2014 by Argus

[WWWTT]

Don't say I'm wrong and then provide no proof....thats ingenuine.

Never said you were wrong about anything.

Just pointed out that with further research, you may find a lot more cases where the courts knocked down laws.

Marihuana reform is another.

Cretein was supposed to reform the laws but it is only now that there is some rekindled talk about doing so (very ironic since it is the conservative government?!?!?)

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Vic Toews is now a judge, bud. He might well wind up in the Supreme Court. There will likely be a vacancy for a western judge in the next few years.

Will you still defend the SC as the home of learned legal scholars if Toews is on it?

No.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, it actually doesn't. The law does not stop people from having time taken off their sentence for time served before trial. It stops judges from giving them two or three days off for every day served.

Apparently the SC says otherwise.

[On Guard for Thee]

We don't have less and less crime. And even if we did that doesn't mean we should be lax with those who commit crimes, especially violent crimes.

I don't approve of the ridiculous sentences one sees south of the border, but our system really is far too soft on those who harm others. And with 3 days off for every day served combined with early parole it's even slacker.

The statistics show we do have less crime including violent crime. Our system here, unlike that of the US is meant to be based more on public safety and rehabilitation, rather than vengence and punishment. In other words unless you're gonna hang 'em, you have to think about how to reintegrate 'em. Also part of the reason for the extra credit for time served is because that time does NOT count toward time to parole, so it's basically a bit of evening the playing field.

[Argus]

The statistics show we do have less crime including violent crime. Our system here, unlike that of the US is meant to be based more on public safety and rehabilitation, rather than vengence and punishment. In other words unless you're gonna hang 'em, you have to think about how to reintegrate 'em. Also part of the reason for the extra credit for time served is because that time does NOT count toward time to parole, so it's basically a bit of evening the playing field.

Having less crime than the US is a pretty low bar to pass. If that makes you happy, good for you. I have higher standards.

And the point is it's not for judges to make that decision. That's a government issue. If there's nothing about it in the constitution then judges should do what they're told.

[WWWTT]

Having less crime than the US is a pretty low bar to pass. If that makes you happy, good for you. I have higher standards.

And the point is it's not for judges to make that decision. That's a government issue. If there's nothing about it in the constitution then judges should do what they're told.

Then why do we have judges????

That's just a crazy thing to suggest there!

The job of our justice system is to improve society!

Judges need the proper tools to do so, and this was the case before Harper started to play politics with a big part with a government branch that has a big influence on our society!

I believe that previous governments could have done a better job in doing this, but Harper and the conservatives are going backwards!

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Having less crime than the US is a pretty low bar to pass. If that makes you happy, good for you. I have higher standards.

And the point is it's not for judges to make that decision. That's a government issue. If there's nothing about it in the constitution then judges should do what they're told.

I made no comparison to the US crime rate, only that ours has been on a downward trend for about 40 years. I rue the day that judges do "what they are told" It is their job to defend the constitution and the charter. Harper's bill imposed on the latter.

[On Guard for Thee]

Then why do we have judges????

That's just a crazy thing to suggest there!

The job of our justice system is to improve society!

Judges need the proper tools to do so, and this was the case before Harper started to play politics with a big part with a government branch that has a big influence on our society!

I believe that previous governments could have done a better job in doing this, but Harper and the conservatives are going backwards!

WWWTT

That's a very sound point, why have judges if they aren't allowed to judge? A number of US states have found how wrong mandatory minimum sentencing can be, including Texas of all states.

[Big Guy]

Not, they don't. Canada certainly doesn't. You're thinking of the US and their different branches of government (which leads to massive gridlock). Canada only has one branch of government which has power, and that's parliament. The SC is not a branch of government.

The point that I was trying to make is that the series of checks and balances are required to keep a democratic government afloat. The House of Commons can create a potential law, the judiciary can rule it unconstitutional or the Senate may refuse to pass the bill. The judiciary is the only arm that is impartial. They are the referees of the system.

In baseball, there is a strike zone that is supposed to be applied when evaluating the pitch - but a called strike is what the umpire calls a strike - period!. The mere fact that the umpire has made a call makes that call legitimate. People will watch a baseball game and agree with the umpire or disagree usually according to which team they support.

In Supreme Court decisions, what is legal or not depends what the court decides. People who follow SC decisions will agree or disagree depending on what "team" they support - the right or the left.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Big Guy

[WWWTT]

The point that I was trying to make is that the series of checks and balances are required to keep a democratic government afloat. The House of Commons can create a potential law, the judiciary can rule it unconstitutional or the Senate may refuse to pass the bill. The judiciary is the only arm that is impartial. They are the referees of the system.

In baseball, there is a strike zone that is supposed to be applied when evaluating the pitch - but a called strike is what the umpire calls a strike - period!. The mere fact that the umpire has made a call makes that call legitimate. People will watch a baseball game and agree with the umpire or disagree usually according to which team they support.

In Supreme Court decisions, what is legal or not depends what the court decides. People who follow SC decisions will agree or disagree depending on what "team" they support - the right or the left.

You are describing the reality as it is now.

But it's unfortunate that this is the case.

Can you imagine how advanced a country Canada would be if all levels/branches of government worked closer together, with no partisan bias!

WWWTT

[Keepitsimple]

Which leaves them miles above politicians.

You're right, sort of - Readers Digest had Lawyers at #29 and Politicians at #39 - both well into the dregs.....

Link: http://readersdigest.ca/mag/cms/xcms/other-facts-about-canada-s-most-trusted_2749_a.html

[Argus]

I made no comparison to the US crime rate, only that ours has been on a downward trend for about 40 years. I rue the day that judges do "what they are told" It is their job to defend the constitution and the charter. Harper's bill imposed on the latter.

Defending the charter is one thing, using the charter to carry out their own ideological goals is quite another.

There is nothing in the charter which relates to this decision.

[Argus]

The point that I was trying to make is that the series of checks and balances are required to keep a democratic government afloat. The House of Commons can create a potential law, the judiciary can rule it unconstitutional or the Senate may refuse to pass the bill. The judiciary is the only arm that is impartial. They are the referees of the system.

There is nothing in the recent history of the Supreme Court or the judges on it which suggest any degree of impartiality.

In Supreme Court decisions, what is legal or not depends what the court decides. People who follow SC decisions will agree or disagree depending on what "team" they support - the right or the left.

Or they might disagree based on the belief that elected representatives should be making decisions affecting the country, not unelected patronage appointees of little demonstrated wisdom or experience.

Just two examples of stupid SC decisions make this clear. One was the decision to accord full Charter protection to anyone who shows up in Canada, even illegally. The cost of that has been tens of billions of dollars in legal fees and a refugee and immigration system largely out of control for decades. After that, if we wanted to get rid of an illegal immigrant or refugee it took years of hearings before multiple courts and appeals to do it.

Then there was the moronic decision that oral history, ie, stories passed down among natives (verified or not) could be taken as a substitute for actual documents in treaty cases. It apparently never occured to the learned ivory tower legalists that natives might have changed the stories over the years -- or outright lied.

[Argus]

Then why do we have judges????

That's just a crazy thing to suggest there!

The job of our justice system is to improve society!

Well, they may think so, but no, it's not. If the SC judges want to improve society let them quit and join a social services agency.

[eyeball]

Defending the charter is one thing, using the charter to carry out their own ideological goals is quite another.

There is nothing in the charter which relates to this decision.

What our judges have been doing is reflecting our society's natural ideological leanings when carrying out their duties.

If the SC judges want to improve society let them quit and join a social services agency.

That's not their express purpose but all the same, what's wrong with trying to make the world a better place during the course of your day? Crime, especially of the blue collar variety, is falling, turning our justice system into a vengeance system is just plain stupid because it will make the world a worse place.

If you really want to make the world a better place and drive blue collar crime down even more, start going after the white collar criminals that help cause the poverty that leads to blue collar crime. While you're at it start eliminating criminogenic laws that also sustain blue collar crime like prohibition. Closing down that grist mill alone will save us billions. Billing white collar criminals for the cost of prosecuting them will save billions more.

We've been hearing this phrase truth in sentencing a lot in this thread how about some truth in prosecuting for a change?

[Big Guy]

There is nothing in the recent history of the Supreme Court or the judges on it which suggest any degree of impartiality.

Or they might disagree based on the belief that elected representatives should be making decisions affecting the country, not unelected patronage appointees of little demonstrated wisdom or experience.

Just two examples of stupid SC decisions make this clear. One was the decision to accord full Charter protection to anyone who shows up in Canada, even illegally. The cost of that has been tens of billions of dollars in legal fees and a refugee and immigration system largely out of control for decades. After that, if we wanted to get rid of an illegal immigrant or refugee it took years of hearings before multiple courts and appeals to do it.

Then there was the moronic decision that oral history, ie, stories passed down among natives (verified or not) could be taken as a substitute for actual documents in treaty cases. It apparently never occured to the learned ivory tower legalists that natives might have changed the stories over the years -- or outright lied.

I disagree that our Supreme Court is either prejudiced or unqualified. Of the current 8 members of the court, one was appointed by the Progressive Conservative Mulroney, one by the Liberal Chretien, one by the Liberal Martin and five by the Conservative Harper. Their individual resumes are as impressive as they can get and the selection process as impartial and responsible as possible.

I think it is misinformed to see them as “unelected patronage appointees of little demonstrated wisdom or experience.”

As to their decisions, I suggest that if they are “dumb” or “brilliant” depends on the individual political bias of the evaluator.

I have watched some cases being argued in front of that court and have full confidence in its ability to render impartial decisions based on our Constitution and Charter of Rights.

[WWWTT]

What our judges have been doing is reflecting our society's natural ideological leanings when carrying out their duties.

I disagree!

Issues judges are enforcing are clearly written in the charter/constitution in black and white.

No need for wish washy reflecting/contemplating/trends/opinions/polls etc. etc.

WWWTT

[Argus]

What our judges have been doing is reflecting our society's natural ideological leanings when carrying out their duties.

On the contrary, they're reflecting the ideological leanings of the elites, of academics far from the madding crowds, of people who have never had much concern for crime, given they live in upper class neighborhoods and the schools their children attend are either private, or several cuts above the norm. Their doors are strong, their locks the best, the alarm is set, and police are carefully on watch for 'undesirables' who might dare to wander their streets. You think judges worry about being shot in a drive-by?

I confess to being a law and order conservative. But as I've stated, many of those I know are far from conservative, yet I've found none opposed, to any serious degree, with the Tory crime reforms. There is little sympathy out there for criminals, except among the academic elites.

That's not their express purpose but all the same, what's wrong with trying to make the world a better place during the course of your day?

This is, in essence, the problem with the Left, with why so many roll their eyes at the NDP. We all know they want to make the world a better place. We all know they're well-meaning. Most of us also know their pie-in-the-sky social policies tend to screw things up much more often than they improve them.

Crime, especially of the blue collar variety, is falling, turning our justice system into a vengeance system is just plain stupid because it will make the world a worse place.

Crime might or might not be falling. There is evidence in both directions. Certainly polite-reported crime is falling, in company with the falling confidence in the police and courts. Regardless, if someone bashes in your head and takes your wallet, should he be given more sympathy and a lighter sentence because fewer people have done that this year than last?

If you really want to make the world a better place and drive blue collar crime down even more, start going after the white collar criminals that help cause the poverty that leads to blue collar crime.

Poverty doesn't cause crime. It is the distance between rich and poor which causes crime. It is the comparison between the two which causes frustration and resentment amongst the poor. In other words, income disparaties. But that doesn't explain it either. Many people are poor. Few of them resort to violence against others in order to enrich themselves. So I refuse to allow blue collar criminals, as you call them, to use poverty as an excuse for their violence, all of which, by the way, is directed at other blue collar people, or at least, not at any of those rich ones you are complaining about.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Argus

[eyeball]

No need for wish washy reflecting/contemplating/trends/opinions/polls etc. etc.

Can't argue with that - I'm pretty sure most judges can adequately think and discern the public's mood for themselves.

[Argus]

Can't argue with that - I'm pretty sure most judges can adequately think and discern the public's mood for themselves.

Why would you think they would bother?