TimG Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I really don't understand how you can stretch the definition of a charter right which guarantees life into prohibiting a law which prevents death.The argument presented to the court was that people with terminal degenerative conditions would be forced to end their life years earlier while they are still capable of killing themselves because waiting until life was really unbearable would likely mean they could not kill themselves without assistance. The fact that the law forced people to end their life earlier than they would have otherwise wanted is an denial of their right to "life". You still may find it a stretch but it is not as bad as you think. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 No sane reading of "life liberty and security of the person' could lead to the idea that it somehow forbids the government from outlawing assisted suicide. Of course it could. It has already been determined that liberty extends even as far as to my choice to take my own life. Quote
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 They didn't save us from anything. They should have said "No, nobody has a constitutional right to die" and left it up to the politicians to decide whether they wanted to make changes to the law. That's what we pay them for.Careful for what you wish for. Harper is apparently kicking the shit out of his furniture as we speak.Once again I'm quite happy and thankful that a bunch of actual constitutional experts have informed the government what my rights are. Politicians have lost their ability to do so. If the day comes when the supreme court judges start behaving like politicians I'll start determining what my rights are on my own. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 No sane reading of "life liberty and security of the person' could lead to the idea that it somehow forbids the government from outlawing assisted suicide.Well seeing as how the government wouldn't shit or get off the pot, someone had to take charge. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Topaz Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 I knew the Supreme Court would say yes, because they are old and wise and may need this law themselves one day. I think you'll see the law will be for people who have no hope of surviving the disease they have like cancer. I sure safe guards will stop any abuse and people will be able to die with dignity. Quote
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Well seeing as how the government wouldn't shit or get off the pot, someone had to take charge. It's not their bloody job to take charge! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Careful for what you wish for. Harper is apparently kicking the shit out of his furniture as we speak. Once again I'm quite happy and thankful that a bunch of actual constitutional experts have informed the government what my rights are. Politicians have lost their ability to do so. If the day comes when the supreme court judges start behaving like politicians I'll start determining what my rights are on my own. This decision was not made with any interest in abiding by the constitution. It was made from the personal preference of the judges, who then simply wrote up a justification. The problem is they can do the same with any other rights you have or might not have. They can simply change what the constitution means overnight for any reason they so choose. And there is no appeal against it. Not exactly the kind of behaviour which is healthy in a democracy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 Of course it could. It has already been determined that liberty extends even as far as to my choice to take my own life. That's an absurd interpretation which they knew damned well was never intended by the framers of the constitution. If that were the case then suicide would be legal in all situations and for any reason. After all, it's your constitutional 'right'. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 They didn't save us from anything. They should have said "No, nobody has a constitutional right to die" and left it up to the politicians to decide whether they wanted to make changes to the law. That's what we pay them for. If you don't want to commit assisted suicide instead of a suffering, lingering death, then don't. Your life, your choice. My life, my choice ... not Harper's choice! . Quote
jacee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 That's an absurd interpretation which they knew damned well was never intended by the framers of the constitution. If that were the case then suicide would be legal in all situations and for any reason. After all, it's your constitutional 'right'.Suicide is legal:"Suicide is no longer a crime in Canada as it was removed from theCriminal Code of Canada in 1972 by the Parliament of Canada." It was only assisted suicide that was in dispute. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 That's an absurd interpretation which they knew damned well was never intended by the framers of the constitution. If that were the case then suicide would be legal in all situations and for any reason. After all, it's your constitutional 'right'. You think suicide is illegal in Canada? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 It's not their bloody job to take charge! Yes it is. That's why they are called the SUPREME court. Quote
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) This decision was not made with any interest in abiding by the constitution. It was made from the personal preference of the judges, who then simply wrote up a justification. The problem is they can do the same with any other rights you have or might not have. They can simply change what the constitution means overnight for any reason they so choose. And there is no appeal against it. Not exactly the kind of behaviour which is healthy in a democracy. It's not the supreme court's fault our democracy sucks as bad as it does.And as I said I reserve the right to tell the SC to piss up a rope too if it steps too far out of line. Edited February 6, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted February 6, 2015 Report Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) It's not their bloody job to take charge!Okay so, the government wasn't leading Canadians on this issue and it certainly wasn't following us meaning something had to get out of the way. This time it was the government. It's not my fault you see a lot of this but at least I know what my rights are now Edited February 6, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
webc5 Posted February 6, 2015 Author Report Posted February 6, 2015 Anyone think the Conservatives will pick this up before the Federal Election? Quote
The_Squid Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Or maybe this is the SC plan ,put harper in a bad place. But this is like the abortion issue, parliament never put in place any rules for that, and this could go that way if harper does not put rules in place. He will have to. Why would a Harper-appointed SCC want to "put him in a bad place"? You do know that 7/9 justices on the SCC are Harper appointments.... Isn't that always the case? This is why I have little patience for the argument that just because the SCC ruled a certain way something becomes an inherent truth that should never be questioned. The judges are a bunch of unelected and unaccountable academics who use the court as a platform to impose their social views on the country. In some cases, these views broadly reflect the will of the people. In others, they represent minority views. Harper couldn't find a single judge who would make rulings based on law, rather than their social views like you claim? Not one??? And Harper couldn't find a SINGLE judge with similar social views to his own? Or is it more likely that these judges appointed by Harper are actually ruling by applying the law rather than partisan opinion? 79 Marshall Rothstein† (b. 1940) Manitoba March 1, 2006 – present — 3,264[9] — Harper University of Manitoba Federal Court of Appeal 80 Thomas Cromwell† (b. 1952) Nova Scotia December 22, 2008 – present — 2,237[9] — Harper Queen's University Faculty of Law University of Oxford Nova Scotia Court of Appeal 81 Michael J. Moldaver† (b. 1948) Ontario October 21, 2011 – present — 1,204[9] — Harper University of Toronto Court of Appeal for Ontario 82 Andromache Karakatsanis† (b. 1955) Ontario October 21, 2011 – present — 1,204[9] — Harper Osgoode Hall Law School Court of Appeal for Ontario 83 Richard Wagner† (b. 1957) Quebec October 5, 2012 – present — 854[9] — Harper University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Quebec Court of Appeal 84 Clément Gascon† (b. 1960) Quebec June 9, 2014 – present — 242[9] — Harper McGill University Faculty of Law Quebec Court of Appeal 85 Suzanne Côté† (b. ) Quebec December 1, 2014 – present — 67[9] — Harper Laval University Lawyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Canada Edited February 7, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
jacee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Argus, on 06 Feb 2015 - 5:01 PM, said: It's not their bloody job to take charge! Beats having you in charge, Argus. And it is their job to ensure that the Charter is not unduly restricting the rights of Canadians. . Quote
jbg Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 I'd first like to say that I'm fine with legalizing assisted suicide within proscribed limitations, ie terminally ill and quality of life. But I have to also say it looks to me like the justices on the Supreme court basically invented the reason why the law against this is illegal out of whole cloth. The very idea that a law banning people from killing a person violates that person's right to 'life, liberty and security' is absurdest logic the likes of which Monty Python would no doubt appreciate. It looks to me like they believed assisted suicide ought to be allowed, then invented a legal justification for overturning the ban. Would not be the first time one of our countries' Supreme Courts did this. I support the outcome, not the reported reasoning. Can someone link me to the decision? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Big Guy Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 I believe that the SC has only put into law what Canadians, and Canadian doctors, have been doing for years. It was time. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
TimG Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Harper couldn't find a single judge who would make rulings based on law, rather than their social views like you claim?Harper was often required to appoint from the pool of existing judges which were appointed by liberals. He also likely tried to pick people he believed would show deference to parliament but once the appointment is made judges are free to act with impunity. The result is the abomination we have today which is gradually turning Canada into an ungovernable mess. Edited February 7, 2015 by TimG Quote
jbg Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Anyone think the Conservatives will pick this up before the Federal Election?Not a chance. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 I believe that the SC has only put into law what Canadians, and Canadian doctors, have been doing for years. It was time. From personal experience, though not involving Canadians or doctors, but other health care professionals, quite true. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Harper was often required to appoint from the pool of existing judges which were appointed by liberals. He also likely tried to pick people he believed would show deference to parliament but once the appointment is made judges are free to act with impunity. The result is the abomination we have today which is gradually turning Canada into an ungovernable mess.It's the government that isn't changing with the times not the other way around. Likewise it's the government that is the abomination. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Harper was often required to appoint from the pool of existing judges which were appointed by liberals. He also likely tried to pick people he believed would show deference to parliament but once the appointment is made judges are free to act with impunity. The result is the abomination we have today which is gradually turning Canada into an ungovernable mess. Oh I am sure he tried to find people who would follow his doctrine, what he forgot is these people have to follow the constitution and the charter. Quote
The_Squid Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Harper was often required to appoint from the pool of existing judges which were appointed by liberals. He also likely tried to pick people he believed would show deference to parliament but once the appointment is made judges are free to act with impunity. The result is the abomination we have today which is gradually turning Canada into an ungovernable mess. Nice try.... One was appointed directly from private practice... handpicked by Harper... several others received their appointments to the bench by Mulroney. Good attempt at blaming the Liberals... for Harper's appointments! That's asinine. Once again.... Harper could not find a single judge that shares his societal values? Or the judges he has appointed have used the law to make judgements while on the SCC? No Liberals or liberals to blame here.... Quote
Recommended Posts
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.