jbg Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) 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. 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. 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.... I didn't realize this was another "bash Harper" thread. With a taste of Mulroney thrown in. Edited February 8, 2015 by jbg 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 there was a reason why suicide (or attempted suicide) was illegal in the past. That law gave law enforcement the right to "arrest" the person who attempted suicide to evaluate their mental state. It was assumed that the mere fact that someone wanted to (and attempted to) kill themselves was an indication of mental illness. Using this process, the cause of the attempt could be evaluated (drugs, depression, physical pain) and a process of remediation suggested to the individual and/or their relatives. I thought that to be a positive process which did save lives. I hope something similar is now in place. 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.
Argus Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 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! . What if it's NOT our choice? What if you've been declared mentally incompetent? Maybe it's your legal guardian's choice, then. 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 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 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." This is one of the many issues which will arise now that the supremes have legalized assisted suicide. You can blithely state that suicide is not against the law, but suicide is not allowed anywhere. If the authorities know you intend to commit suicide you will be restrained, hospitalized and prevented. Suicide is only 'legal' in that attempting to do it is considered a mental health issue. 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 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Yes it is. That's why they are called the SUPREME court. It is their job to read the law and to uphold it. It is not their job to ignore the law, and say that black means white and up means down - because they say so. It is not their job to legislate societal change. 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 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 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 If Canadians felt strongly about this issue in sufficient numbers the government would have responded. Harper's government is all about practicality and bowing to the electorate, after all. 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 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 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. No, they actually don't. The Supreme Court can interpret the constitution in any way it chooses for any reason it desires, and that would be that. There is no appeal, after all. Legal scholars could then say their logic was absurd but so what? 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 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Andrew Coyne raises some interesting issues which the Supreme Court ignored in its ruling. For example, it never defined the terms it used to allow assisted suicide such that it would only apply to terminal cases, nor that it would only apply to those in physical pain. One measure of the eerie complacency of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) — the euthanasia case — is that it spends more time on the question of where to award the costs of the case than it does on the implications of its decision. Six pages on costs; three pages on where the hell is this all leading? http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/06/andrew-coyne-crossing-the-rubicon-supreme-court-seems-eerily-complacent-about-ramifications-of-assisted-suicide-ruling/ Edited February 7, 2015 by Argus 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
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 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.So you're ok with the government making a law that says you have to live in incurable agony for the rest of your life? Quote
Argus Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) So you're ok with the government making a law that says you have to live in incurable agony for the rest of your life? There is no reason why anyone should live in 'incurable agony'. Doctors are often reluctant to put the necessary time and effort into proper pain management. That is something which needs to be addressed. But regardless, that isn't the question. I approve assisted suicide from terminal patients with no decent quality of life and no hope of getting one. I don't approve of the Supreme Court making up the law as they go along based entirely on their own personal preferences. Edited February 7, 2015 by Argus 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
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 It's not their bloody job to take charge!You obviously have no idea what their job is. Quote
cybercoma 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. The Supreme Court hasn't created any law. They simply determined that an existing law violates people's rights. It's up to the federal and provincial governments to create the legislation or simply allow the existing law to lapse in 12 months. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Andrew Coyne raises some interesting issues which the Supreme Court ignored in its ruling. For example, it never defined the terms it used to allow assisted suicide such that it would only apply to terminal cases, nor that it would only apply to those in physical pain. One measure of the eerie complacency of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) — the euthanasia case — is that it spends more time on the question of where to award the costs of the case than it does on the implications of its decision. Six pages on costs; three pages on where the hell is this all leading? http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/06/andrew-coyne-crossing-the-rubicon-supreme-court-seems-eerily-complacent-about-ramifications-of-assisted-suicide-ruling/ Because that's not the court's job. They interpret the law. The particular law they were addressing violated the charter. It's up to the legislators to create a new law that doesn't violate people's right. The SCC doesn't write legislation. It also doesn't get involved in telling the legislative branch how to do its job. What they do is determine after laws have been written whether they meet the requirements of the constitution to be valid. They determined the particular law that outlawed assisted suicide is not valid and it's now up to the governments to create new legislation with the SCC's decision in mind. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) There is no reason why anyone should live in 'incurable agony'. Doctors are often reluctant to put the necessary time and effort into proper pain management. That is something which needs to be addressed.That's just entirely wrong. There are certain conditions which save for putting you into a medically induced coma, you would be in irremediable agony. It's under those circumstances that the courts decided one has a right to be assisted in ending their life, rather than living a tortured existence. But regardless, that isn't the question. I approve assisted suicide from terminal patients with no decent quality of life and no hope of getting one.Then you approve of the decision. I don't approve of the Supreme Court making up the law as they go along based entirely on their own personal preferences.And they don't. You just want to complain about the SCC because obviously you agree with their decision from your sentiment above. Edited February 7, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 It is their job to read the law and to uphold it. It is not their job to ignore the law, and say that black means white and up means down - because they say so. It is not their job to legislate societal change. It is their job to apply the constitution and charter. The law, as it was, ran counter to the charter. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 What if it's NOT our choice? What if you've been declared mentally incompetent? Maybe it's your legal guardian's choice, then. If you are declared incompetent you quite clearly cant make the decision. The SC was clear on that in their ruling. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 It is their job to read the law and to uphold it. It is not their job to ignore the law, and say that black means white and up means down - because they say so. It is not their job to legislate societal change. I think you need to take SCC 101 again. It is their job to ensure that laws put forward by government conform to the rights enshrined in the Constitution and Charter. Quote
Guest Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Gotta say I'm thankful to the SCOC for putting us on the right path. With any luck, by the time I have to avail myself of a qualified practitioner to end my suffering in a dignified manner, those who believe I should be forced to live with it will be in a very small minority. Not that I'm in any danger right now, of course. It's just in case. Quote
The_Squid Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 I didn't realize this was another "bash Harper" thread. With a taste of Mulroney thrown in. Try reading the thread.... Where did I say that either of them did anything wrong? I actually think they did a good job with these postings to the bench! TimG was blaming Liberals and what he sees as liberal societal values. I simply pointed out that these are almost all Conservative appointed judges. And I asked what's more likely... the Liberals are to blame for Harper's picks, or are these judges simply interpreting the law? Quote
jacee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 Argus, on 07 Feb 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:What if it's NOT our choice? What if you've been declared mentally incompetent? Maybe it's your legal guardian's choice, then.If you are declared incompetent you quite clearly cant make the decision. The SC was clear on that in their ruling. And it is a very important point. Some disabled people are very concerned that a personal choice of voluntary assisted suicide could be turned into involuntary 'euthanasia' - ie, homicide. I expect legislation will have to address that carefully and strictly. It's not the doctor's decision, the family's or anyone else's. And I expect doctors will want it very clear too to protect them. . Quote
jacee Posted February 7, 2015 Report Posted February 7, 2015 I didn't realize this was another "bash Harper" thread. With a taste of Mulroney thrown in.What do you care jbg. derail. . Quote
dre Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 No, they actually don't. The Supreme Court can interpret the constitution in any way it chooses for any reason it desires, and that would be that. There is no appeal, after all. Legal scholars could then say their logic was absurd but so what? So what? SOMEONE has to rule on legal matters. It clearly cannot be the legislative branch of government because they know nothing about the law, and the vast majority of them dont even READ the bills they pass. This system might not be perfect, and with the population becoming more and more enamoured with the idiotic left/right false dichotomy theres a danger that the courts could become more politicized too... But its still the system we have in every constitutional republic, monarchy, or democracy, in the world. And you dont have any better ideas, so.... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Because that's not the court's job. They interpret the law. The particular law they were addressing violated the charter. It's up to the legislators to create a new law that doesn't violate people's right. The SCC doesn't write legislation. It also doesn't get involved in telling the legislative branch how to do its job. Yadda, yadda,, yadda. And the sky is down and the ground is up and the sun is orbiting the earth. As long as the supremes say it you treat it as gospel. There's just no room for even a smidgen of reality in the above statement. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 It is their job to apply the constitution and charter. The law, as it was, ran counter to the charter. Utter nonsense. There is no sane reading of the charter which prohibits the government from banning assisted suicide. There is no way in hell the framers of the constitution had the slightest intention of defending people's right to kill themselves. 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 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 If you are declared incompetent you quite clearly cant make the decision. The SC was clear on that in their ruling. As Coyne points out their decision was anything but clear, and left massive room for further shifts in the law to allow people to commit suicide for any reason they so desire. It has happened precisely that way in other jurisdictions. 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
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.