Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[The_Squid]

IOW, it was an arbitrary line drawn based on the prejudices of the sitting judges. They have no moral basis for it.The ruling simply demonstrates how absurd our courts have gotten. They no longer care about what is in the constitution they only care about imposing their personal ideology on the country.

It's a line, but it's not arbitrary. The lines have been established through precedents, laws and the Constitution.

Why not lock people up for spitting on the sidewalk? 10 year minimum. Or is there a line somewhere that is crossed when you hand out a sentence like that? Do you think it's just arbitrary that we say there shouldn't be jail time for spitting on the sidewalk?

[dre]

Think about what this court is saying for a moment. It is saying that one year in jail is 'cruel and unusual punishment' for a repeat drug trafficker. This despite their full knowledge none of the writers of the constitution would have agreed, this despite the fact virtually none of the people in Canada would agree, and few of its politicians. They are essentially saying their own judgement on what is a proper punishment has more validity than those who write the laws or the people who elect them.

The courts don't just look at the constitution they look at existing case-law as well. In the case of CAUP they look at Latimer and Smith, etc

And whether or not you like the judgements the court makes... There's simply nobody else available to make them. They are the ones hearing the cases... they are the ones that know the facts.

There's no reason whatsoever they can't do the same for murder.

They already did. R V Latimer is a case where a guy killed his disabled daughter.

Think about what this court is saying for a moment. It is saying that one year in jail is 'cruel and unusual punishment' for a repeat drug trafficker

No it isnt saying that. They are saying it possibly COULD be.

That's why MMS is such a horrible idea. A "repeat drug trafficker" could be a guy that sold two tiny bags of weed to his adult friends or it could be a guy that sold large amounts of crystal meth to children.

The last thing we want is politicians deciding sentences for cases without hearing any of facts of the case.

Edited April 17, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

It's a line, but it's not arbitrary. The lines have been established through precedents, laws and the Constitution.

That is BS you just made up. The point of passing new laws is because the *elected* officials believe that "following precedent" was not producing the results that the voters wanted. Therefore, precedent has absolutely no relevance in determining the constitutionality of laws. At the core this ruling is about the personal ideology of the judges and they have no business imposing their personal ideology on the country.

[The_Squid]

It's called an "analogy"

Of course I made it up!! lol

[cybercoma]

Wow. It's like people haven't read the legal decision. Imagine that.

Edited April 17, 2016 by cybercoma

[Argus]

That's why MMS is such a horrible idea. A "repeat drug trafficker" could be a guy that sold two tiny bags of weed to his adult friends or it could be a guy that sold large amounts of crystal meth to children.

There are places in the world which will execute you for even possessing small amounts of weed. You can go to jail for years in others just for showing up at the airport with some grains of marijuana on the sole of your shoe. A year in jail is not exactly cruel and unusual by world standards.

And it is highly unlikely any police in Canada today would charge someone with trafficking for selling a few "tiny" bags of weed to their friend. This is a silly hypothetical the court has dragged up out of nowhere.

The last thing we want is politicians deciding sentences for cases without hearing any of facts of the case.

It is and has always been the role of the government to decide on sentence ranges for all crimes. The government's decision is based partly on its feeling of what level of deterrence is needed and partly on what it regards, as the elected representatives of the people, as a just sentence for violating the law they have just written. It is not up to unelected judges to take on that responsibility.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

It is and has always been the role of the government to decide on sentence ranges for all crimes.

Not any more...thank Christ.

[cybercoma]

It still is the government's job to decide on guideline for sentences. The government can't however violate people's rights by forcing judges to give out disproportionate sentences. Something Argus refused to address is proportionality.

Here's an example. Someone's elderly father is a firearm collector. He gets sick and moves into his daughter's home. She doesn't have his zeal for guns and doesn't have a firearms license. When her father passes away she inherits his guns. She's now breaking the gun possession law by having firearms in her possession without a proper license because she inherited the guns. Mandatory minimum sentencing would have her serving the same sentence as a gang member who was in possession of unlicensed firearms and involved in organized criminal activity.

But you know, screw the courts and the right to having the circumstances of your case being heard before a judge. Argus and a handful of others here want bureaucrats determining your sentence with absolutely no regard for your situation. They don't want to deal with the crux of the issue, which is proportionality. The courts did not actually say mandatory minimums themselves are wrong. They said minimums that are too broad are wrong. Because they force disproportionately punitive sentences on people and that's the problem with Harper's piss poor legislation.

[TimG]

It still is the government's job to decide on guideline for sentences.

Nonsense. Increasing the maximums no longer has any meaning since the SCC has told judges that only they are entitled to decide what a fair sentence is for a crime. IOW, Judges are free to ignore whatever legislation parliament may choose to pass and the voting public now has no control over how crime is punished.

The SCC is the real threat to democracy in this country.

Edited April 17, 2016 by TimG

[CITIZEN_2015]

What do you think about the Supreme Court of Canada? It certainly has effected some elements of Canadian society, some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate. Governance of this country is to be taken by the Government, but recent decisions by the Court have dictated some aspects of Canadian society and probably continue to do so with future Constitutional Ligation with the Liberals reinstating the Supreme Court Challenge Program.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the vanguard of right and democracy in Canada. Its important function is to rule whether or not certain law or legislation violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It was very sad 9 years that this important symbol of democracy and freedom was purposely and deliberately undermined by the former dictatorship (Harper regime). I applaud the work of the court and deplore those dictators like Harper and his injustice minister Peter MacKay who undermined the court.

What do you think about the Supreme Court of Canada? It certainly has effected some elements of Canadian society, some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate. Governance of this country is to be taken by the Government, but recent decisions by the Court have dictated some aspects of Canadian society and probably continue to do so with future Constitutional Ligation with the Liberals reinstating the Supreme Court Challenge Program.

Edited April 17, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

The Supreme Court of Canada is the vanguard of right and democracy in Canada. Its important function is to rule whether or not certain law or legislation violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It was very sad 9 years that this important symbol of democracy and freedom was purposely and deliberately undermined by the former dictatorship (Harper regime). As an example bill C36 (and I can bring many other examples) was a direct violation of the ruling by SCC just a year earlier.

Do you even know what a dictatorship is? And what's with this obsession you have over prostitution laws?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Do you even know what a dictatorship is? And what's with this obsession you have over prostitution laws?

I agree they are so many other bills and examples that Harper regime undermined or ignored the Supreme Court that the prostitution laws is just one but the one which was in a most devious deceptive manner manipulated and forcefully implemented and it endangers the lives of some citizens (the most vulnerable/marginalized, the sex workers). Now maybe to you their lives don't matter to you and those of your kind because of their profession but it does to me and a great majority of good citizens of this country. I am always obsessed when the most marginalized like the poor, the elderly, the sick, the minorities, the natives are affected adversely by stupid laws.

What is a dictatorship? It is like what we had up to last fall. A government who undermines the constitution and imposed laws based on their stupid ideology. A government who based on its stupid religious ideology decides how the nation should live their lives. We are gradually coming out of it now. It started with new laws coming for doctor assisted suicide. The government don't decide for us when we can end own own lives when we are terminally ill and in severe pain. We do. This is the start for a democratic system.

Edited April 17, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

I agree they are so many other bills and examples that Harper regime undermined or ignored the Supreme Court

No, not even one example, actually.

I am always obsessed when the most marginalized like the poor, the elderly, the sick, the minorities, the natives are affected adversely by stupid laws.

And yet all you can come up with as an example is a prostitution law based on the one in that fascist hellhole called uh, Sweden.

What is a dictatorship? It is like what we had up to last fall.

So you actually don't understand the term.

A government who undermines the constitution and imposed laws based on their stupid ideology.

All governments impose laws based on their ideology, and the constitution has never been 'undermined', whatever that's supposed to mean.

[taxme]

What do you think about the Supreme Court of Canada? It certainly has effected some elements of Canadian society, some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate. Governance of this country is to be taken by the Government, but recent decisions by the Court have dictated some aspects of Canadian society and probably continue to do so with future Constitutional Ligation with the Liberals reinstating the Supreme Court Challenge Program.

They are all politically correct appointees, and should never be trusted with freedom of speech. In my opinion I think that the majority go along with liberal/Marxists ideology. Just my personal opinion of course.

[CITIZEN_2015]

No, not even one example, actually.

And yet all you can come up with as an example is a prostitution law based on the one in that fascist hellhole called uh, Sweden.

So you actually don't understand the term.

All governments impose laws based on their ideology, and the constitution has never been 'undermined', whatever that's supposed to mean.

Sweden is a feminazi society where females have all the rights and males none. That is why the imposed those laws which btw failed miserably as it has been so here so far. I defined the term if you defined it differently (like sending tanks to shoot the masses to become a dictator) then you are extreme. A government elected by 25% of eligible voters to imposed religious laws based on its stupid ideology over the rest of 75% of the nation undermining the charter and constitution is a dictatorship.

No not true the new Trudeau government is evidence based not ideology. A terminally ill person who is evidently in severe pain has the right to decide to end his or her suffering. This goes against all religions.

Edited April 17, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

Why wouldn't "Charter Rights" for assisted suicide logically extend to all adults, regardless of medical condition ? Either it's a "right" or it isn't.

[Argus]

Sweden is a feminazi society

Meh.

A government elected by 25% of eligible voters to imposed religious laws based on its stupid ideology over the rest of 75% of the nation undermining the charter and constitution is a dictatorship.

The Conservatives were last elected with 39.62% of the vote. Trudeau was just elected with 39.5%. Therefore, Trudeau is a dictator?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Meh.

The Conservatives were last elected with 39.62% of the vote. Trudeau was just elected with 39.5%. Therefore, Trudeau is a dictator?

If he undermines the Charter and the Supreme Court as Harper did and most of people around him become crooks and Charlatans as they were around Harper, then yes he would be a dictator but he hasn't done so and likely will never do.

Edited April 18, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

If he undermines the Charter and the Supreme Court as Harper did and most of people around him become crooks and Charlatans as they were around Harper, then yes he would be a dictator but he hasn't done so and likely will never do.

Please name the 'crooks' around Harper. Please state how he undermined the Charter, with examples. Note, passing laws you don't like does not constitute 'undermining' the charter.

[The_Squid]

They are all politically correct appointees, and should never be trusted with freedom of speech. In my opinion I think that the majority go along with liberal/Marxists ideology. Just my personal opinion of course.

Harper appointed a bunch of Marxists? LOL. Yes, it's only your opinion.... And one that's asinine to say the least. Edited April 18, 2016 by The_Squid

[Guest]

Why wouldn't "Charter Rights" for assisted suicide logically extend to all adults, regardless of medical condition ? Either it's a "right" or it isn't.

I agree. I thought I was all alone....

[The_Squid]

Please name the 'crooks' around Harper.

Bruce Carson.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Carson

Please state how he undermined the Charter, with examples. Note, passing laws you don't like does not constitute 'undermining' the charter.

All the legislation being overturned for being unconstitutional.

Liking or disliking the laws have nothing to do with them not passing constitutional muster.

[The_Squid]

I agree. I thought I was all alone....

Rights are never absolute. There are always restrictions for the "good of society" as whole.

[Guest]

Rights are never absolute. There are always restrictions for the "good of society" as whole.

Dammit!

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. Increasing the maximums no longer has any meaning since the SCC has told judges that only they are entitled to decide what a fair sentence is for a crime. IOW, Judges are free to ignore whatever legislation parliament may choose to pass and the voting public now has no control over how crime is punished.The SCC is the real threat to democracy in this country.

See the discussion on proportionality. We don't cut people's hands off for stealing. That's the point you're missing.