Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[ColdComfort]

I most certainly can honestly say that. Gay Marriage rights prove that. The Morgantaler decision proves it. The Women are not Chattel decision proves it too - even though that came long before any charter of rights - it was a Supreme Court deciding that government legislatures were being unjust.

Same sex marriage was approved by Parliament so the Courts decisions seem unnecessary. There is no Women are not Chattel decision. The Persons case interpreted the BNA act on Senate appointments. The SCC has never said legal restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional. What if a future court said all persons from the time of conception were entitled to the protection of the Charter and outlawed abortion. I think you miss the point.

[square]

Do any Harper supporters actually stop and think why the SCC is dismantling his "legacy". Of course most of you think it's rank partisanship or hatred.... could the simplest reason be that the the Legislation Harper wrote was unlawful? Nah..... couldn't be that.

[Smallc]

Same sex marriage was approved by Parliament so the Courts decisions seem unnecessary.

After the court decision.

[Argus]

From 1840 to 1982 that is the Constitution we had, except for specific rights involving language and religious schools.

I asked before and never got an answer. In what way has the 1982 Charter been good to Canada, improved life here, as opposed to the tens if not hundreds of billions it's cost us to date.

[Argus]

Do any Harper supporters actually stop and think why the SCC is dismantling his "legacy".

Why were stronger minimums brought in? Because the culture of Canada's judiciary leaned strongly wards lenient sentencing, which an awful lot of people, and not just conservatives, didn't like. Naturally, the judiciary resisted mandatory minimums, however strongly supported they were by the electorate. And aside from shrill partisans I never met anyone who opposed his strengthening laws, particularly towards violent, repeat offenders, and those who are in illegal possession of firearms.

[Peter F]

Same sex marriage was approved by Parliament so the Courts decisions seem unnecessary. There is no Women are not Chattel decision. The Persons case interpreted the BNA act on Senate appointments. The SCC has never said legal restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional. What if a future court said all persons from the time of conception were entitled to the protection of the Charter and outlawed abortion. I think you miss the point.

You're right about the circumstances of the Chattel thing nevertheless I am very glad that decision was made despite my ignorance of what led up to it.

I know the SCC never said there can be no restrictions upon abortion. I am very aware that the court foresaw some instances where regulation of abortion could occur. Nevertheless, I am still very glad they made the decision they did.

Some future court could very well make decisions that displease me - in fact they have already with the Walmart case. Surely your position isn't that

if a court makes a decision I don't like then the Court has no valid role in protecting rights and restricting what government can do?

Is that your concern? That the supreme court could make a decision that restricts parliament?

[Peter F]

And aside from shrill partisans I never met anyone who opposed his strengthening laws, particularly towards violent, repeat offenders, and those who are in illegal possession of firearms.

...and asside from arseholes I've never met anyone who agreed to mandatory minimums!

[The_Squid]

Why were stronger minimums brought in?

You answered your own question... but your answer was completely incorrect.

The actual answer is meat for the social conservative base (like yourself) who are scared of crime, "liberal judges", "standing up for victims",etc, etc. This is red meat to the social conservative base of the party. It's the same sort of people who really liked the "barbaric cultural practices" snitch line.

[Argus]

You answered your own question... but your answer was completely incorrect.

The actual answer is meat for the social conservative base (like yourself) who are scared of crime, "liberal judges", "standing up for victims",etc, etc. This is red meat to the social conservative base of the party. It's the same sort of people who really liked the "barbaric cultural practices" snitch line.

Garbage. I know the far left want to believe that everyone believes like they do, and that only a few tiny, scattered groups of "social conservatives" disagree with their soft on crime, hug-a-thug approach to crime but that's never been anywhere close to reality. Most people are not nearly as sympathetic to rapists and murderers as you are. The Tories didn't bring in tougher laws because it appealed to social conservatives but because it appealed to the majority of Canadians.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Argus

[jacee]

Garbage. I know the far left want to believe that everyone believes like they do, and that only a few tiny, scattered groups of "social conservatives" disagree with their soft on crime, hug-a-thug approach to crime but that's never been anywhere close to reality. Most people are not nearly as sympathetic to rapists and murderers as you are. The Tories didn't bring in tougher laws because it appealed to social conservatives but because it appealed to the majority of Canadians.

The majority of his partisan voters, perhaps, a concentrated group of western social conservatives.

Harper never appealed to the majority of Canadians in any way.

I never heard anybody complain about sentences for "rapists and murderers".

The problem is overpunishing minor crime, often related to poverty, instead of addressing social needs.

And the stupidity and expense of the 'war on drugs'.

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by jacee

[square]

Garbage. I know the far left want to believe that everyone believes like they do, and that only a few tiny, scattered groups of "social conservatives" disagree with their soft on crime, hug-a-thug approach to crime but that's never been anywhere close to reality. Most people are not nearly as sympathetic to rapists and murderers as you are. The Tories didn't bring in tougher laws because it appealed to social conservatives but because it appealed to the majority of Canadians.

You are wrong. Harper's "tough on crime" agenda was meant to appeal to his social conservative base. He had a cruel approach when it came to complex social issues. For example criminalizing prostitution in Canada instead of looking at the social needs and mitigating factors.

[dre]

Mandatory minimums

Garbage. I know the far left want to believe that everyone believes like they do, and that only a few tiny, scattered groups of "social conservatives" disagree with their soft on crime, hug-a-thug approach to crime but that's never been anywhere close to reality. Most people are not nearly as sympathetic to rapists and murderers as you are. The Tories didn't bring in tougher laws because it appealed to social conservatives but because it appealed to the majority of Canadians.

As usually you're arguing with a bunch of imaginary people in your head. Most people who opposed minimum sentences dont want to "hug thugs". They just believe that the evidence shows MMS's are not effective, and can result in all kinds of costly and unintended consequences.

Having said that... The majority of our MMS laws were introduced by liberal governments and supported by liberal governments. So as is often the case people are kinda left wondering what the hell your'e even talking about...

[cybercoma]

The key problem with mandatory minimums as they were written by Harper is that they were far too broad; they gave the same punishments to hardened criminals as people who accidentally found themselves on the wrong side of the law. That's the reason the SCC shot these ones down. You can't force judges to give out disproportionate sentences.

[The_Squid]

Garbage. I know the far left want to believe that everyone believes like they do, and that only a few tiny, scattered groups of "social conservatives" disagree with their soft on crime, hug-a-thug approach to crime but that's never been anywhere close to reality. Most people are not nearly as sympathetic to rapists and murderers as you are. The Tories didn't bring in tougher laws because it appealed to social conservatives but because it appealed to the majority of Canadians.

Tell me which laws Harper brought in to combat rape and murder and I'll tell you if I agree with them. I don't recall any. Were those ones overturned?

Or did you set up a straw man?

[Big Guy]

Stupid people learn nothing from their mistakes.

Smart people learn from their mistakes.

Really smart people learn from other peoples mistakes:

http://lawenforcementleaders.org/issues/reforming-mandatory-minimums/

Mandatory minimums do not work !!

[TimG]

they gave the same punishments to hardened criminals as people who accidentally found themselves on the wrong side of the law. That's the reason the SCC shot these ones down. You can't force judges to give out disproportionate sentences.

If you read the dissenting judgement you will see that this statement is false since Crown prosecutors have the option of charging people who are accidentally in violation of the law with a similar offence that does not carry the minimum. Furthermore, the judge could decide to find someone not guilty if the Crown prosecutors laid charges that were inappropriate given the nature of the offense. Edited April 26, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Mandatory minimums do not work !!

I take you are now against mandatory minimums for murder. I assume you would be OK with people found guilty of first degree murder should be let out of jail in a couple years if the judge decides that they are not a 'hard core' criminal?

[Argus]

You are wrong. Harper's "tough on crime" agenda was meant to appeal to his social conservative base. He had a cruel approach when it came to complex social issues. For example criminalizing prostitution in Canada instead of looking at the social needs and mitigating factors.

Where does this stupid meme come from among the left? Do you people honestly know NOTHING about politics at all?

Harper didn't need to appeal to his 'social conservative base' whatever you think that was. Where else are they going to go? Harper was the ultimate in pragmatism and knew he didn't have to worry about them. The tough on crime appealed to the majority of mainstream Canadians.

As for this prostitution stuff, that's another weird one, and a fixation, oddly, shared by one other person here...

Prostitution was never criminalized. If anything, rules were relaxed, and modeled after Sweden's law.

[Argus]

I take you are now against mandatory minimums for murder.

I think one of the issues between Left and Right on criminal issues is that the Right tends to believe in a sense of individual responsibility, and that behaviour has a strong moral aspect to it. Those on the Left think notions like morality and individual responsibility are old fashioned, and some, particularly those who have no sense of morality themselves, instinctively sympathize with criminals. Instead of condemning them they look for reasons to excuse their behaviour to minimize punishment.

[Argus]

Mandatory minimums do not work !!

Most who have even a passing understanding of the criminal justice systems in Canada and the US, not to mention the vastly different social circumstances driving crime in these two countries, understand that you usually can't take laws and policies in one and apply them to the other.

I understand, of course, that there is a vast ignorance among the braying herd of progressives whose political positions are based entirely on their own immature emotional reflexes. Such people will cling to any scrap of evidence to support their moronic beliefs.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Argus

[Tweedledum]

Couldn't minimum sentence legislation be worded such that "the minimum sentence shall be x years - unless there is clear evidence that such a sentence would be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment"?

This would provide judges with the flexibility to handle the hypothetical cases put forward by the SCC - while still expressing the will of Parliament in setting sentencing guidelines.

[Big Guy]

I take you are now against mandatory minimums for murder. I assume you would be OK with people found guilty of first degree murder should be let out of jail in a couple years if the judge decides that they are not a 'hard core' criminal?

There are varying degrees of murder as there are of any other crime. There are many reasons why sentencing varies with the same crime. The idea of mandatory minimum sentencing is not new. It has been attempted and rejected by all democracies.

"Mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offence or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favor the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the most serious offences and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender, the tendency is not to favor punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences."

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr05_10/p9.html

As it follows, the more informed you are regarding the law the more you reject mandatory minimum sentencing.

The posting on this board is a good example of that.

[dre]

Couldn't minimum sentence legislation be worded such that "the minimum sentence shall be x years - unless there is clear evidence that such a sentence would be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment"?

This would provide judges with the flexibility to handle the hypothetical cases put forward by the SCC - while still expressing the will of Parliament in setting sentencing guidelines.

That's basically a sentencing guideline. It makes good sense but it wouldn't be enough to placate all the folks that think the courts are part of an evil liberal conspiracy.

[eyeball]

That's basically a sentencing guideline. It makes good sense but it wouldn't be enough to placate all the folks that think the courts are part of an evil liberal conspiracy.

The only thing that will do that is something that resembles a Christian version of Sharia Law - harsh, vindictive and as god awfully conservative as possible. A vengeance system as opposed to a justice system.

[TimG]

There are varying degrees of murder as there are of any other crime. There are many reasons why sentencing varies with the same crime. The idea of mandatory minimum sentencing is not new. It has been attempted and rejected by all democracies.

And GUESS WHAT? The Conservative laws did the exact same thing for all of lesser offenses with mandatory minimums. This is a point made by the dissenting justices in the SCC judgment. The majority made up ridiculous hypotheticals which are equivalent saying 'if someone accidentally caused someones death AND was charged with murder one then a 25 year minimum is unjust'. Yet these hypotheticals have never been an issue in practice in the years since the death penalty was abolished so why should they be an issue with the lesser offenses? Edited April 26, 2016 by TimG