Jump to content

Supreme Court imposes cruelty on families


Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the law passed by the Harper government in 2011 giving consecutive sentences for mass murderers was unconstitutional and since then killers who were given longer sentences have had their sentences reduced to a maximum of 25 years at which time some may be eligible for parole.  This means the families must go through the hellish parole hearings which causes great ongoing distress in their lives because they don't know if these killers will be released on parole.  This is not justice.  This is cruelty imposed on the innocent families by the Supreme Court.

EDITORIAL: Supreme Court imposed cruelty on families (msn.com)

How is it a small group of unelected judges can make such a ruling overturning our elected parliament's decisions on such crucial matters.  There is something seriously wrong with this system.   It needs to be radically changed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the law passed by the Harper government in 2011 giving consecutive sentences for mass murderers was unconstitutional and since then killers who were given longer sentences have had their sentences reduced to a maximum of 25 years at which time some may be eligible for parole.  This means the families must go through the hellish parole hearings which causes great ongoing distress in their lives because they don't know if these killers will be released on parole.  This is not justice.  This is cruelty imposed on the innocent families by the Supreme Court.

EDITORIAL: Supreme Court imposed cruelty on families (msn.com)

How is it a small group of unelected judges can make such a ruling overturning our elected parliament's decisions on such crucial matters.  There is something seriously wrong with this system.   It needs to be radically changed.  

The problem is there's something wrong with EVERY system.

Elect judges - there's MAJOR problems.  Appoint judges, the party in charge tends to appoint ones that suit it's needs.

Harper came up with a very good non partisan system to address a lot of concerns - it was wiped out by trudeau the moment he got into office. Anything changed today can be unchanged by a corrupt gov't later.

So what has to happen is they have to be willing to use the notwithstanding clause for things like this.  Redo the law and say "charter don't give a sheet biatches" and pass it. That takes the judges out of the equasion and once you do it if another gov't doesn't up hold that in 5 years then they have to wear that to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Harper came up with a very good non partisan system to address a lot of concerns - it was wiped out by Trudeau the moment he got into office.

Harper didn't "come up with".. he knowingly LET his imbecile back-benchers pass an unconstitutional Crime Bill every bloody day in office so they'd blow off steam and allow him to run the country.

Not a single one was struck down by Trudeau, they were all struck down by the Court which includes many Tory appointed Judges.

And this one is about eligibility for parole not letting people out of jail. You think 25 goddam years is not enough to have a faint hope? You one of those who think they let them all out cuz you saw one on TV they did? You think Clifford Olson is ever gonna stand a chance of being paroled before he's a drooling crippled old geezer in a wheelchair in the corner of some old folks home?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Harper didn't "come up with".. he knowingly LET his imbecile back-benchers pass an unconstitutional Crime Bill every bloody day in office so they'd blow off steam and allow him to run the country.

Tell me you're a confused lunatic without telling me :)

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

Not a single one was struck down by Trudeau, they were all struck down by the Court which includes many Tory appointed Judges.

Which trudeau could easily fix by using the notwithstanding clause.  You remember - he's the one currently screaming about how important it is to let the court strike down a law first and THEN use it. Using it per-emptively is a horrible thing according to him.

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

And this one is about eligibility for parole not letting people out of jail. You think 25 goddam years is not enough to have a faint hope?

 

For killing multiple innocent people? nope. Not enough.

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

You one of those who think they let them all out cuz you saw one on TV they did?

You one of those ones that blathers like a dolt pretending there's "ones" out there like that?

 

8 minutes ago, herbie said:

You think Clifford Olson is ever gonna stand a chance of being paroled before he's a drooling crippled old geezer in a wheelchair in the corner of some old folks home?

I think the families of the children get to relive that horror every time he comes up for it and they have to give another impact statement.

And .... now pay attention, this might be challenging for you....  if your argument is that they will never get out anyway, THEN WHY PRETEND TO GIVE THEM THE CHANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE !!!!

Either there is a chance for them to get out - which there shouldn't be - or there is NO chance in which case leave the law in place.  VERY SIMPLE

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parliament could impose the Notwithstanding Clause on these Supreme Court rulings and overturn the SCC ruling.  Pierre Poilivre could also, promise to impose the Notwithstanding Clause when he is elected and make it retroactive.

GOLDSTEIN: Use notwithstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court decision reducing sentences for multiple murderers (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which trudeau could easily fix by using the notwithstanding clause.  You remember - he's the one currently screaming about how important it is to let the court strike down a law first and THEN use it. Using it per-emptively is a horrible thing according to him.

Why would he though?  They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged and fail when they were implemented, and using a constitutionally murky tool like the notwithstanding clause to subvert the Courts would have been stinky. 

Over half of the Supreme Court Judges ruling against these are Conservative appointees, and the (Liberal) Justice Department had asked them to uphold the Law.   The Supreme Court also invited the government to rewrite the laws and fix what was wrong, rather than just shut the hole thing down as in principle.  

Trudeamanbad though, so we obviously have to blame him for everything.  ?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Why would he though? 

Because it's basic human decency and justice.  Why do i have to explain that to you? That should be pretty obvious.

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged and fail when they were implemented, and using a constitutionally murky tool like the notwithstanding clause to subvert the Courts would have been stinky. 

You have to be 11 different kinds of dim to think that there's anything constitutionally murky about the notwithstanding clause.  And the laws were perfectly fine, but if he prefers different language that does the same thing then fine.

He absolutely should have - he didn't because he's pretty much pro-criminal and the crime rates since he got in reflect his stance.

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Over half of the Supreme Court Judges ruling against these are Conservative appointees, and the (Liberal) Justice Department had asked them to uphold the Law.   

Well no, they're not conservative appointees. Do a little research before looking foolish pls.  Go look at how they were appointed.

But regardless - no problem. that's what the notwithstanding clause is for. Fix the law and put it back.

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

The Supreme Court also invited the government to rewrite the laws and fix what was wrong, rather than just shut the hole thing down as in principle.  

Which justin didn't.

23 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Trudeamanbad though, so we obviously have to blame him for everything.  ?

Well we DO have to blame him for the things he actually did :)

But i love that you're going back to the old "it's harper's fault" liberal standby :)   Justin allows the law to collapse, justin refuses to fix it and reinstate it, justin refuses to use the lawful tools at his disposal to keep mass murderers behind  bars and why?  Because it's harper's fault.  :) LOLOL  

Well at least the ignorance from the liberal side is consistent :)

Hey - that law justin passed which has directly resulted in dozens of people being killed including women and police... i'm really waiting to hear how that's harper's fault too :)

Justin has no problem with people suffering or dying from crime as long as he doesn't have to actually do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Because it's basic human decency and justice.  Why do i have to explain that to you? That should be pretty obvious.

It's basic human decency to uphold vague/broad and poorly written legislation?  ?

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You have to be 11 different kinds of dim to think that there's anything constitutionally murky about the notwithstanding clause.  And the laws were perfectly fine, but if he prefers different language that does the same thing then fine.

Evidently the laws weren't fine, according to 5 conservative appointed Supreme Court Justices.  You have to be 11 different kinds of dim to think you know better than these judges, and to not understand the implications of the notwithstanding clause, which was conceived to be used rarely and sparingly rather than whether you didn't like the outcome of a court decision.  

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well no, they're not conservative appointees. Do a little research before looking foolish pls.  Go look at how they were appointed.

I think maybe you need to do that, otherwise you need to explain what you think is wrong.  ?

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But regardless - no problem. that's what the notwithstanding clause is for. Fix the law and put it back.

Which justin didn't.

Because he is "pro-criminal", obviously.  ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It's basic human decency to uphold vague/broad and poorly written legislation?  ?

No, but i suppose i shoudn't be surprised that you need basic human decency explained to you.

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Evidently the laws weren't fine, according to 5 conservative appointed Supreme Court Justices. 

The law was written fine. They didn't take any exception to the language of the law. You said it was 'poorly written' but turns out it wasn't.

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You have to be 11 different kinds of dim to think you know better than these judges,

The judges didn't claim that the notwithstanding clause is 'constitutionally murky'.  That was you kiddo ?  Sorry - that would still make you the dim one here :)

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and to not understand the implications of the notwithstanding clause, which was conceived to be used rarely and sparingly rather than whether you didn't like the outcome of a court decision.  

It was intended PRECISELY for when you don't like the outcome of a court decision. That's EXACTLY what TRUDEAU has been saying. He says it's HORRIBLE to use it BEFORE the court decision - it should only be used after one. That was his whole thing with doug ford's use of it.

I don't know how you do it - every time i think you've hit bottom you find a way to look less educated :)

30 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Because he is "pro-criminal", obviously.  ?

Yup. And the spike in crimes and violence reflect his preferences there. Or is that all harper's fault too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh the defenders of Liberty proposing the use of the Notwithstanding Clause...

the irony of it all..

So.. you're saying that fundamental justice is incompatible with liberty? Kinda sounds like you don't really understand what either of those things are then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, herbie said:

Not a single one was struck down by Trudeau, they were all struck down by the Court which includes many Tory appointed Judges.

Ruling from the bench. Yay!

Quote

And this one is about eligibility for parole not letting people out of jail. You think 25 goddam years is not enough to have a faint hope? You one of those who think they let them all out cuz you saw one on TV they did? You think Clifford Olson is ever gonna stand a chance of being paroled before he's a drooling crippled old geezer in a wheelchair in the corner of some old folks home?

I'm all for giving them a length of rope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, but i suppose i shoudn't be surprised that you need basic human decency explained to you.

?

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The law was written fine. They didn't take any exception to the language of the law. You said it was 'poorly written' but turns out it wasn't.

Are you suggesting my comments were about the bill's prose, or syntax?  ?

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The judges didn't claim that the notwithstanding clause is 'constitutionally murky'.  That was you kiddo ?  Sorry - that would still make you the dim one here :)

I never said the judges made any claim whatsoever about it.  I made my own comments on it.  ?

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It was intended PRECISELY for when you don't like the outcome of a court decision. That's EXACTLY what TRUDEAU has been saying. He says it's HORRIBLE to use it BEFORE the court decision - it should only be used after one. That was his whole thing with doug ford's use of it.

So would you say its use could potentially be abused then?  ?

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I don't know how you do it - every time i think you've hit bottom you find a way to look less educated :)

"You dumb.  Me win argument".  

Mommy would be so proud of you.  

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yup. And the spike in crimes and violence reflect his preferences there. Or is that all harper's fault too?

Given that the spike in violence mostly due to an increase in reported sexual assaults since 2014, I wouldn't say that has anything to do with Harper, or Trudeau, or mandatory sentencing.  It's nice little tale you're spinning though. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, herbie said:

Harper didn't "come up with".. he knowingly LET his imbecile back-benchers pass an unconstitutional Crime Bill every bloody day in office so they'd blow off steam and allow him to run the country.

The constitutionality of all laws depends entirely on who you appoint to the Supreme Court. I could get a law putting anyone named herbie into a labour camp be approved with the right people on the court. Slavery could be legalized. We could throw out any laws that offended the bible, including all the gay rights stuff. We could also get it legaly approved to put an end to democracy with the right judges on the supreme court. For that matter, how about a law that says if you can't trace your ancestry to indigenous people you lose your citizenship and all rights? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be hard to get passed.

22 hours ago, herbie said:

Not a single one was struck down by Trudeau, they were all struck down by the Court which includes many Tory appointed Judges.

You make it sound like Harper appointed conservative judges. He couldn't find conservative judges to put on the court. He was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired, part time judge in Quebec. And the judges of the supreme court ruled he couldn't do that because they said so.

'Because I say' so is the basic tone of supreme court findings. Sometimes they make some tortured effort to connect those findings with some aspect of the Charter. Sometimes not.

22 hours ago, herbie said:

And this one is about eligibility for parole not letting people out of jail. You think 25 goddam years is not enough to have a faint hope?

I don't think people who commit mass murder, or for that matter, sex murderers, should have any hope at all. Do you think Paul Bernardo deserves his faint hope? Do you think he deserves to think that some day, maybe as society changes, he'll be allowed out again? I don't think he should have that hope. 

22 hours ago, herbie said:

You think Clifford Olson is ever gonna stand a chance of being paroled before he's a drooling crippled old geezer in a wheelchair in the corner of some old folks home?

It would not actually surprise me given the nature of some of the decisions made by the parole boards. But that's not the point. He should not have that faint hope and the families of his victims should not have to relive the trial every few years just so he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 1:25 PM, blackbird said:

How is it a small group of unelected judges can make such a ruling overturning our elected parliament's decisions on such crucial matters. 

it all comes from Confederation in 1867

the Constitution Act of 1867 invoked a mandate to create "a General Court of Appeal for Canada"

thus the Supreme Court of Canada was enacted in 1875, as the final court of appeal in  the Canadian judiciary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is yet another example of Harper having no balls to do what needs to be done.

I am not against the principle of cumulative sentences, on the contrary, it makes sense to me. A strategy some prosecutors were sometimes doing, they were not accusing the criminal of all the crimes they did and once one sentence was completed, then they were accusing again with another crime they had in reserve. If there is not prescription for that crime, of course. With that bill, they longer needed to use that strategy.

The problem here is not the why, it's the how. Harper is coward and he did not want to do things the way it should. A modification to the constitution was needed but, he did not want to touch the constitution.

So it was just a matter of time before the judges return that decision. You can't blame the judges. This is how the constitution is written. In a normal country, it is not difficult to modify a constitution and adapt it, when the modification is favorable for a clear majority needed according to the rules. This one could have pass. But this not a normal country and the constitution is the Pierre Elliot Trudeau's.

Notwithstanding Clause? Yes, Justin Trudeau could use it. He could use it either way.

If he uses it in the current context, he would be against the judges and the canadian constitution of its own father. That is why he is not using it. Now reverse the scenario. Harper does modify the constitution with the necessary support. It goes to the court and this time, the judges now agree with this new constitution. If Trudeau wants to use the Notwithstanding Clause and rejects the cumulative sentences. Now he would be against the judges and against the constitution. That would be an expensive political price to pay. Because it is a total different context.

When you do a bad job, even if it is a legitimated one, you get bad results. Now learn from Harper's mistakes, or mumble alone behind your keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

?

Aww muffin - is it your nap time again? Go get your cookie and your blankie....

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Are you suggesting my comments were about the bill's prose, or syntax?  ?

"Poorly written"? Are you trying to pretend now that they're not having been called on it?

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I never said the judges made any claim whatsoever about it.  I made my own comments on it.  ?

Yeah you did - go back and read your own comments.

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So would you say its use could potentially be abused then?  ?

It would depend on what you mean by 'abused'. if you mean "could be used to pass somthing you personally don't agree with" then sure. But that's pretty much all laws. If you mean something else you'd have to define it.

The law was intended to give the gov't the power to set aside charter rights where it felt there was a justifyable reason to do so. The public has to decide if the gov't was correct or overstepped. I don't know the public will think keeping a mass murderer in jail is wrong.  I mean - it's not like we're talking about using something sweeping like the emergency act to shut down a protest we don't appove of is it :)

In any case all such laws must be reviewed every 5 years. So consecutive gov'ts will have to agree to it,

 

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

"You dumb.  Me win argument".  

No no. Just 'you dumb". Because, y'know. You dumb.

29 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

Given that the spike in violence mostly due to an increase in reported sexual assaults since 2014, I wouldn't say that has anything to do with Harper, or Trudeau, or mandatory sentencing.  It's nice little tale you're spinning though. 

Nope. THe majority of the spike has happend and accelerated under Trudeau. The vast majority of harper's term saw falling rates. And we can point to laws justin's  passed that have aided that. In fact there's huge pressure right now for him to recind some hes' passed because people are getting killed.  But i love that you claim that the gov't of 7 years has nothing whatsoever to do with things like crime :)  SUre - that's not a fed responsibility at all :)

"It's all harper's fault!"

- every liberal ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

"Poorly written"? Are you trying to pretend now that they're not having been called on it?

I'm highlighting that, once again, you are making up dumb shit for yourself to argue against.  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah you did - go back and read your own comments.

Sure, brb...

Nope didn't say that!  As usual, you're proving you're not worth engaging with.  You're just arguing against your own made up points again. 

When you have an argument with yourself in the shower : r/memes  

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. THe majority of the spike has happend and accelerated under Trudeau.

Sure, but it didn't start under Trudeau, it started under Harper and continued under Trudeau.  As far as violent crime goes, it's overwhelmingly due to increased reports of sexual assault.  It's almost like correlation and causation are two completely different things!  ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm highlighting that, once again, you are making up dumb shit for yourself to argue against.  

So you didn't say it was poorly written?  I'm highlighting that ONCE AGAIN you are lying about what you said previously that everyone can read and pretending it's someone else's fault.

Quote

Nope didn't say that! 

Well just for fun i'll rise to the bait this time and quote you:

"They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged"

Those are your words. Poorly Written.  And you can't claim that you only meant that they werne't a very good idea because you ALSO said they were poorly conceived on TOP of that. So - you mean the laws were poorly written.

There you go. Proof that you lie right from your own mouth. SIgh. Well at least people know the truth of what you are.

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Sure, but it didn't start under Trudeau, it started under Harper and continued under Trudeau.

Nope - went down under harper. It always fluctuates a little but it pretty much went down year after year during harper's terms. And it's gone steadily up under trudeau.

And it is directly linked to his policies. It's no coincidence. He's relaxed bail conditions, hes required race to be a factor in sentencing, he's overseen the dismantling of the consecutive terms laws, he's fostered hatred between a large number of groups and ratcheted up tensions, the list goes on and is extensive.  I"m not claiming commonality is causality here, it's not just a freak occurrence that it's gone up radically during his time. There's reasons

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2023 at 5:26 PM, Benz said:

The problem here is not the why, it's the how. Harper is coward and he did not want to do things the way it should. A modification to the constitution was needed but, he did not want to touch the constitution.

It is not possible to modify the Charter except by getting appointed to the Supreme Court, where you can substitute your own beliefs for whatever is written.

Any opening of the Charter would lead to a muti year nightmarish fight with and between various provinces, especially Quebec, not to mention the natives. No politician is ever going to modify the Charter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2023 at 12:00 AM, CdnFox said:

So you didn't say it was poorly written?  I'm highlighting that ONCE AGAIN you are lying about what you said previously that everyone can read and pretending it's someone else's fault.

I said it was poorly written and conceived, and in your petty little pea-brain the only thing that this could possibly mean was that I was commenting on the language skills contained in the document, and that the Supreme Court would strike down laws on that basis.  You're pathetic.  ?

On 3/17/2023 at 12:00 AM, CdnFox said:

Well just for fun i'll rise to the bait this time and quote you:

"They were poorly written and poorly conceived laws that were expected to be challenged"

You can't even keep the conversation straight.  Here's a recap of this specific sub-topic:

retardmisquote.thumb.png.37e0de3e5ae769c6a47c6f185426305f.png

retardmisquote2.thumb.png.ec5dcbead7803b72fc414f24ece1dfdf.png

retardmisquote3.thumb.png.f2d86848c19784d1790e1586cdce9255.png

So you start off telling me I claimed the judges commented on the notwithstanding clause (which I didn't), and then you insisted I go back and reread my posts, which I did, confirming that I didn't, and now your "quote" proving that I did is talking about something completely different.  That's funny shit man.  ??

Try not to confuse yourself too much here.  

 

Edited by Moonbox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of Canadians in all provinces except Quebec would support capital punishment for murder.  Quebec is the only province where a minority would not support capital punishment.  Why is that?   Quebec is mostly nominal Roman Catholic and has a different ideology.  It is likely Canada abolished capital punishment because of politicians from Quebec, not the rest of Canada.  Once again they dominate Canada and most PMs come from Quebec.  The only logical reason they would support Trudeau is because he is a son of Quebec.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...