Jump to content

Should the Constitution-Charter be changed to protect Canadians?


Recommended Posts

Some lawyers are saying the government's proposed changes to the bail laws won't pass the test of the Charter of Rights.

If this is the case and dangerous offenders cannot be kept behind bars, how can police and Canadians be protected?

Perhaps we need action to change the Charter of Rights to stop the release of dangerous offenders.  The protection and safety of Canadians comes before anything else in my mind.  We have very liberal lawyers, sociologists, and professors who seem to disagree.  These "progressives" want to make it difficult to keep dangerous offenders behind bars to protect the public and they seem to have a lot of influence for some reason.   The mainstream media, CBC, CTV seem to be always giving them a platform.  Who are the CBC and media protecting? There may be a number of them already on the Supreme Court.

Also the process to change the Constitution and Charter appears to be a very difficult process.  Perhaps that needs to change.  The method of choosing Supreme Court judges should also be examined.  The safety of Canadians and maintaining law and order comes first.

Liberals' new bail reforms could run up against Charter, have limited impact: experts (msn.com)

Thousands of people are expected to come out today in Ottawa to the funeral of Sgt. Eric Mueller.  Ten police officers have been killed in the past ten months.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not the Charter it's the people appointed to the Supreme Court, mostly by Liberals. Their belief in the Charter is that it's a nice little document, but wherever it departs from their personal beliefs then it's outdated and must be changed and 'adapted'. The Charter is a 'living tree' and must change over time. But not by government. Oh, no! By judges! Almost everything bad about the Charter has been 'written in' by the judges of the Supreme Court. Often with no legal sense behind it.

But when you're the supremes you get to 'interpret' a document any damned way you want and no one can overrule you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The problem is not the Charter it's the people appointed to the Supreme Court, mostly by Liberals. Their belief in the Charter is that it's a nice little document, but wherever it departs from their personal beliefs then it's outdated and must be changed and 'adapted'. The Charter is a 'living tree' and must change over time. But not by government. Oh, no! By judges! Almost everything bad about the Charter has been 'written in' by the judges of the Supreme Court. Often with no legal sense behind it.

But when you're the supremes you get to 'interpret' a document any damned way you want and no one can overrule you.

I suspect your take is just because you have a bone to pick. About what specifically, I am not sure.

I find your statement that "Often with no legal sense behind it." is just an opinion.  I am quite sure that you cannot cite one thing the Supreme Court has determined that is not legal and has not been determined without legal precedence.

The Supreme Court is not just the 9 sitting judges. There are hundreds of lawyers and clerks that come to the legal conclusions before any ruling or presentation. Yes, there are distentions but the dissensions are not on the general ruling but on specific language  within the ruling.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You'll be dead of old age before that ever happens.

I'm sure you are correct.  I'm in the older age category now and will probably be gone long before anything to do with the Constitution or Charter is changed.  I have to amend my will now.  That is my priority; not the Constitution which I have no control over.  It is a very difficult thing to change.  Too bad we don't have some politicians that would show real leadership and start the process.  I don't even know if there is a way to start the process to amend it.  There should be.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Also the process to change the Constitution and Charter appears to be a very difficult process.  Perhaps that needs to change. 

 

The problem with changing the process to change the constitution because it's currently outrageously difficult to change the constitution is that it would require a change in  the constitution, which is outrageously difficult currently. 

Yes - that sentence did make sense. Read it again.

If a single sentence outlining the problem is that complex - imagine the actual process.  :)

 

 

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes many Cdn conservatives didn't want a Charter of Rights, too hard to impose your will on others with one.
And far too much gum flapping from Joe Average who thinks their knowledge of law is better than any Judge. The 'teachers are stoopid, Doctors are stoopid' peanut gallery.

Changing the onus on bail for violent offenders as is being done is about all that can be done. PP's loud mouth has just shown us he's merely another Harper Era backbencher hoisting ill thought Crime Bills every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

Yes many Cdn conservatives didn't want a Charter of Rights, too hard to impose your will on others with one.

Yeah - not even a tiny bit true :)  If it were we wouldn't have one - they wouldn't have hit the 7/50 rule.

The only thing that conservatives complained about was that they felt there should be a right to property, and actually trudeau was for that too but the provincial leaders shot it down.

6 minutes ago, herbie said:


And far too much gum flapping from Joe Average who thinks their knowledge of law is better than any Judge. The 'teachers are stoopid, Doctors are stoopid' peanut gallery.

Sure kid :)

6 minutes ago, herbie said:

Changing the onus on bail for violent offenders as is being done is about all that can be done. PP's loud mouth has just shown us he's merely another Harper Era backbencher hoisting ill thought Crime Bills every day.

Sooo - you're smarter than the lawyers and judges are you? :) ROFLMAO :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - not even a tiny bit true :)  If it were we wouldn't have one - they wouldn't have hit the 7/50 rule.

The only thing that conservatives complained about was that they felt there should be a right to property, and actually trudeau was for that too but the provincial leaders shot it down.

Sure kid :)

Sooo - you're smarter than the lawyers and judges are you? :) ROFLMAO :)  

So, you bit at a very sarcastic post....and with no real retort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, herbie said:

So you're going to rewrite history and claim that the Conservatives were the ones all for a Constitution and Charter of Rights now are you?

Who wrote the constitiution and formed Canada? oh yeah... the conservatives. 

!diot.

And yes they were for the charter

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Kid.

You obviously either weren't even there, or you've gone senile.

Weren't even there when the constitution was originally written?

Well you've got me there kid.

And who opposed later changes? Manitoba quebec and newfoundland. Two red provinces and a mixed.

Sorry kid - history remembers it differently than you do. Maybe you shouldn't be calling other people senile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I suspect your take is just because you have a bone to pick. About what specifically, I am not sure.

I find your statement that "Often with no legal sense behind it." is just an opinion.  I am quite sure that you cannot cite one thing the Supreme Court has determined that is not legal and has not been determined without legal precedence.

The SC decided that it was 'cruel and unusual punishment,' and thus a violation of the Charter to require homicide sentences be served consecutively without parole eligibility. As far as they're concerned, kill one person, kill fifty people, it makes no difference. The most you can give is life and they have to have parole eligibility in 25 years. This was a finding not justified in history, not justified by the definition of the term, and not justified as per the feelings of Canadians.

6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

The Supreme Court is not just the 9 sitting judges. There are hundreds of lawyers and clerks that come to the legal conclusions before any ruling or presentation. Yes, there are distentions but the dissensions are not on the general ruling but on specific language  within the ruling.

Appoint the right nine judges and the supreme court will find for or against anything you can name.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The SC decided that it was 'cruel and unusual punishment,' and thus a violation of the Charter to require homicide sentences be served consecutively without parole eligibility. As far as they're concerned, kill one person, kill fifty people, it makes no difference. The most you can give is life and they have to have parole eligibility in 25 years. This was a finding not justified in history, not justified by the definition of the term, and not justified as per the feelings of Canadians.

Appoint the right nine judges and the supreme court will find for or against anything you can name.

What law and or constitutional or charter rights were broken with that ruling? Feelings have no place or function or purpose in the laws of any country.

Regardless of who is appointed, there are reams of legal proceedings that are are precedence. Your assumptions that they can just decide the way they feel that day is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

What law and or constitutional or charter rights were broken with that ruling? Feelings have no place or function or purpose in the laws of any country.

Regardless of who is appointed, there are reams of legal proceedings that are are precedence. Your assumptions that they can just decide the way they feel that day is wrong.

Unfortunately that's the way it should be but frequently isn't. i"ve known a few judges. Bias plays a role.

The law matters less than the 'interpretation' of the law. It's the old joke " The judge says "the law says yes. And by yes it means no""

In the example given it's ALL about feelings.  There is no "Cruelometer" to determine how 'cruel' a law is, that's just subjective.  And no 'Unusualometer" either.   Judges have a bad habit of thinking they make the law and that what politicians produce is just the clay they mould as they see fit.

And judges can be a little partisan. As you may recall harper tried to put an end to that by coming up with a method of selecting judges that was more fair and inclusive and more likely to produce a neutral result. Justin killed it immediately after taking power.

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.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,768
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Kanikomon
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...