Harper trying to muzzle judges

[Argus]

Our judges, most of them, are in the centre and only interested in applying the law as it is written.

Mike? Michael Ignatieff? Is that you? You've been out of Canada for so long, Michael! You apparently don't know much about how it works any more! Our judges are appointed due to their suck-up skills with their local Liberal candidate, and how much money they donate to the Liberal Party of Canada.

And they apply the law depending on how they can interpret it to suit their political agendas.

I can see where you wouldn't know that, Mike, having spent the last thirty years on a college campus in the United States.

But ask the man in the street what he thinks should happen to killers, rapists and robbers and you don't get the teary sob story you'll get from Canada's Liberal judges.

[jdobbin]

But ask the man in the street what he thinks should happen to killers, rapists and robbers and you don't get the teary sob story you'll get from Canada's Liberal judges.

Is it judges or Crown attorneys in places like Alberta and Nova Scotia (good Conservative hires) who are making plea deals with the blessing of the Conservative Justice ministers?

Oh yes, it is all on the judges and the Tories have been helpless in all of this.

[Wilber]

Is it judges or Crown attorneys in places like Alberta and Nova Scotia (good Conservative hires) who are making plea deals with the blessing of the Conservative Justice ministers?

They often make plea deals because they know that any sentence they might get isn't worth the trouble of going to trial. Same goes for the police when they recommend charges. They have to decide whether the outcome is worth their time which could be better spent elsewhere.

[jdobbin]

They often make plea deals because they know that any sentence they might get isn't worth the trouble of going to trial. Same goes for the police when they recommend charges. They have to decide whether the outcome is worth their time which could be better spent elsewhere.

Really. The judges are not involved in the plea agreements for the most part. They are often done because the prosecution and the defence don't know what the jury will decide, not the judge.

Conservatives are only blaming the judiciary for perceived failures in the legal system. You want to look up failure in the legal system in say...Manitoba, all you have to do is look at Vic Toews. How many court cases are being tossed out from when he was the Justice minister? Lots and there could be a whole lot more. Is that a judicial problem or is that a police and prosecution problem?

[guyser]

Ahh Catchme, yet again, your wrong on a factual point. You've got to start checking these. The Liberals haven't had a popular vote majority since 1940, unlike the Conservatives and PC's which have had two in that time frame by the way.

In fact, Chretien barely had more support than Harper at any time during his reign.

1993 41.24%

1997 38.46%

2000 40.85%

Harper had 36% when elected.

Unfortunately, the Liberals haven't had the mandate you claim they have since Mackenzie King. Pretty brutal hey?

Your argument about mandate is completely invalid.

HUH??

One talks about a 'majority govt' and you counter with a majority vote?

Oh well, the Liberals have had what.....5 or more majority govts in my lifetime.

[Wilber]

Really. The judges are not involved in the plea agreements for the most part. They are often done because the prosecution and the defence don't know what the jury will decide, not the judge.

It's about sentencing not convictions. Doesn't matter what the jury decides, if the judge gives a marshmallow sentence it's a waist of time. Never said judges were involved, I said that prosecutors will arrange a plea agreement because they know that a judge is very unlikely to give a sentence that makes it worth going to trial. The police may not even bother to go to all the trouble it takes to recommend charges for the same reason. Neither are prepared to waist their time if they feel the courts won't make their efforts worth while because they don't have the time.

How many times do you hear or see in the news that the culprits, victims or both are well known to police? At least a couple of times a day around here. Because the courts keep putting them back on the street.

[bk59]

Some balance in the judiciary would be nice. Right now, a vast majority are exclusive Liberal donors.

What a laugh. It failed miserably on both counts. Judicial appointments were nearly all done for patronage reasons, and competence is not something anyone would consider synonymous with Canadian judges.

...

I'd really like to see the make-up of the members of the CJC, and how they were appointed. I rather doubt many of them were appointed because they were the most qualified.

Our judges are appointed due to their suck-up skills with their local Liberal candidate, and how much money they donate to the Liberal Party of Canada.

And they apply the law depending on how they can interpret it to suit their political agendas.

Would anyone like to actually provide some proof that most judges in Canada are Liberal party members, or donors, or not competent, or providing services on the side to the Liberal party to get appointed? Otherwise these types of comments are no better than, and no more credible than, most conspiracy theory posts.

I am also amused that someone can declare that nearly all judicial appointments were done for patronage reasons and then in the same post ask how judges were appointed. Perhaps that question should have been answered before reaching the conclusion that it was patronage.

Just because you may not agree with a ruling does not mean that the judge is incompetent. Can everyone here criticizing the judiciary honestly declare themselves experts on the law? Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe when judges pass out sentences they actually look at all of the factors necessary for justice, including the rehabilitation of the person found guilty? The point of a sentence is not solely to punish the offender. Ideally you want them to become functioning members of society without committing more crimes. Our system isn't perfect, and mistakes are made. Sometimes people cannot be rehabilitated. But this does not equate to a judiciary that is out of touch with reality and incompetent. Or simply political pawns. Most of the above attacks on the judiciary in Canada seem unsound at best.

[Wilber]

Conservatives are only blaming the judiciary for perceived failures in the legal system. You want to look up failure in the legal system in say...Manitoba, all you have to do is look at Vic Toews. How many court cases are being tossed out from when he was the Justice minister? Lots and there could be a whole lot more. Is that a judicial problem or is that a police and prosecution problem?

A year ago in Mission the RCMP were excercising a warrant on a grow op. They forced the door and sure enough they found one. A judge threw it out because he said that because the police didn't wait long enough for him to answer the door, they violated the guys rights under the Charter. How keen do you think that would make you if you were a cop or a prosecutor? Now the police have to give the suspects adequate time to arm themselves before the can force an entry under a warrant. I wonder what that judge would have done if they had found someone lying dead in a pool of blood and the suspect standing over him with a knife in his hand. Would he have thrown that out to and if not, why not. It's this kind of f___d up logic that people are sick of when they see their neighbourhoods ruined by grows and meth labs and the courts doing nothing about it when these people are charged. They need a reality check.

[blueblood]

Conservatives are only blaming the judiciary for perceived failures in the legal system. You want to look up failure in the legal system in say...Manitoba, all you have to do is look at Vic Toews. How many court cases are being tossed out from when he was the Justice minister? Lots and there could be a whole lot more. Is that a judicial problem or is that a police and prosecution problem?

A year ago in Mission the RCMP were excercising a warrant on a grow op. They forced the door and sure enough they found one. A judge threw it out because he said that because the police didn't wait long enough for him to answer the door, they violated the guys rights under the Charter. How keen do you think that would make you if you were a cop or a prosecutor? Now the police have to give the suspects adequate time to arm themselves before the can force an entry under a warrant. I wonder what that judge would have done if they had found someone lying dead in a pool of blood and the suspect standing over him with a knife in his hand. Would he have thrown that out to and if not, why not. It's this kind of f___d up logic that people are sick of when they see their neighbourhoods ruined by grows and meth labs and the courts doing nothing about it when these people are charged. They need a reality check.

And people are scared of conservative judges in the benches, these left leaning ones are way more scary. I thought when you have a warrant, that means you can go into the house whenever you want.

[Catchme]

The RCMP have always had to wait and give time when a warrant is being executed. This is not TV where they knock and smash in.

The grow op was not going anywhere, it would have still been had they followed due process, this is about DUE PROCESS.

The storyy about the knife is more than a red herring, the police will NOT go into an armed situation no matter if they know people are dying, that is why there are hostage situations. Remember Maythorpe? officers down and they would still not go in until they were sure the shooter was down.

Human Rights are not to be suspended just because some one wants to for this occasion or that occasion.

That is the point, and how some fail to see this is beyond comprehension.

You take away individual rights you take away individual security and you by extension take away national security.

[blueblood]

The RCMP have always had to wait and give time when a warrant is being executed. This is not TV where they knock and smash in.

The grow op was not going anywhere, it would have still been had they followed due process, this is about DUE PROCESS.

The storyy about the knife is more than a red herring, the police will NOT go into an armed situation no matter if they know people are dying, that is why there are hostage situations. Remember Maythorpe? officers down and they would still not go in until they were sure the shooter was down.

Human Rights are not to be suspended just because some one wants to for this occasion or that occasion.

That is the point, and how some fail to see this is beyond comprehension.

You take away individual rights you take away individual security and you by extension take away national security.

A warrant lets the cops into the place whenever they want, that's why they have them made out in the first place. When a warrant is made there is a reason the cops need to go in. Due Process was followed in the grow op case aforementioned. Police are supposed to go into armed situations, their #1 priority is protecting life, human rights comes next. With the warrant the cops are to go into a suspected place and obtain evidence/arrest suspects. The police can detain anyone they like, they have to go to court and prove that the detainee is guilty and deserves X amount of jail time. You'll have to provide proof that they need to give time when executing a warrant. What's the point of having a police force if they can't do their job.

[Wilber]

The grow op was not going anywhere, it would have still been had they followed due process, this is about DUE PROCESS.

The storyy about the knife is more than a red herring, the police will NOT go into an armed situation no matter if they know people are dying, that is why there are hostage situations. Remember Maythorpe? officers down and they would still not go in until they were sure the shooter was down.

A lot of the people involved in drug operations are as well armed as the police. Better sometimes. They had a warrant to enter from a judge.

It is not a red herring. I am saying that if they had found such a thing by chance while exercising the grow warrant, would the judge have thrown that out as well? Why not, if he threw out the grow case, what reason could he use to allow a murder charge under the same circumstances?

In BC the average number of convictions before a person serves time for operating a grow is ten and then it isn't much. They buy 700K+ houses in nice neighbourhoods and turn them into junk. How would you like one next door? Nice town house complexes have been found riddled with them. A couple of weeks ago a Surrey neighbourhood was nearly evacuated when construction workers digging in a vacant lot found a chemical dump. Guess what, from a meth lab. How would you like your kids playing in that lot?

Due process is fine but when they've had the process, do them.

Or latest BC Attorney General was a judge. Prior to leaving the bench I had often thought him an apologist for the judicial system. It has been interesting to watch him become more and more frustrated with it now the shoe is on the other foot.

[guyser]

A warrant lets the cops into the place whenever they want, that's why they have them made out in the first place. When a warrant is made there is a reason the cops need to go in. Due Process was followed in the grow op case aforementioned. Police are supposed to go into armed situations, their #1 priority is protecting life, human rights comes next. With the warrant the cops are to go into a suspected place and obtain evidence/arrest suspects. The police can detain anyone they like, they have to go to court and prove that the detainee is guilty and deserves X amount of jail time. You'll have to provide proof that they need to give time when executing a warrant. What's the point of having a police force if they can't do their job.

Do not confuse "NO Knock" warrants as have been approved in the US. They are causing a stir because it seems some cops just dont have a good sense of which house is which.

Frankly we should not want no knocks in this country.

Our warrants---we knock, then politely go in the door.

[blueblood]

A warrant lets the cops into the place whenever they want, that's why they have them made out in the first place. When a warrant is made there is a reason the cops need to go in. Due Process was followed in the grow op case aforementioned. Police are supposed to go into armed situations, their #1 priority is protecting life, human rights comes next. With the warrant the cops are to go into a suspected place and obtain evidence/arrest suspects. The police can detain anyone they like, they have to go to court and prove that the detainee is guilty and deserves X amount of jail time. You'll have to provide proof that they need to give time when executing a warrant. What's the point of having a police force if they can't do their job.

Do not confuse "NO Knock" warrants as have been approved in the US. They are causing a stir because it seems some cops just dont have a good sense of which house is which.

Frankly we should not want no knocks in this country.

Our warrants---we knock, then politely go in the door.

In Wilber's scenario, the cops did knock. The thing I'm concerned about is officer safety. We should not have dead officers for the sake of being polite. If they do get the wrong house then a full apology from the police department should suffice. Usually the Canadian Cops are pretty accurate in their warrants, if they got the wrong house you'd probably hear about it on the national news.

In Quebec an officer knocked on the door and identified herself (I'm not sure if she had a warrant or not) and got shot through the door with a shotgun.

IMO when the cops have a warrant, they have sufficient evidence to cart your ass to jail and should do so as quickly and safely as possible. Sometimes the saftey of the officer means some discomfort for the suspect.

[Catchme]

While not a fan of meth labs, I would ask what is the difference with the chances of kids playing their toxic refuse as opposed to all those business that dump toxins wherever without a permit either? There is a good deal more of that going around than meth labs dumps.

Due process is fundamental to LAW! And to RIGHTS!

Why you want to get rid of due process is beyond me!

Again though you all carry on and on about crime, it is in fact decreasing and has been for years.

Legalize marijuanna, the problem with grow ops go away! leaving more time for the RCMP/police to target other crimes such a meth labs and illegal toxic dumping by business and meth labs..

[blueblood]

While not a fan of meth labs, I would ask what is the difference with the chances of kids playing their toxic refuse as opposed to all those business that dump toxins wherever without a permit either? There is a good deal more of that going around than meth labs dumps.

Due process is fundamental to LAW! And to RIGHTS!

Why you want to get rid of due process is beyond me!

Again though you all carry on and on about crime, it is in fact decreasing and has been for years.

Legalize marijuanna, the problem with grow ops go away! leaving more time for the RCMP/police to target other crimes such a meth labs and illegal toxic dumping by business and meth labs..

Barbados has a much lower crime rate than we do and has much stiffer penalties. If we legalize everything like how you want it, our crime rate will decrease because more things are legal.

Do you believe that Canada was a country like Chile when Pinnochet was in charge before the charter. This fear of the authorities and acting on it is dangerous. I wouldn't say our crime rate is decreasing, I'm surprised it's not out of control since as a country we're deciding to enable it.

If we legalize pot, the grow ops won't go away, there will be a bootlegging problem that will be out of control. Plus people who don't smoke it will be moreso pressured to do so because it is legal. Then they'll be crying for something else to be legal. Smoking pot is illegal, that's the law of the land, if you don't like it emmigrate.

[guyser]

Barbados has a much lower crime rate than we do and has much stiffer penalties. If we legalize everything like how you want it, our crime rate will decrease because more things are legal.

I wouldn't say our crime rate is decreasing, I'm surprised it's not out of control since as a country we're deciding to enable it.

If we legalize pot, the grow ops won't go away, there will be a bootlegging problem that will be out of control. Plus people who don't smoke it will be moreso pressured to do so because it is legal. Then they'll be crying for something else to be legal. Smoking pot is illegal, that's the law of the land, if you don't like it emmigrate.

One cannot compare a tiny island to a nation that is hundreds and hundreds of times larger.

Wouldn't say our crime rate is decreasing? Why not.........it is. A spike in 2003 but otherwise crime is down in large part due to a crackdown in S Ontario.

Lets see....legalize pot and grow ops dont go away. Kind of like when alcohol was un-banned we still have all those stills working in the bush? Smoking pot is not illegal.

But your arguement that grow ops still exist is unfounded. First is the scale of operation for a grow op is too small for profit, and since the law would allow it to be grown, growing it on a larger scale thus reducing the high price will ensure grow ops are gone, for the most part that is.

Pot should never have been put on a banned substance list. Lies is what did it.And no credible info exists that suggests it is as bad as some would elude

[blueblood]

One cannot compare a tiny island to a nation that is hundreds and hundreds of times larger.

Wouldn't say our crime rate is decreasing? Why not.........it is. A spike in 2003 but otherwise crime is down in large part due to a crackdown in S Ontario.

Lets see....legalize pot and grow ops dont go away. Kind of like when alcohol was un-banned we still have all those stills working in the bush? Smoking pot is not illegal.

But your arguement that grow ops still exist is unfounded. First is the scale of operation for a grow op is too small for profit, and since the law would allow it to be grown, growing it on a larger scale thus reducing the high price will ensure grow ops are gone, for the most part that is.

Pot should never have been put on a banned substance list. Lies is what did it.And no credible info exists that suggests it is as bad as some would elude

Why not? It's poorer than us, more densely populated, it should be a gong show. Per Capita we are worse.

There's still homemade stills around. The thing with alcohol is that its harder to make and therefore more easily regulated. Pot is easy to grow/produce. Why go to a store when you can grow it at home? If it was like booze and legal and taxed heavily then we'd have a problem with bootlegging to get a cheaper product.

Pot should stay on that banned substance list. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's better off that people are running around doing pot than something else. Personally i'd still have booze under prohibition, so it's next to impossible to enforce, but so what, they're too busy having their "rebelling fun" with booze than something more dangerous. Pot is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, also being a burnout is no good either.

I don't know what the pot smokers are bitching about, Weed is so cheap right now, so easy to get, nobody really enforces simple possession. Booze is legal and costs a fortune.

[guyser]

Why not? It's poorer than us, more densely populated, it should be a gong show. Per Capita we are worse.

There's still homemade stills around. The thing with alcohol is that its harder to make and therefore more easily regulated. Pot is easy to grow/produce. Why go to a store when you can grow it at home? If it was like booze and legal and taxed heavily then we'd have a problem with bootlegging to get a cheaper product.

Pot should stay on that banned substance list. A line has to be drawn somewhere. It's better off that people are running around doing pot than something else. Personally i'd still have booze under prohibition, so it's next to impossible to enforce, but so what, they're too busy having their "rebelling fun" with booze than something more dangerous. Pot is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, also being a burnout is no good either.

I don't know what the pot smokers are bitching about, Weed is so cheap right now, so easy to get, nobody really enforces simple possession. Booze is legal and costs a fortune.

Hmm...Barbados has a pop of 279,912 and they had 185 major crimes (murder, serious body harm and kidnapping) and Canada is 30million with a 1.5 per 100,000 murder rate. You do the math.

There are stills around? Yes I am sure there are, all 20 of them. They are as rare as hens teeth.Harder to make booze than pot? Oh come on, no it is not.Some corn, water (or potatoes) and some other stuff and away you go. I take you have never talked with one who has grown pot. It is hard to get the right mix, the right seeds etc. But then again I know YOU KNEW this and were being disingenous. You are a farmer, you damn well know how hard it is to grow things correctly.

Pot is worse than cigs for the lungs. It is ? I suppose one who chain smoked all day would get the same bad things as a cig smoker, but the pot smoker doesn not generally puff all day....and those that do are in trouble. It is a different kettle of fish. Who is a burnout? Nice try to inflict damage by scoffing at those who would like to smoke pot, but we are not going to bite on your little attempt to demean.

Hmm, would my friend who is an actuary for a huge company be a burnout. I am sure that since he could likely buy us all out with his pocket change means he is aburnout. I know you are just not up on tha facts and think that pot smokers are the devil. Fine, keep your head in the sand.

Booze and cigarettes cost us far more than any other addiction . Why not attack them? Oh , you might just have parents or family members who smoke or drink.

[blueblood]

My Webpage

Canada gets lit up according to this.

I wouldn't say stills are as rare as hen's teeth, maybe in Ontario. Where else can you get 80+ percent liquor for next to nothing. It is a time consuming process to make booze. Some of the neighbours do it, it's quite the process. Kid's grow pot, it shouldn't be too hard to grow. I can't see it being hard to grow at all, no weeds, no freezing. That having been said, I don't know how good the quality is and that's a whole new ballgame. I'm not too sure if kids care about the quality too too much.

I consider burnouts the ones that do smoke pot like cigarettes and suffer some sort of mental damage. I've seen some bad consequences of it back in the day that scared me straight. like with booze too much is bad.

No a person who only smokes up once in a little bit is not a burnout to clarify. I do hate pot, that is my opinion, let me be damned. Seeing a neighbour lose his farm and watch his life go down the toilet due to being high all the time sort of helps in my judgement.

I said I'd be fine with booze being back on prohibition. I hate cigarettes too, cost the health care system too much money. The way things are right now concerning drugs are fine. I don't want to rock the boat and risk kids getting into worse things.

[guyser]

Kid's grow pot, it shouldn't be too hard to grow. I can't see it being hard to grow at all, no weeds, no freezing. That having been said, I don't know how good the quality is and that's a whole new ballgame. I'm not too sure if kids care about the quality too too much.

I consider burnouts the ones that do smoke pot like cigarettes and suffer some sort of mental damage. I've seen some bad consequences of it back in the day that scared me straight. like with booze too much is bad.

No a person who only smokes up once in a little bit is not a burnout to clarify. I do hate pot, that is my opinion, let me be damned. Seeing a neighbour lose his farm and watch his life go down the toilet due to being high all the time sort of helps in my judgement.

I said I'd be fine with booze being back on prohibition. I hate cigarettes too, cost the health care system too much money. The way things are right now concerning drugs are fine. I don't want to rock the boat and risk kids getting into worse things.

I assure you any kid throwing seeds into the ground and smoking what comes out will only do it once, the quality being that bad. No one will want it.

Burnouts are burnouts as you state. Booze drugs , scripted meds, all the same. I agree with you there.

I would suggest that pot did not lose your neighbours farm , he was on that road to begin with. Did it help him, probably not, but I seriously doubt it was because of pot. Destructive behaviour is there, and pot can be one way to manifest it.

And while I am loathe to admit it in this PC time, cigs and the accompanying taxes actually put more money into the health care system than is removed for care to smokers.This country would be screwed if we were able to eradicate smoking, even if it is what most of us want.

Pot is not a gateway drug.

[Catchme]

An error of judgment

The Harper approach abandons consensus and Americanizes judicial appointments, says legal scholar PETER RUSSELL

By PETER RUSSELL

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 – Page A21

As someone who has devoted a significant amount of my life to studying how judges are appointed in Canada and elsewhere, and to improving the process, I have been following with great interest the discussion of the Harper government's changes in the federal appointing system. I find much of the debate is badly focused and ill-informed. With a view to clarifying what is at issue, I present 10 points that should be borne in mind in assessing the merits of the government's approach.

The reforms recently introduced by the Harper government have weakened an already faulty federal system. The worst thing they have done is to remove the advisory committee's function of identifying candidates who are highly qualified. That renders the committees, whatever their membership, virtually useless.

6. The government's apparent main concerns in selecting judges have little relevance to many of the judicial positions the federal government fills. Most of the work of the federal court, the tax court and the provincial superior courts involves the conduct of civil trials, requiring high levels of competence in such matters as torts, contracts, industrial property law, taxation and administrative law.

10. The changes made by the Harper government in appointing the federal judiciary constitute a move to Americanize the Canadian judicial system without the checks and balances that operate at the U.S. federal level. Like U.S. presidents, Mr. Harper plans to appoint judges who will serve his political party's ideology. But these selections will not be subject to public review by a legislative body such as the U.S. Senate. The Senate judiciary committee's examination of presidential nominees usually assures that candidates chosen for their political views meet reasonably high standards of professional competence. There is no such public accountability in the Canadian federal system of appointing judges.

To sum up, the new system of appointments abandons consensus proposals for reform recently put forward by a parliamentary committee, and moves us away from a merit selection process toward an American emphasis on ideological considerations without the checks and balances of the U.S. system. Such a change should not proceed further without discussion and review by a parliamentary committee.

Again Harper has NO mandate to do this, it is certainly time to stand up and speak out

[guyser]

legal scholar PETER RUSSELL...

A legal scholar and a comedian? Is someone going to get a hurting ?

[Keepitsimple]

Harper and the Conservatives have long been accused of wanting to stack the courts with Right-leaning judges - and Antonio Lamer and Beverly Mclachlan's comments speak to this. As a result, they are admitting that newly-appointed judges can be politically biased. That confirms the many accusations that for years, a great majority of appointed judges have been Left-leaning Liberals.

So how do we re-balance the courts? Personally, I don't think that most judges end up being "beholding" to the party that appointed them....but I think that some percentage of Liberal-leaning judges would tend to veer towards the "lower" end of sentencing while Conservative-leaning judges would do the opposite. I'd like to think that most judges would simply apply the law with reasonable compassion where warranted.

I think the Conservatives are on the right track. For repeat violent offenders, there should be mandatory minimums or at least, a "tightening" of the sentencing guidelines. That protects society's interests in "getting the bad guys off the street". The Justice System should still maintain a high level of compassion and rehabilitation options for those many others who can still turn their lives around......but lenient sentences cannot be allowed to be used as "the cost of doing business" for violent, repeat offenders.

[Wilber]

Again Harper has NO mandate to do this, it is certainly time to stand up and speak out

I think they have, that's why he is doing it.