Okay, I get the reasons we have protection in The Charter, so we aren't trampled by police and state...yada yada. What I don't get is why CONVICTED criminals get the same protection. Shouldn't one of the consequences of committing crimes be you don't get the same protection as those who obey the country's laws? Recently the Supreme Court decided a guy on probation didn't have to submit to mandatory drug testing. Huh? Given a lot of crime is caused by problems directly related to drug use shouldn't a requirement of staying clean kind of be a help to this guy? We've even had people who have committed vicious assaults be released on condition they not use drugs, get caught violating the condition and are allowed to stay free. Why bother having laws if there is no intent to enforce them on people already convicted?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Sorry to say but the defacto situation is that the criminals have what amounts to more rights because of the excessive bureaucracy built into the system and again the utter lack of self-responsibility. Take as an example the case of Kirk Steele. Here's an asshole with a lengthy criminal history who was wanted by the cops. Knowing he had a violent past the EPS decided to use one of their K9's (dog named Wizard) in his apprehension. Instead of submitting to the cops and going away peacefully Steele decides to resist and in doing so repeatedly stabs Wizard. In response the cops shoot Steele as a last resort in order to stop the assault on the dog and bring him into custody. Afterwards this asshole bitch of a mother was all over the news about how the police shouldn't have shot her angelic son and he wasn't doing anything wrong. FUCK OFF woman, maybe if you raised a law abiding member of society instead of a career criminal I'd be more inclined to listen to your bullshit.Cock Throppled said:
Beautiful isn't it.....the inmates are running the asylumCock Throppled said:
So pound pound pound on your door and its a guy in a cop uniform, he beats u to a pulp until u confess to a rape near by. thats what would happen without the bill of rights. It protects u an me from the cops, cuz cops are pigs.they are interested in justice like u and i. Just punishment, it doesn't matter if u are innocent or quilty, And I say u cuz it would never happen to me.We need new cops ones to protect us fr the regular cops.
say it twice for effectjjinvan said:
... let's play along - guess it would be those Liberal governments, elected by the populace, that would be responsible for your described usage of "liberal appointed judges". Let's take the most visible grouping of judges - the Supreme Court... of the current 9 members, 1 was appointed by Mulroney, 1 was appointed by Harper, 5 were appointed by Chretien and 2 were appointed by Martin. Appointments that simply reflect on the standing governments of the day. Now... if you aren't comfortable with the fact Canadians have principally voted for the Liberals from 1993 to Feb/2006, that's a different subject.
By the by... didja see that 32/32 poll yesterday?
Supreme Court jurisdiction, (also) obviouslyjjinvan said:
, wasn't a part of my retort... just an example in regards your liberal use of the "liberal appointed" slam Mulroney vs. Martin appointees... you mean in my Supreme Court example??? well, isn't that based on vacancies, at the time? Harper's been in a few months... he's already appointed his first Supreme Court judge... cause there was a vacancy. Whatca talkin bout, Willis?
If you are "blaming the voters for electing a government which has been (mostly) soft on crime for decades"... that doesn't exactly come across when you (twice) use the "liberal appointed judges" tag.
I believe our judges should be elected. Would it not make them more accountable for the decisions they make. If they are constantly being soft or allowing early release to someone who reoffends, why would they be re-elected. They are only human, but if a human does not learn from their mistakes, why would we support them.jjinvan said:
Just my two-bits.
Mary Southin, for the last several years BC's most hardass judge, was forced to retire on reaching the age limit last week. In her retirement interview, she said she thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the Charter, as it prevented criminal trials getting to the truth, and extended the length of major trials by 50X.
She admitted, though, that getting rid of the Charter was never going to happen.
She admitted, though, that getting rid of the Charter was never going to happen.
Certain rights are fundamental....whether you're the Prime Minister, or the "lowly criminal" in Block D. Democracy respects the basic rights of all, regardless of their standing in society. To do otherwise invites a dangerous set of possibilities.
I agree with you Cock Throppled. Convicted criminals should not get the same protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Serious convicted criminals should not be protected by the Charter of Rights and FreedomCock Throppled said:
. Probation is too easy in Canada for all criminalsDon't agree, there are rules for the treatment of prisonors of war, why not prisnors in Canada our own should get the same rights. If any of you guys heard that one of Canada's soldiers weren't being treated right in Afganistan ,u 'd be all up in Arms, we are viewed as criminals by the Talaban the same way we view them.My 2 centshornyitalian06 said:I agree with you Cock Throppled. Convicted criminals should not get the same protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedom. Serious convicted criminals should not be protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedom
Right-wing governments cut taxes which mainly benefit the wealthy rather than the middle class who would do more with the funds; and certainly the lower income earners get next to no benefit. Along with this they cut into essential programs as well, such as eduction and health care, forgetting entirely that an educated and healthy society is a productive, world-competitive and prosperous society, benefitting everyone in that society. Also unfortunately they cannot do math so well, with the cuts in programs (they still need those stupid-enough middle class votes) not being able to keep pace with the tax cuts; large deficits and national debt are the result - witness the USA, even before the recent wars, and with the wars, the terrorists have already won by destroying the USA fiscally.jjinvan said:
Left-wing governments tend to focus on social welfare (which includes education and health) with some emphasis on the hard pressed (not all of these are deadbeats), but also are bad at math and forget that the funds (even through tax increases) have to match the expenditures and therefore often run fiscal deficits and build national debt.
A middle-ideology government assesses the actual needs of society's long-term well-being, addresses funding the essential elements without sliding into wasteful excesses and taxes the populace appropriately to pay for the rendered services. We haven't seen much of this type of government.
In Canda, the most unbalanced government were Mulroney's terms (ran the deficit and national debt astronomically, even more than Trudeau). Like or not, Chretien's terms brought balanced budgets, surpluses which significantly reduced the national debt (to the envy of the G8 countries), achieved by raising taxes and by cutting provincial transfers which negatively affected education and health care in Canada. Once the debt was reduced to a manageable level, personal income taxes were reduced and government transfers were increased as the productive Canadian economy was able to sustain both, this in spite of other wasteful spending and, of course, the infamous adscam scandal. Still the effects of his policies remain in health care and education, the standards of both are diminished from previous effectiveness - this due to continuing short-sighted underfunding.
Short-term views in the absence of long-term goals are disasters in the making. The "quarterly bottom line" business earnings mentality has hampered North America's economy in many ways, playing into the hands of other world economies, and the "next election" mentality has nearly crippled Canada's core societal well-being.
Ah, I could go on, but my rant ends here for now...
If you think you don't need a Charter because all cops are trustworthy...
Check out the Kerembetsos case in Kenora:cops framed a guy for a murder comitted by a relative of one of their own.
Most cops are very honourable, but the bad ones are such a danger that there has to be protections against them.
Check out the Kerembetsos case in Kenora:cops framed a guy for a murder comitted by a relative of one of their own.
Most cops are very honourable, but the bad ones are such a danger that there has to be protections against them.
Umm, so is the far right wing. In fact, extremists of all varieties live in fantasy worlds of make believe.jjinvan said:
U are so far off base, we complain that our prisoners arn't being treated fairly but say its Ok to treat our's unfairly, not once did I say what was going on over there was right. What I'm saying is everyone should be treated fairly, everyone should be treated the same .Its u right wing Nazi's that are living in a fantasy world u still thing Bush is a good guy, .jjinvan said:
I can't agree with some of the comments - the Charter protects everyone but many of the key provisions only come into play when you are charged with a crime. It acts to protect the accused in the sense that certain basic Charter rights exist for everyone who is in a position where a government is seeking to infringe your liberty, and such persons are entitled to be treated fairly and equally with others in the same position. Those same protections exist whether that accused is you or me.
Many people who say that victim's rights are not protected are not talking about Charter rights. There may be other rights for victims but they are not set out in the Charter. Maybe they should be but that is another issue. I guess first of all someone needs to define what victim's rights are.
Please also don't confuse the rights of an accused with the rights of a person found guilty.
Many people who say that victim's rights are not protected are not talking about Charter rights. There may be other rights for victims but they are not set out in the Charter. Maybe they should be but that is another issue. I guess first of all someone needs to define what victim's rights are.
Please also don't confuse the rights of an accused with the rights of a person found guilty.
My original point wasn't that any ACCUSED should have equal rights - it's whether EVERY protection in the Charter should be extended to those CONVICTED. Basic rights, yeah, but EVERY right a law abiding citizen gets I don't think should apply.pokemon said:
Unfortunately CT, unless these rights apply to all, no one has these rights. The cost of freedom is the sad little fact that some people abuse those freedoms. I wouldn't want it any other way. If you really don't like it here, I'm sure there are a few Theocracies in the middle east where you may find a philosophy more to your liking.Cock Throppled said:
It only takes one, to really fuck your whole year. Unfortunately, the rest get tarred with the same brush.Avarice said:
