A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
August 28th, 2007, 01:24 PM
But that is a lot of hand waving on my part.
Quoting Tonington
Other than the non-violent crimes, there isn't even a blip in the curve. Its pretty freakin' smooth, given its statistical nature. The non-violent crime blip is probably driven by the elimination of criminalizing homosexuality and subsequently terminating enforcement of the sodomy laws and related offences. The increase following that probably came about as police officers were relocated and slowly got used to policing other things until reaching saturation.
Even with the drop in 1982, I don't see anything which could possibly be inferred from those stats, in relation to the Charter being a detriment to the Canadian Justice system.
But that is a lot of hand waving on my part.
on dbl secret probation
Posts: 191
Location: Chillliwack, BC
Location: Chillliwack, BC
August 28th, 2007, 01:35 PM
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. It has divested control of the Canadian people to a bunch of moral mediocrities on the Appelate and Supreme Courts. When passed it was hoped that we could avoid the American disease of constitutional gridlock. Our situation is in fact much worse now than the American, in part because of the gutlessness of our Parliamentarians in failing to invoke the Not Withstanding Clause.. in part because the Canadian system has no natural system of checks and balances to rein in a power drunk and unaccountable judiciary . All the deformations of marriage, the devaluation of human life, the fragmentation of our society in competing special interest groups can be layed at foot of the Charter of Rights, and an increasingly apathetic Canadian public, in thrall of the disintegration of radical relativism.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. It has divested control of the Canadian people to a bunch of moral mediocrities on the Appelate and Supreme Courts. When passed it was hoped that we could avoid the American disease of constitutional gridlock. Our situation is in fact much worse now than the American, in part because of the gutlessness of our Parliamentarians in failing to invoke the Not Withstanding Clause.. in part because the Canadian system has no natural system of checks and balances to rein in a power drunk and unaccountable judiciary . All the deformations of marriage, the devaluation of human life, the fragmentation of our society in competing special interest groups can be layed at foot of the Charter of Rights, and an increasingly apathetic Canadian public, in thrall of the disintegration of radical relativism.
August 28th, 2007, 01:56 PM
What tripe. How is our situation worse than in America, and what possible relevance does that have considering the fundamental differences in the scope of our respective justice systems?
It is always up to the courts to interpret any documents issued by government decree. The fact that there are those who wish to keep institutions safeguarded using their petty moral superiorities highlights the need for a document which ensures that cannot happen.
Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter. Wrongful convictions are more detrimental to the credibilty of a justice system than overturned evidence. In the latter case, perhaps more cops are needed, I know that the police forces across the country are having recruitment problems. Most rights were already granted under the Canadian Bill of Rights, however that document was only an ordinary Act of Parliament, and could be amended by Parliamentary majority. So whenever you all start bytching and moaning about how immigrants will ruin the country, know this: The Charter is impervious to tampering, such as Sharia Law for example, a favourite amongst the crowd deriding the Charter.
What tripe. How is our situation worse than in America, and what possible relevance does that have considering the fundamental differences in the scope of our respective justice systems?
It is always up to the courts to interpret any documents issued by government decree. The fact that there are those who wish to keep institutions safeguarded using their petty moral superiorities highlights the need for a document which ensures that cannot happen.
Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter. Wrongful convictions are more detrimental to the credibilty of a justice system than overturned evidence. In the latter case, perhaps more cops are needed, I know that the police forces across the country are having recruitment problems. Most rights were already granted under the Canadian Bill of Rights, however that document was only an ordinary Act of Parliament, and could be amended by Parliamentary majority. So whenever you all start bytching and moaning about how immigrants will ruin the country, know this: The Charter is impervious to tampering, such as Sharia Law for example, a favourite amongst the crowd deriding the Charter.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
August 28th, 2007, 02:15 PM
Tonington: " Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter."
What? And Chief Justice Bev McLachlin is wrong? She has said on several occasions in the last year that our justice system has broken down, the middle class has been excluded from its access. That's clear. And the blame is always linked to constitutional and charter delays and horseplay.
Tonington: " Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter."
What? And Chief Justice Bev McLachlin is wrong? She has said on several occasions in the last year that our justice system has broken down, the middle class has been excluded from its access. That's clear. And the blame is always linked to constitutional and charter delays and horseplay.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
August 28th, 2007, 02:19 PM
I wish I could link news articles saved from years and years past. I'm not about to pay a surcharge to the Star or Globe for access to their archives to nail articles I have at source here. It's plain as day if you scrapbook like I do that crime, with the usual dips and swings, has increased noticeably from the '60's. I thought everyone knew that.
I wish I could link news articles saved from years and years past. I'm not about to pay a surcharge to the Star or Globe for access to their archives to nail articles I have at source here. It's plain as day if you scrapbook like I do that crime, with the usual dips and swings, has increased noticeably from the '60's. I thought everyone knew that.
August 28th, 2007, 02:31 PM
The Law enforcement community deserves an equal share of the blame. If there are no Charter violations, there is very little time needed to devote to constitutional challenges. Proper police work minimizes court challenges.
Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin? Popular press will never be able to keep records like those charged with doing so. To even compare those statistics to national coverage by government agencies is ridiculous. Not to mention a source of confirmation bias.
The Law enforcement community deserves an equal share of the blame. If there are no Charter violations, there is very little time needed to devote to constitutional challenges. Proper police work minimizes court challenges.
Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin? Popular press will never be able to keep records like those charged with doing so. To even compare those statistics to national coverage by government agencies is ridiculous. Not to mention a source of confirmation bias.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,154
August 28th, 2007, 02:40 PM
"Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin?"
Interesting! A local paper did just that a few years ago. It stopped doing it probably under political pressure or the inception of some new procedural hoops on the part of the local courts. What was clear when reading the paper's log of charges was that most were being dismissed. And often for the flimsiest of reasons. Case after case was moving into court and quickly dropped.
Had the locals talking!
"Just a thought, but do the papers report every single crime Tamarin?"
Interesting! A local paper did just that a few years ago. It stopped doing it probably under political pressure or the inception of some new procedural hoops on the part of the local courts. What was clear when reading the paper's log of charges was that most were being dismissed. And often for the flimsiest of reasons. Case after case was moving into court and quickly dropped.
Had the locals talking!
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
August 28th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Quoting tamarin
The Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin is not wrong, our courts have problems - but they are access problems, not charter problems. It is merely too expensive for a person to properly represent themself.
Tonington: " Regardless of what the media frenzy might say, the integrity of our justice system is strengthened by the Charter."
What? And Chief Justice Bev McLachlin is wrong? She has said on several occasions in the last year that our justice system has broken down, the middle class has been excluded from its access. That's clear. And the blame is always linked to constitutional and charter delays and horseplay.
What? And Chief Justice Bev McLachlin is wrong? She has said on several occasions in the last year that our justice system has broken down, the middle class has been excluded from its access. That's clear. And the blame is always linked to constitutional and charter delays and horseplay.
on dbl secret probation
Posts: 191
Location: Chillliwack, BC
Location: Chillliwack, BC
August 29th, 2007, 12:16 PM
A Charter of Rights is an anathema to a Parliamentary System. By definition Parliaments represent sovereign priviledge of representative government whose oversight is by the electorate alone. The American system of competing branches of government was very much a product of the 18th Century Enlightenment, which had developed a profound suspicion of all institutional government, and sought to balance what Lord Acton described as 'absolute power corrupting, absolutely' by developing and encouraging competing interests to keep everything in check. It has never worked smoothly. What the Charter has produced is a cloistered judicial priesthood, who now represent the worst of materialistic and relativistic modernism, who wield immense power to undo social and moral conventions. The latter are the essential framework to our culture, and have now been torn asunder by the sophistry of the intellectual lightweights that infest our judicial and political system to its highest levels. Everything is at stake here, not the least of which the economic welfare of our country, which will crumble with the disintegration of a cohesive culture.
A Charter of Rights is an anathema to a Parliamentary System. By definition Parliaments represent sovereign priviledge of representative government whose oversight is by the electorate alone. The American system of competing branches of government was very much a product of the 18th Century Enlightenment, which had developed a profound suspicion of all institutional government, and sought to balance what Lord Acton described as 'absolute power corrupting, absolutely' by developing and encouraging competing interests to keep everything in check. It has never worked smoothly. What the Charter has produced is a cloistered judicial priesthood, who now represent the worst of materialistic and relativistic modernism, who wield immense power to undo social and moral conventions. The latter are the essential framework to our culture, and have now been torn asunder by the sophistry of the intellectual lightweights that infest our judicial and political system to its highest levels. Everything is at stake here, not the least of which the economic welfare of our country, which will crumble with the disintegration of a cohesive culture.
August 29th, 2007, 05:14 PM
That's some strong opinion on what the future holds. The current system is certainly better than it was. Perhaps you prefer a return to the constitutional system we had in the 1950's?
How far back must we go for recognized 'cohesive culture'. From my experience in this country, there really is no such thing. The stories my grandparents tell describe to me an earlier Canada where again there were regional cultural differences.
My culture isn't threatened, though I derive less culture from Christmas ornaments and painted windows on businesses and government offices than it would seem many other Canadians do.
That's some strong opinion on what the future holds. The current system is certainly better than it was. Perhaps you prefer a return to the constitutional system we had in the 1950's?
How far back must we go for recognized 'cohesive culture'. From my experience in this country, there really is no such thing. The stories my grandparents tell describe to me an earlier Canada where again there were regional cultural differences.
My culture isn't threatened, though I derive less culture from Christmas ornaments and painted windows on businesses and government offices than it would seem many other Canadians do.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 519
August 29th, 2007, 05:32 PM
Corporate interference with government policy has done more to derail effective representational government in Canada than anything else, something the Charter has acted to limit. Canadians would have even less control over our government without the Charter, anyone who advocates for its destruction isn't arguing for more effective government, they're boosters for the same special interests who slip $millions$ into politicians pockets come election time and give them a wish list of what they want, even if it goes against the common good.
We need more protection from the sort of special interests control the Charter has helped to moderate.
Quoting coldstream
The Parliment is the political manifestation of the will of the Canadian people, the Charter limits the rights of the Parliment to enact laws which infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, how is that anathema.
A Charter of Rights is an anathema to a Parliamentary System. By definition Parliaments represent sovereign priviledge of representative government whose oversight is by the electorate alone. The American system of competing branches of government was very much a product of the 18th Century Enlightenment, which had developed a profound suspicion of all institutional government, and sought to balance what Lord Acton described as 'absolute power corrupting, absolutely' by developing and encouraging competing interests to keep everything in check. It has never worked smoothly. What the Charter has produced is a cloistered judicial priesthood, who now represent the worst of materialistic and relativistic modernism, who wield immense power to undo social and moral conventions. The latter are the essential framework to our culture, and have now been torn asunder by the sophistry of the intellectual lightweights that infest our judicial system to its highest levels. Everything is at stake here, not the least of which the economic welfare of our country, which will crumble with the disintegration of a cohesive culture.
Corporate interference with government policy has done more to derail effective representational government in Canada than anything else, something the Charter has acted to limit. Canadians would have even less control over our government without the Charter, anyone who advocates for its destruction isn't arguing for more effective government, they're boosters for the same special interests who slip $millions$ into politicians pockets come election time and give them a wish list of what they want, even if it goes against the common good.
We need more protection from the sort of special interests control the Charter has helped to moderate.
