Insite Given Exemption By SCoC

[SLM]

More importantly...

The Court is committed to:

• the rule of law;
• independence and impartiality; and
• access to justice.

And of course...

The Court's Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of Canada is Canada's final court of appeal, the last judicial resort for all litigants, whether individuals or governments. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other provinces and territories.

Yeah, Yeah,Yeah.... the link is there.

... the federal government's decision to close insite and stop handing out free dope to criminals was a good decision that was hijacked and unfairly trounced by the canadian bar ...

... dealing heroin to addicts does not advance the cause of justice, it perverts it ...

I happen to disagree. However, that's not the point. You can not like the SCoC's decision, that is your right. However, to state that they don't have the authority is wrong.

 

[wizard]

You can not like the SCoC's decision, that is your right. However, to state that they don't have the authority is wrong.

... the supreme court of canada overstepped it's authority by rendering a decision where it did not have the authority. mistakes do get made in the courts. that was a mistake. a big one. in fact, the case should have been thrown out at the lower level in the supreme court of british columbia ...

... and here's why the supreme court of canada didn't have the authority and jurisdiction to rule on the matter: the supreme court of canada, like every other court in the country, simply DOES NOT have the legal authority to order the federal government to underwrite and subsidize criminal activity that is contrary to the CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE such as the unlawful distribution of illegal narcotics as is taking place at insite ...

 

[SLM]

Well, I can see reason is not going to work.

 

[Goober]

... the supreme court of canada overstepped it's authority by rendering a decision where it did not have the authority. mistakes do get made in the courts. that was a mistake. a big one. in fact, the case should have been thrown out at the lower level in the supreme court of british columbia ...

... and here's why the supreme court of canada didn't have the authority and jurisdiction to rule on the matter: the supreme court of canada, like every other court in the country, simply DOES NOT have the legal authority to order the federal government to underwrite and subsidize criminal activity that is contrary to the CANADIAN CRIMINAL CODE such as the unlawful distribution of illegal narcotics as is taking place at insite ...

Then you would prefer to live in a country where the courts march in lockstep with Govt Policy. Also read the ruling.

 

[wizard]

Then you would prefer to live in a country where the courts march in lockstep with Govt Policy.

... i'd like to live in a country where the courts uphold and enforce the criminal code of canada, not violate it. is that too much to ask? apparently so ...

 

[Goober]

... i'd like to live in a country where the courts uphold and enforce the criminal code of canada, not violate it. is that too much to ask? apparently so ...

Never mind the word dancing, you are not up to it. You only have the choice I offered or live in Canada where the SCOC can overturn Laws.

Pick one.

 

[CDNBear]

... i'd like to live in a country where the courts uphold and enforce the criminal code of canada, not violate it. is that too much to ask? apparently so ...

The criminal code is not above the law either.

It can not trump the Charter.

Which of course is why I chose abortion as my primary example.

 

[gerryh]

The criminal code is not above the law either.

It can not trump the Charter.

Which of course is why I chose abortion as my primary example.

Abortion? Did someone say abortion? The legal murder of innocent children? Legalized infanticide?

 

[wizard]

... here are some other reasons why this supreme court of canada insite ruling is completely whacko:

-- the judgment is discriminatory to the point of absurdity. instead of applying to the entire country, the judgment only allows for free dope for vancouver druggies, not for all the druggies in all the other regions of the country. totally unfair to all the other dope fiends in canada. it's hard to believe that a court judgment could be so insanely unfair.

-- the judgment also discriminates against the addicts of all the many drugs other than heroin. what about the alcoholics??? what about the potheads??? what about the methheads??? what about the crackheads??? what about the sex addicts even??? shouldn't they be entitled to a free supply of their drug of choice as well? of course they should. what makes a vancouver heroin addict so damn important to the supreme court of canada that they should get free dope to the exclusion of all other addicts?

... if the heroin addicts deserve free dope then the alcoholics deserve free beer and the sex addicts deserve free women (or men as the case may be)!!!