Role of the Supreme Court of Canada

[Machjo]

How I'd voted:

1. Able to strike down laws that contravene the Constitution (though I'd replace 'able to' with must).

2. Interpret the law based on the Constitution (what's the point of a constitution otherwise?).

3. Justices are appointed (though I could consider elected Justices if someone could come up with a well-thought out elecotral system that could exploit the benefits of electing Justice (i.e. not being able to be appointed as 'favours') while still exploiting the advantages of being appointed (able to stad above politics and not be swayed by mob rule); but then the ball would be in his court to present such an electoral system).

 

[Machjo]

I should point out though that our Constitution itself is in dire need of reforms, so my comments above are based on the principle that a constitution ought to override laws, and not on a great admiration I have for the flaws in our constitution.

 

[gerryh]

Where did I say the constitution was violated?

Then...what exactley is your problem with the rulling?

 

[TenPenny]

I didn't say I had a problem with the ruling.

 

[Tonington]

Ummm, he's actually a convicted terrorist!

Your point was?

His rights weren't violated, the Gov't reserves the right to deny or remove a passport for any reason and no reason at all.

Ummm, seems to me that TenPenny's point was that the SCoC made a ruling which was in the best interests of Canada.

The meaning is clear when you take into account what he said about the usual '"activist liberal judge" complainers.'

They never mention the times when the Court rules on something they find favourable. They just bitch about the stuff they don't find favourable, and then moan about it's ineffectivness, or it;s detriment to Canadian values.

Sorry TP if I put words in your mouth that you didn't mean.

 

[CDNBear]

Isn't that what I said?

Yep, your point?

Ummm, seems to me that TenPenny's point was that the SCoC made a ruling which was in the best interests of Canada.

No they didn't, they refused to hear the case. They did not make a ruling, the lower courts did.

Nice try though.

The meaning is clear when you take into account what he said about the usual '"activist liberal judge" complainers.'

I didn't miss that either Ton. I just wasn't going to engage him on it.

They never mention the times when the Court rules on something they find favourable. They just bitch about the stuff they don't find favourable, and then moan about it's ineffectivness, or it;s detriment to Canadian values.

:roll:

Ya ya, have you ever noticed that not once in all my years of arguing about Native issues, have I ever used the Charter as supporting material? Have you ever noticed that I regularly disregard and have even commented negatively about cases headed to the SCoC, on Native issues?

I don't cherry pick Ton. My integrity stands firm.

The case that TP (Nice abbreviation btw) has put forth, should have been heard by the SCoC. Yes he is a convicted terrorist. But he has served his debt to society. As an excon, I can empathise with him. His connections to known terrorists is another matter altogether, but should not have ruled out the SCoC hearing his case.

Again, the SCoC drops the ball.

 

[FiveParadox]

How did the Supreme Court drop the ball?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is able to restrict access to passports, under regulation. It would have been inappropriate for the Court to intervene and demand that the Government give him a passport, unless there was some demonstrable evidence that the convicted terrorist’s rights had been breached by refusing to give him a passport.

 

[CDNBear]

How did the Supreme Court drop the ball?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is able to restrict access to passports, under regulation. It would have been inappropriate for the Court to intervene and demand that the Government give him a passport, unless there was some demonstrable evidence that the convicted terrorist’s rights had been breached by refusing to give him a passport.

And that would have/should have been discussed in hearing the case.

Just a question, all of a sudden the Gov't is capable of making correct decisions? If that's the case, why do we need the SCoC again? :lol: Just kidding.

Seriously though, I'm an excon, I have ties to the MWS, a group even I think is terrorist, does that mean I should be denied a passport 5P?

This should have been heard.

 

[FiveParadox]

It is a question of the discretion of the minister, it is not a constitutional question.

It would not have been the place of the Supreme Court to discuss whether the minister was correct on a question of discretion—regulations grant to the minister the discretion to deny passports, but they do not compel the minister to do so. It would seem that decisions to deny passports would be made on a case-by-case basis where there is a risk to national security for Canada or a global neighbour. There needs to be a clear question of constitutional importance for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. Whoever requested the appeal should have made clear why there was a constitutional issue involved; if they didn’t do so, or if the Supreme Court saw no relevant constitutional question, then it was completely appropriate for the appeal to have been denied.

 

[CDNBear]

It is a question of the discretion of the minister, it is not a constitutional question.

The SC does not only argue Charter cases.

It would not have been the place of the Supreme Court to discuss whether the minister was correct on a question of discretion—regulations grant to the minister the discretion to deny passports, but they do not compel the minister to do so. It would seem that decisions to deny passports would be made on a case-by-case basis where there is a risk to national security for Canada or a global neighbour.

I already stated that the Ministry has the final say, I'm well aware of it's abilities and the criteria to do so.

There needs to be a clear question of constitutional importance for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. Whoever requested the appeal should have made clear why there was a constitutional issue involved; if they didn’t do so, or if the Supreme Court saw no relevant constitutional question, then it was completely appropriate for the appeal to have been denied.

Considering in March Justice Simon Noel of the Federal Court ruled it did in fact infringe upon his Charter rights, and the Federal appeals court only set aside the ruling. Again, not clearly defining whether the Federal court erred.

The SC should have entertained the case.

 

[gerryh]

I already stated that the Ministry has the final say, I'm well aware of it's abilities and the criteria to do so.

Considering in March Justice Simon Noel of the Federal Court ruled it did in fact infringe upon his Charter rights, and the Federal appeals court only set aside the ruling. Again, not clearly defining whether the Federal court erred.

The SC should have entertained the case.

Why? You've already stated that the Ministry has the final say on Visas/passports. On what grounds would the SC entertain hearing an appeal?

 

[CDNBear]

Why? You've already stated that the Ministry has the final say on Visas/passports. On what grounds would the SC entertain hearing an appeal?

Because the Appellate Court only set aside the ruling. The Federal ruling that his Charter rights were violated was never over turned.

Funny, now all of a sudden you guys are fighting in the opposite direction. Suddenly the very same Gov't that needs to be overseen by the SC is now capable of doing their jobs well and without bias.

Isn't this the same Gov't that has left "Canadians" in other countries to be tortured?

Actually, it is, and the very same Ministry as well.

The SC did make a ruling, it refused without comment to hear the case. The Federal Appellate court overturned the Federal Courts ruling that it was in violation of Kamel' Charter rights.

Why are you guys not supporting his Charter rights now?

 

[FiveParadox]

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, because the Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision. The Appeal Court is of a higher authority than the Federal Court of Canada, and therefore (in essence) no decision stands that the convicted terrorist’s rights were violated. Also, it should be noted that the majority of my arguments have been to emphasize the role that the Supreme Court has for the striking down of legislation, which is a relationship exclusively to the legislative branch of government (and not to the executive, “the Government of Canada”).

There was nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on—the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the decision to deny a passport on the grounds of national security. There were no Charter rights to be violated. It would be another issue entirely were the convicted terrorist’s record to have been pardoned when he had requested a passport, but I don’t think that this is the case. The Supreme Court made no ruling, it simply declined to hear an appeal, as is the prerogative of the bench.

 

[gerryh]

Because the Appellate Court only set aside the ruling. The Federal ruling that his Charter rights were violated was never over turned.

Funny, now all of a sudden you guys are fighting in the opposite direction. Suddenly the very same Gov't that needs to be overseen by the SC is now capable of doing their jobs well and without bias.

Isn't this the same Gov't that has left "Canadians" in other countries to be tortured?

Actually, it is, and the very same Ministry as well.

The SC did make a ruling, it refused without comment to hear the case. The Federal Appellate court overturned the Federal Courts ruling that it was in violation of Kamel' Charter rights.

Why are you guys not supporting his Charter rights now?

Boy oh boy.......you have some strange ways of loking at things...or at least...strange ideas as to how others should be looking at things.

The apelate court overturned the original courts desission. In otherwords they found the lower court in error. The SCoC obviously saw no real problem with the apelate courts desission and therefore saw no need to hear the appeal. The Lawyers for the appelant obviously did not make a very strong case to the SCoC for an appeal, therefore the SCoC turned down the request.

Whether or not I agree with the present government in general has nothing to do with agreeing with immigration in this particular instance, or the SCoC's stance.

As for your example of the MWS and yourself. If you had been convicted of being a terrorist, as this man was, then I would say that denying you a visa would be inline with present policy. If you have not been convicted of terrorism, then I would say that whether or not you are issued a visa depends on what you WERE convicted of and if that would mean you could be a threat to Canada's or another Countries security.

 

[CDNBear]

Why the blind post Paradox?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, because the Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision. The Appeal Court is of a higher authority than the Federal Court of Canada, and therefore (in essence) no decision stands that the convicted terrorist’s rights were violated.

:roll: Ya, do you know why they set it aside? They didn't determine that the finding was in error, or that the lower court was wrong. It set the verdict aside. Do you know what that means 5P. You should...;-)

Also, it should be noted that the majority of my arguments have been to emphasize the role that the Supreme Court has for the striking down of legislation, which is a relationship exclusively to the legislative branch of government (and not to the executive, “the Government of Canada”).

:roll:, semantics now is it.

There was nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on—the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the decision to deny a passport on the grounds of national security. There were no Charter rights to be violated.

Prove it, a Federal court disagrees. Do you not agree with the fundamentals of justice? ;-)

It would be another issue entirely were the convicted terrorist’s record to have been pardoned when he had requested a passport, but I don’t think that this is the case. The Supreme Court made no ruling, it simply declined to hear an appeal, as is the prerogative of the bench.

Without cause. As is their prerogative. Hence why they should be elected, to be held accountable for their actions.

Thanx for proving my point 5P

 

[CDNBear]

Boy oh boy.......you have some strange ways of loking at things...

Not really, I look at things in a linear way. Always moving forward.

or at least...strange ideas as to how others should be looking at things.

Yes, I realise that thinking the general public should use commonsense, is way out in left field, but I'm holding out hope.

The apelate court overturned the original courts desission.

No it didn't, it set the verdict aside. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

In otherwords they found the lower court in error.

Nope.

The SCoC obviously saw no real problem with the apelate courts desission and therefore saw no need to hear the appeal. The Lawyers for the appelant obviously did not make a very strong case to the SCoC for an appeal, therefore the SCoC turned down the request.

:roll:

Whether or not I agree with the present government in general has nothing to do with agreeing with immigration in this particular instance, or the SCoC's stance.

This has nothing to do with immigration.

As for your example of the MWS and yourself. If you had been convicted of being a terrorist, as this man was, then I would say that denying you a visa would be inline with present policy. If you have not been convicted of terrorism, then I would say that whether or not you are issued a visa depends on what you WERE convicted of and if that would mean you could be a threat to Canada's or another Countries security.

I'll concede to that, but reserve the right to redress at a later date.

 

[gerryh]

No it didn't, it set the verdict aside. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

OTTAWA -- The government was justified in breaching a convicted terrorist's rights by denying him a passport, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.
The decision made public Thursday appears to bolster Passport Canada's ability to keep the valuable travel document out of the hands of people considered a national security threat.
The three-member appeal court panel unanimously decided that the decision to refuse Fateh Kamel of Montreal a passport was a justifiable violation of his constitutional rights.
The judgment sets aside an earlier court decision that effectively struck down a rule allowing the foreign affairs minister to deny or revoke a passport on national security grounds.


CTV.ca | Court restores rule that denied passport to terrorist


Much like incarceration for illegal activity is a justifiable violation of ones constitutional rights.

 

[CDNBear]

Much like incarceration for illegal activity is a justifiable violation of ones constitutional rights.

So why is it you accept this violation of his Charter rights?

 

[gerryh]

So why is it you accept this violation of his Charter rights?

The man's a convicted terrorist.

 

[FiveParadox]

The denial of some rights and freedoms to convicts is saved by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.