Life on death row, kind of a cake walk.

[taxslave]

Isn't that the truth. Though, I must admit, here in Canada we don't seem to get as carried away as they do in the US where murder trials, especially, tend to become three ring circus with one attorney trying to outdo the other to the benefit of none.



Yep, a complete revamping of the system is definitely in order, though as we 'speak' there are hundreds of lawyers out there doing their level best to make things as complicated as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There in lays much of the problem. The lawyers are the only ones permitted to speak in court without swearing to tell the truth. That is assuming they know what the truth is or even care.


I don't think 'fairly and consistenly' are words that lawyers are familiar with, CB. But, we can always hope. Ever read, "Kill All The Lawyers" by William Deverell???

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yeah, right. If you took a hundred CAnadians at random and asked them off the top of their heads to list five things in the Charter, how many would be able to? Two, three, four? Now if some body with some gumption, savvy and sagacity would print off a few thosand copies and mail them out with a stamped envelope and questionaire I think we'd have a much truer picture of how many people think the Charter is "just fine the way it is".

I know you don’t believe in statistics JLM, but scientifically conduced, random sample polls are very good, very accurate in giving us a snapshot in time as to what people are thinking. And people consistently tell the pollsters that they like the Charter.

Now, how much the average citizen knows about the Charter is a separate issue. But I assume average citizen probably is aware that Charter guarantees our fundamental rights and freedom (without actually knowing what they are) and that is good enough.

 

[countryboy]

Sure the Charter can be amended, just that it is virtually impossible to do so. And this is not a shortcoming of the Charter, this is its strength.

Human rights, fundamental rights are an integral part of the constitution and must not be subject to the whims of the majority. If the Charter could be amended by say a 50%+1 referendum, then it won’t be democracy any more, it will be the tyranny of the majority. I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country where fundamental rights such as right to free speech, right to vote, right to life, right to freedom of worship etc. can be restricted or taken away completely by a 50%+1 Majority in a referendum.

The Charter, the constitution must be very difficult to amend, as it is in USA and in Canada. That is the strength of the constitution, that it gives a framework of human rights, against which any law is judged, it gives the unvarying, consistent framework from generation to generation.

Each generation seems to think it is smarter, more aware, and certainly more progressive than the one before it. If that's true, then who's to say that "we" did it perfectly? What you are saying conflicts - to some degree - with much of what you mentoned in a different thread about "days gone by."

An interesting point to ponder, wouldn't you agree?

 

[countryboy]

I know you don’t believe in statistics JLM, but scientifically conduced, random sample polls are very good, very accurate in giving us a snapshot in time as to what people are thinking. And people consistently tell the pollsters that they like the Charter.

Now, how much the average citizen knows about the Charter is a separate issue. But I assume average citizen probably is aware that Charter guarantees our fundamental rights and freedom (without actually knowing what they are) and that is good enough.

I could take that as meaning, "I like it, but I'm just not sure what it is." I think the two issues are related.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Each generation seems to think it is smarter, more aware, and certainly more progressive than the one before it. If that's true, then who's to say that "we" did it perfectly? What you are saying conflicts - to some degree - with much of what you mentoned in a different thread about "days gone by."

An interesting point to ponder, wouldn't you agree?

I never said we did it perfectly, countryboy. What I said is that Charter is the best document of its kind anywhere in the world. Same as Bill of Rights, it was the best that could be done in the 80s.

No doubt as decades go by, the flaws in the Charter will become apparent (as they did in the Bill of Rights). And no doubt there will be amendments to the Charter in the future. But these amendments will be few and far between (same as amendments to American constitution).

 

[Francis2004]

Sure the Charter can be amended, just that it is virtually impossible to do so. And this is not a shortcoming of the Charter, this is its strength.

Human rights, fundamental rights are an integral part of the constitution and must not be subject to the whims of the majority. If the Charter could be amended by say a 50%+1 referendum, then it won’t be democracy any more, it will be the tyranny of the majority. I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country where fundamental rights such as right to free speech, right to vote, right to life, right to freedom of worship etc. can be restricted or taken away completely by a 50%+1 Majority in a referendum.

The Charter, the constitution must be very difficult to amend, as it is in USA and in Canada. That is the strength of the constitution, that it gives a framework of human rights, against which any law is judged, it gives the unvarying, consistent framework from generation to generation.

SJP, Sure I can agree the Charter would be hard to amend.. But my question at this time would be why ?

Canada's Charter

But my point has been there has been no reason to even come close to re-open to charter yet..

No one has made a valid reason to re-open negotiations to alter the charter.. Lawyers have been attacking the charter for 30 years and have not been able to put a crack into it that would warrant Government to worry about looking at possibility of an amendment..

 

[JLM]

SJP, Sure I can agree the Charter would be hard to amend.. But my question at this time would be why ?

Canada's Charter

But my point has been there has been no reason to even come close to re-open to charter yet..

No one has made a valid reason to re-open negotiations to alter the charter.. Lawyers have been attacking the charter for 30 years and have not been able to put a crack into it that would warrant Government to worry about looking at possibility of an amendment..

Because the system is f*****d up. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Francis2004]

Because the system is f*****d up. :lol::lol::lol:

Don't kid yourself JLM..

If ANY Lawyer could take on that Charter and win ( right or left wing lawyer ) he would only for making a name for himself.. A precedent like that is a once in a lifetime for these guys.. All live for that chance to be the first to crack that Charter..

 

[JLM]

Don't kid yourself JLM..

If ANY Lawyer could take on that Charter and win ( right or left wing lawyer ) he would only for making a name for himself.. A precedent like that is a once in a lifetime for these guys.. All live for that chance to be the first to crack that Charter..

Lawyers don't have enough credibility for that chore- it will take the common man on the street (and many of them).

 

[countryboy]

Lawyers don't have enough credibility for that chore- it will take the common man on the street (and many of them).

Don't forget the women...they can help too!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP, Sure I can agree the Charter would be hard to amend.. But my question at this time would be why ?

Canada's Charter

But my point has been there has been no reason to even come close to re-open to charter yet..

No one has made a valid reason to re-open negotiations to alter the charter.. Lawyers have been attacking the charter for 30 years and have not been able to put a crack into it that would warrant Government to worry about looking at possibility of an amendment..

Quite so, Francis. The only reason I can see for opening up the Charter is if there is some kind of an emergency, e.g. if a rogue Supreme Court declares that ban on pedophilia violates the constitution. Or say, we have a 9/11 type attack on Canada, but the terrorists survive and Supreme courts set them free (after they have killed 3000 Canadians) citing some provision in the Charter.

But barring such extreme cases, I see no reason to reopen the Charter.

 

[JLM]

Don't forget the women...they can help too!

Sorry about that CB- when I say "man" I often mean "mankind". :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Because the system is f*****d up. :lol::lol::lol:

You don't like the Charter. That doesn't mean that the system is f*****d up.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Lawyers don't have enough credibility for that chore- it will take the common man on the street (and many of them).

But that is just the problem. Common man in the street likes the Charter. He is not about to rise in revolt against the Charter.

 

[JLM]

You don't like the Charter. That doesn't mean that the system is f*****d up.

I guess by the sounds of things I don't like the charter- I don't like any document that gives more rights to felons and layabouts than it gives to workers and elderly people in dire circumstances. Do you ever watch the news and take note of these senior's care homes compared to the resorts where the felons are housed?

 

[countryboy]

I guess by the sounds of things I don't like the charter- I don't like any document that gives more rights to felons and layabouts than it gives to workers and elderly people in dire circumstances. Do you ever watch the news and take note of these senior's care homes compared to the resorts where the felons are housed?

Yep, and that's my bitch about the whole 'system' too! Kind of an imbalance between 'mankind' and 'manunkind'...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I guess by the sounds of things I don't like the charter- I don't like any document that gives more rights to felons and layabouts than it gives to workers and elderly people in dire circumstances. Do you ever watch the news and take note of these senior's care homes compared to the resorts where the felons are housed?

And just where does it say in the Charter that felons must be housed in resorts (even assuming what you say is true, which I don’t for a minute)?

All Charter says is that criminals cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. That rules out things like torture, death penalty etc. Where does it say that they must be housed in resorts?

 

[Francis2004]

I guess by the sounds of things I don't like the charter- I don't like any document that gives more rights to felons and layabouts than it gives to workers and elderly people in dire circumstances. Do you ever watch the news and take note of these senior's care homes compared to the resorts where the felons are housed?

Charter does not decide that felons are treated better then seniors.. Parliament decides that..

 

[countryboy]

And just where does it say in the Charter that felons must be housed in resorts (even assuming what you say is true, which I don’t for a minute)?

All Charter says is that criminals cannot be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. That rules out things like torture, death penalty etc. Where does it say that they must be housed in resorts?

I think it's an "interpretation" of point no. 12, under Legal Rights in the Charter:

"Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

"cruel and unusual treatment" is a matter of opinion, or many different opinions, I'm sure...

 

[EagleSmack]

"So Charter is hardly a whacky, bizarre document as you seem to think."

Now where in the heck did I say that? I wouldn't use words like that to describe something so important, and I'm quite surprised that YOU did! Tsk, tsk, a little respect, please...

You didn't. He tends to lie when he is wrong about things...which is often