The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the worst document
- Thread starter Lithp
- Start date
And if that was the topic, I would say I agree that more coverage of role models is needed.
But I'd still say we're much better off with the charter.
Nope, I don't care what you think and you don't care what I think and I'm fine with that...bye
No it didn't work. My grandfather hated that if he was caught voicing his support for the wrong party he might just get canned. My aunt didn't like that she got fired from her secretary job because she wouldn't date her boss.
Old Canada didn't work. Thats why our crime rates were higher and rates of assault were through the roof.
Go to stats canada and look for yourself.
I'm not interested in that. I'm just glad that she has the opportunity to play. Years ago, THERE WERE NO GIRLS PLAYING ORGANIZED HOCKEY. And since you ascribe all changes in our society to the Charter, then I must extend the logic and therefore the only reason that girls are allowed to play minor hockey is the Charter.
Hey, you're the one that decided all societal changes are due to the Charter.
The only problem with the charter is its exclusion of a guiding principal under which "Reasonable limitation in a free and democratic society" (I am paraphrasing from memory) is demonstrably justified. If they had defined that to begin with, there would be no charter challenges. The Government would demonstrate the legitimacy of their authority and that would be the end of it. As it stands now, section 1 is needlessly vague and basically dealt with on an ad hoc basis. It is my personal opinion that section 1 basically makes the rest of the charter garbage for what it excludes, if they put in a proper guiding principal on the other hand, we would all be happy. No court challenges, precisely defined authority into personal lives.
Cobalt, you're a piece of work. No more links for you. And put me on your ignore list. Now.
Zzarchov: " Old Canada didn't work. Thats why our crime rates were higher and rates of assault were through the roof."
Prove it. Give your Stats Can reference. Crime rate coverage today deliberately leaves out the sixties because that wouldn't gel with cherished preconceptions.
Changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act now penalize police for trying to move youth through the traditional system. Much complained about by the police, officials now use tampered numbers to release various area crime profiles.
And Stats Can as usual is operating with its pants down, no longer including drug charge numbers as part of their crime stats reports. Anything to please politicians who want lower numbers. It's akin to telling weather reporters that they can't release a forecast that includes readings for temperature.
Zzarchov: " Old Canada didn't work. Thats why our crime rates were higher and rates of assault were through the roof."
Prove it. Give your Stats Can reference. Crime rate coverage today deliberately leaves out the sixties because that wouldn't gel with cherished preconceptions.
Changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act now penalize police for trying to move youth through the traditional system. Much complained about by the police, officials now use tampered numbers to release various area crime profiles.
And Stats Can as usual is operating with its pants down, no longer including drug charge numbers as part of their crime stats reports. Anything to please politicians who want lower numbers. It's akin to telling weather reporters that they can't release a forecast that includes readings for temperature.
I read you're article but I fail to see what it provokes.
Yes, law is basic right for all.
It should not be so costly.
Lawyers are public utility, period.
Yes, law is basic right for all.
It should not be so costly.
Lawyers are public utility, period.
Excuse me?
Now you demand I do work for you? Ok, sure thing. First things first, you started this string of claims, lets see your proof on crime rates.
Come on, go to Stats Can and proof all these points you are making, when we get around to my turn after all that,
I'll some free work for you, so that you don't have to think on your own. Old Canada was broken, that is why it changed, it encouraged abuse of power and massive amounts of crimes by simply not labelling them as crimes, something you then go on to decry.
So come on, you think NOW its the posters job to do research for everyone else. Put up or shut up, lets see these statistics from stats can that back your claims.
We all are eagerly waiting.
Excuse me!
Hey, it's quite a chase. Stats Can admits - and thank goodness, they do - that crime stats collection has changed over the years especially as to youth crime. Straight line comparisons can be very misleading. So I'm looking for allied sources. Here's a troubling one:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2804
But I'm still in search of a 60's comparison. I know that crime has skyrocketed since then.
Hey, it's quite a chase. Stats Can admits - and thank goodness, they do - that crime stats collection has changed over the years especially as to youth crime. Straight line comparisons can be very misleading. So I'm looking for allied sources. Here's a troubling one:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2804
But I'm still in search of a 60's comparison. I know that crime has skyrocketed since then.
Stats Canada taken to task on crime stats collection methodology:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...24/crime_rate_070724/20070724?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...24/crime_rate_070724/20070724?hub=CTVNewsAt11
The going is tough but finally a piece of ore! A reading for one province but I'm sure it provides a snapshot for the nation: http://ww4.ps-sp.gc.ca/en/library/publications/general/safe_comm/sc_parta.html
My goodness! Rates were lower, much lower then!
My goodness! Rates were lower, much lower then!
Bad links, mate.
Lies. From the page:
They got our numbers right, but a quick look at Bureau of Justice Statistics, shows that the violent crime rate is stagnating at 2000 crimes per 100,000 people.
That is not a critique of statistical methods. In fact it is nearly journalistic dishonesty, if you read the Statcan report you will see that trafficking rates fell at the same rate as the overall crime excluding trafficking. Since most people think of drug laws as ridiculously antiquated, they exclude them to keep people off of high horses. Including them would have made absolutely no difference and you can believe people would have whined about it more.
You probably don't have access to CANSIM data. That is where the best longitudinal data is kept, if you are interested. I will state some of the major characteristics, if you are interested.
In 1962, there were about 50k violent crimes reported in Canada. It linearly increased until 1992, where it peaked at about 310k events reported. It has since fallen and stagnated at about 300k events reported. That is vector label v101683, CANSIM.
Interestingly enough, there was a sharp drop in non-violent crimes in 1982, but the data then exponentially increased over the next decade to its 1982 level and has been gradually falling since. Vector label v101681.
The problem with attributing the violent crime rate to anything is that it must necessarily describe the linear increase from 1962 onward until stagnation in recent years. Which is a tremendously difficult requirement.
Lies. From the page:
They got our numbers right, but a quick look at Bureau of Justice Statistics, shows that the violent crime rate is stagnating at 2000 crimes per 100,000 people.
That is not a critique of statistical methods. In fact it is nearly journalistic dishonesty, if you read the Statcan report you will see that trafficking rates fell at the same rate as the overall crime excluding trafficking. Since most people think of drug laws as ridiculously antiquated, they exclude them to keep people off of high horses. Including them would have made absolutely no difference and you can believe people would have whined about it more.
You probably don't have access to CANSIM data. That is where the best longitudinal data is kept, if you are interested. I will state some of the major characteristics, if you are interested.
In 1962, there were about 50k violent crimes reported in Canada. It linearly increased until 1992, where it peaked at about 310k events reported. It has since fallen and stagnated at about 300k events reported. That is vector label v101683, CANSIM.
Interestingly enough, there was a sharp drop in non-violent crimes in 1982, but the data then exponentially increased over the next decade to its 1982 level and has been gradually falling since. Vector label v101681.
The problem with attributing the violent crime rate to anything is that it must necessarily describe the linear increase from 1962 onward until stagnation in recent years. Which is a tremendously difficult requirement.
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.
But that is a lot of hand waving on my part.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.