The safe injjection site in E Vancouver has been given an exemption from new drug laws leaving the issue as a Provincial health issue.
WTG SCoC!!!
WTG SCoC!!!
The safe injjection site in E Vancouver has been given an exemption from new drug laws leaving the issue as a Provincial health issue.
WTG SCoC!!!
The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.
This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.
It is an addiction - Lives are saved - Medical cost drop - People do noot transmit other diseases like HIV Hep C etc. Drug addicts are offered help.
This is just pure politics by Harper.
‘Disappointed’ Tories to review top court’s drug-injection ruling - The Globe and Mail
The federal Conservative government has yet to wave the white flag in its fight against Vancouver’s Insite drug injection site – despite a Supreme Court ruling that says its attempts to close the clinic were “grossly disproportionate” to the benefits for drug users and the community.
The purpose of the SCoC is to ensure that popular opinion, ie, democracy, does NOT trump personal rights.
An addict can't magically become a non addict. The only way to get them help is to start the process of cleaning them up and restoring trust that they DO have a place in society. And that can't happen when they're shooting up in alleys.
the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......
So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????
If this were truly a democracy it never would have went to SCoC in the first place.This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof"
When and where it is possible for society to address a problem without stripping someone of their basic rights, we have an obligation to try that alternative.
Saving human lives and not securing people (two different legal entities)is two different ballgames. Humans and persons have different rights.So I can now proceed to rob the corner bank without fear of consequence?? Certainly no one can interfere, as that might threaten the security of my person.
When the SCoC becomes activist and over-rides law without legitimate reference to basic individual rights, they are robbing me of the right to participate in the decision-making process by which I am being ruled, they are making a farce out of the social contract, and undermining the foundations of democratic society.
They need to be completely ignored on this matter.
So I can now proceed to rob the corner bank without fear of consequence?? Certainly no one can interfere, as that might threaten the security of my person.
When the SCoC becomes activist and over-rides law without legitimate reference to basic individual rights, they are robbing me of the right to participate in the decision-making process by which I am being ruled, they are making a farce out of the social contract, and undermining the foundations of democratic society.
They need to be completely ignored on this matter.
Absolutely fine, and a legitimate opinion........
But not the LAW of the land.
WE are ruled by an elected Parliament that enacts law, the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......
Or they are usurpers of executive power.
I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper.
So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????
"security of the Person" doesn't cut it, as they undertake the action of their own free will, and it is illegal.
The Supreme Court of Canada is NOT the law-maker in this country.
This is a democracy, not an appointed oligarchy of brain-dead, French-speaking activist judges.
Harper should push this hard.....he has the executive power.
As Andrew Jackson said of the USSC......they made the judgement, now let's see them enforce it.
There is NO right to jam junk in your veins without consequence.
ANYONE that thinks differently is a ****ing idiot.
Might as well repeal the law of gravity for jumpers.
Morons.
Saving human lives and not securing people (two different legal entities)is two different ballgames. Humans and persons have different rights.
I'm a human by nature and legally a person. How about you?
I'm a human by nature and legally a person. How about you?
Absolutely fine, and a legitimate opinion........
But not the LAW of the land.
WE are ruled by an elected Parliament that enacts law, the SCoC can ONLY legitimately overturn that law in light of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the rights thereby enshrined......
Or they are usurpers of executive power.
I kinda like rule by Parliament, not usurper.
.
So, where exactly in the Constitution does it say you have the right to bang junk without consequence??????
"security of the Person" doesn't cut it, as they undertake the action of their own free will, and it is illegal.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof"
It is the individual addict that is obstructing their own rights "to life, liberty and security of the person"... Doesn't that factor into the equation?