Multiple dead after shooting at Quebec City mosque
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Sooo you don't have a problem with radical islam? Just another leftist who supports islamic terrorism I see. That "ban" was also not "arbitrary". First off retard, it was FIVE muslim majority countries. Venezuela and North Korea aren't exactly hotbeds of radical islam. Secondly, retard, O'Bumwad also temporarily banned travel from those FIVE muslim majority countries. The only backlash and chaos came from leftist retards like you calling it a "muslim travel ban", even though the citizens of the the other FORTY-FIVE muslim majority countries were still freely allowed to travel to and from the US.
And finally, you whine about the right wing warning against radical islam. You do realize that radical islam was born out of the nazi ideology, right? So for all your pissing and moaning, you have a problem with banning ersatz nazis from the US and a bigger problem with the fact that Trump banned them.
Gee, who'd'a thunk you would defend right-wing extremist nazis just because of their religion.
The level of denial you live in is astounding.
Bissonnette's sentence for mosque shooting was unconstitutional: Supreme Court
The decision means he has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but will be eligible for full parole after 25 years behind bars.
Author of the article
aul Cherry • Montreal Gazette
Publishing date:May 27, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read • 54 Comments
In a decision released Friday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the sentence Alexandre Bissonnette received after he pleaded guilty to murdering six worshippers at a mosque in Quebec City was unconstitutional.
The decision means Bissonnette has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but he will be eligible for full parole after serving 25 years behind bars. That sentence is automatic when a person is convicted of first-degree murder in Canada. But since 2011, the Criminal Code of Canada gave judges the ability to sentence someone convicted of multiple murders to consecutive sentences. That meant a convicted killer could have their period of parole ineligibility increased significantly.
On Friday, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the Criminal Code goes against Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a statement, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec said the high-court decision did not give due consideration to “the atrocity and scourge of multiple murders” or to the hateful, Islamophobic, racist nature of the crime.
“In essence, the purpose of Section 12 of the Charter is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual,” Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in the 92-page decision. “A punishment is cruel and unusual by nature if the court is convinced that, having regard to its nature and effects, it could never be imposed in a manner consonant with human dignity in the Canadian criminal context. To determine whether a punishment is intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, the court must determine whether the punishment is, by its very nature, degrading or dehumanizing.”
On Jan. 29, 2017, Bissonnette, who was 27 at the time, left his home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Islamic Cultural Centre in Ste-Foy. When he arrived, he fired on dozens of worshippers, killing six men: Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane and Aboubaker Thabti. Five others were seriously injured.
In May 2018, Bissonnette pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder.
On Feb. 8, 2019, Superior Court Justice François Huot set Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility at 40 years. The Crown had requested 50 years. In his decision, Huot wrote that he felt the section of the Criminal Code in question limited his exercise of discretion by requiring that a murderer serve consecutive periods of 25 years each and increased Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility by only 15 years.
The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed Huot’s decision and the Crown appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that appeal on Friday.
“Not only do such punishments bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but they are cruel and unusual by nature and thus contrary to (Section 12 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms). They are intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature, as they deny offenders any moral autonomy by depriving them, in advance and definitively, of any possibility of reintegration into society.
“Sentences of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole may also have devastating effects on offenders, who are left with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves and whose incarceration will end only upon their death.
“In the scenario that is most favourable to the Crown, but that would in fact be rare, an 18-year-old offender who goes to prison and remains there for the next 50 years of their life could theoretically be paroled at the age of 68. For reference, it should be noted that the average life expectancy of inmates who die of natural causes is about 60 years, far lower than the average life expectancy of the general public (which is 81 years).”
Judges in other cases involving multiple murders in Canada, including the Montreal case of hit man Frederick Silva, were waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling because it will have an impact on the sentences they deliver.
Wagner also wrote that Friday’s ruling can apply to people convicted of multiple murders after the Criminal Code was amended in 2011.
“Any offender who has been ordered under Section 745.51 (of the Criminal Code) to serve a parole ineligibility period of 50 years or more for multiple murders — whether the murders are first degree, second degree or a combination of the two — must be able to apply for a remedy.
“While some of these offenders are no longer in the judicial system, the infringement of their right guaranteed by Section 12 of the Charter is a continuing one, since they remain completely without access to parole.”
pcherry@postmedia.com
torontosun.com
The decision means he has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but will be eligible for full parole after 25 years behind bars.
Author of the article
aul Cherry • Montreal GazettePublishing date:May 27, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read • 54 Comments
In a decision released Friday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the sentence Alexandre Bissonnette received after he pleaded guilty to murdering six worshippers at a mosque in Quebec City was unconstitutional.
The decision means Bissonnette has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but he will be eligible for full parole after serving 25 years behind bars. That sentence is automatic when a person is convicted of first-degree murder in Canada. But since 2011, the Criminal Code of Canada gave judges the ability to sentence someone convicted of multiple murders to consecutive sentences. That meant a convicted killer could have their period of parole ineligibility increased significantly.
On Friday, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the Criminal Code goes against Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a statement, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec said the high-court decision did not give due consideration to “the atrocity and scourge of multiple murders” or to the hateful, Islamophobic, racist nature of the crime.
“In essence, the purpose of Section 12 of the Charter is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual,” Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in the 92-page decision. “A punishment is cruel and unusual by nature if the court is convinced that, having regard to its nature and effects, it could never be imposed in a manner consonant with human dignity in the Canadian criminal context. To determine whether a punishment is intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, the court must determine whether the punishment is, by its very nature, degrading or dehumanizing.”
On Jan. 29, 2017, Bissonnette, who was 27 at the time, left his home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Islamic Cultural Centre in Ste-Foy. When he arrived, he fired on dozens of worshippers, killing six men: Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane and Aboubaker Thabti. Five others were seriously injured.
In May 2018, Bissonnette pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder.
On Feb. 8, 2019, Superior Court Justice François Huot set Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility at 40 years. The Crown had requested 50 years. In his decision, Huot wrote that he felt the section of the Criminal Code in question limited his exercise of discretion by requiring that a murderer serve consecutive periods of 25 years each and increased Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility by only 15 years.
The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed Huot’s decision and the Crown appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that appeal on Friday.
“Not only do such punishments bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but they are cruel and unusual by nature and thus contrary to (Section 12 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms). They are intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature, as they deny offenders any moral autonomy by depriving them, in advance and definitively, of any possibility of reintegration into society.
“Sentences of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole may also have devastating effects on offenders, who are left with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves and whose incarceration will end only upon their death.
“In the scenario that is most favourable to the Crown, but that would in fact be rare, an 18-year-old offender who goes to prison and remains there for the next 50 years of their life could theoretically be paroled at the age of 68. For reference, it should be noted that the average life expectancy of inmates who die of natural causes is about 60 years, far lower than the average life expectancy of the general public (which is 81 years).”
Judges in other cases involving multiple murders in Canada, including the Montreal case of hit man Frederick Silva, were waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling because it will have an impact on the sentences they deliver.
Wagner also wrote that Friday’s ruling can apply to people convicted of multiple murders after the Criminal Code was amended in 2011.
“Any offender who has been ordered under Section 745.51 (of the Criminal Code) to serve a parole ineligibility period of 50 years or more for multiple murders — whether the murders are first degree, second degree or a combination of the two — must be able to apply for a remedy.
“While some of these offenders are no longer in the judicial system, the infringement of their right guaranteed by Section 12 of the Charter is a continuing one, since they remain completely without access to parole.”
pcherry@postmedia.com
Sentence for Quebec City mosque shooter was unconstitutional: Supreme Court
Alexandre Bissonnette will be eligible for parole after 25 years, a decision that will have repercussions for others convicted of multiple murders.
Simple solution. Bring back the death penalty. Then we won't have to give a fuck about the rehabilitation of human monsters.Bissonnette's sentence for mosque shooting was unconstitutional: Supreme Court
The decision means he has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but will be eligible for full parole after 25 years behind bars.
Author of the article
Publishing date:May 27, 2022 • 12 hours ago • 3 minute read • 54 Comments
In a decision released Friday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the sentence Alexandre Bissonnette received after he pleaded guilty to murdering six worshippers at a mosque in Quebec City was unconstitutional.
The decision means Bissonnette has to serve a life sentence for the six murders, but he will be eligible for full parole after serving 25 years behind bars. That sentence is automatic when a person is convicted of first-degree murder in Canada. But since 2011, the Criminal Code of Canada gave judges the ability to sentence someone convicted of multiple murders to consecutive sentences. That meant a convicted killer could have their period of parole ineligibility increased significantly.
On Friday, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the Criminal Code goes against Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In a statement, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec said the high-court decision did not give due consideration to “the atrocity and scourge of multiple murders” or to the hateful, Islamophobic, racist nature of the crime.
“In essence, the purpose of Section 12 of the Charter is to protect human dignity and ensure respect for the inherent worth of each individual,” Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in the 92-page decision. “A punishment is cruel and unusual by nature if the court is convinced that, having regard to its nature and effects, it could never be imposed in a manner consonant with human dignity in the Canadian criminal context. To determine whether a punishment is intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, the court must determine whether the punishment is, by its very nature, degrading or dehumanizing.”
On Jan. 29, 2017, Bissonnette, who was 27 at the time, left his home with two firearms and ammunition and headed to the Islamic Cultural Centre in Ste-Foy. When he arrived, he fired on dozens of worshippers, killing six men: Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane and Aboubaker Thabti. Five others were seriously injured.
In May 2018, Bissonnette pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including six of first-degree murder.
On Feb. 8, 2019, Superior Court Justice François Huot set Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility at 40 years. The Crown had requested 50 years. In his decision, Huot wrote that he felt the section of the Criminal Code in question limited his exercise of discretion by requiring that a murderer serve consecutive periods of 25 years each and increased Bissonnette’s period of parole ineligibility by only 15 years.
The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed Huot’s decision and the Crown appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected that appeal on Friday.
“Not only do such punishments bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but they are cruel and unusual by nature and thus contrary to (Section 12 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms). They are intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature, as they deny offenders any moral autonomy by depriving them, in advance and definitively, of any possibility of reintegration into society.
“Sentences of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole may also have devastating effects on offenders, who are left with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves and whose incarceration will end only upon their death.
“In the scenario that is most favourable to the Crown, but that would in fact be rare, an 18-year-old offender who goes to prison and remains there for the next 50 years of their life could theoretically be paroled at the age of 68. For reference, it should be noted that the average life expectancy of inmates who die of natural causes is about 60 years, far lower than the average life expectancy of the general public (which is 81 years).”
Judges in other cases involving multiple murders in Canada, including the Montreal case of hit man Frederick Silva, were waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling because it will have an impact on the sentences they deliver.
Wagner also wrote that Friday’s ruling can apply to people convicted of multiple murders after the Criminal Code was amended in 2011.
“Any offender who has been ordered under Section 745.51 (of the Criminal Code) to serve a parole ineligibility period of 50 years or more for multiple murders — whether the murders are first degree, second degree or a combination of the two — must be able to apply for a remedy.
“While some of these offenders are no longer in the judicial system, the infringement of their right guaranteed by Section 12 of the Charter is a continuing one, since they remain completely without access to parole.”
pcherry@postmedia.com
Sentence for Quebec City mosque shooter was unconstitutional: Supreme Court
Alexandre Bissonnette will be eligible for parole after 25 years, a decision that will have repercussions for others convicted of multiple murders.