Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You don't, though. You've already said you don't. You just agree with their conclusion and are attempting to retroactively justify your initial position by reference to quotes from a news article about a Supreme Court decision you haven't even read. Those judges' argument is that the punishment is not grossly disproportionate in the circumstances. You specifically said that you think the opposite of that here:

Maybe you misread my post?

The dissenting judges, I agree with.

The made up, hypocritical scenario that doesn’t have any context or anything, is hard to say that the 18 year old deserves a year, but there is no real information on the made up scenario. If I wasn’t clear on that before, my mistake. I apologize.

[chemgear]

There have been a series of some wild leniency and 2 tier sentencing (mostly with immigration) in cases in the news recently. Likely just a sample of the typical sentences/free passes being doled out by our system.

Killing somebody and causing a mass accident in a fit of road rage. Fled the scene afterwards and hid for two weeks. Judge rejects removal order.

Recorded multiple women in bathroom and had sentence specifically reduced so to as not fall offside of possible deportation.

Driver runs through stop sign and kills 2. Flees country and goes on the run. Granted bail when finally caught.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...stay-in-canada

Pakistani immigrant who caused deadly highway crash wins chance to stay in Canada

After the man got angry because someone flashed their high beams and honked, he caused a crash that killed a 22-year-old woman, a judge said

Yasir Baig “fled the scene of the accident but surrendered to the police” a dozen days later.

Seven people were rushed to hospital from the crash scene, including two women who suffered critical injuries.

One of the women, Nicole Turcotte, 22, of Niagara Falls, later died in hospital.

Baig “has shown minimal potential for rehabilitation,” said the IAD.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ario-voyeurism

An Ontario judge weighed the “immigration consequences” for a former international student who spied on his female housemates through a peep hole as they used the bathroom and made video recordings of four of them “in various stages of undress” over a period of six months.

His ‘appropriate’ sentence was reduced to 5.5 months in jail, while a sentence of more than six months would have made him ‘inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality’

According to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a “permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality” if they are sentenced to more than six months in jail.


https://www.brandonsun.com/local/202...in-fatal-crash

An Ontario truck driver, accused of causing a crash that killed a mother and daughter and then fleeing the country, has been released on bail as he awaits court proceedings.

“There are suspicious circumstances, to say the least, surrounding this tragedy,” he said, accusing Singh of “driving in an objectively dangerous manner” before a collision that killed 35-year-old Sara Unger and her eight-year-old daughter, Alexa, on Nov. 15, 2024.

Police said Singh was behind the wheel of a semi-trailer that drove through a stop sign at a highway intersection west of Altona, striking Unger’s SUV.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Maybe you misread my post?

The dissenting judges, I agree with.

The made up, hypocritical scenario that doesn’t have any context or anything, is hard to say that the 18 year old deserves a year, but there is no real information on the made up scenario. If I wasn’t clear on that before, my mistake. I apologize.

But your position is that it isn't hard to say. Your position is that he deserves a year regardless of context. Without any other information at all, you believe that if he is found guilty of the offense he should be jailed for a minimum of a year. You believe it so much that you think we should overrule the constitution to make it happen.

That is what is means to use the NWC to impose minimum sentencing.

[Doctorfever]

It’s a made up, fictional scenario. N

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It’s a made up, fictional scenario. N

So it's hard to say? Meaning you don't support mandatory minimums?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It’s a made up, fictional scenario. N

Obviously anyone with half a brain understands that hypothetical scenarios that might arise in the future are exactly the thing that the Supreme Court should be considering when deciding whether a law should be struck down, and obviously anyone honest would understand that the hypothetical in question isn't one that's outlandish or inconceivable.

But I would point out that left-leaning people on this forum have made essentially this same argument in response to hypotheticals and thought experiments in the past so, yknow, just... don't be like this when it's your turn.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Obviously anyone with half a brain understands that hypothetical scenarios that might arise in the future are exactly the thing that the Supreme Court should be considering when deciding whether a law should be struck down, and obviously anyone honest would understand that the hypothetical in question isn't one that's outlandish or inconceivable.

But I would point out that left-leaning people on this forum have made essentially this same argument in response to hypotheticals and thought experiments in the past so, yknow, just... don't be like this when it's your turn.

That, sir, is nothing more than an outlandish and inconceivable hypothetical and has never happened and could never happen.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Obviously anyone with half a brain understands that hypothetical scenarios that might arise in the future are exactly the thing that the Supreme Court should be considering when deciding whether a law should be struck down, and obviously anyone honest would understand that the hypothetical in question isn't one that's outlandish or inconceivable.

I'd go further and say that it happens literally every damned day. One only needs to think back to their own formative years (although cell phone pictures were pretty sh-te back then). Two teenagers are in a relationship and share intimate photos -- one day they're the same age, next day one celebrates their 18th birthday.

Mandatory minimums insist the now-18 year-old partner in the relationship deserves a year in prison as a birthday gift if the picture was discovered, which is why striking down mandatory minimums was the right call.

[belsarius]

Also, not a Lawyer but from my understanding, the decision was to dismiss the appeal from the prosecution, not rule on it. So the dissenting judges weren't necessarily agreeing to the minimum sentencing rules, but were willing to hear the appeal on the subject and still might have ultimately agreed with the majority of judges that the sentences were unconstitutional. They just didn't agree with dismissing the appeal without hearing the arguments.. actual lawyers, please feel free to enlighten me if this understanding is wrong.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is an obsession with a teenage girl activist with autism inherently sexual to you?

Uhhh….. it’s not. Did I say it was?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Also, not a Lawyer but from my understanding, the decision was to dismiss the appeal from the prosecution, not rule on it. So the dissenting judges weren't necessarily agreeing to the minimum sentencing rules, but were willing to hear the appeal on the subject and still might have ultimately agreed with the majority of judges that the sentences were unconstitutional. They just didn't agree with dismissing the appeal without hearing the arguments.. actual lawyers, please feel free to enlighten me if this understanding is wrong.

This is wrong. You're thinking of leave to appeal, and there are no extensive reasons given for granting leave to the SCC (as was done in this case) or denying it.

The full reasons are available here.

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...21250/index.do

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is wrong. You're thinking of leave to appeal, and there are no extensive reasons given for granting leave to the SCC (as was done in this case) or denying it.

The full reasons are available here.

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...21250/index.do

Ok, so by their dissent they are saying that the appeal should be allowed which overturns the sentencing judge's determination that the provisions were invalid and imposes the minimum sentences as in the 2 sections of the code?

Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe and O’Bonsawin JJ. (dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. It has not been shown that the minimum sentences provided for in s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code constitute cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter. The impugned provisions are constitutionally valid and operative.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is an obsession with a teenage girl activist with autism inherently sexual to you?

Why are vulnerable and unconscious girls inherently sexual to you?

We’re just asking genuine questions here.

[belsarius]

Sorry for the extra post, but looking for one last clarification based on the ruling.

In their dissent, there was the following snip..

There are two ways to challenge the constitutionality of a minimum sentence. First, the challenge may be based on the circumstances of the offender before the court. Second, the challenge may be based on the circumstances of an offender in a reasonable hypothetical scenario.

Based on this, if the ruling had gone the other way in this case and that it was ruled constitutional based on the hypothetical situations, then an argument against the minimum sentences could be heard in the future based on the actual circumstances. Going to Doctorfever's post that this situation was hypothetical. If the hypothetical was real, they could still argue based on actual circumstances and have the sentence reduced.

However, if the NWC clause was used, then there is no challenge available at all, regardless of actual circumstances?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Obviously anyone with half a brain understands that hypothetical scenarios that might arise in the future are exactly the thing that the Supreme Court should be considering when deciding whether a law should be struck down, and obviously anyone honest would understand that the hypothetical in question isn't one that's outlandish or inconceivable.

But I would point out that left-leaning people on this forum have made essentially this same argument in response to hypotheticals and thought experiments in the past so, yknow, just... don't be like this when it's your turn.

It's sad that stuff like this is even used as a left vs right argument.
Your first paragraph summarized it perfectly and has nothing to do with the political spectrum.

[Cain]

Yup. Everything being made a team game by some folks is insanity, and obviously there are examples of it all over the place. The "my team lost, your team won" sentiment talking about a possible law and hypothetical situations where it may be applied takes impressive dedication to imagine yourself on a team in the first place.


Nobody seems to be arguing for lenience shown towards real offenders, so the faux outrage directed at putting some thought into a law vs going with the purely emotional reaction is ridiculous. Kudos to all of you who have the patience to keep trying to explain it though, I have sincerely become too cynical to do it on a public forum.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

The hypothetical, made up scenario doesn’t really tell us anything. Like, what did the 18 year old do to have their phone gone through by police, where they found the images of their 17 year old boyfriend / girlfriend. It’s not like there are random searches of phones on your 18th birthday.

No one agrees that an 18 year old should serve a year for this. I understand that’s what the 5 judges based their decision on. But, the 18 year old would have to do something for their phone to be searched. We don’t know what that something would be.

To me, it just translates to lighter sentences for people who are exploiting you children, as young as three years old in the article I posted.

This may be one of many reasons why crime was lower under the Harper government than it has been under the Liberals.

Based on this post the position you hold is that mandatory minimums are not justified.

So it would follow that you would not support the use of the notwithstanding clause to enforce mandatory minimums because you would be concerned that a person ending up in this hypothetical would end up with to severe of a sentence.

I think your position is more likely the government needs to modify the criminal code in a manner that encourages judges to impose harsh but constitutionally compliant sentences for child pornogrpahy while making sure in edge cases like the hypothetical judges can use their discretion.

And the above position is one I would wholehardenly agree with.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why is an obsession with a teenage girl activist with autism inherently sexual to you?

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Why are vulnerable and unconscious girls inherently sexual to you?

WTF is going on in this thread?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

WTF is going on in this thread?

The usual…

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Uhhh….. it’s not. Did I say it was?

You associated the comments over obsessing about Great Thunberg with accusations of pedophilia. What made you automatically assume the obsessions others were mentioning must be sexual in nature?

Do you think Conservatives that obsess over the bodies and body rights of pre-pubescent and pubescent children are also doing so in a way that is inherently sexual?

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Why are vulnerable and unconscious girls inherently sexual to you?

We’re just asking genuine questions here.

They aren’t to me. Given that you’ve brought it up out of the blue, why is that something you assume others find sexual?