Really disliked PP’s answer on the notwithstanding clause. I do agree changes need to be made on crime. Carney’s answer was insufficient.
But…
His expanded answer on the NWS Clause regarding only being interested in protecting law abiding canadians, honestly frightened me a little bit. Our criminals are still Canadian and at the end of the da, they still have rights. The only way our rights and freedoms can be protected is by abiding by the Charter against the people we despise. Add this to PP’s claim about deporting visa-holders who engage in antisemitic hate marches (huh?), and I don’t know.. sounds very MAGA.
Cutting red tape and expediting due process for blanket sentences on "those bad crimes" sounds nice in theory, but due process exists for a reason and we don't want potentially innocent people getting Canada's version of the El Salvador treatment by accident.
Again, look how much of a slippery slope that's become in the US. Now any one can be detained and sent away to disappear for absurd reasons/none at all.
Let's.... not become that. Please and thank you.
PP's vision is more fantasy than reality if you want it to work right and work well and sentence with accuracy. But his loyal followers will be nodding their heads enthusiastically.
__________________
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to TrentCrimmIndependent For This Useful Post:
PP’s vision for crime is great if you hate rights and freedoms and want to see the justice system collapse.
So, in other words, perfectly tailored to his supporters, but not really appealing for the majority of Canadians, even those who believe we could be doing a lot more to tackle crime issues.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Really disliked PP’s answer on the notwithstanding clause. I do agree changes need to be made on crime. Carney’s answer was insufficient.
But…
His expanded answer on the NWS Clause regarding only being interested in protecting law abiding canadians, honestly frightened me a little bit. Our criminals are still Canadian and at the end of the da, they still have rights. The only way our rights and freedoms can be protected is by abiding by the Charter against the people we despise. Add this to PP’s claim about deporting visa-holders who engage in antisemitic hate marches (huh?), and I don’t know.. sounds very MAGA.
Those things always sound good and then you remember all govt has to do is change who is a criminal by whatever definition suits them. Equal rights and protections for all is the safeguard.
The Following User Says Thank You to MonaTone For This Useful Post:
Those things always sound good and then you remember all govt has to do is change who is a criminal by whatever definition suits them. Equal rights and protections for all is the safeguard.
Damn right.
Excuse the ignorance, but additionally, how can PP even state the 3-strike rule in a serious sense? I’m assuming that only judges can define sentences and their length. Unless the Canadian government provides recommendations to judges for sentencing procedures?
Really disliked PP’s answer on the notwithstanding clause. I do agree changes need to be made on crime. Carney’s answer was insufficient.
But…
His expanded answer on the NWS Clause regarding only being interested in protecting law abiding canadians, honestly frightened me a little bit. Our criminals are still Canadian and at the end of the da, they still have rights. The only way our rights and freedoms can be protected is by abiding by the Charter against the people we despise. Add this to PP’s claim about deporting visa-holders who engage in antisemitic hate marches (huh?), and I don’t know.. sounds very MAGA.
We've already seen that sometimes governments have to use extraordinary measures to step on the rights of their citizens. Provinces have used the NSW to pass laws and the federal government has invoked the emergencies act in an unreasonable manner which infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
We've already seen that sometimes governments have to use extraordinary measures to step on the rights of their citizens. Provinces have used the NSW to pass laws and the federal government has invoked the emergencies act in an unreasonable manner which infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Right, and the federal court subsequently said the 2022 Emergencies Act was unlawful. From my understanding, the case is still ongoing. So what’s your point, exactly, to PP justifying it?
Excuse the ignorance, but additionally, how can PP even state the 3-strike rule in a serious sense? I’m assuming that only judges can define sentences and their length. Unless the Canadian government provides recommendations to judges for sentencing procedures?
I kind of took him bringing up a 3-Strikes law as something to play it up to folks who love that kind of tough talk. My conservative parents eat that up and I remember California's 3-strike laws being a favourite talking point of adults when I was growing up.
How to achieve it in Canadian law and what charter or judicial changes are needed are beyond my current understanding. I sense the provinces have a lot more say than pp makes it seem in a sound bite.
Right, and the federal court subsequently said the 2022 Emergencies Act was unlawful. From my understanding, the case is still ongoing. So what’s your point, exactly, to PP justifying it?
Don't trust any government to protect your rights.
The constant interruptions by Poliviere and Singh made Carney look like he was watching a tennis match. Obviously Carney is more accustomed to boardroom meetings than political debates but he is still the smartest person in the room.
We've already seen that sometimes governments have to use extraordinary measures to step on the rights of their citizens. Provinces have used the NSW to pass laws and the federal government has invoked the emergencies act in an unreasonable manner which infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Now this is a hard one for me because I hate the Not withstanding clause, but I do agree (even if the courts don’t) on the use of the emergencies act.
So I have to think, how does my feelings on the actions of the Liberal government differ from someone’s feelings on parental rights in Saskatchewan for example. And it is difficult, I can empathize with victims or families of victims of crimes wanting to see the clause used as much as I can empathize with the people affected by the protests.
What I’ve decided is that it comes down to the differences in the usage. Short term vs long term, specific scenario vs overriding actions. For this specific example I can morally justify the emergencies act because it was against one clear action, it was revoked as early as possible. And it was judged afterward.
Using the NWS clause is much more permanent. Sure it needs to be renewed every 5 years, but it isn’t scrutinized to be deemed unreasonable. It also overrides everything pertaining to it. All rights are withdrawn, not on a specific action.
I would have an issue if the federal government had used the emergencies act to revoke the rights of those protestors for 5 years. And then used those powers to say they can revoke any protestors rights in the same way.
Likewise, I would more open to saying this specific criminal has this specific punishment NSW his rights, like a mass murderer.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Fuzz - "He didn't speak to the media before the election, either."
The Following User Says Thank You to belsarius For This Useful Post:
Interesting story further down the article (November 2001 header). I hadn't realized Pierre and Ezra had worked together like this, but it explains why Pierre treats his organization with the level of respect it does not deserve.
Quote:
With Poilievre’s help, a young lawyer and self-described “Stockaholic” named Ezra Levant managed to purge the Calgary Southwest riding association board of Manning loyalists. “Suddenly, two twenty-somethings held sway over one of the most prestigious electoral districts in the country,” Lawton writes.
Harper and his strategist, Tom Flanagan, have always maintained that, before Harper stepped in, Levant and Poilievre were busy turning a sure win into a possible defeat.
Quote:
It took work to jeopardize the Alliance lead in Calgary. That’s like turning Italy against pasta. Probably most of us couldn’t have done it. The ad copy Poilievre wrote for Levant had a single theme: protecting the oil patch against environmentalists. (Hence “Kyoto Joe”; kids, ask your parents.) The drama generated by the two twenty-somethings started to wear voters out. With Prentice, the Progressive Conservatives offered an unspectacular candidate who at least seemed serious.
Kyoto Joe. Pierre Trump.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I kind of took him bringing up a 3-Strikes law as something to play it up to folks who love that kind of tough talk. My conservative parents eat that up and I remember California's 3-strike laws being a favourite talking point of adults when I was growing up.
How to achieve it in Canadian law and what charter or judicial changes are needed are beyond my current understanding. I sense the provinces have a lot more say than pp makes it seem in a sound bite.
The courts have generally found that mandatory sentences are unconstitutional, because they remove judicial discretion. So PP would need to used NWS - but that only lasts 5 years, so it’s silly.
Interesting story further down the article (November 2001 header). I hadn't realized Pierre and Ezra had worked together like this, but it explains why Pierre treats his organization with the level of respect it does not deserve.
I had no idea that Pierre and Ezra worked that closely, and came up together in politics. Ezra is not a good human being, and I know a few people who have worked in those circles. When pretty far right people hate someone on the right, you take notice.
That's enlightening.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
Cutting red tape and expediting due process for blanket sentences on "those bad crimes" sounds nice in theory, but due process exists for a reason and we don't want potentially innocent people getting Canada's version of the El Salvador treatment by accident.
Again, look how much of a slippery slope that's become in the US. Now any one can be detained and sent away to disappear for absurd reasons/none at all.
Let's.... not become that. Please and thank you.
PP's vision is more fantasy than reality if you want it to work right and work well and sentence with accuracy. But his loyal followers will be nodding their heads enthusiastically.
Yeah, the justice system doesn’t need reform it just needs “more”. More courts, lawyers, judges, prisons, resources. Keep everything else the same just properly fund it, basically, and the major outstanding issues will sort of fix themselves I think.
I had no idea that Pierre and Ezra worked that closely, and came up together in politics. Ezra is not a good human being, and I know a few people who have worked in those circles. When pretty far right people hate someone on the right, you take notice.
That's enlightening.
Ya, I keep learning more about how all these Calgary bred politicians and media figures came to be. It's fascinating, enlightening, and completely relevant today. Makes me think we need to be working a lot harder to plant the future generation and make sure they aren't a bunch of self serving ideologues like this crew, and I mean that for all parties. What happens now will be relevant in 20 years.
I can't help but notice that there is a direct correlation between someone being the sort of person that I would never ever ask for their political opinion on anything (because -- knowing them -- it's unlikely to be an informed one) and the likelihood of them sharing things pushing people to vote for Conservative candidates on Facebook.
Of course, my troll response is "The choice was a no-brainer and I voted as soon as early voting opened" except that I didn't vote for the nitwit they wanted me to.
