Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by #-3

And this is the problem with our current state of affairs, summed up in 2 words.

I don't think you are even engage in the same conversation as most of the people here. You learnt about this case at the absolute minimum level of depth to feel you know everything about it, formed a strong opinion, and pigeon holed others onto an imaginary other side, ignoring any points that run counter to that opinion, in the service of the side you made up in your head.

I don't want to speak for others, but we don't have a side here. We are with the Canadian judicial system, allowing them to gain a better understanding of this case than we can hope to gain.

Didn’t even register a single sentence from Windsor Plates post and reiterated their stance.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Didn’t even register a single sentence from Windsor Plates post and reiterated their stance.

Let me guess. You want shorter sentences for pedos, right? For reasons…

In quite ok with have a ‘side’ on this one. Even if my side lost.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You guys are using a fictitious scenario that doesn’t exist. I mean, it was a 5-4 ruling, so my side lost. But I still stand with the 4 judges who believe a one year mandatory sentence for pedos is the right thing to do.

Engage with the hypothetical then. Are you okay with in the circumstances of the hypothetical the 18 yr old going identified by the majority opinion to jail for a year?

The judges in the dissent did not state that mandatory minimums were constitutional or the “right thing to do”. They concluded that the hypothetical presented in the case was too far from the actual facts to be relevant in this case and then said we don’t need to further evaluate the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum here.

They did not state that mandatory minimums are constitutional, in fact they endorse (or at least follow) the 3 part test on whether a particular mandatory minimum is constitutional. The dissenting judges don’t really comment on whether the mandatory minimum is appropriate in all circumstances.

[GGG]

nm

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Engage with the hypothetical then. Are you okay with in the circumstances of the hypothetical the 18 yr old going identified by the majority opinion to jail for a year?

The judges in the dissent did not state that mandatory minimums were constitutional or the “right thing to do”. They concluded that the hypothetical presented in the case was too far from the actual facts to be relevant in this case and then said we don’t need to further evaluate the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum here.

They did not state that mandatory minimums are constitutional, in fact they endorse (or at least follow) the 3 part test on whether a particular mandatory minimum is constitutional. The dissenting judges don’t really comment on whether the mandatory minimum is appropriate in all circumstances.

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Wow, these posts are actually getting dumber... there are a thousand reasons the phone might be searched including those where the individual had done nothing wrong, or simply where the individual was credibly accused of having the photo and nothing else. But even if he had done something else wrong to get his phone searched, if it was bad enough to justify a year in prison, that should be the sentence for the OTHER crime, not possession of the photo.

You are so all over the place here, and it stands in such stark contrast to your conviction that you're right, that it really drives home that there are people like you out there who vote who are simply incapable intellectually of engaging with even these issues. And this isn't even that complex.

FFS, I hate our species so much eometimes.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wow, these posts are actually getting dumber... there are a thousand reasons the phone might be searched including those where the individual had done nothing wrong, or simply where the individual was credibly accused of having the photo and nothing else. But even if he had done something else wrong to get his phone searched, if it was bad enough to justify a year in prison, that should be the sentence for the OTHER crime, not possession of the photo.

You are so all over the place here, and it stands in such stark contrast to your conviction that you're right, that it really drives home that there are people like you out there who vote who are simply incapable intellectually of engaging with even these issues. And this isn't even that complex.

FFS, I hate our species so much eometimes.

There are a thousand reasons why a phone might be searched when an individual has done nothing wrong?

I will go easy on you, state 500 of them.

I am kidding. You don’t have to state 500. I honestly didn’t know there are random phone searches (if there are).

Can you clarify please.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

What was the question, Dr Huxtable?

It was the question you quoted and the one you edited out from the same post, here they are again since you seem to struggle remembering:

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

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?


Curious to hear your thoughts.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You must be kidding. First of all “don’t call me names” coming from you who call people whatever every second post? lol. Don’t worry, I won’t call you a pedo. But your sympathy for pedos is….. noted.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...constitutional

How can you possibly argue that these two shouldn’t have been locked up for a year (minimum)? Children between the ages of three and 10. Yes, that’s right, THREE.

I believe the mandatory minimum would help deter criminals from exploiting children, I can’t believe this is even a discussion. Crazy.

No one is arguing that. That's not what this is about.

The fact you "can't believe this is even a discussion" shows your utter lack of understanding about how our country works. Maybe do less deciding and more curious self educating before staking positions on topics you have zero knowledge about. Unless you like the ignorant look.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Let me guess. You want shorter sentences for pedos, right? For reasons…

In quite ok with have a ‘side’ on this one. Even if my side lost.

Hey man, I never once made that connection.

Abortion, Greta at her most hated, Kyle Rittenhouse, drag show story book readings, trans rights, teen birth control access…

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Hey man, I never once made that connection.

Abortion, Greta at her most hated, Kyle Rittenhouse, drag show story book readings, trans rights, teen birth control access…

Go on.

[Manhattanboy]

Tuned in Omar last night for the first time in months to see footage of Elizabeth May standing in the House and voting for the Liberal budget to tremendous applause.

Thank goodness for Elizabeth May, the saviour this country needed, continues to need and will always need.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

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.

Then if no one agrees with that, no one agrees there should be mandatory minimums.

Increasing maximums, adding aggravating factors, and then equipping the legal system with the resources to catch and properly prosecute pedophiles are all better ways to keep these people behind bars longer and hopefully intercept them before they can hurt any children.

There are plenty of studies showing that mandatory minimums are not effective in deterring crime, if that’s your goal. You’re welcome to look those up.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

There are a thousand reasons why a phone might be searched when an individual has done nothing wrong?

Correct. Not even just by state actors like police, but there are a plenty of reasons a person's phone might be looked through and that picture might be found and reported to police without a separate offence having occurred.

Let's back up and maybe make this at least slightly educational for... I don't know who. The original hypothetical from the Supreme Court was an argument that in the plausible situation where an 18 year is caught a picture of a 17 year old on their phone, they should not be sentenced to a year in prison in that circumstance. In other words, this criminal provision could apply to cases that are broader than those where a year in prison is the proper sentence to be applied in the circumstances.

There are only three possible logical responses to that argument:

1. The Supreme Court has misinterpreted the provision - as drafted, it would not apply to the hypothetical scenario they have posited.
2. The Supreme Court is wrong in saying that, if that hypothetical situation were to occur, the crime would not warrant a one year sentence - the 18 year old should go to prison for a year in that situation.
3. The Supreme Court is right that the provision could be applied that way and that the punishment would be too severe for the crime in that circumstance, but circumstances like this are rare enough that we have to "bite the bullet" and accept those instances of injustice as a tradeoff for the good that this one-year rule will ultimately do for Canada. Put another way, this law passes the Oakes test under s.1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit on the right to liberty and the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual (i.e. grossly disproportionate) punishment in a society like ours.

The last one is going to be pretty tough to convince a Court of given the standard set for section 7 and section 12 rights, in my view, but you could say that maybe we've got the whole thing wrong and that the standard set for infringing people's right not to be imprisoned in unjust circumstances is too high and that this shouldn't meet it.

Anyone with any critical thinking skills who looks at the argument the Supreme Court made should immediately and clearly see what the available avenues of rational response are. It should be looking at "4+5"; the number 9 should just pop into your head without effort if you are capable of basic arithmetic. What bothers me is there are so many people whose brains apparently cannot do this basic logical math, and what pops into their head is "pedophiles bad therefore anyone opposing this is pro pedophile", or "well he must have been doing something else bad to get caught so I'm fine with it", or "well in that circumstance I just don't think they'd get charged even if they technically fit the crime".

The limitations of the simian brains in the heads of far too many people are both depressing when so clearly demonstrated, as the last few posts you've made have done, but also paint a very clear picture of why we have a Charter in the first place. The public is simply not going to agree, in every case, with the application of fundamental democratic principles, particularly when they get their hackles up about a charged issue like this one. Grabbing a torch and getting to the front of that mob, like Ford and PP are doing, is to me one of the key things that disqualifies someone from being fit for public office.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by GGG

Engage with the hypothetical then. Are you okay with in the circumstances of the hypothetical the 18 yr old going identified by the majority opinion to jail for a year?

The judges in the dissent did not state that mandatory minimums were constitutional or the “right thing to do”. They concluded that the hypothetical presented in the case was too far from the actual facts to be relevant in this case and then said we don’t need to further evaluate the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum here.

They did not state that mandatory minimums are constitutional, in fact they endorse (or at least follow) the 3 part test on whether a particular mandatory minimum is constitutional. The dissenting judges don’t really comment on whether the mandatory minimum is appropriate in all circumstances.

However, in the dissenting decision, authors Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Cote argued that the tougher sentencing rules reflected the harm done to child victims and advanced the goals of denouncing and deterring such crimes.


“Child pornography has unquestionably become a scourge both nationally and internationally. It destroys countless innocent lives. Each pornographic photograph, video or audio recording that involves a child is an act of exploitation that will leave the child with deep and lasting scars,” they wrote.


“Through the imposition of more severe sentences, the justice system expresses society’s deep and rightful indignation.”

These are the judges I agree with.

[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:

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

No one agrees that an 18 year old should serve a year for this.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

There are a thousand reasons why a phone might be searched when an individual has done nothing wrong?

I will go easy on you, state 500 of them.

I am kidding. You don’t have to state 500. I honestly didn’t know there are random phone searches (if there are).

Can you clarify please.

Here is one that feels pretty plausible. Complainant (the 17 year old girl who sent the photo to her 18 year old (now ex-) boyfriend) tells police that she sent him the photo and that ex-boyfriend told her that he has sent it to classmates A, B and C to humiliate her. Based on that information, police seek and obtain search warrants for the phones of A, B and C.

Of course, as Corsi already pointed out, none of this is remotely relevant to the constitutionality of the minimum sentence, but whatever.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Like I said. My side lost. Your side won.

I agree with 4 judges out of 9.

I don't have a side.
I read an article (that you posted) and I made an effort to understand the content and court ruling.
You posted it, didn't understand it, used it to incorrectly describe the situation and ruling, then doubled down when multiple people actually explained the ruling to you.

You're trying so hard to create 2 sides and you haven't even taken step 1 to educate yourself on the ruling.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

There are a thousand reasons why a phone might be searched when an individual has done nothing wrong?

I will go easy on you, state 500 of them.

I am kidding. You don’t have to state 500. I honestly didn’t know there are random phone searches (if there are).

Can you clarify please.

Canada updates travel advice to warn of U.S. border officers' power to search electronic devices

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Suave

Canada updates travel advice to warn of U.S. border officers' power to search electronic devices

When i went back to HongKong i had to bring back a brand new cellphone which didn't have all my anti-ccp rants hahaha