Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[ModlrMike]

How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?

 

[Kat Stevens]

How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?

5...4...3...2...1...

 

[Redeye]

How long before someone uses this as a precedent to argue the validity of Sharia law?

Not that anyone would, it'd be useless. There's that whole "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" thing.

 

[Sythen]

Not that anyone would, it'd be useless. There's that whole "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" thing.

SCC doesn't seem to mind ignoring the Charter when it comes to Aboriginals.. Is it a big stretch to think that other minorities can't do the same thing? Freedom is lost incrementally, and its the small things like this that start making others "more equal" than the rest of us..

 

[Redeye]

SCC doesn't seem to mind ignoring the Charter when it comes to Aboriginals.. Is it a big stretch to think that other minorities can't do the same thing? Freedom is lost incrementally, and its the small things like this that start making others "more equal" than the rest of us..

Explain to me, in detail please, how the Charter has been violated here. The Courts did their job, which is interpreting an Act of Parliament. Then, explain, again in detail, how this has anything to do with a (non-existent) effort to accommodate a completely different legal system that clearly violates the most basic principles of the Charter.

Once that's done, explain what it has to do with this whole ridiculous thread.

 

[Rifleman62]

This is not really new.

CTV:

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when sentencing violent offenders who have breached long-term supervision orders.

At least a decade ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when sentencing. The first case was an Indian women who murdered her husband in BC.

Oldgateboatdriver is a lawyer. He will know the details.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.justiceeducation.ca/research/aboriginal-sentencing/gladue-sentencing

Gladue and Aboriginal Sentencing

If you have been charged with a crime and are an Aboriginal person, there are special cultural considerations that the court must take into account in assessing your case.  This applies to all Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including status and non-status Indian, Inuit, and Métis and whether living on or off reserve.

What this means is that, as an Aboriginal offender, a restorative justice process may be more appropriate for you.  Such processes focus on healing those affected by the criminal act, including the offender, and so are more in line with traditional Aboriginal justice.  Also, a restorative justice approach will often allow for a solution with no jail time, which helps reduce the drastic over-representation of Aboriginals in Canadian jails.

Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 have stated that Judges should account for these considerations when making sentencing decisions. Gladue asks judges to apply a method of analysis that recognizes the adverse background cultural impact factors that many Aboriginals face.  In a Gladue analysis these factors, if present in their personal history, work to mitigate or reduce the culpability of offenders.  Judges are then asked to consider all reasonable alternatives to jail in light of this.  Such an analysis, then, is more likely to lead to a restorative justice remedy being used either in place of a jail sentence or combined with a reduced term.

It is important to keep these considerations in mind before pleading guilty to an offence, even if bail has been denied.  If in doubt, consult your lawyer or duty counsel for legal advice.  You could be entitled to a remedy that is better suited to your needs.

This does not, however, mean that all Aboriginal offenders automatically qualify for lighter sentences than non-Aboriginal offenders.  The principles of sentencing apply to all offenders equally, and so in many situations such a remedy will not be appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

 

[Redeye]

Great post, thanks a lot Rifleman62!

 

[Brad Sallows]

If we could substitute "underprivileged" for "Aboriginal", undoubtedly we would have a great many more just sentences.

 

[Sythen]

Explain to me, in detail please, how the Charter has been violated here. The Courts did their job, which is interpreting an Act of Parliament. Then, explain, again in detail, how this has anything to do with a (non-existent) effort to accommodate a completely different legal system that clearly violates the most basic principles of the Charter.

Once that's done, explain what it has to do with this whole ridiculous thread.

ok easily done. quote from the article:

Manasie Ipeelee was caught cycling drunk in Kingston in August 2008 and pleaded guilty to breach of his order. His three-year sentence was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal until it was overturned Friday by the Supreme Court.

Ipeelee's adult record contained 24 convictions, including sexual assault.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (text coloured by me):

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the
right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.

So you don't think that allowing a person, convicted 24 times of various criminal offences, a lighter sentence because he was born a certain race breaches everyone elses right to security of person?

From the mandate of the Supreme Court of Canada(text coloured by me):

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/mission/index-eng.asp

The Court is committed to:

the rule of law;
independence and impartiality; and
access to justice.

Definition of justice(text coloured by me):

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice?s=t

jus·tice   /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Show Spelled[juhs-tis] Show IPA
noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Giving someone special considerations because of their race is the polar opposite of impartiality. Saying one group of people deserve different or less punishing sentences is NOT justice. So no, the courts did not do their job. This is a miscarriage of justice.

Quote from Rifleman62's post(text coloured by me):

Such processes focus on healing those affected by the criminal act, including the offender, and so are more in line with traditional Aboriginal justice.

How far of a stretch is it to say "more in line with traditional Islamic justice"? As I said, freedom is lost incrementally and usually cheered by the less thoughtful members of society. Multiculturalism in general is a perfect example, and if you like I can post quotes from many world leaders, especially in Europe who agree that its original intention was good, but it was warped by people who don't care about our societies and warp its meaning to take advantage of our good nature. The same thing will happen with this.

Now tell me, in great detail, how does this NOT violate the Charter?  Tell me in great detail how the courts did NOT go outside their mandate? Tell me in great detail how this does NOT accomodate of different legal system that clearly violates the Charter? I am having a great deal of trouble controlling my tone, so if I come across as being snide and having no respect for your opinion, then I am sorry that your opinion has nothing respectable about it.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan

 

[Redeye]

I am having a great deal of trouble controlling my tone, so if I come across as being snide and having no respect for your opinion, then I am sorry that your opinion has nothing respectable about it.

Least we basically have the same POV then.

Nothing in what was said suggests in any way that aboriginals are specifically entitled to lighter sentences. I don't know, without reading the decision in detail, why the SC overturned the sentence. However, the law of the land specifically says that that consideration is to be made, and in many cases (though probably not this one) there's probably good reason for that.

To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad. The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.

 

[Sythen]

Nothing in what was said suggests in any way that aboriginals are specifically entitled to lighter sentences.

Quote from the article Rifleman62 posted(text coloured by me):

If you have been charged with a crime and are an Aboriginal person, there are special cultural considerations that the court must take into account in assessing your case.  This applies to all Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including status and non-status Indian, Inuit, and Métis and whether living on or off reserve.

So in other words, if a non-native and a native both have the EXACT same background, and lived the EXACT same life, when it comes to sentencing the judge can choose to ignore the non-native's mitigating circumstances but not so for the native. That is a two tier justice system.

However, the law of the land specifically says that that consideration is to be made, and in many cases (though probably not this one) there's probably good reason for that.

There is absolutely nothing outside of soft racism that allows this "man", and I use that term lightly, to be free. If I had even a quarter of this guy's convictions I would never see the light of day again (and I fully believe that should be the case). Earlier today I checked and posted the actual definition of the word justice, and unless its changed in the last hour or so since I did, punishment is still in there. Rehabilitation is and should remain a primary driver in our courts decisions, but it should never outweigh punishment for crimes. People must, in the end, take responsibility for their actions.

To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

The typical Left wing mantra: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. 20 years ago if someone said there would be a 2 tier sentencing system for natives and non-natives, people like you with their head buried in the sand would have said the exact same thing.

The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.

Highlights in above quote mine. What I love about reading your posts is you love to use terms like most and many and other such terms. You never post proof. You just throw out the typical Left wing "all of you are paranoid and sad because my narrow world view doesn't take reality into account" message. Please, prove me wrong. Help me sleep better at nights. Posting links and doing a little bit of reading takes me about 15 mins to write these replies. I know I won't convince you to pull your head out of the sand, but anyone who is on the fence who reads these will at least take something useful away from them. Shame you can't say the same about your posts.

 

[Redeye]

Wow. Did you even read the Guardian article you posted? I remember that whole thing, I watched it with interest at the time. The proposal was to allow for a form of arbitration for Muslims - similar to structures that existed for Catholics and Jews who wished to use them. Those arbitration structures would NOT be able to overrule the court system - that is to say they could not reach a decision which fundamentally violated the law of the land. Further, the subset of the Muslim community did have a fairly reasonable leg to stand on in law - there was a case to be made for discrimination if Catholic and Jewish arbitration systems were allowed by law but theirs wasn't.

The best arguments against it - and the reason as I recall that they ultimately went nowhere (key: went nowhere!) was that there was a fairly well-founded concern that recent immigrants in particular, unfamiliar with Canadian/Ontario law could be steered toward them where they might get a "less favourable" result than in the courts. Even then they would still have recourse to the regular court system, so that's not really an issue - but without that information readily available, there was some concern. The idea that Muslim Canadians were going to create a parallel legal structure for themselves divorced from the Charter of Rights and Freedom and Canadian law is a grievous misrepresentation of the report's findings and discussion.

Ultimately, the McGuinty Government simply scrapped all religious tribunals, which is just fine with me.

I have to ask, is your argument for a threat of "sharia law" (which is usually accompanied by the suggestion that all aspects of the legal system would somehow be "replaced", rather than something like this) a FAILED attempt at creating a civil dispute mechanism? Seriously? Is that actually your argument? Because I have to say, if that's the best you have, I think we're done here.

 

[Redeye]

Incidentally, I never said I agreed with that ruling. I don't. Setting up "special treatment" of a group to attempt to "right past wrongs" or whatever the goal was here doesn't make sense to me. The concept of restorative justice in generally seems to me a good idea and probably has good applications for all Canadians. I also don't think that the referenced case is one that I'm happy with the idea of getting lenient treatment at law because it doesn't sound like this guy has any respect for the law, and I don't care if he's native of not. All cases should be approached the same. However, there's more to the story than was originally represented, including legislation to support what the court said. If you don't like it, then call your MP and demand the law be changed.

What I was criticizing was the OMFGSHARIALAW silliness that followed.

 

[a_majoor]

Obviously you fail to comprehend that Sharia Law is not a "dispute mechanism" but rather a comprehensive system of religious law that underpins the ideas of law and justice in the Islamic mind. Concepts like separation of Church and State do not even exist in the Islamic world view, nor do ideas like the supremacy of an elected legislature (unless they intend to use the "legitimacy" of "one man, one vote, once" to seize power as we are seeing in the aftermath of the Arab Spring).

Allowing differential justice of any kind undermines the concept of "Rule of Law", and the Supreme Court decision should be considered a very shameful episode in our history. To correctly establish a system of Justice (as opposed to fairness) the SC should have properly overturned the provisions in the Criminal Code that established differential sentencing or other forms of discrimination.

The only solution now wold be for this or some future government to strike these provisions from the Criminal Code to reestablish a system of Justice.

 

[Sythen]

Because I have to say, if that's the best you have, I think we're done here.

At last, we agree. I had begun typing and again getting links to take your posts apart again, but you will continue posting without saying anything except that we are wrong and you're right, the facts be damned. I'm starting to see why Thucydides stopped replying to your challenges of his posts.

One thing I will point out, as its obvious that YOU did not read the Guardian article I linked.

I have to ask, is your argument for a threat of "sharia law" (which is usually accompanied by the suggestion that all aspects of the legal system would somehow be "replaced", rather than something like this) a FAILED attempt at creating a civil dispute mechanism?

Quote from Guardian article:

During the ensuing outcry, a former attorney general, Marion Boyd, was asked to review how the arbitration act was working and whether it adversely affected vulnerable people, including women, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Published in December 2004, her report recommended (pdf) that the "Arbitration Act should continue to allow disputes to be arbitrated using religious law."

So it only failed when a Sharia alternative was proposed. A full report done says the Christian and Jewish versions were fine and didn't leave anyone out in the cold, so to speak. ok, I'm done. Replace head in hole and cover with sand.

 

[Sythen]

To then go onto this nonsense about Sharia, well, I can't say I'm surprised. This kind of idiocy/hysteria over sharia is emerging down south it seems, and it's sad to see such nonsensical paranoia about it here. It's really, really sad. The idea that there's some realistic prospect that it could somehow subvert the law of the land, especially when Muslims are a pretty tiny minority, and most don't seem particularly interested in the idea, is frankly laughable, and I dismiss it as such.

ok, I was done but as if on cue:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/03/20120324-104042.html

TORONTO - A local bookstore has "sold out" of a controversial marriage guide that advises Muslim men on how to beat their wives.

The 160-page book, published by Idara Impex in New Delhi, India, is written by Hazrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, who's described in the book's foreword as a "prolific writer on almost every topic of Islamic learning."

The store's manager, who didn't give his name, said the book had been sold out for some time, and the store's owner, whom the manager identified as Shamim Ahmad, refused to comment for the story.

More on link. I guess "most muslims" don't include these ones. I hate to make the Nazi reference, but how much evil do we need to see before we say enough is enough?

 

[Redeye]

Obviously you fail to comprehend that Sharia Law is not a "dispute mechanism" but rather a comprehensive system of religious law that underpins the ideas of law and justice in the Islamic mind. Concepts like separation of Church and State do not even exist in the Islamic world view, nor do ideas like the supremacy of an elected legislature (unless they intend to use the "legitimacy" of "one man, one vote, once" to seize power as we are seeing in the aftermath of the Arab Spring).

Yes I'm quite aware of that. The issue at hand is the concept of an arbitration system for those who wished to use it which drew principles used to resolve to civil disputes from Sharia - which covers everything from inheritance to criminal justice to contract law - within the context of Canadian law only. And it failed. There is, there was, there never will be any effort with any chance of imposing sharia law in its totality in Canada. It. Will. Never. Happen. Ever. Even that effort failed.

Allowing differential justice of any kind undermines the concept of "Rule of Law", and the Supreme Court decision should be considered a very shameful episode in our history. To correctly establish a system of Justice (as opposed to fairness) the SC should have properly overturned the provisions in the Criminal Code that established differential sentencing or other forms of discrimination.

My understanding, skimming the decision, is that the SC said it doesn't mandate judges sentences differently in all cases. But I tend to agree that at the very least the law needs to be reviewed in the context of the charter.

The only solution now wold be for this or some future government to strike these provisions from the Criminal Code to reestablish a system of Justice.

Hey, look at that. Civics 101. What growth.

 

[Redeye]

More on link. I guess "most muslims" don't include these ones. I hate to make the Nazi reference, but how much evil do we need to see before we say enough is enough?

I haven't found any information on statistics on domestic violence by religion (but honestly, I don't even care anymore, and it's irrelevant). I don't know if someone has bothered to, but you could write a book based on the Bible in a similar vein that has the potential to be just about as detestable, incidentally.

I don't know if you're familiar with the concept of free speech, free expression, etc. Nor am I sure you're clear on the concept of freedom of religion as enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So, if you say "enough is enough", what exactly are you suggesting is the response?  I'd be pleased as a society if we could do away with all religions, but since that isn't realistic, I'll stick with treating everyone equally, which is what the law of the land requires.

 

[Sythen]

My understanding, skimming the decision, is that the SC said it doesn't mandate judges sentences differently in all cases. But I tend to agree that at the very least the law needs to be reviewed in the context of the charter.

How long until every native starts appealing every sentence because they claim their past wasn't adequately taken into account? And when that starts happening, how long until judges just give them a constant slap on the wrist simply to save time and money? Its very easy to see this going very badly. Nothing good comes from decisions like this.

I don't know if someone has bothered to, but you could write a book based on the Bible in a similar vein that has the potential to be just about as detestable, incidentally.

Yes you COULD write one based on nearly any religious text. Heck an atheist wrote a guide on how to molest kids. ( http://christiangovernance.ca/news/amazon-pulls-%E2%80%98pedophile-guide%E2%80%99-amid-outrage ) Its not the fact that it was written that is so bad, because there is always a few crazies in any group of people. Its the fact this store has sold out of them. And has been sold out for months.

You always claim to be in the center, but I have yet to see you offer even one centrist viewpoint. Your an apologist and a hard Left loonie. I will not claim to be center because I am not trying to fool anyone. That actually brings up another point.. Who says centrist views are a good thing? Any extreme is a bad thing, and there would be extreme centrists.. How does the quote go? If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anythig? Something like that..