Politics in 2018

[Piece of Cake]

Public protection absolutely must be paramount.

Agreed.  However this is not practiced by all.  For example, let's look at the pracrice of some police departments in Ontario. Too often, instead of processing someone who has been arrested -who is well known to the law enforcement in that area - police will drop that person off at a hospital under section 17.  This individual will then be seen by a doctor who will either place this person on a form, or will be discharged.  In both cases, neither results in a charge. 

Now let's say this person is placed on a form.  Now the hospital is responsible to ensure the safety of the public as the hospital has to provide security to watch this person and ensure that they 1) don't harm someone 2) don't harm themselves 3) don't escape.  The staff that are performing these functions do not have the same tools as the police constables who brought this person in. 

Don't get me started on those found to be NCR, but released 2 years after a murder.

New York reduced crime drastically, many years ago, by treating even minor crimes seriously. That discouraged many minor offenders from escalating to bigger crimes. They quickly understood that throwing a stone through a window would result in arrest, a cell overnight, a trial, and an appropriate sentence rather than just a stern talking-to and immediate release following a promise to behave.

Yes, the broken windows theory.  I agree with some points but not all.  What about a person who makes a simple mistake?  Should that mistake follow him /her around for the rest of their life?

Where will the extra resources come from that are needed to process and house those who commit a simple crime? Given that resources are limited, what would you like to trade in exchange?  Should we take money from education? Sports programs? Housing? All of the above have a negative correlation to crime.  How about we take it from health care?

Lastly, and this is a personal opinion. I would rather have 10 people who committed a crime go free, than convict one innocent person.

 

[YZT580]

We live with the consequences of our mistakes all the time.  Why should criminal activities allow a person to escape the consequences just because it is a first offense?  The courts generally accept and are very compassionate for a first offender as perhaps they should but they should never let the offender off without some form of suitable chastisement.  But when it is the third and fourth time then enough is enough.  It is time to protect people from an obviously unrepentant individual.  But then again, if we had made it clear to that offender the first time that his behaviour was not acceptable then maybe we wouldn't be dealing with the third time.  Repealing Harper's third offence laws was one of Trudeau's biggest mistakes imho.  People know that they can continue to get away with it.  When that happens eventually someone dies.   

 

[pbi]

The suggestion that a guy should take a beating, or worse, while he waits for the law to show up (if they show up, property crimes are low priority in these here parts) rather than defend "just stuff" is revolting. If I'm outnumber 5-2 in a showdown with an unpredictable adversary, is that not reason enough to fear for my life?

I'm at risk of being misunderstood. In the scenario you described above, your life is clearly and reasonably in danger. As  (or "if") I understand the CCC, it is acceptable to use force, sometimes lethal force, to protect your life in self defense. That's fine.

For a different example, in Canada an armoured truck guard carries a side arm. There is probably a long gun racked inside the truck. But, under the CCC, those weapons are there to protect life, not money or property.

When I was a student at Quantico, a USMC Legal Officer who was a resident of Florida, was explaining US gun laws to all us foreigners. He very proudly stated that in his state, if a policeman came on his property without a warrant, he could shoot him. I thought this was madness.

What I don't believe in, or want, is a society where any trespasser (or passer by who acts questionably, or a policeman who steps on someone's property) can be shot, no questions asked, unless they are a reasonable threat to life.  The penalty for trespassing, or petty theft, or just plain stupidity, is not death. At least not in Canada.

 

[pbi]

Genuinely curious, mind if I ask what motivated you to vote Liberal?
[I found this Conservatives were getting cocky, all but abandoned the CAF and firearm owners (two biggies for me) but their stance on refugees was what sealed the blue deal for me this go.]

Three reasons:

First, because of what seem to me to be systemic problems in our political system, the Tories were sinking into the swamp of what I call "Second-Term-itis". This pathology (IMHO) affects all parties in Federal power in Canada, regardless, and the Liberals are absolutely no exception, nor would the NDP be if (God Forbid) they ever got in power somehow.  It is characterized by increasing levels of arrogance, secrecy, disdain for the spirit and principles of democracy, increasing appeal to various special interest groups,  disingenuousness that often becomes dishonesty; and finally corruption.

As I've posted elsewhere, some of history's greatest leaders (to wit: Washington and Wellington) have warned against the corrosive and poisonous nature of party politics. I think we see it on a fairly regular basis in this country. (and the US too, for that matter...)

We could of course argue just how much of each symptom the Tories showed, or not, and whether my concerns were factual or just impressions. Regardless, this was important for me;

Second, although I do hold some beliefs which might be bumper-stickered as "conservative", I am more of a "centrist" and certainly not a "right winger". I'm probably what's called a "Red Tory". In  my opinion the Tories were beginning to drift too far towards "right-wing" rhetoric. Again an impression perhaps, but it meant something to me.  I don't want this country run by any "wing" (and it normally never has been, as compared to other countries), so that also influenced me.

Finally, as "all politics is local", I felt that the Liberal Candidate here in Kingston was by far the best qualified candidate to represent the riding, as he had already been the Mayor and understood the issues faced here. Because of the nature of Kingston he had experience dealing with both Provincial and Federal levels of government. He was also known to some of my family members who spoke well of him.

So, that was then. This is now. I don't give my vote mindlessly to any party, and in my opinion my loyalty to what I want this country to be is far, far more important than my "loyalty" to any political party. The Liberals will not get my vote automatically: nobody will.

 

[mariomike]

As I've posted elsewhere, some of history's greatest leaders (to wit: Washington and Wellington) have warned against the corrosive and poisonous nature of party politics. I think we see it on a fairly regular basis in this country. (and the US too, for that matter...)

Or, to paraphrase LaGuardia, “There is no Liberal or Conservative way of fixing a sewer.”

 

[jollyjacktar]

Finally, as "all politics is local", I felt that the Liberal Candidate here in Kingston was by far the best qualified candidate to represent the riding, as he had already been the Mayor and understood the issues faced here. Because of the nature of Kingston he had experience dealing with both Provincial and Federal levels of government. He was also known to some of my family members who spoke well of him.

So, that was then. This is now. I don't give my vote mindlessly to any party, and in my opinion my loyalty to what I want this country to be is far, far more important than my "loyalty" to any political party. The Liberals will not get my vote automatically: nobody will.

This was the reasoning, I voted for the NDP candidate for my riding until the boundaries were redrawn in 2006.  Now perhaps I made an error in judgement then as this particular ex-NDP MP is now being accused of "#me too" problems and my vote added to his being sent to Ottawa.

 

[Rifleman62]

Kinder Morgan is all about protecting the environment. Still blaming Harper. Spin,spin, spin.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/14/news/inside-interview-trudeau-spills-kinder-morgan-pipeline

Trudeau spills on Kinder Morgan pipeline - 14 Feb 18

Extract: PMJT: "The national objective is, as we said many times — protecting the environment and growing the economy at the same time. Those are the two things that we set out as a core of what we do, and what we recognize Canadians know that we need. We need to make sure we’ve got jobs for the future, but we also need to make sure we’re protecting the environment, which means making sure we’re moving towards a transition off of fossil fuels in the long run, making sure we’re protecting our oceans, making sure we’re creating opportunities for Canadians and their families to have good work.

What means tangibly for us, is that we put forward a national plan on fighting climate change, on reducing carbon emissions. We moved forward on a historical oceans protection plan and we’re moving forward on getting our resources to market safely and securely through the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And all those things tie together as a part of the whole."

 

[pbi]

This was the reasoning, I voted for the NDP candidate for my riding until the boundaries were redrawn in 2006.  Now perhaps I made an error in judgement then as this particular ex-NDP MP is now being accused of "#me too" problems and my vote added to his being sent to Ottawa.

Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.

 

[pbi]

Kinder Morgan is all about protecting the environment. Still blaming Harper. Spin,spin, spin.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/14/news/inside-interview-trudeau-spills-kinder-morgan-pipeline

Trudeau spills on Kinder Morgan pipeline - 14 Feb 18
Extract: PMJT: "The national objective is, as we said many times — protecting the environment and growing the economy at the same time. Those are the two things that we set out as a core of what we do, and what we recognize Canadians know that we need. We need to make sure we’ve got jobs for the future, but we also need to make sure we’re protecting the environment, which means making sure we’re moving towards a transition off of fossil fuels in the long run,

Right. But what's wrong with striking a balance? We need oil and gas products, for sure (and we will for years to come), but we also need clean air, clean water and clean soil, or we'll be dead or quite ill.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Patrick Brown says he'll run for the PC leadership again?  This could get interesting,........backlash votes from "tired of #metoo" people?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.

We elected Darryl Dexter in NS as the first and probably last NDP government.  They lasted one spin and were a complete bunch of tools.  Dexter in particular. 

 

[FSTO]

Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.

You are lucky you left. They left a total disaster for the PC's to attempt to clean up.

 

[pbi]

You are lucky you left. They left a total disaster for the PC's to attempt to clean up.

Ahhh. Just like in Ontario, where I am pretty sure they will never, ever, come back again. Good intentions but not very good execution.

But, then, what about Alberta...who could have called that one? The Devil must have been calling up clothing stores to issue winter kit...

 

[Scott]

We elected Darryl Dexter in NS as the first and probably last NDP government.  They lasted one spin and were a complete bunch of tools.  Dexter in particular.

The Dexter NDP were a different beast, though when he stuck it to Joan Jessome I couldn't help guffawing, a lot. That got Michael de Addrer a lot of play.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The Dexter NDP were a different beast, though when he stuck it to Joan Jessome I couldn't help guffawing, a lot. That got Michael de Addrer a lot of play.

Yeah, a bit of Blue on Blue action happening there. 

 

[FSTO]

Ahhh. Just like in Ontario, where I am pretty sure they will never, ever, come back again. Good intentions but not very good execution.

But, then, what about Alberta...who could have called that one? The Devil must have been calling up clothing stores to issue winter kit...

Manitoba is a strange beast. About 200km NNW of the Yellowhead Highway (TCH 16), East side of Brandon and most of Winnipeg is pretty hard core NDP, the rest is hard core PC. The liberals have the odd enclave in Winnipeg. Its kind of reverse of the federal scene where the Conservatives require a strong NDP vote to defeat the Libs, in Manitoba the PC's require a strong Liberal vote to defeat the NDP.
Winnipeg, which holds over 80% of the population of the province is the lynch pin to who runs the province.

 

[FJAG]

I'm at risk of being misunderstood. In the scenario you described above, your life is clearly and reasonably in danger. As  (or "if") I understand the CCC, it is acceptable to use force, sometimes lethal force, to protect your life in self defense. That's fine.

For a different example, in Canada an armoured truck guard carries a side arm. There is probably a long gun racked inside the truck. But, under the CCC, those weapons are there to protect life, not money or property.

When I was a student at Quantico, a USMC Legal Officer who was a resident of Florida, was explaining US gun laws to all us foreigners. He very proudly stated that in his state, if a policeman came on his property without a warrant, he could shoot him. I thought this was madness.

What I don't believe in, or want, is a society where any trespasser (or passer by who acts questionably, or a policeman who steps on someone's property) can be shot, no questions asked, unless they are a reasonable threat to life.  The penalty for trespassing, or petty theft, or just plain stupidity, is not death. At least not in Canada.

PBI asked me to comment on this post so here goes.

In the US, the various states have passed what are called "Stand Your Ground" laws (Also called "line in the sand" and "no duty to retreat" laws). They vary from state to state but in essence provide that you have no requirement to retreat from a place where you have a right to be and can use force to repel an unlawful intruder. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In Canada the law is different but not toothless. In essence it is covered under ss 34, 35, 464(2) and 25 of the Criminal Code.

S 34 provides for the right for someone to defend themselves and others with such force as is reasonably necessary from acts of force or the threat of force. The section and of course case law provides for what the circumstances and limits of that are.

S 35 provides for the right to protect or assist in protecting property that is about to be entered by someone not entitled by law to do so or take the property or damage the property so long as the act being used to protect the property is a reasonable one.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9

S 494(2) provides that an owner of property (and anyone assisting them) may make a citizen's arrest without warrant of anyone committing a criminal offence against that property. They have an obligation to forthwith deliver any person arrested to a peace officer.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164

In respect to an arrest under s 494(2), s 25 of the CCC provides that anyone who is authorized or required by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (specifically here, making an arrest) is justified in using such force which is reasonably necessary if acting on reasonable grounds.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6

The problem, as with much of the law, is determining what the facts are at any given time and if the response or acts of the "innocent" person are in fact reasonable in the circumstances. That generally runs on a continuum. At one end using deadly force to protect yourself from imminent deadly force is fairly clear and obvious. At the other is the question of how much force is reasonable to apprehend a criminal who is trying to escape or evade capture and no longer a risk to the property.

The police and the crown should analyze those situations in order to determine if charges should be laid against the "innocent" party. Regrettably, in many cases they tend to charge and let the trial sort it out. I don't think that this is necessarily out of an overabundance of caution but because, more often than not, there are conflicting stories muddy the waters.

At the end of the day, the questions may need to be answered by either a judge or jury who, of course, will be analysing the situation with typical twenty/twenty hindsight in a quiet courtroom rather than the chaos of a farmyard.

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

Sounding more and more like a Liberal hit job. I hope that's proven quickly to clearly indicate how crooked the ON Liberals are.

Further to ModlrMike's post, this just published.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4535373?__twitter_impression=true

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here."
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/127409.0.html

If I were to put my tin foil hat on I would bet on it being an insider job from the PCs. 

Think about it.  Kathleen Wynn was starting to chip away at his lead.  They needed a way to get him to go away.  In no time they have a leadership campaign up and running and ready to go.  Polls for those other candidates or even without a candidate are higher than what Patrick brown had. 

Brown claims he never resigned and they promptly throw him out.

Maybe there was enough rumour and innuendo to make this happen.

I think the Liberals were happy to face brown.  Or...maybe they (The liberals) just wanted to smear him a bit to increase their lead thinking the PCs would have no choice but to keep them on and underestimated how quick they would resolve the issue.

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[Kat Stevens]

PBI asked me to comment on this post so here goes.

In the US, the various states have passed what are called "Stand Your Ground" laws (Also called "line in the sand" and "no duty to retreat" laws). They vary from state to state but in essence provide that you have no requirement to retreat from a place where you have a right to be and can use force to repel an unlawful intruder. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In Canada the law is different but not toothless. In essence it is covered under ss 34, 35, 464(2) and 25 of the Criminal Code.

S 34 provides for the right for someone to defend themselves and others with such force as is reasonably necessary from acts of force or the threat of force. The section and of course case law provides for what the circumstances and limits of that are.

S 35 provides for the right to protect or assist in protecting property that is about to be entered by someone not entitled by law to do so or take the property or damage the property so long as the act being used to protect the property is a reasonable one.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9

S 494(2) provides that an owner of property (and anyone assisting them) may make a citizen's arrest without warrant of anyone committing a criminal offence against that property. They have an obligation to forthwith deliver any person arrested to a peace officer.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164

In respect to an arrest under s 494(2), s 25 of the CCC provides that anyone who is authorized or required by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (specifically here, making an arrest) is justified in using such force which is reasonably necessary if acting on reasonable grounds.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6

The problem, as with much of the law, is determining what the facts are at any given time and if the response or acts of the "innocent" person are in fact reasonable in the circumstances. That generally runs on a continuum. At one end using deadly force to protect yourself from imminent deadly force is fairly clear and obvious. At the other is the question of how much force is reasonable to apprehend a criminal who is trying to escape or evade capture and no longer a risk to the property.

The police and the crown should analyze those situations in order to determine if charges should be laid against the "innocent" party. Regrettably, in many cases they tend to charge and let the trial sort it out. I don't think that this is necessarily out of an overabundance of caution but because, more often than not, there are conflicting stories muddy the waters.

At the end of the day, the questions may need to be answered by either a judge or jury who, of course, will be analysing the situation with typical twenty/twenty hindsight in a quiet courtroom rather than the chaos of a farmyard.

:cheers:

So now, not only do you have rural residents scared of the feral bipedal creatures that seem to roam around out here unchecked, they also live in fear that, if they protect their property and selves, they'll be charged, tried, smeared in the media, and then left destitute for defending themselves against the government. It's truly a great time to be alive.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Somewhat related to what FJAG posted earlier, here, courtesy of the National Post, is the full transcript of Chief Justice Martel Popescul instructions to the jury in the Stanley murder trial.

Full transcript of judge’s instructions to Colten Boushie jury: Put yourself in a juror’s shoes