I know they’re new at governing, but I had hoped the days of spending our tax dollars prosecuting “shower curtain” cases were over.
I know they’re new at governing, but I had hoped the days of spending our tax dollars prosecuting “shower curtain” cases were over.
Kate:
I guess that we have a generational gap here. What the h is a “shower curtain case”?
click on the 2nd link ‘the days’
Just curious Kate…
Link #3 goes to Akehenew’s story?
Did you mean the ‘ban on alcohol’ story?
We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that’ all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I mean the decision to retry him. What a waste of time, effort and money.
I am not sure that your new government should have any say in this case. I hold dear the idea of the judicial branch separate from the legislators, which is separate from the law enforcement.
When the legislators get involved in individual prosecution rather than writing the laws that are to be enforced it is tampering.
I agree that the David A. case should be dropped but that would be something that needs to be taken up with the Crown Prosecutor not the Premier.
Ancient Who lyrics. Wow, Lavrenty, you’re really cool.
I don’t think it is logical to hang this on the Sask Party. Put another way: if the Sask Party specifically instructed the crown on how to proceed with a criminal matter isn’t that textbook political interference? Yet another way: the decision was likely made by a crown attorney, as is their job; Had Wall interfered with a holocaust related hate crime prosecution he’d be internationally reviled as a Nazi, probably by the same “supporters” who allegedly want him to drop this matter.
In this context I find it difficult to blame the Sask Party; as usual, the culprit is the Canadian public, who sat on their hands for 30 years while their rights were taken away. Good job guys.
Did a white guy say it – No
What if a white guy said it?
i’m aware of the need to separate the judicial and the political, but the case itself is small-p left wing politics, pure and simple, and should have never been touched under hate crime prosecutions.
That’s the part that rubs me the wrong way. The judicial branch should be independent, but the crown ‘s legal representatives shouldn’t act as free agents to make broader societal statements, which is what this is all about.
Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say damn near anything, short of immediate incitement to crime. It means the right of one person to say something that would make another person’s blood boil.
Otherwise, if it’s only for that speech which is comfortable, banal, innocuous, safe, that’s not Freedom of Speech.
You don’t prevent speech that offends with censorship but with better ideas in “the free marketplace of ideas”. So-called “hate speech” laws are censorship, any way you cut it. And once you’re on that slippery slope, where does censorship end?
We might want to ask Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant about Freedom of Speech and Press and that very question.
the prosecution in sask isn’t renowned for it’s intelligentice of which cases to spend tax dollar’s on. klassen, latimer, not prosecuting sask gameing problem’s
I’m with Northern Nut.The elected government involved in who does and doesn’t get prosecuted? Madness lies that way… And the people making decisions in our justice system are far enough along that road, thank you very much.
Yvonne Johnson gets day parole on a murder 1 conviction, with the parole board dismissing concerns about drug use and violent acts while in custody, and she’s profiting from her book about torturing an innocent man to death, while Robert Latimer continues to rot in jail because the PB didn’t think he was contrite enough.
Add elected officials to that steaming, festering pile? No thanks.
Well, then where is the check and balance to a justice system run amock? What sort of democracy releases the most powerful arm of the state from its control?
Talk about madness!
[quote]I am not sure that your new government should have any say in this case. I hold dear the idea of the judicial branch separate from the legislators, which is separate from the law enforcement.[/quote]
This separation in Canada seems extreme. No political branch should interfere with matters before the Court but the ppl must have some sway over who has those powers.
I find it odd when watching Canadian parliamentary hearings that the Lawyer, not testifying, takes a seat “beside” his/her client at the witness table. It almost looks to be intimidating.
Is not the crown subservient in the peoples house and should properly sit “behind” his/her client.
Just asking.
Well, then where is the check and balance to a justice system run amock? What sort of democracy releases the most powerful arm of the state from its control?
Agreed there needs to be a system of balance, but I hesitate to fix a left wing agenda by imposing pressure from a right wing government. The legislators (politicians) need to pass legislation that causes the Crown to narrowly construe the laws. The control is in legislation. It also can take the form of private citizens chastising the Crown or the process. Ultimately in this case the Judiciary got it right. The Crown now needs to learn this.
We have seen in the M-446 bill that even without major MSM front page coverage, the outrage of the public can come to the forefront. Even more impressive is that it can come from an opposition party, and come in a manner that can produce non partisan support.
The process to fix our ailing legal system is slow, but it must start with a public ready for change and judicial appointments that produce sound jurists. Beyond that the Crown will eventually learn if they consistently run into logical judgments that the David A. case and ones like it are not worth fighting.
I personally thought that the Crown would see the $1000 judgment as an indication. Obviously the Crown is a bit thicker than I thought.
Keep up the good fight Kate.
The only way to get a “Rule of the Land” ruling is to let this case go all the way UP
Same type of thing (different issues) happening in the US 9th circuit..
I suppose this is a good sign for Saskatchewan … the Crown has nothing better to do.
I’m going to have to come down on the side of the the government in this one. Clearly, this case had its start long before the Sask party came to power, and there really isn’t much they can do about it. If they were to order the Crown prosecutor to drop the case, you can be sure they would come under fire from the talking heads on the left for “condoning anti-Semitism.” Anyone want to bet against that?
Let the case work its way through the courts, and perhaps the hate-crimes law will be overturned. End of problem. If not, then it will be time for legislative action to modify or repeal the law.
For what it’s worth, I did get a thoughtful response from my MLA to an e-mail which I sent with respect to the AHRC situation. I believe “they” are taking notice.
A total waste of time and tax dollars.
Ahenakew repeats a statement of fact in his life that some Germans he met told him told him that the Jews were the problem in Germany.
With his limited education, (I noticed no schooling at all listed for him) how was he know for sure what happened in Germany.
In fact, look at all the Germans who actually lived thru that period and claimed to not have known what was really going on in Germany.
Yet here is a guy, from a land 5000 mi away, charged with inciting hatred for repeating what was a bloody statement of fact in his life.
Did he ever incite violence against the Jews?
Did he ever organize marches against the Jews?
Did he ever do anything physical against the Jews?
What a crock of baloney this justice system has become under the Liberals.
It can’t put violent criminals in jail and keep them there, and yet here they are wasting their damn time on thought-crime crap like this.
Maybe what we really need is quotas on who gets to work into the justice system to begin with.
Ahenakew repeats a statement of fact in his life that some Germans he met told him told him that the Jews were the problem in Germany.
The word “Fact” is a problem in that sentance and does nothing but confuse the reader. “True” is also not a good word. He could not possibly know it was FACT or that what he was told was TRUE.
Mr Ahenakew may just need help cleaning up his english and not make stupid statements that can be used against him by a shit head lawyer.
Mr Ahenakew may have also heard that at a residential school or at Government meetings.
You can be sure Mr Ahenakew did not hear that from the Beaver, Moose, Elk, or Bear on the reserve.
Here’s a stupid question… With all the tribunals in the news lately… Why are we putting this through the real court and not just convicting him through a human rights commission??
Why is this one going to a real trial?
Actually Kate … the decision to proceed would have been made solely by the Senior Crown Prosecutors – the Minister of Justice and Cabinet have NO say in prosecutions … and that is actually a good thing. The Minister of Justice would not have been consulted in the decision to prosecute – he would have been advised of the Prosecutions Branch decision.