What, Beverly McLachlin worry?
I mean, what’s the big deal about murdering some 3,000 people in one morning?
Mark
Ottawa
Update: Dear Beverly,
Pity no going “overboard” here:
Crown, defence want 7-year term for man guilty in Toronto terrorism plot
…
Even after his incarceration, Dirie still considered himself an active member of the group and was devoted to the jihadist cause, court heard.
He continued trying to get guns for himself and others, tried to get false passports for himself and other group members, and tried to indoctrinate fellow inmates at Ontario’s Collins Bay penitentiary to the extremist cause.
Court heard how the co-leader attempted to send him a package of books and CDs containing violent videos of attacks and bombings on military personnel and other jihadist propaganda.
“Dirie was recruiting people . . . to join the jihadist group,” Bond said.
He also encouraged and advised the co-leader in a series of phone calls but rejected suggestions he take over leadership of the group.
During the calls, Dirie bragged about the pleasant conditions in jail – including his access to a basketball court, showers and work.
“This place is luxury, man,” he said during one call, court heard.
He also decried moderate Muslims and professed his readiness to “take orders.”..
So what now? In fact two/three years before parole? Yikes. Earlier:
Little truth in sentencing…
The Stupid Court of Canada . . .
What ever happened to the Supremes?
Common sense, protect the people ??
C’mon Beverly, you can’t be senile yet.
Perhaps she was merely echoing Benjamin Franklin:
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
Alberta’s shame – a female Chamberlain
Big enough picture for ya?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/epa/DSCF0125.jpg
Let me see: She’s a Liberal and was a professor.
If she overwhelmingly supported Morgentaler being awarded the Order of Canada, nothing she said would surprise me.
“This year’s committee for the O of C consisted of 9 members. The vote favoured Dr. Morgentaler by a tally of 7-2. Justice Beverly McLaughlin apparently waived the usual unanimous vote rule for Dr. Mogentaler’s nomination approval.” James Curran blog.
Cripes.It appears that it has now reached the point that these Islamfacist supporters need to have a few of their family members knocked of by terrorists before they get the fact of what the “religion of peace” is all about. But then they actually have no worries,as the terrorists won’t touch these very useful idiots until they have gained a foothold that can’t be turned around.Don’t they realize that at that point,the useful idiots are the first to go??? Don’t the supposed “learned judges” take history lessons?
So the point of criticizing Chief Justice McLachlin is to say that any and all restrictions and government action in the name of Homeland Security / Patriot Act – type measures are ok?
Something of a strange position to take for people who presumably read this website in support of the criticisms against the kind of restrictions that s. 13 of the Human Rights Act (Canada) places on Canadians, wouldn’t you say? “Please repeal s. 13 so we can talk about anything, but by all means pass all kinds of other laws that restrict civil liberties so the terrorists don’t get us.”
McLachlin’s calling for balance; that’s all — hardly an “overboard” position. And she says it’s an area where tough decisions to reach that balance are needed.
I wonder what she considers “overboard”.
Jeeze, come on they were only Americans! What’s wrong with you people? It isn’t like they crashed into something important, right?
You Conservatives, so excitable.
So what’s your definition of balance,Don?
But Mme Justice McLachlin has no problem going “overboard” in her court’s response to the need to equalize societal impacts on women on the backs of their husband’s through a never-ending intellectual piece of gymnastics called “spousal support” law.
As a family lawyer with some 24 years experience, it is apparent that the attitude of the SCC is that husbands (almost exclusively) should shoulder the burden of broad economic disadvantages felt by women (often self-imposed impacts). Overboard indeed. And when the outcome they desire isn’t supported by previous decisions of the SCC, well, they just change it again.
It’s almost laughable.
This is the outcome of affirmative action at the highest levels of society.
The criminal justice system is woefully inadequate for dealing with issues related to domestic terrorism. Just look at the mess in Britain and now in the Denver case.
Oh,and BTW,Don. Nice strawman with the HRC “arguement”. You see,the difference is,one(the killing of 3000+ by terrorists) actually happened,while in the HRC world,you only have to think it to make it “have happened” See the difference here? Didn’t think so.
She said “Or perhaps it may lead governments to curtail civil liberties and seek recourse in tactics they might otherwise deplore … that may not, in the clearer light of retrospect, be necessary or defensible.”
She did not defend the terrorists. She simply warned about the government taking advantage of the situation.
Hillary Clinton: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience Friday “never waste a good crisis,”
Rahm Emmanuel said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Don’t put words into her mouth. I’m sure that there are many things I would disagree with, but “murdering 3,000 people” is not even close to what she said.
Suppose the FLQ (Front du Liberation du Quebec) bombs the Ottawa Parliament. Is attacking Quebec an appropriate response? The imposition of curfews, border inspections and the restrictions on civil liberties?
Curbing freedom for any Canadians *is* going overboard.
Although, it would appear she’s referring specifically to terrorists. The non-citizen kind. Anyone who has a problem with our liberal (in a classic sense) society doesn’t deserve it’s civil rights.
Justice Beverley McLachlin is a big Liberal woman laughingly commenting on how to fight what amounts to the third world war.
That is not her area of understanding. Please stick to dealing with national grievances about the homeless and the drug addicted and leave the serious issues either firstly, to conservative men or secondly to women like Sarah Palin or Britain’s former Iron lady Maggie Thatcher. All other Liberal women go get your nails done, go shopping and shut up.
McLachlin is typical of an appointed elite who want maximum political influence, without being bothered to run for office. To say 9/11 should not be given too much emphasis, is appalling coming from an SC judge. So terrorists murdered 3000 people, including 24 Canadaians, in one morning, and we should get over it? This particular judge is well past her best before date.
McLauchlin makes a lot of sense. 9/11 must not be used to implement permanent and serious incursions into our freedoms. The Patriot Act in the U.S., for example, gave government agencies broad powers that should make any citizen nervous.
There needs to be a balance between freedom and security. It’s not an either-or situation, but if it were I would choose the free state over the perfectly secure one.
From the Canadian Bar Association:
Candidates should not be subjected to a congressional type process of public examination and review.
The CBA is strongly opposed to any system which would expose judges to Parliamentary criticsim of their judgments, or cross-examination of their beliefs or preferences or judicial opinions, or any measure which would give Canadians the mistaken impression that the judicial branch answers to the legislative branch.
(http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/04-10-03-eng.pdf)
I would like to know why this woman doesn’t have to face any scrutiny. Given how thoughtless she is, I think tax-payers ought to know.
Our cultural elites in Canada are certifiably insane. You might as well get used to it, unless you want to have a counter-revolution and get rid of them all.
And yet B McLaughlin wrote the minority opinion criticizing Section 13, worried about how it would infringe on rights.
You could almost say she was being consistent in her views on individual rights.
Interesting, is it not, that the lib/left is more than prepared to declare out and out war on freedom of speech through Human “Rights” Commissions, but treads very lightly indeed when it comes to the threat against their society as a whole? Really quite unbelievable.
Rabbit says “The Patriot Act in the U.S., for example, gave government agencies broad powers that should make any citizen nervous.” No….not ANY citizen….but certainly those that are planning terrorist acts. As for broad powers of government agencies, what do you think about the powers of Human “Rights” Commissions in Canada?
Nobody above the law if we talk real law
Political party in most of time are above the law and keep break the law
Lawyers and judges are look for security and interest of government and may say some thing does not make sense too again that is politic above the law
===
The interesting thing about
3000 people who died because of hand of CIA and Pentagon and inside job of USA conspiracy
Now those like to hide it since they ring more name up against inside people
When it killing Muslim or bombing Muslim for excuse of crime never happened then
That is permitable to do suffer all Muslim in world since Sep 11 2001 and bother all Muslim good one in Canada for some one else crime to get blame
I am not support what happen in IRAN today
What I am amaze now all talk is
Nuclear weapon of Iran on table
While Nuclear we open are made by USA and supported by Europe and tested by them and Israeli and European not Muslim country
Iran does not need Nuclear Weapon at all and never invaded any neighbored country
While you can see just in 2007 FBI agent went to Iran to do spy in Iran border and other people enter in Iran with no permission
Now politic try to say all problems of world is Iran and Nuclear weapon of Iran while in fact
The person went above the law are American and European countries not Iran
Rather than find reason for major talk of how to find peace they find something else to delay the peace and made people entertain for nothing
Mission impossible
This is like they ask you something you can not give it and they know intentionally you can not give it but all people gather to ask you some thing you can give it and if you give it they say
OK we won and we made nuclear weapon of Iran dismissed while Iran problems is not Nuclear weapon is something else
Laws in Canada and USA and Europe are abused by so many abuse of process for sake of politic game not sake of human right of innocent people to get save in between.
===
Israeli and Iran and lack of trust between Iran and USA is first IRAN and USA who are two far and separated and grow separately apart from each other
First these two must trust that if they seat they will bomb each other and kill each other and keep peace talk and have security in place
Iran was so away in culture today run in all nations and that need time to join the crowd do not scared them they will talk and later they will change in good in fairness
Next is back to history of why this lack of trust come from:
In this system small and les powerfull can easy abused wtih crook and abuser for long period of time and human right got smash under that dirty politic and Muslim get target for emotional abuse over them as they are guilty of all problems of world not them and blame it all to them they sleep well at night they are nt find real solution to roat of problems
That McLachlin woman should be back in the kitchen where she belongs. Never send a woman to do a man’s work.
Nice try atric.
That’s not quite correct, Johan. Benjamin Franklin did not say “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”. He said: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Perhaps, then, Chief Justice McLachlin knows something of Franklin’s aphorisms and is thinking of the implications of his use of the words essential and temporary.
By the judge’s way of thinking, perhaps we should also be mindful of not going overboard every year when the feminists stage their Montreal massacre vigils calling on government for stronger laws protecting women. I mean c’mon, it was only 14 women…..
Laws don’t protect women. People protect women.
Well Bob-
My dear departed grandfather always said that things went downhill when women were given the vote.
I see nothing in history that disputes that. Do you?
Things didn’t go downhill, ergo your grandfather was wrong.
Yep, I think his grandfather was wrong too,
Geez, I was just attempting to start a spirited debate and, while I was at it, to piss-off a few
liberals.
You guy shot me down before I could get it going.
In ant event, my grandfather was quite a guy-despite his rather offbeat ideas.
Stupid, spoiled, petit-bourgois, vainglorious ignorant bint. She is one of the “refined”, one of the Platonic Philosophers naturally given to rule us schmuckas who get killed by the thousand.
As you can see, I have no respect for this so-called judge, who’s rulings should be ignored.
I think this woman should go overboard. There is a piece of pop culture that describes the experience well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOE6LQ18Wpo
However, I doubt she has seen the movie.
Rabbit, like most leftards, would choose the free-to-do-whatever-the-f*ck-I-feel-like-whenever-the-f*ck-I-feel-like-it state over the secure one.
Thanks to people like Rabbit and the way they tend to vote, we now live in a society that is teetering heavily in the direction of total barbarism. Thanks Rabbit! If we ever meet, I’ll be sure to smash you a good one, since that would align nicely with your philosophy and make you feel welcome.
BTW – you can always tell someone who’s never lived in the States, or knows anyone (except maybe some leftard webmasters) who lives in the States.
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a number of bizarre decisions in recent years. In my opinion, Beverley McLachlin has been the best judge on the court during the time she has been on it. This is partly because of her dissents in Keegstra and Taylor re “hate speech” and Harper re third-party election spending.
Considering that the Court has trashed our right of free expression (Irwin Toy 1989, Keegstra/Taylor 1990, Harper 2004), our right of freedom of association (Lavigne 1991, Health Services Sector 2007, co-written by McLachlin unfortunately) and our right to a free media (Bell ExpressVu v. Can-Am 2002), and has failed to defend the proper legal safeguards for people facing “human rights” commissions (Blencoe 2000), it’s a bit much for one of the judges, even one of the better ones, to be complaining about possible violations of our rights.
…..
Re: Rahm Emmanuel said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Isn’t this precisely the target of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” but coming from the other side?
Obviously we are short a ravaged judge or two.
They haven’t felt violated personaly. That would open their eyes.I wish them well….but the laws of probbility well..that’s another thing.