The MSM reports that this is a blow to the Harper tough on crime agenda, as if it were not about policy, about judges or really mild sentences but an ongoing battle between them and the hated Conservatives. Meanwhile as I point out at The Rebel…
We aren’t talking about people caught possessing small amounts of drugs, we are talking about people caught and convicted of repeat drug trafficking, of being a pusher, of feeding addicts and hooking your kids.
But in a 6-3 decision the unelected judges on the nation’s highest court ruled that the mandatory minimum was too much, that it was contrary to the constitution because it was a “cruel and unusual punishment.”
While I guess it might be possible to see specific cases where mandatory minimum sentences might be cruel and unusual, why would the whole law be struck? Why wouldn’t the court simply determine whether the sentence was reasonable in the particular instance. In this case the sentence was reasonable but apparently the law that provided for it was not. Totally stupid!
The rewriting of law and government administrative procedure by the Supreme Court should be infrequent. Parliament should be supreme as it has credibility from being elected. The Supreme Court does not.
Cruel refers to torture or other punishment that causes pain. Unusual refers to having someone walk around with a bell around their neck or some other strange, humiliating punishment.
What the Supreme Court is calling cruel and unusual punishment is actually a disproportionate sentence.
More word salad from the SC.
The Supremes sitting in their plush seats and robes are now part of this problem and many more. It’s time we concentrate on electing Judges to that high court instead of worrying about the Senate which doesn’t come close to interfering with our democratic process.
since when does an elected government have to abide by decisions handed down from the SCC? IMO the gutless politicians use them to avoid making tough political decisions. We have the most Socialist Court we’ve had in several decades, Chief Justice McLachlin included.
And we can thank the late PIT (I leave you to figure out what the “I” stands for) for giving the Supreme Court the mandate to be activists twits.
“But in a 6-3 decision the unelected judges on the nation’s highest court ruled that the mandatory minimum was too much, that is was contrary to the constitution because it was a “cruel and unusual punishment.”
“And a one year sentence the Supreme Court called that cruel and unusual punishment.”
“That is not how democracy works, the judges are overstepping their bounds here they are well out of step with Canadians.”
Brian, who wrote your petition?
Thank heavens we elected the Supreme Court to overrule the redneck electorate….
Maybe the El Supreme-Os all buy weed from the new Prime Minither’s dealer?
The Rebel: “We aren’t talking about people caught possessing small amounts of drugs, we are talking about people caught and convicted of repeat drug trafficking, of being a pusher, of feeding addicts and hooking your kids.”
This is either ignorance of the legal case at hand, or straight-up disinformation. From the SCC ruling:
“The mandatory minimum sentence provision covers a wide range of potential conduct. As a result, it catches not only the serious drug trafficking that is its proper aim, but conduct that is much less blameworthy…At one end of the range of conduct caught by the mandatory minimum sentence provision stands a professional drug dealer who engages in the business of dangerous drugs for profit, who is in possession of a large amount of drugs, and who has been convicted many times for similar offences. At the other end of the range stands the addict who is charged for sharing a small amount of drugs with a friend or spouse, and finds herself sentenced to a year in prison because of a single conviction for sharing marihuana in a social occasion nine years before. Most Canadians would be shocked to find that such a person could be sent to prison for one year…
“The reality is this: mandatory minimum sentence provisions that apply to offences that can be committed in various ways, under a broad array of circumstances and by a wide range of people are constitutionally vulnerable. This is because such provisions will almost inevitably include an acceptable reasonable hypothetical for which the mandatory minimum will be found unconstitutional. If Parliament hopes to maintain mandatory minimum sentences for offences that cast a wide net, it should consider narrowing their reach so that they only catch offenders that merit that mandatory minimum sentences. In the alternative, Parliament could provide for judicial discretion to allow for a lesser sentence where the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.”
John: “Thank heavens we elected the Supreme Court to overrule the redneck electorate….”
Ah, but the redneck electorate elected a Liberal government whose platform included commitments to repeal the mandatory minimum laws of the previous government. So democracy still works, one way or the other.
Cruel and unusual would be shoving a needle full of sh1t in the pushers arm. Oh my. We cant do that as the pussies would scream. Guess a 9 millimeter is out of the question.
So apply the punishment often enough that it becomes usual and not unusual and the problem is solved. There, easy.
Congratulations Libs ! Way to go BLM ! You have successfully controlled the narrative once again. You made everyone believe that “the black man” was JUST being jailed for drug use. That they were all just poor ganja-smokers following the tenets of their “religion”. All “non-violent” innocent tokers unjustly jailed.
Now we will all just sit back and wait for the “unintended consequences” to show up in our crime statistics.
I sometimes wonder if having to endure the legal vapourings and philosophical musings of our high-minded Supreme Court incumbents doesn’t itself constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
the addict who is charged for sharing a small amount of drugs with a friend or spouse, and finds herself sentenced to a year in prison because of a single conviction for sharing marihuana in a social occasion nine years before.
The charge is trafficking, not sharing. If the drugs are given out to friends (no money and personal use amounts) then a charge of trafficking would be unwarranted and would be tossed out.
Just more word salad from the SCC.
Time to either elect judges, or put strict term limits, say, two years max.
“The charge is trafficking, not sharing. If the drugs are given out to friends (no money and personal use amounts) then a charge of trafficking would be unwarranted and would be tossed out. Just more word salad from the SCC.”
No, not word salad — adherence to statutory language, actually. From the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:
“traffic means, in respect of a substance included in any of Schedules I to IV, (a) to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance”
So, where does the court’s use of the word ‘sharing’ fit in to adherence to statutory language?
When the Constitution was written Cruel and unsiual punshment was using the rack,thumb screws of skull crushers or whipping or the stocks or piilory and these overly linent judges should held accountible or liable for any danerous convicted they order released into the public the same with defense lawyers hold them liable especialy if they knew the convict was a danger to the public lock up these neglegent judges
Meanwhile, in BC there is much weeping and knashing of teeth as the chief medical officer bemoans the fact that there could be as many as 900 overdose deaths due primarily to fentanyl use.
They’re getting it somewhere, but it’s ‘society’s’ responsibility and society’s fault that these poor dears are not getting the help they so desperately need.
Tie our hands in dealing with the purveyors of death, then ask us how much we care about the ‘victims’.
the redneck electorate elected a Liberal government
You know rednecks that vote Lieberal? The vote margin that gave them the government came from first immigrants and twitter linked millennials who probably never voted before.
Why is it that the ‘Right’ cannot manage to storm the Courts – blocking access and egress, just like the Left does – Surely this too, is democracy in action? While the idiots are smoking their heads off at Sunset Beach here in Vancouver, we should be insisting that if smoking tobacco on the beaches is forbidden – so why not Marijuana? Like ‘Black Lives Matter’ we could insist that sober lives matter too, and a country ruled by appointed judges is unconstitutional also! We get what we deserve if we are unwilling to get out there and PROTEST!
To apply section 12 of the Charter of Rights, which precludes punishment that is “cruel and unusual” is ridiculous.
There is a well-known, long-established legal principle that a punishment should not be disproportionate to the offence. Curiously, that was omitted from section 11 of the Charter. However, if a court believes this principle has been violated, it would be reasonable to conclude that section 7, which includes liberty, covers it (as opposed to other, ridiculous interpretations of section 7, such as was done in the InSite case).
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/15/supreme-court-gets-it-wrong-on-mandatory-minimums
The Supreme Court struck down the statute even though the 1 year sentence was proper for the case before the court. They just pick any case they want to and then strike down the law for hypothetical reasons that are not applicable in the instant case.
Sharing is the new word for trafficking. More word salad from the SCC.
a quote from A. Scalia ” A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy”.
I wonder if Brian Mulroney’s attitudes toward Beverley McLachlin resemble Eisenhower’s toward Chief Justice Earl Warren. Eisenhour remarked that appointing Warren to the US SC was “the biggest dam fool mistake I ever made”
Someone might want to ask him.
The texas parole board was so leinent at one time that they were releasing crinimals who were already consieted a danger to the public by pscatrists and the parole board did’nt even to bother to read the reports about men like Ken McDuff(Exicuted in 1996)these bleedingheart judges need held accountible
President Eisenhower once remarked “the biggest dam fool mistake I ever made” was appointing Earl Warren to the SC.
Wonder if Brian Mulroney has similar reflection regarding Beverley McLachlin.
Could all the Reefer Madness Conservatives find a non socialist lake in Alberta to submerge themselves?
You be giving sensible Cons a bad name.
Or maybe spend your time more productively by campaigning for the return of Prohibition, the Charleston and Tommy guns.
*
we already have a multi-tiered legal system..
The heartless killer whose hail of gunfire outside the Duke of York
Tavern in 2008 killed Bailey Zaveda and seriously injured four others
says his aboriginal heritage should get him a shorter sentence.
and this murderer is basing his demand on established case law…
natives DO get special consideration BASED SOLELY on race.
*
Kt, the Liberal government has not proposed a bill in Parliament to overturn these laws , has it?
Unless you are suggesting the SCC is an arm of the Liberal Party?
It is not the Courts role to overturn the legislature unless there is an egregious constitutional issue.
As usual , they are making things up as they go along.
The proper thing to do is to overturn these laws in the legislature by ELECTED officials and not the SCC.
Sterling Lyon had it right 35 years ago when he argued Trudeau’s Charter would shift decision making power from duly elected, responsible parliamentarians to unelected judges. As A Scalia alludes to above, above, a group of unelected lawyers making basic legislative decisions is not a real democracy. Lawyers are among the most disrespected group in Canada according to some surveys, yet as as judges they are somehow infallible?
What is the point in taking the time and effort to run for Parliament, support a wining party, join a Cabinet and pass legislation, simply to be overturned because a few judges didn’t like it?
“What is the point in taking the time and effort to run for Parliament, support a wining party, join a Cabinet and pass legislation, simply to be overturned because a few judges didn’t like it?”
The point is to make the majority of people think that they have a say in government so that they don’t revolt against their rulers and institute a form of government where they really do have a say in their own lives.
Kuzo, your sphincter is tightening up around your neck. You need to relax.
Our Constitution is crap. It was written by lawyers for lawyers, and may be the biggest con job ever foisted upon Canadians. Lawyers are loyal to the bar, not the electorate, and thus should be required to step down from the bar if they wish to represent Canadians through politics. This might, just might, give lawyers some pause for second thought. Since politicians appoint judges, lawyers as politicians are too close to their own self interests to be allowed this privilege. Canadians should produce a class action suit against the perpetrators (and their estates) who “patriated” our Constitution.
I think SCC is in error on this. For the named offense (repeat trafficing)1 yearning reasonable. Interesting, a lot of the media are just referring to repeat “drug crimes”, leaving the people to think this us some kid smoking pot. Who benefits? Why the gangs do, which is why they brought the challenge forward. SCC is gang friendly.
Beverley McLachlin is far from the worst judge to have inhabited the Supreme Court of Canada over the past three decades. She’s probably one of the best, although she puts in an occasional dud (possibly here) and unaccountably abandoned her previously vigorously-held principles by failing to pen a dissent in Whatcott three years ago. She puts a lot of work in; maybe all of the judges have too much to do and not enough time in which to do it.
All the Supreme Court judges, without exception, are Dr. Jekyll on some days and Mr. Hyde on others.
Clarece Thomas is a good man its just becuase he stuck to the U.S. Constitution and supported the 2nd Amendment and opposed racial prefrences liberals trashed him and brought in the notorious Annita Hill
There may be worse judges than McLachlin, but still she is the symbol of activist, judges on the SC. She did tell the Can Bar Assoc how it was a duty of SC to interpret the 1982 Constitution and “Breathe life into the Charter of Rights”.
She and her colleagues effectively vetoed one of PM Stephen Harper’s appointments to the court. whatever the merits of the case, it looked very bad for them to be exercising a black ball to their exclusive club.
By far the most powerful woman in Canada, she has many duties outside the court, including advising on Order of Canada recipients.
Finally when the elected government decided on a memorial on the lawn in front of the SC building, she went public with stern opposition. Again whatever the merits of the statue, Public Works does not intervene or comment on her judicial opinions, why does she feel entitled to oversee their mundane duties?
Despite exercising all this power she is unelected and probably unelectable in her home riding, and that makes many Canadians uncomfortable.
Fiscal conservatives don’t waste money on a war on drugs. Period.
If you want the state to ban drugs, then you ain’t a fiscal conservative.
Drugs are illegal because they destroy lives (look at DTES Vancouver), destroy individual liberty (via dependency), raise the minor crime rate (junkies can’t function well enough to have a job and pay for their own stuff so they steal) and the major crime rate (turf wars, murder, extortion, corruption, etc). There are many more issues related to health care, domestic violence, etc.
The court’s approach is an affront both to democracy and logic. They assume that they know what a “fit” sentence is in a hypothetical weakest case on which conviction can be based and then measure it against whatever Parliament may have set for the minimum. But what is a “fit” sentence other than what society has determined it to be? So the SCC’s approach is unmoored and adrift… no surprise there, I suppose.
One is left with the intuitive sense that had the minimum sentence been one that a Liberal government had passed, the liberal justices would have had no problem rubber stamping it.