Canada Abortion thread.

[Grey Fox]

I've got one, you ain't going to like it. Télesphore Fournier.

Right? Dude only got the job because he was a Liberal.

Oh, you were being serious.

Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.

[Barrister]

I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision.  I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.

and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.

It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.

You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.

[crazy canuck]

Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.

A couple of points.

You had to go to a founding appointment of the SCC to find a potential flaw and you have selected someone who was likely one of the most able people in the Country at the time available for appointment to the Court.

[Malthus]

Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership?  I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens.  I am asking you to name just one.

Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.

Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.

Drakken, I've known some superior court judges (i.e. trial court) who were fairly obvious political appointments.  But for the Court of Appeal and higher both parties have been pretty careful to appoint only well qualified candidates - most of whom have no obvious poltical connections.

Also, federal court judges. That's a well-known Liberal retirement pension. 

But yeah, the consensus is - appellate/SCC judges ain't chosen for political affiliation. Just isn't done.

[Barrister]

Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership?  I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens.  I am asking you to name just one.

Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.

Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.

Drakken, I've known some superior court judges (i.e. trial court) who were fairly obvious political appointments.  But for the Court of Appeal and higher both parties have been pretty careful to appoint only well qualified candidates - most of whom have no obvious poltical connections.

Also, federal court judges. That's a well-known Liberal retirement pension. 

But yeah, the consensus is - appellate/SCC judges ain't chosen for political affiliation. Just isn't done.

Well not that their politics / world view isn't taken into account.  Governments do want to try and make sure that the 'right kind' of judges are appointed.  It's just that the appointments are almost universally well regarded in their own right.

By the way I'm starting a whiskering campaign for Justice Moldaver to the SCC as of today.   

[Neil]

Why not start a campaign for Justice B. Boy?

[Malthus]

Well not that their politics / world view isn't taken into account.  Governments do want to try and make sure that the 'right kind' of judges are appointed.  It's just that the appointments are almost universally well regarded in their own right.

By the way I'm starting a whiskering campaign for Justice Moldaver to the SCC as of today.   

A whiskering campaign?  Tell me more.

[Grey Fox]

Well, it depends to what? He sounds like a real political appointment but I really was just making a joke. Both times.

A couple of points.

You had to go to a founding appointment of the SCC to find a potential flaw and you have selected someone who was likely one of the most able people in the Country at the time available for appointment to the Court.

Right!

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision.  I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.

and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.

It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.

You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.

:sigh: I'm really not sure why I bother. It's something that actually saves lives, reduces crime, and helps create a community in a place where most of the community is fucking each other over. But I guess there's not ever any bend to the law to change with the times. Not all junkies are stealing your stereo. some of them are nice people who made some poor choices and are actually trying to change their lives, but hey if it offends people, we had better not look to anything other than putting the offending parties in jail.

I really don't understand why it's a bad thing to help people, communities (I live in East Vancouver... this is the only effect it's had on the area, reduction in harm, crime. end of story... everything else is partisan nimby smoke.

[Barrister]

I agree completely with your final statement here. It will and should be a tough decision.  I don't see how managing an addiction to the point of sobriety is encouraging people to use drugs. But then that's just my opinion. Maybe we should shut down all the AA meetings? which matters not to the powers that be. My suspicion is that it will get closed down, and crime rates will go up. More jails will be built, housing more of the population in order for blackberry and visa etc to get free/cheap labor.

and The base of our majority government will be smiling. the rest of us will be shaking our heads and mumbling to ourselves.

It shouldn't be that tough a decision though - federal government control over criminal law is well established, and the decision to allow a "safe injection site" is clearly within the federal government's powers.

You can debate safe injections and harm reduction all you want, but this comes down to an old-fashioned division of powers question.

:sigh: I'm really not sure why I bother. It's something that actually saves lives, reduces crime, and helps create a community in a place where most of the community is fucking each other over. But I guess there's not ever any bend to the law to change with the times. Not all junkies are stealing your stereo. some of them are nice people who made some poor choices and are actually trying to change their lives, but hey if it offends people, we had better not look to anything other than putting the offending parties in jail.

I really don't understand why it's a bad thing to help people, communities (I live in East Vancouver... this is the only effect it's had on the area, reduction in harm, crime. end of story... everything else is partisan nimby smoke.

I'm saying it isn't a tough legal decision (or at least it shouldn't be).

It may well be a tough political decision - or depending how you look at it, an easy political decision.

[crazy canuck]

BB, you are mistaken.  In addition to the division of powers issue there is also a Charter issue if the Court holds that this is within the Federal jurisdiction.  Btw Buddha does a not bad job summarizing the section 7 argument.

Here is a link to the BCCA decision fyi.  http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/00/2010BCCA0015cor1.htm

In my opinion, if this is within Federal jurisdiction the Charter issue is going to be a tough decision because it will make the Court choose between the rights of the drug users themselves against the rights of society at large (at least that is how the dissenting opinion saw it).

[Neil]

The Charter has got to go.