• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alexandre Bissonnette: QC Mosque shooter- 29 Jan 2017

I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.

"Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.

Cases like this, I wish we had the death sentence. Now we have to pay for this POS for 25-life? I don’t support that. 6 counts of 1st degree; I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.
 
I'm not too worried about the chances of him ever seeing the outside of a cell.

"Chance of parole" and "parole" are two very different things.
Any chance of parole is more than that POS deserves.

I do not give a single f@&$ if he is ‘rehabilitatable’ or not. He murdered 6 people in cold blood for no reason other than their religion. He should be swinging from a tree not relaxing in prison. The fact we should even have to consider the possibility of this scumbag going free is a insult to every single person he murdered.

What is more concerning to me is the Supreme Court essentially making legislation. Who decided anything more than 25 years is cruel? Why can we not remove people who have proven they do not belong in society? We made arguments to violate citizens rights during COVID when they could possibly have a virus, and that was a ‘reasonable restriction’ yet we have a proven multi-murderer who could potentially walk free at some point in his life due to our courts overruling our democratic process?

Maybe its time for parliament to define cruel and unusual punishment through legislation instead of leaving it up the judges digression.
 
Any chance of parole is more than that POS deserves.

I do not give a single f@&$ if he is ‘rehabilitatable’ or not. He murdered 6 people in cold blood for no reason other than their religion. He should be swinging from a tree not relaxing in prison. The fact we should even have to consider the possibility of this scumbag going free is a insult to every single person he murdered.

What is more concerning to me is the Supreme Court essentially making legislation. Who decided anything more than 25 years is cruel? Why can we not remove people who have proven they do not belong in society? We made arguments to violate citizens rights during COVID when they could possibly have a virus, and that was a ‘reasonable restriction’ yet we have a proven multi-murderer who could potentially walk free at some point in his life due to our courts overruling our democratic process?

Maybe its time for parliament to define cruel and unusual punishment through legislation instead of leaving it up the judges digression.

The SCOC has done no such thing. It ruled that the legislation violated the legislation that all other legislation has to comply with; the Charter, part of our foundational law. Unless you believe in the absolute supremacy of Parliament; i.e no court can overrule an Act of Parliament, which is pretty much what they have in the UK, for now, or rule by despot, some level of the system has the job of interpreting the strings of words that other levels create. It's far from perfect, but I await an example of the perfect system.

Then again, from other posts, I recall you aren't a big fan of our Constitution anyway.

I'm not a fan of this ruling either, but I'm not a fan of stringing folks up from trees either.
 
Cases like this, I wish we had the death sentence. Now we have to pay for this POS for 25-life? I don’t support that. 6 counts of 1st degree; I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.
Once all the costs are added up, the reath penalty ultimately ends up being quite a bit more expensive than actual life in prison. The multiple reexaminations and appeals necessary to ensure capital punishment is carried out as justly as possible are very expensive to conduct. The cost question has not proven in the US to work out in favour of execution.
 
Once all the costs are added up, the reath penalty ultimately ends up being quite a bit more expensive than actual life in prison. The multiple reexaminations and appeals necessary to ensure capital punishment is carried out as justly as possible are very expensive to conduct. The cost question has not proven in the US to work out in favour of execution.

I am actually surprised to read that. I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state. Tks for correcting me.
 
I am actually surprised to read that. I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state. Tks for correcting me.
Yeah, I was surprised too. I mean, a system without due process where they pronounce death and quickly get it over with, yeah, obviously cheaper. But when a system includes avenues of appeal that a person chooses to use (generally the case with the death penalty), and in the interim they’re incarcerated for years anyway (and generally in a dedicated ‘death row’ facility), the costs ramp up fast.
 
I’m ok with them being strapped down and ended.

Not likley to be brought back in this country anytime soon, from what I have read.

The last two hangings in Canada were back to back at the Don, almost 60 years ago.

One shot a Metro officer on the Danforth. The other was a double-homicide in the Annex.

One year from the crime to the end of a rope in each case.

 
An infamous politician sold the scrapping of the death penalty with the words: Life means life. No parole for first degree murderers. So what happened?
 
I am actually surprised to read that. I alway assumed the life sentence would be the bigger expense to the state. Tks for correcting me.
Average time lapse in the US from sentencing to execution is 227 months (~19 years). Up from 95 months (~8 years) in 1990.

 
The SCOC has done no such thing. It ruled that the legislation violated the legislation that all other legislation has to comply with; the Charter, part of our foundational law. Unless you believe in the absolute supremacy of Parliament; i.e no court can overrule an Act of Parliament, which is pretty much what they have in the UK, for now, or rule by despot, some level of the system has the job of interpreting the strings of words that other levels create. It's far from perfect, but I await an example of the perfect system.

Then again, from other posts, I recall you aren't a big fan of our Constitution anyway.

I'm not a fan of this ruling either, but I'm not a fan of stringing folks up from trees either.
Technically the Charter is the supremacy of Parliament, just as the Monarchy is as if they wished to remove it they could.

See I disagree with the supreme courts assessment on this. Cruel and unusual punishment is meant to mean no exceptionally harsh (i.e. you steal a pack of gum and we put you to death in response) punishment or no out of place punishment (i.e. if 10 people got a slap on the wrist for the same thing they can’t throw you in jail for life all things being the same). Hell the PM when they wrote this thing stated the intent was to keep people like this in prison for life if we weren't going to put them to death. The only thing that is cruel in this response is the fact that the victims family might have to deal with this guy potentially getting out after murdering 6 of their loved ones.

Last I checked a life is a lot longer than 25 years so why is it life in prison only means 25 years guaranteed? It is reasonable to assign more than that just as it would also be reasonable to completely do away with parole if they so chose. Not everyone deserves to be rehabilitated, sometimes what is best for everyone is to cut our losses.

As to not liking our constitution, there's parts I like and parts I would change. Things like the not-withstanding clause wouldn’t exist in my version, property rights would be added in, the ‘reasonable restriction’ portion would be removed (as its a cop out to invalidate the rights that exist), and native rights would seize to exist (one set of laws for everyone). I would also move more towards a Swiss style of democracy as I see no need in the modern era to maintain this antiquated system when you can see the better system in action. I know that it is unlikely to change, especially the way I would like, but my version would move towards equality and equal defense of rights.
 
Technically the Charter is the supremacy of Parliament, just as the Monarchy is as if they wished to remove it they could.

See I disagree with the supreme courts assessment on this. Cruel and unusual punishment is meant to mean no exceptionally harsh (i.e. you steal a pack of gum and we put you to death in response) punishment or no out of place punishment (i.e. if 10 people got a slap on the wrist for the same thing they can’t throw you in jail for life all things being the same). Hell the PM when they wrote this thing stated the intent was to keep people like this in prison for life if we weren't going to put them to death. The only thing that is cruel in this response is the fact that the victims family might have to deal with this guy potentially getting out after murdering 6 of their loved ones.

Last I checked a life is a lot longer than 25 years so why is it life in prison only means 25 years guaranteed? It is reasonable to assign more than that just as it would also be reasonable to completely do away with parole if they so chose. Not everyone deserves to be rehabilitated, sometimes what is best for everyone is to cut our losses.

As to not liking our constitution, there's parts I like and parts I would change. Things like the not-withstanding clause wouldn’t exist in my version, property rights would be added in, the ‘reasonable restriction’ portion would be removed (as its a cop out to invalidate the rights that exist), and native rights would seize to exist (one set of laws for everyone). I would also move more towards a Swiss style of democracy as I see no need in the modern era to maintain this antiquated system when you can see the better system in action. I know that it is unlikely to change, especially the way I would like, but my version would move towards equality and equal defense of rights.
Agree with most everything you say.

I don't like the decision either. Constitutions, Charters, foundational law are words 'writ large and broad' by people. Somebody has to apply them to the day-to-day interaction of humans, and that's the courts. Not the public mood, or the media or politicians (they're the ones who wrote the law in the first place, so hardly fair). Perhaps another nine and another time might come to a different conclusion. Whether or not you agree with the US 2nd amendment, some of the SCOTUS decisions on it are some of the most cunning linguistic gymnastics you will likely ever read.

I don't like the 'notwithstanding clause' either, but it does provide a mechanism for legislators to preemptively override the Charter and, by implication, the courts, so there's that. It was a compromise to get a couple of provinces on-side to the repatriation process. Interestingly, Quebec wasn't one of them.

I have no problem with Section 1 ('reasonable limitation'). Although I'm not smart enough to compare it to other foundational law in other lands, it does codify - in broad terms - how the Charter should be applied. Even in the US, which many like to mount as the shining light on the hill, no right is absolute. At least we have codified the interpretive limitation statement; the US has done it through 'compelling state interest' jurisprudence.
 
Section 1 is essential for the Charter to make any sense at all. Our system of criminal law would be unworkable without it. There needs to be an ability for the courts to read reasonable limitations into certain rights in certain contexts in order for conflicting societal impacts to be balanced. An absolutist view of freedom of expression, unconstrained by S.1 would, for instance, strip Parliament of the ability to legislate criminal offences for things like uttering threats, advocating genocide, perjury, falsely reporting matters to police, etc.

For a sense of how broadly S.1 applies, look up R. v. Oakes 1986, and how many important decisions have relied on it. Without S.1, a lot of our Charter would handcuff the government from implementing many essential laws.
 
My issue with it is what is reasonable?

For example free speech. I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

I would rather have written into the Charter specific arcs of fire instead of a catch all phrase as you can argue basically anything is reasonable. It is much harder to argue against a specific limitation. It also ensures that the rights are protected as they were written instead of some interpretation that changes as time progresses.

General broadness is not what I want in terms of how rights can be limited, general broadness is how I prefer rights to be applied with a error on the side of freedom, not restriction.
 
My issue with it is what is reasonable?

For example free speech. I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

I would rather have written into the Charter specific arcs of fire instead of a catch all phrase as you can argue basically anything is reasonable. It is much harder to argue against a specific limitation. It also ensures that the rights are protected as they were written instead of some interpretation that changes as time progresses.

General broadness is not what I want in terms of how rights can be limited, general broadness is how I prefer rights to be applied with a error on the side of freedom, not restriction.
The test for reasonable limitations has been around in case law for 35 years and is very well fleshed out and established. It’s also quite robust. Again, R. v. Oakes is the key case law there. There’s actually quite a good primer at DoJ’s ‘Charterpedia’ page. Charterpedia - Section 1 – Reasonable limits

Your thoughts of having specific offences written into the Charter in lieu of S.1 is unworkable. The Charter is a constitutional document. It’s supposed to be extremely stable. It IS very difficult to amend. Criminal offences are best established through the normal legislative process, not awkward constitutional carve outs.

Free expression absolutism is all well and good- til you realize that someone could, if they wished, put up a billboard with your face on it saying you’re a child molester, or could call police to say there’s an active shooter in a school, or could confront your wife at the store and promise to rape and murder her. Or, pulling it back to the subject of this thread, could openly advocate that people should go into mosques and shoot them up til all the Muslims are gone. Fortunately, defamatory libel, public mischief, uttering threats, and willful incitement of hatred are all crimes, despite impugning the freedom of expression. The flexibility in the Charter to argue reasonable limitations in a test in court lets us have these very essential laws.
 
My issue with it is what is reasonable?

For example free speech. I am a free speech absolutist, I believe you should be able to say what you wish as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

I would rather have written into the Charter specific arcs of fire instead of a catch all phrase as you can argue basically anything is reasonable. It is much harder to argue against a specific limitation. It also ensures that the rights are protected as they were written instead of some interpretation that changes as time progresses.

General broadness is not what I want in terms of how rights can be limited, general broadness is how I prefer rights to be applied with a error on the side of freedom, not restriction.
You do realize that the statement contradicts itself. The moment a qualification is added, the concept of 'absolute' is lost. It then boils down to one's view of where the line is, and that's what laws and the courts do.

It would be interesting to know if any democratic nation's constitution or foundational law describes protected rights in words that capture every single human interaction. If so, I can't imagine how cumbersome and complex it would be.

Canadian society has changed immensely since 1982. I can't imagine how many 'constitution conferences' would have been convened for our laws to reflect those changes.
 
Unless there is any actual case law on the subject, I'm pretty sure that s. 7 would allow it:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
 
Unless there is any actual case law on the subject, I'm pretty sure that s. 7 would allow it:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Without a reference question to the SCC, or an actual case to adjudicate (impossible since we don’t have capital punishment), we cannot know for sure. There is, however, case law that’s not 100% on point but suggests how the court would rule. United States V Burns, 2001 SCC 7 concerned a U.S. request to extradited an American fugitive. The Supreme Court ruled it would be a section 7 violation to extradite without an assurance that he would not be executed.

It’s a lengthy decision, but some considerations include the risk of wrongful conviction and execution, and also specifically looks at how international law is a barometer of concepts of ‘fundamental justice’.

Personally I see almost zero chance that execution could be constitutional in Canada given the Charter.

 
Back
Top