Canadian Politics

[Eriol]

Odd ruling. Not wrong necessarily, but somewhat odd IMO: Dennis Oland was wrongly denied bail in murder case: Supreme Court

The part that makes this odd IMO is this:

Justice Michael Moldaver said in the court's reasons for the judgment that Parliament did not restrict the availability of bail pending appeal for people convicted of murder, or any other serious crime, "and courts should respect this."

How I interpret that is "even if you're convicted, if you have an appeal pending, there's no law on the books saying that you can't be out on bail, so denying it by default isn't good enough." If so, then fine, but still seems a bit weird. You had a conviction, so isn't that enough to keep you in pending appeal if you're not a danger, or a flight risk, etc? But if it's not on the books that it is, then I guess this ruling is correct? It was 9-0.

So I guess we need a law to keep convicted people behind bars between trials? Or not? @Frank, what do you think?

 

[Frank]

I'm not a judge, but yeah, I wouldn't agree. You've literally been convicted of a SERIOUS crime, you should not be out on bail. Minor crimes, like minor drug crimes and the like, I don't see an issue.

But a convicted rapist getting bail is nonsense and seems like an oversight.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Even the States will let a convicted killer out on bond when he is up for appeal. But that would only happen if there exculpatory evidence.

 

[Eriol]

I'm not a judge, but yeah, I wouldn't agree. You've literally been convicted of a SERIOUS crime, you should not be out on bail. Minor crimes, like minor drug crimes and the like, I don't see an issue.

But a convicted rapist getting bail is nonsense and seems like an oversight.

I agree with you and there should be a law, but I do side with the judges in that if there isn't a law, then it isn't there. Parliament should respond.

 

[Frank]

I agree with you and there should be a law, but I do side with the judges in that if there isn't a law, then it isn't there. Parliament should respond.

Agreed, like I said, not a judge or a lawyer. I don't make those calls. It would definitely twist my ass in a knot if a guy I'd done my damnedest to collect evidence against and was personally 100% sure of guilt who was convicted was let free on bail because of an appeal.

I literally only deal with major crime stuff now.

Well, will again once I'm not a fucking walking plague carrier of infectious wounds.

 

[Gruebeard]

This is an affront to my freedom of speech!

But fuel for a meme!

 

[HCGLNS]

Given how ridiculous we spell things out east, I doubt anyone would notice or care so this is doubly silly.

Pop quiz people!

Say mayor.

Now spell it with no O, Y and through in some E, G and H's

 

[Gared]

I seem to fondly recall an article in a Madison, WI area newspaper back in 2004 - 2005 sometime, about a driver with the license plate "SPICE 2" who wanted to ask that people stop flipping them off every time they see the plate as "we own Penzey's, not the porn channel."

 

[Frank]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/liberal-legal-marijuana-pot-1.4041902

And there it is.

A major step forward.

 

[Anonymous]

*desperately tries to think of best ways to smuggle weed across the border*

 

[Eriol]

From the article:

the legislation will be announced during the week of April 10

They waited this long, and they're not waiting until 4/20? Really? No sense of the dramatic/ironic!

As for Canadians who want to grow their own marijuana, they will be limited to four plants per household.

This is interesting. We'll see how that plays out.

But at the NDP's leadership debate in Montreal Sunday, which was focused on youth issues, several of the candidates pointed to marijuana legislation as an example of a broken Liberal promise.

"I do not believe Justin Trudeau is going to bring in the legalization of marijuana and as proof that ... we are still seeing, particularly young, Canadians being criminalized by simple possession of marijuana," said B.C. MP Peter Julian.

And this is why this was "leaked" (released) today. They don't want to give a millimeter to the NDP. Honestly, I think that's just good politics (the one thing the Libs have always been good at, as governing isn't that thing), so this had to happen today. I'm surprised as MANY details got leaked though.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Odd ruling. Not wrong necessarily, but somewhat odd IMO: Dennis Oland was wrongly denied bail in murder case: Supreme Court

The part that makes this odd IMO is this:

How I interpret that is "even if you're convicted, if you have an appeal pending, there's no law on the books saying that you can't be out on bail, so denying it by default isn't good enough." If so, then fine, but still seems a bit weird. You had a conviction, so isn't that enough to keep you in pending appeal if you're not a danger, or a flight risk, etc? But if it's not on the books that it is, then I guess this ruling is correct? It was 9-0.

So I guess we need a law to keep convicted people behind bars between trials? Or not? @Frank, what do you think?

The number of recent Supreme Court rulings that are 9-0 kind of bother me. Isn't some dissent good? I'll have to think about this more.

 

[Bubble181]

The number of recent Supreme Court rulings that are 9-0 kind of bother me. Isn't some dissent good? I'll have to think about this more.

Yes and no. Are the ruling 9-0 because everybody is of the same mindset, or because they were all separately and possibly for different reasons, convinced it was the right ruling? If you have 9 judges who all think alike, that's useless. If you have 9 judges who always vote according to the exact same "party" split that's just as useless.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Yes and no. Are the ruling 9-0 because everybody is of the same mindset, or because they were all separately and possibly for different reasons, convinced it was the right ruling? If you have 9 judges who all think alike, that's useless. If you have 9 judges who always vote according to the exact same "party" split that's just as useless.

I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

 

[Gruebeard]

I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

It may also just be that those cases were the sort of cases that lend themselves to unanimous decisions when judged objectively

 

[@Li3n]

I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

 

[Jay]

Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

I assume you've been paying attention in America right now as the reps are selling your online privacy to the highest bidder... well... that is... if your reps are 100% republican.

I seriously hope no one in Canada gets any stupid ideas like that.

 

[Chad Sexington]

It may also just be that those cases were the sort of cases that lend themselves to unanimous decisions when judged objectively

Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

These are fascinating perspectives.

Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

What if you rule on the constitutionality of a given subject? Constitutional expertise isn't easy. It's nuanced. You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions. That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

 

[@Li3n]

Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

Yeah, it the law was written objectively, it would read itself.

You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions.

Yes, bias does that.

Or ambiguously written laws.

Or novel situations that no one could even think of at the time the text was written.

That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

You're looking at it from the wrong side... the problem isn't the law being subjective (it's not supposed to, you're supposed to write it as unambiguous as possible), but people being biased, so you have more people in the hopes of countering each other's biases by having different ones.

 

[Eriol]

Speaking of badly-written law: If I'm Islamophobic, what's my punishment?

I didn't know M103 passed on the 77th anniversary of the vote to split off Pakistan from India. Interesting, along with the passages he wants to "disassociate" himself from.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Speaking of badly-written law: If I'm Islamophobic, what's my punishment?

I didn't know M103 passed on the 77th anniversary of the vote to split off Pakistan from India. Interesting, along with the passages he wants to "disassociate" himself from.

A Motion is not a law, and there remains no punishment for blasphemy in Canada. Tarek Fatah is an ass.

Further, he is just... wrong... or maybe "not even wrong" about the motivations behind the partition of India and Pakistan, which was deeply complicated, as such a massive political, ethnic, and geographic change must be.[DOUBLEPOST=1490808975,1490808797][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yeah, it the law was written objectively, it would read itself.




Yes, bias does that.

Or ambiguously written laws.

Or novel situations that no one could even think of at the time the text was written.



You're looking at it from the wrong side... the problem isn't the law being subjective (it's not supposed to, you're supposed to write it as unambiguous as possible), but people being biased, so you have more people in the hopes of countering each other's biases by having different ones.

At least two of your situations: ambiguous laws and novel situations seem to imply that arriving at different conclusions with the same information would not necessarily be because of bias. Otherwise, again, you would arrive at the same conclusion because there is only one objective conclusion of note. Obviously this is not the case.

Any way you seem to place a lot of faith in politicians writing objectively but judges being biased, which seems overly optimistic.

 

[@Li3n]

At least two of your situations: ambiguous laws and novel situations seem to imply that arriving at different conclusions with the same information would not necessarily be because of bias.

Never said it was only bias in my 1st post either. But lets be honest, most of the time that is the case.

Any way you seem to place a lot of faith in politicians writing objectively but judges being biased, which seems overly optimistic.

I'm really not, i was simply stating what they're supposed to do. The FF did try pretty hard though...

 

[Gruebeard]

These are fascinating perspectives.

Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

What if you rule on the constitutionality of a given subject? Constitutional expertise isn't easy. It's nuanced. You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions. That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

So read my post as saying "impartial" instead of "objective" and my point stands: "Was a unanimous decision reasonable in those cases?" is really the first question you should be answering before you asking "Are the judges in cahoots?"

 

[Chad Sexington]

So read my post as saying "impartial" instead of "objective" and my point stands: "Was a unanimous decision reasonable in those cases?" is really the first question you should be answering before you asking "Are the judges in cahoots?"

I never asked if the judges were in cahoots. All I said was I'm not sure it's a good thing to have so many unanimous rulings, and that dissent is valuable.

 

[Gruebeard]

I never asked if the judges were in cahoots. All I said was I'm not sure it's a good thing to have so many unanimous rulings, and that dissent is valuable.

The "cahoots" bit was just exaggeration.

I'm just trying to say those unanimous rulings may be fine, and that I think you're skipping a step by not wondering about that first.

 

[Denbrought]

One thing to also keep in mind is that assents (and dissents) can be reached for different reasons. A 9-0 might be a per curiam, but can also be a narrow majority opinion and a handful of concurring opinions. Similarly, dissents can also be a bloc, or a bunch of differently-focused essays.

 

[Eriol]

Bombardier executives' hands have been caught in the cookie jar... but we're still giving them the money: Justin Trudeau hammered over Bombardier bailout in House of Commons

Bombardier is eliminating 14,500 jobs around the world by the end of next year, part of a restructuring plan aimed at helping the company turn itself around. The plan includes federal and provincial money: a $372.5-million federal loan for Bombardier’s CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs, and $1 billion from Quebec.

Last week, the company issued a proxy circular showing that six executives were in line for a nearly 50 per cent increase in compensation, most of which was to be granted in 2019.

They're "delaying" the pay increase to themselves now. And why do they deserve a pay increase at all with that much money going out the door? To be fair, they've paid back some of it... but it's a secret how much exactly they owe: How much money does Bombardier owe Canadians? It’s a secret. And then from 2015, apparently over time they've gotten about $2.1 BILLION dollars over the years in corporate welfare. That's BEFORE the recent $1.4B that's this last year or so. Fucking Quebec-pandering is what it is. And they're LAYING OFF jobs and taking money like crazy, so it's not even saving (many) jobs.

Beyond that, I will reiterate what I've said previously about businesses: if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. Let them fail, and let a NUMBER of companies spring back up to fill the gaps. Or bankruptcy to reorganize, but keep a lid on executive compensation. This is just idiocy.

The funny thing is, this is also exposing another broken promise by Trudeau:

Total compensation for Bombardier’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was to be US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, and some of that is in stock options.

People pay less tax on for income earned on stock options than they do if they are paid in cash.

The Liberals had pledged to close that tax loophole but have backed off in the last two budgets, arguing in the past that for many companies it is a valuable way to compensate all employees, not just CEOs.

It’s a loophole primarily for the wealthy, Mulcair said.

“So it’s another case of Justin Trudeau saying one thing and doing another, and frankly, I know that a lot of Canadians are growing very tired of Justin Trudeau not doing what he says he’s going to do.”

Disgusting, but not surprising. In Quebec they know how to reward those "loyal" to them.

 

[Bubble181]

Well, to be fair, the Belgian branch and plant of Bombardier were successful and profitable, but got closed down with production moved to Canada, so I guess the state support at least helped some jobs stay a short while longer.

Though I've noticed here as well that governments like to pump (hundreds of) millions in companies for thousands of jobs for a few years - if you make the cost-per-job-per-year comparison, many of them result in subsidies in excess of €40,000 per job per year. Which pretty much means it'd have been cheaper to just leave all those people on welfare.

 

[Eriol]

if you make the cost-per-job-per-year comparison, many of them result in subsidies in excess of €40,000 per job per year. Which pretty much means it'd have been cheaper to just leave all those people on welfare.

I'm wondering how much the administration costs of Welfare are, and thus how much more expensive it would be to "leave" people on such.

Also, a more well-thought-out criticism of Bombardier, with good links and a long-term view of them: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-executive-pay-1.4052729

In particular, I like the section about how the last time around that Air Canada got a bailout, they had conditions put on executive compensation. Why wasn't this done for Bombardier?

Oh right, Quebec-ruled government again. Nevermind. Makes sense now.

 

[Eriol]

RCMP arrest Toronto man for allegedly leaving Canada to join ISIS

So that's apparently a thing.

 

[Eriol]

A preposterous injustice: Grieving nurse slapped with a $26,000 fine

Nurse's grandfather dies in palliative care (not at the facility she works at). Nurse posts "rant" (it's mild, I'll quote it below) about the sub-par care on facebook. Nurse gets taken in for professional misconduct, and is then fined. This is bullshit. The purpose of a Professional Organization is to protect the public, not punish members for pointing out issues. IMO the professional organization should now be investigated for gross misuse of resources. It's THEIR JOB to take the members or government to task about any health issues, not punish their members for speaking out about personal experiences, even if it's about other members.

Full text of the post in question:

“My grandfather spent a week in palliative care before he died and after hearing about his and my family’s experience there, it is evident that not everyone is ‘up to speed’ on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an aging senior’s dignity.

“I challenge the people involved in decision making with that facility to please get all your staff a refresher on this topic and more. Don’t get me wrong, ‘some’ people have provided excellent care so I thank you so very much for your efforts, but to those who made Grandpa’s last years less than desirable, please do better next time.”

For that she was "convicted" (not criminal) of the following: failure to follow proper channels in making a complaint; making comments that have a negative impact on the reputation of staff and a facility; failure to first obtain all the facts; and using her status of registered nurse for personal purposes.

I think those are flawed, and here's why:
#1 failure to follow proper channels in making a complaint - Maybe, but if she'd done so, the odds of change are... zero? Below zero?
#2 making comments that have a negative impact on the reputation of staff and a facility - comments themselves should not be an offense, only if they are untrue
#3 failure to first obtain all the facts - Like... they're understaffed? Then it makes the professional organization liable IMO for not highlighting such to those in charge.
#4 using her status of registered nurse for personal purposes - That should be "personal gain" IMO and since it clearly wasn't for gain, using your professional status to say "I'm an expert, this is bullshit" should be CELEBRATED not punished. I'm pretty sure (though I'm going to look it up) that I'm allowed in public to say "I'm an Engineer who is experienced in this field, and <statement of fact as I see it>" and that's OK professionally. I guess I should look that up though. I am NOT allowed to orate as a Professional Engineer on topics I am not trained and experienced in (Structural Engineering for instance, I can only give an opinion as a "regular person" not a Professional Engineer, and thus don't take it TOO seriously). Any violations here should ONLY be a matter of "did she have good reason to believe such professionally?" That should be the end of the professional inquiry. Anything beyond that should be a matter for a Libel suit, not the Professional Organization.

Also, that post is damned mild. This is beyond a tempest in a Teacup, because it turned into "real money" eventually. Nothing in that post is unreasonable in the least.

 

[Eriol]

I'm sure this title will change, but hopefully the meaning will come across: Liberals unveil pot legislation
Pot in Canada, recreational. The highlights:

• Legal to purchase for 18 and over - supposedly provinces will be able to increase it more, like with alcohol.
• Up to 4 plants per residence can be cultivated yourself - Hey @Dirona, we have a greenhouse with our new house...
• Can have up to 30 grams (dried equivalent) on you at any time - I have no idea how much/little this is. Can somebody please clarify?
• Edibles will be legal, with additional regulations to be announced.
• A felony to sell it to minors, up to 14 years in jail. More below on the whole minors thing
• Cannot import it at all. Export only with special permits.
• Take effect by July 1, 2018 - Could be a very mellow Canada Day next year!

Also this block of text:

It would also be against the law to sell cannabis in a package or with a label that could be construed as appealing to young people, to include testimonials or endorsements, or to depict a person, character or animal.

The government also aims to establish "significant penalties" for those who engage young Canadians in "cannabis-related offences" and a "zero-tolerance approach" to drug-impaired driving, along with a "robust" public awareness campaign.

They seem to want to ban anything that could be appealing to kids/teenagers. That seems really broad and open to interpretation. Isn't "this means we're adults now!" appealing to kids, and therefore everything could fall under it if some jurisdiction wanted it to?

So we'll see where this goes!

 

[GasBandit]

A joint is typically a third to a half of a gram of weed.

 

[Denbrought]

Can have up to 30 grams (dried equivalent) on you at any time - I have no idea how much/little this is. Can somebody please clarify?

According to Wikipedia, the average joint has 0.25-1g in it, so 30-120 joints. Most adult users I have knowledge of smoke 0-2 joints daily, or a similar amount via pipe, e-cigarrette, etc.

 

[drifter]

An ounce of weed (about 28 grams).