Trust in our Institutions

[Lumber]

I still don’t trust the upper echelons of the RCMP. Or the Supreme Court.

Or the current GoC.

RCMP, sure. GoC, understandable. But the SCC? If there's any institution in Canada that is full of well-trained, experienced, professional, and non-partisan people, it's the SCC.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I still don’t trust the upper echelons of the RCMP. Or the Supreme Court.

Or the current GoC.

I'm with you, but I will add I don't trust rank and file LEOs either.

 

[Furniture]

I'm with you, but I will add I don't trust rank and file LEOs either.

Agreed, though not because I think they are all or even mostly bad, but because all it takes is one zealot/bad one to ruin your day and potentially life.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Agreed, though not because I think they are all or even mostly bad, but because all it takes is one zealot/bad one to ruin your day and potentially life.

Absolutely, there are defiantly shitheads in our ranks too.

Having said that I can only form my positions off of my own lived experiences.

While I have had positive experiences with LEOs. They are out weighed by the bad.

One group I have come to admire and trust are the NS DNR Officers. Every interaction, and I've had a few, has been mature, thoughtful and reasoned. I hold them in high regard.

RCMP, sure. GoC, understandable. But the SCC? If there's any institution in Canada that is full of well-trained, experienced, professional, and non-partisan people, it's the SCC.

I wish I had your faith.

 

[Lumber]

I wish I had your faith.

Do you have any examples of where the SCC did something (i.e. made decisions) that you thought were partisan, ideological, illegal, or just patently wrong from a legal perspective? Not trying to throw shade at your opinion, but if you have such a negative opinion of the SCC, I would genuinely like to know what you've seen for my own edification.

 

[OldSolduer]

Do you have any examples of where the SCC did something (i.e. made decisions) that you thought were partisan, ideological, illegal, or just patently wrong from a legal perspective? Not trying to throw shade at your opinion, but if you have such a negative opinion of the SCC, I would genuinely like to know what you've seen for my own edification.

How about the reduction of sentences for those convicted of heinous crimes? Do you think the murderer of three Mounties ever get the chance to apply for parole?
Three life sentences was imposed by the trial judge but the SCC reduced it to 25 years citing "cruel and unusual punishment".

How about the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the victims and their families?

 

[Remius]

How about the reduction of sentences for those convicted of heinous crimes? Do you think the murderer of three Mounties ever get the chance to apply for parole?
Three life sentences was imposed by the trial judge but the SCC reduced it to 25 years citing "cruel and unusual punishment".

How about the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the victims and their families?

Is that a SCC issue or just bad legislation. There is a difference.

 

[OldSolduer]

Is that a SCC issue or just bad legislation. There is a difference.

The trial judge imposed three consecutive life sentences. The SCC made in concurrent.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Do you have any examples of where the SCC did something (i.e. made decisions) that you thought were partisan, ideological, illegal, or just patently wrong from a legal perspective? Not trying to throw shade at your opinion, but if you have such a negative opinion of the SCC, I would genuinely like to know what you've seen for my own edification.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Meaning Its not that I think they always get it wrong, its that I don't think they are above their own political biases, political allegiances, and personal activism.

Humans are inherently flawed and fallible and SCC Judges are no different.

 

[Remius]

The trial judge imposed three consecutive life sentences. The SCC made in concurrent.

Sure. But that didn’t answer the question. The SCC bases its decisions on a several things.

So either the legislation is bad. Or the things that the SCC uses to base its decisions are bad. Generally it’s the legislation.

 

[Remius]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Meaning Its not that I think they always get it wrong, its that I don't think they are above their own political biases, political allegiances, and personal activism.

If you don’t trust them then it normally means you think they always or mostly get it wrong. I would argue your own biases, political allegiances and activism has lead you to that conclusion. Given you are an admitted libertarian that is consistant with your ideology.

Humans are inherently flawed and fallible and SCC Judges are no different.

That’s why they have several of them to minimize that issue.

I would propose that most have no idea how the SCC comes to its decisions let alone what they actually do and let their own biases take over.

 

[brihard]

How about the reduction of sentences for those convicted of heinous crimes? Do you think the murderer of three Mounties ever get the chance to apply for parole?
Three life sentences was imposed by the trial judge but the SCC reduced it to 25 years citing "cruel and unusual punishment".

How about the cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the victims and their families?

That’s not what happened though. He got three life sentences. A life sentence carries no people eligibility for 25 years, but Parliament allowed the courts to stack that in the case of multiple life sentences. However, as written, the law only allows for consecutive blocks of 25 years ineligibility- sloppy legislative drafting. The trial judge in Bourque sentenced him to life with 40 years of parole ineligibility. The Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that Parliament didn’t give the courts the power to split the subsequent periods into smaller chunks and knocked it back down to 25. The onus is on Parliment to fix it.

Now, parole eligibility doesn’t mean he’ll ever get parole. It just means he can ask. His sentence is still life.

So- not a partisan or ideological decision by SCC. They ruled correctly on the law as clearly written by Parliament.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If you don’t trust them then it normally means you think they always or mostly get it wrong. I would argue your own biases, political allegiances and activism has lead you to that conclusion.

I don't trust them, as humans, to be able to make decisions without the influence of their own biased positions, political and personal.

Given you are an admitted libertarian that is consistant with your ideology.

That's a fair assessment. I find myself normally politically homeless with leanings in all directions. I have voted from the NDP to the CPC.

FYI I just did the political compass test on this page: The Political Compass

This is where i fell:



This is their assessment of Canadian Politics as of 2025.

The Political Compass

The Political Compass: a 2-dimensional typology of political opinions

www.politicalcompass.org

That’s why they have several of them to minimize that issue.

I would propose that most have no idea how the SCC comes to its decisions let alone what they actually do and let their own biases take over.