Politics in 2018

[Jed]

Isn't it more likely that the people who don't like guns, etc are the ones who would immediately deny that the SK farmers have anything to be afraid of: in other words, claiming that what I proposed definitely "isn't the case" ?  Wouldn't those people be the ones who believe the farmers are just motivated by ignorance and racism and trigger-happiness?

No. Most of the folks that don’t like guns, big knives don’t live in rural Saskatchewan / Alberta.

But, I wouldn't trivialize people who don't like the idea of killing. I would hope that most people in a civil society actually don't like it, and see it as something to be done only in a case of dire necessity./ If everybody likes the idea of killing, civil society won't be around long.

I agree, never trivialize taking a life. It is sick and perverse to enjoy killing / torture / etc. Even if one perceives it to be justice and / or revenge. 

 

[Eaglelord17]

In this case, the Crown did not succeed in proving every element of the offence to a proper jury. Hence, that means the accused did not commit the offence for which he was prosecuted and that simply means not guilty. To be found guilty he must have committed all of the required elements set out in the Criminal Code, and only the Criminal Code. 

That is sometimes not true. It simply means the Crown failed to prove that the accused committed the offence, not that the accused did not commit the offence (two very distinct things).

This is why I like the Scottish way of doing things were they have Guilty and Not Proven. Not proven simply means we didn't prove you did the crime. You may have actually done it, you may have not, we may never know, but it isn't the complete exoneration that our wording seems to imply.

 

[FSTO]

Another thing being lost here is that I doubt that Gerald Stanley woke up that morning and thought "I'm going to kill me an indian today".
By listening to the Ottawa chattering classes today, I'm have the feeling that that is exactly what many people here in Ottawa are thinking.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I think the impartial truth of what happened in this tragedy for both families has left the building in the rush to condemn due process. 

I can appreciate the Boushie family is grieving, angry and feel they were let down by the system.  That doesn't mean they were.

The Stanley family too are no doubt feeling they've been abandoned and run over.  Both of these families have suffered a great loss, no one has won here.

I am disheartened to see political figures who should be keeping their mouths closed, taking sides and bringing the system into disrepute.  That's not leadership.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The FN community seem oblivious to the nuances of the case. A  GoFundMe thing set up describes:

  In August 2016, Colten was shot and killed on a farm while out for a drive with his friends.

.

Obviously they were doing more than going out for a drive but the community wants to gloss over that fact.

A similar fund for Gerald Stanley to recoup court costs is up and naturally people are going berserk about it. From demanding GoFundMe remove it to stories of people taking contributors names and harassing then in facebook or trying to contact their work and get them fired or causing shit.

 

[mariomike]

The FN community seem oblivious to the nuances of the case. A  GoFundMe thing set up describes: .

Obviously they were doing more than going out for a drive but the community wants to gloss over that fact.

A similar fund for Gerald Stanley to recoup court costs is up and naturally people are going berserk about it. From demanding GoFundMe remove it to stories of people taking contributors names and harassing then in facebook or trying to contact their work and get them fired or causing shit.

For anyone who wishes to contribute, or compare the amounts in each fund,

Colten Boushie
https://www.gofundme.com/justice4colten

Gerald Stanley
https://www.gofundme.com/gerald-stanley-support-fund

 

[Cloud Cover]

That is sometimes not true. It simply means the Crown failed to prove that the accused committed the offence, not that the accused did not commit the offence (two very distinct things).

This is not Scotland. This was a charge of murder- under Canadian law this an offence of specific intent and not general intent. If all the elements of an offence are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the alleged crime did not occur pursuant to the Criminal Code, and that is all that matters. There was a homicide but not a murder.  Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence. Black and white, right in the criminal code. If it is established through a trial that a person did not commit murder, manslaughter or infanticide or any of the items in section 222(5), they have not committed a culpable homicide.  See 222 (1)-(6).

 

[jollyjacktar]

Another photo opportunity.  The PM is going to meet the Boushie family.  :not-again:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880

 

[Jarnhamar]

Another photo opportunity.  The PM is going to meet the Boushie family.  :not-again:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880

Did the prime minister meet with the families of  Robert Hall and John Ridsdel after they were kidnapped, tortured and beheaded by the ISIS-affiliated terror group Abu Sayyaf?

 

[George Wallace]

Remember the last time Trudeau hosted a family?
Perhaps there is a pattern.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Remember the last time Trudeau hosted a family?
Perhaps there is a pattern.

I wonder, if it were the Stanley family looking for a meeting,  would they get the same answer as that Silver Cross father did when he had concerns about where dollars were going.  A "gee is that the time?  We're fully booked up, maybe next time".

 

[Loachman]

I have never looked at Reddit before, and therefore have no comment regarding any bias that may or may not exist on that site, or on the veracity of comments regarding the Boushie incident in general, but https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/7wt9ey/after_stanley_verdict_lawyers_say_political/du37b4q/ was pointed out to me. The poster seems to have done his research, and provides many links. I've only looked at a few, all of which were from regular media reports.

On one:

"The embattled Chief of Red Pheasant First Nation was sentenced, again, in North Battleford provincial court Wednesday.

"Stewart Baptiste received a suspended sentence and six months probation in connection to guilty pleas entered for two charges of violating his probation."

A sentence of probation for breaking probation strikes me as ineffective and silly.

 

[ModlrMike]

You know you've crossed the Rubicon when even the Red Star tells you to STFU...

For the sake of peoplekind, Justin Trudeau needs to shut his mouth

Forget climate change, terrorism, potential war or a volatile stock market. The biggest threat to Canada right now is our leader’s mouth, writes Vinay Menon.

 

[Eaglelord17]

This is not Scotland. This was a charge of murder- under Canadian law this an offence of specific intent and not general intent. If all the elements of an offence are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the alleged crime did not occur pursuant to the Criminal Code, and that is all that matters. There was a homicide but not a murder.  Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence. Black and white, right in the criminal code. If it is established through a trial that a person did not commit murder, manslaughter or infanticide or any of the items in section 222(5), they have not committed a culpable homicide.  See 222 (1)-(6).

Again just because it is not proven does not mean the offence didn't occur, they are two distinctly different things. You are not on trial to prove your innocence you are on trial for them to try and prove your guilt. If we had a guilty until proven innocent system what you are saying would be true as you actually have to prove you did not commit the offence. This is why the Scottish wording makes sense as for all intents and purposes it has the same effects on the accused post trial, however it is still possible you did it, just they failed to prove it.

 

[jollyjacktar]

You know you've crossed the Rubicon when even the Red Star tells you to STFU...

For the sake of peoplekind, Justin Trudeau needs to shut his mouth

Forget climate change, terrorism, potential war or a volatile stock market. The biggest threat to Canada right now is our leader’s mouth, writes Vinay Menon.

Holy shit.  What a great article.  I never thought the Red Star would print something cutting like this.  I expect it will fall on deaf ears.  So, more comedy gold to come l guess.

 

[Remius]

Not a bad article on what the jury might have faced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-jury-verdict-1.4532064

 

[Altair]

Good article on why the conservatives might need another 4 years in opposition.

John Ivison: Scheer’s climate policy alienating potential new Conservative voters: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-scheers-climate-policy-alienating-potential-new-conservative-voters

The Conservative leader is firmly ensconced as the leader of a Official Opposition that is united against a carbon tax.

His problem is that, unless he can persuade voters he cares about the environment and has a plan for tackling climate change, he will still be the Opposition leader after the next election.

Scheer got a rousing reception from the ideological faithful at the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa, when he said his first act as prime minister after the 2019 election would be to repeal the federal carbon tax.

But while most diehards at Manning were opposed to carbon pricing, voters – particularly the millennials the Conservatives need to win over – are not.

Conservative supporters remain steadfastly opposed to a carbon tax – either because they don’t believe in climate change; oppose taxation in principle; or because they don’t think changes in Canada would have sufficient impact globally.

Yet, the polling evidence is convincing – the Conservatives need to attract younger, urban, ethnically diverse voters or they will lose again in 2019.

Just hours before Scheer’s appearance at Manning, David Coletto, chief executive at Abacus Data, presented some new research that suggested the pool of voters who would consider voting Conservative has risen to 51 per cent of all Canadians, from 42 per cent at the last election. Yet Abacus polling said only 26 per cent of all voters say they will vote Tory if an election were held tomorrow.

Clearly, then, the opportunity for the Conservatives to do much better is there.

The poll outlined which groups are potentially persuadable. Currently only 11 per cent of Conservative supporters belong to visible minorities, yet 25 per cent of that group are potential supporters.

At the moment, 37 per cent of Tories are under 45, while 54 per cent would think about voting for Scheer.

Only 47 per cent of current Conservatives want “serious action” on climate change, while 67 per cent of potential supporters think it is important.

This large pool of potential support is made up of people who are not instinctively hostile to government intervention; are more likely to be urban dwellers; and believe immigration strengthens the country.

Crucially, a majority have a positive view of Justin Trudeau, with only one in five actively expressing dislike for him.

All of which makes it a tall order to win over the one quarter of the electorate that does not support the Tories at the moment but is open to the idea.

But Scheer doesn’t have to be greener than Trudeau – he just has to neutralize the carbon tax with a strong proposal of his own, as Stephen Harper did when he matched Paul Martin’s every move on healthcare in 2004.

Yet Scheer rejoiced in his rejection of a policy that is popular with the voters he needs to woo. He spoke fondly of his hope that he would unite with Alberta opposition leader Jason Kenney and new Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe against Ottawa’s carbon tax.

“It’s great news for our movement and great news for Canada,” he said.

Climate change is a symbolic issue for many of them and Scheer mocks policies intended to address it at his peril.

The Conservative mantra under Harper was to adopt divide-and-conquer policies that polarized it with all the other parties, letting them fight for the progressive vote.

But the absence of carbon pricing breaks another cardinal rule of Conservative campaigning – not to veer too far to the right of the median voter.

David McLaughlin, Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff, was probably right when he told Manning delegates it might take another electoral drubbing before federal Conservatives wake up to the idea that voters care about the environment and demand their governments do too.

 

[Loachman]

Again just because it is not proven does not mean the offence didn't occur, they are two distinctly different things. You are not on trial to prove your innocence you are on trial for them to try and prove your guilt. If we had a guilty until proven innocent system what you are saying would be true as you actually have to prove you did not commit the offence. This is why the Scottish wording makes sense as for all intents and purposes it has the same effects on the accused post trial, however it is still possible you did it, just they failed to prove it.

Nobody, including Mr Stanley, denies that a homicide took place. That is not the issue. To find someone guilty of murder, intent to kill has to be proven, and it was not.

I do not know if self-defence was considered in this case or not. I would, however, consider any such claim to be valid.

The jury apparently deliberated for fifteen hours. That is a reasonable indication that they considered all factors quite carefully and thoroughly.

Your second sentence adds little. A good lawyer could still get a guilty client off under the right circumstances with reverse onus. It would be a much bigger challenge, yes, but would you rather see more potentially innocent people go to jail than potentially guilty people be let off?

There have been more than enough people sentenced for crimes that they did not commit as it is. Reversing the onus would inflate that number and is repugnant.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good article on why the conservatives might need another 4 years in opposition.

John Ivison: Scheer’s climate policy alienating potential new Conservative voters: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-scheers-climate-policy-alienating-potential-new-conservative-voters

I agree. The issue he has to cross is a viable, workable and politically acceptable alternative to carbon taxes. I don't believe those taxes are really reducing emissions on their own-the US is doing that without such a tax.
Need a better alternative than taxes, or causing scarce supply when the resource is in abundance, and especially causing/allowing higher pump and heating prices for no good reason.
Scheer would do better talking about escalating household costs, taking a page from Jack Laytons playboy.

 

[ModlrMike]

The real problem with a carbon tax is that the public has no faith that the government would use it for its intended purpose. I think people are willing to pay, if they can be assured that they are getting what they pay for. The other issue of course is that there's only one source of tax revenue, and that's the individual. Tax corporations all you want; in the end the individual pays.