Trust in our Institutions

[The Bread Guy]

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


This is where i fell:

View attachment 98652

This is their assessment of Canadian Politics as of 2025.

View attachment 98653

The Political Compass

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

www.politicalcompass.org

Thx for this! As for me …

While this puts me in NDP territory, I suspect my views on a strong military, pro-Israel and better gun rules over no guns at all would, at best, leave me hard to place at a Team Orange dinner party

 

[Brad Sallows]

The HEMI engine. And the 318.

Had a Dart with the 318. Nice and peppy without being overpowered.

 

[FJAG]

Thx for this! As for me …
View attachment 98665
While this puts me in NDP territory, I suspect my views on a strong military, pro-Israel and better gun rules over no guns at all would, at best, leave me hard to place at a Team Orange dinner party

Did it too and much to my surprise found myself a smidgin to the right of where you are. The test is obviously flawed.

 

[RangerRay]

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.

Stinchcombe, Gladue, Jordan...just a few off the top of my head.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those who think the SCC is full of “woke progressive” types bent on turning the country into a gangsters’ paradise. And those decisions were probably the result of bad cases (I.e. bad cases make bad case law). But they have made some bone decisions that warrant parliamentary supervision, IMHO.

 

[dapaterson]

Stinchcombe, Gladue, Jordan...just a few off the top of my head.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those who think the SCC is full of “woke progressive” types bent on turning the country into a gangsters’ paradise. And those decisions were probably the result of bad cases (I.e. bad cases make bad case law). But they have made some bone decisions that warrant parliamentary supervision, IMHO.

Parliament chooses to fund some things and not others. The outcomes of those decisions land in court.

Jordan is an excellent example. Systemic underfunding of the courts. Either pay the cost of the system you want or deal with the consequences.

 

[brihard]

Parliament chooses to fund some things and not others. The outcomes of those decisions land in court.

Jordan is an excellent example. Systemic underfunding of the courts. Either pay the cost of the system you want or deal with the consequences.

Agreed. As much as Jordan and Stinchcombe are both the bane of my effing existence some days, Canadians charged with a crime need and deserve those rights, and the system should be held to account. The standards established in Jordan are still well beyond the time most straightforward cases should take to prosecute; mostly it’s pure backlog. An accused person has their life badly disrupted while waiting for their day in court. And while Stinchcombe still requires some counterbalance, IMO, I see from within the system the need for hard and fast rules to compel disclosure by the crown to prevent judicial abuses.

Just one cop’s opinion… But I spend my days right now dealing with major case disclosure, so it’s a pretty informed one.

 

[RangerRay]

Parliament chooses to fund some things and not others. The outcomes of those decisions land in court.

Jordan is an excellent example. Systemic underfunding of the courts. Either pay the cost of the system you want or deal with the consequences.

No disagreement with me! I’ve long said that the Feds can only fix legislation, but the provinces have to fund the infrastructure to use those fixes to put criminals away.

Having said that, the court has to realize that their decisions can cause real world problems not easily fixed by well crafted legislation or more resources.

 

[OldSolduer]

Had a Dart with the 318. Nice and peppy without being overpowered.

You can never have enough HP. A 340 in the Dart would work very well.
The 1968 318 with a factory 2bbl carb produced 230 hp.

 

[lenaitch]

Stinchcombe, Gladue, Jordan...just a few off the top of my head.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those who think the SCC is full of “woke progressive” types bent on turning the country into a gangsters’ paradise. And those decisions were probably the result of bad cases (I.e. bad cases make bad case law). But they have made some bone decisions that warrant parliamentary supervision, IMHO.

I'm not sure how I see any of those decisions as "partisan" within my understanding of the term.

You can never have enough HP. A 340 in the Dart would work very well.
The 1968 318 with a factory 2bbl carb produced 230 hp.

I had a 1975 Plymouth Duster 340. Very peppy.

 

[Booter]

Agreed. As much as Jordan and Stinchcombe are both the bane of my effing existence some days, Canadians charged with a crime need and deserve those rights, and the system should be held to account. The standards established in Jordan are still well beyond the time most straightforward cases should take to prosecute; mostly it’s pure backlog. An accused person has their life badly disrupted while waiting for their day in court. And while Stinchcombe still requires some counterbalance, IMO, I see from within the system the need for hard and fast rules to compel disclosure by the crown to prevent judicial abuses.

Just one cop’s opinion… But I spend my days right now dealing with major case disclosure, so it’s a pretty informed one.

Hard disagree but respectfully and with the admission your points are entirely reasonable. Canadians victims also deserve justice.

When they flip the system on its head. Which these decisions do- and we do nothing to build a timeline and machinery to handle the new reality all we do is let murderers and rapists go.

Really it’s the government that is not responding to the decisions properly I suppose so…maybe you’re right and I’m just surly.

 

[brihard]

Hard disagree but respectfully and with the admission your points are entirely reasonable. Canadians victims also deserve justice.

When they flip the system on its head. Which these decisions do- and we do nothing to build a timeline and machinery to handle the new reality all we do is let murderers and rapists go.

Really it’s the government that is not responding to the decisions properly I suppose so…maybe you’re right and I’m just surly.

Oh I’m surly as hell about it. It’s super annoying showing up to court to find it triple booked and now we’re adjourned and oh, surprise! Jordan, stay of proceedings… Or a stupidly generous plea deal. But that was the court signaling to the state that the total time A to B is too long to be called justice. The onus returns to the state to provide the system with the resources needed.

It’s not rocket surgery; talk to some senior judges, some senior crown, some defense counsel associations, and the senior administrators in the courts and identify where the choke points are in the judicial process… At the risk of exciting army.ca’s resident business consultants, this is the type of thing you hire process analysis consultants to write a Captain Obvious report that can be presented to provincial and federal cabinets to say “if you don’t want files getting tossed here are your choke points in ranked order of severity”.