Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

The Boushie family is in Ottawa to meet with government ministers. Will Trudeau Liberals take it to the next level and make things better for the Boushie family by handing them a hefty cheque? Speaking of political gain, that would earn them a few hundred additional First Nations votes.

Quote

'We have questions and we want answers': Boushie family in Ottawa to meet with ministers"

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeau is trying to obstruct the justice system for political gain.

Of course he is but the worst is from the Justice Minister who should step down.

Sean Robichaud is a Certified Specialist in criminal law by the Law Society of Upper Canada who says:  Whether it is the right, left, or any political leanings, it is wholly inappropriate for elected officials to publicly undermine findings of a lawfully delivered verdict; particularly when it is one of a jury. The response is to silently appeal, not publicly shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, capricorn said:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-to-do-better-trudeau-reacts-to-gerald-stanley-verdict-1.3798036

The Courts, juries and Canadians have their marching orders from the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister. "Do better" when First Nations individuals face criminal charges. That says to me don't find them guilty of the charges. I must remember that if ever I am selected for jury duty involving a First Nations individual.

Natives actually allready 'do better' under Gladue and Aboriginal Sentencing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I don't see any one-sided reporting there. I see Jagmeet Singh making some statements that appear to address the trial, and I see Cathy McLeod, Lisa Raitt, and Rob Nicholson all trying to make it a political issue with their innuendo.

I'm busy at the moment and really want to answer this with depth. I think this needs its own thread on the rhetoric. So I'll have to hold off until later. 

As to my thread here though, I am seeing many of you digressing to the PARTICULAR case rather than to the LOGIC of the problem I'm speaking of. PRETEND, for the sake of argument that the jury's decision was an 'injustice'. I don't CARE for whether the jury was or was not appropriate here. What matters is

(1) That EVERY person charged with some offense for which they have a JURY, the DEFENSE has a right to be judged by "those of his peers"; By contrast, the PROSECUTION favors those potential selections who will give them a 'win' for the charge. The DEFENSE is NOT in any wrong regardless for opting selected jury members that they believe will FAVOR their case. Why would you WANT to PICK those you know will most likely find you guilty no matter what? Given the very DEMONSTRATING anger of an almost universal hatred of the defendant BY those of Aboriginal decent, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE "WISE" for the defendant to PICK "INDIGENOUS" jury members? 

Please grab a brain on this. The 'anger' against this defendant BY the Aboriginal community PROVES their own interpretation that the ONLY means for justice is to REQUIRE A GUILTY CONVICTION REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR GUILT.

(2) Distracting the attention to the particular guilt or innocence purposely attempts to DIMINISH the significance of the abuses that is coming from the Aboriginal community and supporters of those politicians who REFUSE to speak against this with our media also focusing on this without integrity of 'reporting' the logical fallacies that those like myself are complaining about.

I will add more on this but have to go. I already wrote more than I can for now. 

Scott.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ?Impact said:

If you want to expand your investigation, then you should google search for Iain Stables, he stole $1.2 million worth of farm equipment in the same area. He is serving "house arrest" (I.e. no prison time), could that be because he has white skin. Bouchie however is lying in the ground, even though he never had a criminal record. Could the skin color of this young man have anything to do with the sentence he received? I only ask because this thread seems rife with references to this "native", and skin color appears to be the determining factor for many.

I think that the root cause of the horrible outcome. 

When you are very rural, you feel like you have no protection.  Everybody knows who the trouble makers are, but, IF the police do anything, it takes the criminals away for only a short period, then they are right back in action.  The Justice system is only capable of slightly delaying the issue.

Where I grew up, a local thug was brutally murdered, and the killers only got manslaughter.  And the local crime issue was not chronic like I've been hearing about in rural Saskatchewan.

The Justice System has been failing both rural residents and obviously indigenous people.  I suspect the Jury feels that vigilante justice is all that is available for the farmer, especially dealing with people from there…

I believe the shooting was likely not race based, but the not guilty verdict was helped by race…

he killers only got Manslater.  And the local crime issue was not cronic like I've been hearing about in rural Saskatchewan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Please grab a brain on this. The 'anger' against this defendant BY the Aboriginal community PROVES their own interpretation that the ONLY means for justice is to REQUIRE A GUILTY CONVICTION REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE OR GUILT.

So you are saying that aboriginals are extremely biased, but whites are pure as the driven snow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DFCaper said:

Everybody knows who the trouble makers are,

Yes, it is the white guys like I pointed out above. The white guy who got away with stealing $1.2 million worth of farm equipment with a "house arrest" compared to the native who got his brains blown out. It is comments like yours that proves that there is still extreme racial hatred in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DFCaper said:

I suspect the Jury feels that vigilante justice is all that is available for the farmer, especially dealing with people from there…

That is the biggest part of the problem. Unthinking people that somehow construe this as support for vigilante justice. Nothing could be further from the case. I have pointed out many times that the jury found reasonable cause that this was not culpable homicide - that is all. When we have people who have expressed their racial hatred now calling for vigilante justice, we have become a horrid society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, it is the white guys like I pointed out above. The white guy who got away with stealing $1.2 million worth of farm equipment with a "house arrest" compared to the native who got his brains blown out. It is comments like yours that proves that there is still extreme racial hatred in this country.

Nice jumping to conclusions...  I bet the white guy your talking about was know as a trouble maker.  There was probably no surprise, when the police finally busted him.  That was the case I was quoting from you...

Or am I jumping to conclusions on your comment, that there is extreme racial hatred in this country against whites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

That is the biggest part of the problem. Unthinking people that somehow construe this as support for vigilante justice. Nothing could be further from the case. I have pointed out many times that the jury found reasonable cause that this was not culpable homicide - that is all. When we have people who have expressed their racial hatred now calling for vigilante justice, we have become a horrid society.

So in your simplistic view, that Race was the only consideration?  That in now way there can be multiple factors?  The other cases I was comaring it to involved only whites...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DFCaper said:

So in your simplistic view, that Race was the only consideration?

You are the one that raised race as a factor for the jury, and are promoting vigilante justice. My "simplistic" view is that the jury did their job according to the instruction received and the evidence presented, and your interpretation of the jury`s findings is frightening for the future of our society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

So you are saying that aboriginals are extremely biased, but whites are pure as the driven snow?

WTF? No. I'm saying that in THIS case, the Aboriginals ARE being the CLEAR racist here. If the jury is being so, we have no means of asserting this one way or the other. I also think that those of you who are of ANY race or sex who believes that the Aboriginals are correct in treating this issue as a racist verdict are equally culpable of supporting this.

I beg you to PROVE WHO the racists are against the Natives on this issue! You can't assert they exist OUT THERE but cannot point to them. And when you do this with nods and innuendo, you are being cowards to prevent those you accuse of such from DEFENDING such charges. 

DEFINE what and who is a 'racist'. Do you, for instance, think that I am one? If so, why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are the one that raised race as a factor for the jury, and are promoting vigilante justice. My "simplistic" view is that the jury did their job according to the instruction received and the evidence presented, and your interpretation of the jury`s findings is frightening for the future of our society.

I am concerned that policing and justice for the very rural parts of this country.  It is an issue that is mostly ignored, as it is not understood by people in towns and cities.  I do think it may get worst.

I am still confused how you can hold a gun to someone, it go off and kill someone, and it not be at least manslaughter, no matter the instructions...  Even if you believe the story about the missfire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

DEFINE what and who is a 'racist'. Do you, for instance, think that I am one? If so, why?

You are the one that brought race (whatever that means) into the discussion. You linked protests by some aboriginals as a sign of racial bias on the part of all aboriginals, so does it not follow that there will be racial bias on the part of all non-aboriginals? We are not Americans here, we need to stop using American justice system examples because they do not apply. In Canada a jury is composed of adult citizens of the province/territory, the crown and defense can challenge any jury member for whatever reason so yes race along with gender, marital status, age, income, and profession often are the reasons a juror is [not] selected. The idea of an impartial jury is grand, but in truth what we have is crown and defense selecting a most favorable jury from their own perspectives with the hope it balances out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, it is the white guys like I pointed out above. The white guy who got away with stealing $1.2 million worth of farm equipment with a "house arrest" compared to the native who got his brains blown out. It is comments like yours that proves that there is still extreme racial hatred in this country.

If the defence is blaming the all white jury, where were they when it was being picked. I imagine now that they figured go all white and when he is let off we can blame the evil whiteman. The evidence is there, now the kids need to learn from it. Drink have fun, but no need to drive onto other people's property looking to steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 We are not Americans here, we need to stop using American justice system examples because they do not apply.

 

Good luck with that...some Canadians even think they have "Miranda" rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in a debate now with people that want to be able to carry handguns in canada. I am a gun owner but do not want to see that law changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

some Canadians even think they have "Miranda" rights.

Are those rights granted by the first lady? (Miranda Trump)

---

In Canada the relevant rights are:

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

  • (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
  • (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PIK said:

I am in a debate now with people that want to be able to carry handguns in canada. I am a gun owner but do not want to see that law changed.

If Stanley had a long gun instead of a pistol, I expect the outcome would very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

I will google that however I was serious in my question. Did they not get charged

 

15 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Are you saying Trudeau’s comment did NOT imply a questionable verdict?

 

@?Impact  Any reason why you are steering clear of my questions?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Any reason why you are steering clear of my questions?  

I have no knowledge of the other people involved and what charges they face.

I think it is very clear by my many comments that Trudeau's tweet and answer to reporters question did not imply a questionable verdict. That is what others are trying to implicate him on for their own political reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I have no knowledge of the other people involved and what charges they face.

I won't lose any sleep over it if they don't get charged but I do think it would be a bit ironic if they don't. Like you,  I don't know so i can't say for sure if its happening

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I think it is very clear by my many comments that Trudeau's tweet and answer to reporters question did not imply a questionable verdict. That is what others are trying to implicate him on for their own political reasons.

Oh I wasn't worried about what other politicians were saying about Trudeau's tweet, rather I was concerned with a number of lawyers who are a part of the system think:

Quote

 

However, some lawyers are worried that politicians now weighing in on the case are going too far and may even be putting the independence of the country’s judiciary at risk with their comments.

“Saying anything that amounts to commenting on the correctness of the verdict, to improve your public image or ensure an appropriate approval rating, should be criticized in Canada,” said Michael Lacy, a partner in the criminal law group Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP in Toronto.

 

Quote

Edmonton-based criminal lawyer Tom Engel said when politicians, especially the justice minister, appear to criticize verdicts, the public may believe that future decisions by the courts are influenced by the remarks. Lacy added that politicians “have no business at all” in commenting on the outcome of a trial. “It undermines the independence of the judicial branch,” he said in an email.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/0212-na-stanley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

rather I was concerned with a number of lawyers who are a part of the system think:

I don't know what motivates these people to make their statements, but they are not based on what Trudeau actually tweeted/responded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Are those rights granted by the first lady? (Miranda Trump)

 

No, and Trudeau's political grandstanding and obstruction using America's Twitter won't change them in Canada...not the same as "Miranda rights".   The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 that no such right exists under the Charter:

http://nationalmagazine.ca/Blog/April_2013/Why_we_don_t_have_Miranda_rights_in_Canada.aspx

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...