Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Federal anti-gang legislation fails key legal test

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 5:19 PM EDT 27/03/08

B.C. judge convicts two of three Hells Angels members on drug charges, but rule the men are not part of a criminal organization ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: So if the Hells Angels are not a criminal organization they they must be either a:

    1. A highly organized social club.
    2. A business (subject to corporate taxation)
    3. A non-profit organization with eligibility for a charitable number.

    Interesting.
  2. Eric Hunter from Canada writes: Ah yes, thats the solution.. If the judges don't do what you say, fire them and hire ones that do exactly what you say. Kind of defeats the purpose of the courts does it not? Why not fire ALL judges and just apply the laws as the government sees fit with absolutely no oversight whatsoever. That would be better, right?
  3. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    April 1st isn't for another five days yet.Only in Canada.
  4. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: I wouldn't have ruled them a criminal organization either. It's the Hells frickin' Angels and I'd want to make it home for dinner alive for the next few years. Otherwise you'd have days to live, at best, and if you're lucky they'd only kill you and leave your family alone.
  5. B.C. Expat from OttawaHull, NCR, Canada writes: It's not like she didn't convict them -- this clearly isn't about intimidation. The Crown simply didn't make out the elements of the legal test. If you don't like it, amend the Criminal Code provision, but keep it constitutional.

    Lawyer/judiciary-bashing by people outside the legal community is usually more borne of ignorance than legitimate criticism.
  6. Jak King from Vancouver, Canada writes: Why blame the judge; she was just following a badly-drafted law. Blame the politicos who don't have the moxie to pass a bill that simply declares the HA a criminal organization. If judges find that unconstitutional, then parliament can use the Not Withstanding clause to force the issue. I doubt there would be many objections from the Canadian public to such a scenario.
  7. Let me tell You How It Is from Seattle, Washington, United States writes: The same judge would likely find
    1) the KKK a club for adventerous hobbiests
    2) Nazi Party of Germany a party for promotion of culture
    3) Snakeheads- a club for sampling Dim Sum
    4) Mafia- a spaghetti/lasgana enthusiast club
    5) FLQ- a club expert in Montreal Smoke sandwiches

    The next logical Canadian thing to do is take this all the way up to the Supreme Court and after $100 million spent, with multiple lawyers and 10 years it will be thrown out on a technicality that the statute of limitations has passed.

    The criminal loser cocaine clowns must be laughing and high-fiving each other and can't believe how much these sucker judges believe any hard-luck story. Oh well in 10 years the cocainet these loser peddle will ruin and kill hundreds of lives and cost the health care system hundreds of millions more in costs.
  8. Eric Hunter from Canada writes: The Truth,

    Where did I say that? You said fire the judge because he/she didn't do what the government wanted. Thats a VERY slippery slope. Do it once, and it gets easy to do it next time a judge does something the government doesn't agree with.
  9. francis mercer from Canada writes:
    the RAMP should check her off shore bank accounts ,or she has not been in the real world for the past 40 yrs ...dump her now before she rule the holocaust never happened.
  10. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: See, this i what I mean. I normally don't mind your posts, Let-me, but this last comment doesn't really make any sense, other than to bash.

    The next logical Canadian thing to do is take this all the way up to the Supreme Court and after $100 million spent, with multiple lawyers and 10 years it will be thrown out on a technicality that the statute of limitations has passed.

    1) There are no limitation periods for indictable offenses.

    2) Limitation periods are not a 'technicality'.

    3) If the proceeding was on the way to the Supreme Court, obviously the limitation period could not have lapsed as the proceeding had long since been commenced and was, apparently, twice appealed along the way.

    The criminal loser cocaine clowns must be laughing and high-fiving each other and can't believe how much these sucker judges believe any hard-luck story.

    Where was there a hard-luck story? Who believed anything? They got convicted for possession and trafficking!
  11. Dan L from Canada writes: Unless the judge's reasoning in finding the HA are not a criminal organization is made available it's rather difficult to claim the legislation is flawed or not.

    But legal technicalities aside, who in their right mind honestly believes the HA are NOT a criminal organization? Therein lies the problem, the law is so divorced from reality that it's capable of disagreeing with common sense.
  12. Uncle Fester from Babylon, Ont, Canada writes: The Hells Angels not a criminal organization? In BC drug manufacturing/trafficking is a massive contributor to the economy. Without the Hells Angels they would have to hire long shoremen to distribute their product. Now that would be criminal!
  13. Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada writes: Why not go to the B. C. A-G's web site and read the ruling. Could it be that Harper and cronies wrote the law incorrectly? Nah, that could never happen.
  14. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: Maybe she was afraid of setting a precedent in that there isn't much to differentiate the Hells Angels from the RCMP and you wouldn't want to recognize the RCMP as a criminal organization. They have access to everything about you as it is (SIN number, employment, family contacts, voting record, etc.).
  15. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: This Judge must be the only person in the Country that doesn't believe that the Hells Angels are a criminal organisation.
  16. SN Dream from Canada writes: The person who draft the legislation should resign.

    Can the Feds like admen the legislation or something like that?
  17. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes:

    WHAT OTHER CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION PUTS IT'S LOGO ON IT'S MEMBERS for all the world to see!

    There are some bad eggs in all organizations......Would you have the nerve to label Pope Benedict's church a criminal organization because it just shunts suspect paedophile priests into obscure tenures rather than reprimanding them?

    Some of our police forces are LESS THAN SQUEAKY clean. Should the Toronto police force be labelled criminal because the cops who collected guns handed in under the amnesty, selected a few for themselves as souvenirs of interest, some of which ended up 'in the market place'.

    Are companies which promote and kyte their shares to atmospheric levels like Ballard or Bri-Ex criminal organizations? Surely gilding a rather dull lilly as they do is not really criminal considering most people have a functioning brain?

    I have no problems with the Hell's Angels and if a few do trade in drugs for profit the Government could easly stop this by legalizing and regulating drug use as it does with tobacco and drink.
  18. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Legalities exist for a reason.

    Judges are independent of government for a reason.

    Our laws err on the side of individual rights for a reason.

    Methinks it'd be pretty dangerous to have too broad a definition of 'criminal organization' in any democratic society.

    I'm gonna sit back now and see how many people label me as a 'criminal sympathizer' or whatever.
  19. Dan L from Canada writes: Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada wrote:

    'Why not go to the B. C. A-G's web site and read the ruling. Could it be that Harper and cronies wrote the law incorrectly? Nah, that could never happen.'

    Well 'Cheap Skate', I tried finding the ruling on the BC Supreme Court's website and it doesn't appear to have been posted yet. That being said, this from a CTV article on the case might shed a bit more light on the reason(s) for the ruling:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Justice Anne MacKenzie acquitted David Giles, a full patch member of the East End chapter of the Hells Angels, for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

    Therefore he could not be found guilty of a second charge of directing a criminal investigation, she said.

    One of the reasons for dismissing the case was that the judge said she could not understand the audio recordings the Crown submitted as evidence, and the Crown was far-reaching in their interpretation of what they heard on the audio evidence.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If in fact this is the case, poor quality surveillance audio making it impossible for the Judge to understand what was being said, it's hardly an indictment of the legislation itself. Of course I suppose in you eagerness to slam the tories it's okay to overlook the apparent lack of concrete information (on the other hand I suspect you'd just ignore anything that hurts your argument!!)

    In the meantime feel free to swallow hook line and sinker their lawyer's claim 'There are so many false urban legends around the Hells Angels, all perpetrated by law enforcement and eaten up by the public.' sure ......... and I'm a unicorn!
  20. CD W from Canada writes: I guess you would not want them to give up their freedom of association rights. A simple solution, double the jail sentences for drugs and grab them the next time around.
  21. Raymond P from Canada writes: Definition of a gang: A group of individuals, having common interests, who gather together regularly, have secrets that are kept from non-members, wear similar attire or parts of attire, work at the leader's behest, and behave almost exclusively in self-interested ways.

    Sound familiar?
  22. Larry Hill from Canada writes: Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes:

    I have no problems with the Hell's Angels and if a few do trade in drugs for profit the Government could easly stop this by legalizing and regulating drug use as it does with tobacco and drink.

    Alaster are you posting from the HA club house?

    While I conceed that there are SOME arguements to legalizing or at least decriminalizing the possession/usage of cannibas, no one credible is suggesting that cocaine is in the same category.
  23. larry hallatt from Canada writes: Time for Stockwell and Stevie to stick the name 'terrorist' on these sorts of gangs and put them under CSIS surveillance along with the RCMP crime squads. I think the Angels, Rock Machine, and other ethnic groups like the Triads and mafiosas are perhaps more of a concern than Al Quaeda is and ever has been. These groups are warlord organizations no different than in Somalia. They are imposing another layer of illegal governing on our business community and exploiting huge numbers of our citizens. Our communities are under seige and need to respond on a military scale to these threats to liberty and civil security.
  24. Chris Hay from Regina, SK, Canada writes: Why is it always the Judge's 'fault' for applying the law as it is written, and never the politicians' fault for writing the law poorly? All the more bizarre, considering (for the most part) that Justices spend years studying the law and those that write the laws (our elected officials) tend to be made up of used car salesmen, insurance brokers, and other occupations. By the same token, those who say 'fire them' for not applying the law as written, I would claim they ARE interpreting the law as written, methinks what you should be saying is they are not interpreting the intent of the law. the problem becomes which interpretation and which 'intent' should they be applying? Better our elected officials spend a bit more time doing what they should be doing - writing good law, than hurrying the process so we end up with poor laws to begin with. it isn't the Judges who need to be fired, it's the politicians responsible!
  25. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: It's unfortunate the article doesn't indicate what tests determine if an organization is criminal or not. Unfortunate unless the writer wanted to portray the judge in a bad light. This is poor journalism and not worthy of the Globe & Mail.
  26. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: It is interesting to see that judges continue to rule in favour of criminals. It is time to remove this judge from the bench due to incompetence, and it is time for people to get more militant concerning the lack of justice in the Canadian legal system.
  27. Ned Chiwalski from Oilberta, Canada writes: Alastair from Nanaimo, I would have to agree with you. The HA while sinister looking do perform a service of sorts. I have the pleasure of living next to a couple of HA and our cul-de-sac has never been safer. They keep to them selves generally and have never been rude, violent, or forceful to me or our neighbours.
    Treat them with respect and I have found they will also treat you with respect. However, cross them and you get what you deserve!
  28. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: The people who say the law is at fault have no idea what they're talking about.

    There is a very good law on the books and it has been used by judges in Quebec to basically shut down the Hell's Angels. What's needed are judges with the courage to apply the law. Miss McKenzie obviously isn't that person.

    As far as the audio being of poor quality, that is a lame excuse. She could have read the certified transcript.
  29. Mike H. from Canada writes: Our judicial system is sick, sick, sick! ELECT JUDGES and do away with the appointment system which involves political favouritism. We have too many bleeding hearts!!
  30. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    The usual knee-jerk rantings from people who - by choice, breeding, or lack of education - understand next to nothing about why laws work the way they do.
  31. Matthew McGarvey from Ottawa, Canada writes: James Cyr - does it not occur to you that she ruled that one of the three was NOT a criminal; ergo, your claim that she 'ruled in favour of criminals' is simply wrong?

    See, it's still the case that they have to prove you have committed a crime before you can be called a criminal. Quite a technicality I realize, but it's seen as important. Or do you have a crystal ball that allows you to know somehow who is guilty without hearing any of the evidence?
  32. Mark From BC from Canada writes: The Hell's Angel's are as much a criminal organization as I am a flying elephant. Some members have criminal records, so what. A lot of members have no records.

    Calling them a criminal organization is like calling Jamaican Canadians a criminal organization. A large number of them have criminal records, and a large number have no records.

    Ever thought how many Police officers there are with criminal records? Quite a few.
  33. james cyr from Balmertown Ontario, Canada writes: Matthew McGarvey: just because she ruled that one of the three was not a criminal, does that make him innocent, or, based on the evidence of his activities, is he in fact a criminal? And don't just go by this case...there is ample evidence of soft-on crime judges that are unable or unwilling to enforce the full extent of the punishment to fit the crime. As further evidence, law enforcement officials have rounded up a number of suspected gang members in Edmonton (in which are are an estimated 3000 gang members), who are members of a gang that has known affiliations with Hells Angels. And if this individual is in fact a criminal, and she ruled that he is not, then she has 'ruled in favor of criminals'......
  34. kevin joncas from Canada writes: The reason she let them off was because she could not understand the audio. Would that not be the job of some audio expert to tell the judge what was on the tape? For her to suggest that her lack of ability to understand is reason to let them off is outrageous. If she can't understand evidence or argument and doesn't defer to expert authority she should not be there.
  35. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    It continues to astound me how obtuse and clueless people are about the law.

    Let's see how your views change should you ever be put on trial for a criminal offense.
  36. Mark From BC from Canada writes: What amazes me is how many individuals on this board seem to be in favour of creating a Police State. To some on this board, it seems innocence or guilt are inconsequential. The crown has all the resources it could ever want or need at it's disposal. If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person is considered innocent.

    The fact that it is so hard to get a conviction is proof that our justice system works.

    Thank goodness for an appointed Judiciary. Otherwise if we elect judges we will make a mockery of justice, because the sheep would vote for revengefulness not justice.
  37. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    What is the weather like on Justice MacKenzie's planet?
  38. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Thank goodness - Mark gets it.
  39. Mark From BC from Canada writes: Nothing would straighten out a law-and order type more than to wrongfully accuse them, and deprive them of their charter rights, and leave them in a cell with Glenroy & Jamal. After a hour or two, they will realize that the job of the charter is to protect all Canadians
  40. Mark From BC from Canada writes: Nothing would straighten out a law-and order type more than to wrongfully accuse them, and deprive them of their charter rights, and leave them in a cell with some unsavory individuals. After a hour or two, they will realize that the job of the charter is to protect all Canadians
  41. rik nik from Calgary, Canada writes: This judge is a complete idiot and her actions explain the reason the vast majority of Canadians have little faith in our legal / justice system. We protect those who continue to induce our children to become drug addicts and prostitutes. It is yet another sad commentary on the state of our country.
  42. Mark From BC from Canada writes: Thank's Ricky.

    My father risked is life to flee a Police State. The price of our freedoms is eternal vigilance.
  43. greg panke from Canada writes: It is amazing how sympathetic the judicial system is to criminals. I wonder if this judge is a friend of the Angels, is afraid of them, or both. Criminal organizations should be dealt with by the military not civilian courts, treat them like terrorists, there is little difference.
  44. Mark From BC from Canada writes: Rik Nik. What would you prefer, a system where you are guilty until proven innocent?

    Why we appoint Judges is to prevent what the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mills called, ''The Tyranny of the Masses''

    We appoint on the basis of their knowledge of the law. Not like parts of the USA that use the beauty pageant model.
  45. Mike H. from Canada writes: Elect judges! Let democracy work--the people know what is needed; majority should rule!
  46. warren standerwick from North Vancouver, Canada writes: It is amazing how sympathetic the judicial system is to criminals. I wonder if this judge is a friend of the Angels, is afraid of them, or both.

    I kind of doubt it. Before her appointment to the bench 11 years ago Justice MacKenzie spent her entire career as a lawyer as a prosecutor for the Department of Justice prosecuting offenses under the Narcotic Control Act (now the Controlled Substances Act).
  47. Blaque Jacque Shallaque from Canada writes: What the....? Yes, well, the Hell's Angels are a well known charity organization famous for their good deeds and philanthropy.

    Full patch members in particular have to earn this by having evidence that they have walked at least 12 grannies across the street, and taken down at least 3 cats from trees. So, clearly...
  48. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: Harper said in the last election campaign, there would be three groups who would comprise the opposition to a Conservative government: the political opposition, the civil service, and the courts. Seems he was right!
  49. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Jacques - should the law apply equally to everybody?
  50. Interested Observer from United States writes:

    Nice, finaly some justice. Thank goodness for this JUDGE.

    The Courts in Canada offer a glimmer of hope. Our only protection. The last bastion of freedom.

    Surprising no one the harper gang continues to push forward an agenda of chasing phantoms and creating bogey men in Canada and in Afghanistan alike.

    Follow the money, this is ONLY about budgets.

    The harper gand believes they constanly must fuel the fires of fear - for the harper cronies to profit.

    Amen.

    .
  51. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: Actaully, he named four groups of opposition. Don't know how I forgot the media!
  52. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Bill - the four 'opponents' you mentioned are checks on ANY government.

    Harper's remarks only reinforce his image as a paranoid, reactionary ideologue.
  53. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Whoops - THREE of the four....
  54. Andrea Mitchiavelli from Canada writes: As usual, all the radicals condemn a decision they haven't even read. And Cheap Skate from Vancouver, Canada writes, 'Why not go to the B. C. A-G's web site and read the ruling.' This decision will never be on the Ministry of Attorney General's site. Why? It's called separation of powers. The government has no authority over the decisions of the judiciary. They are separate entities, which is the way it should be unless you want a completely corrupt, politically-driven court. Those who can't wrap their minds around this fact should consider Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China as example of countries in which governments determined the outcome of court cases (and in the case of China, still do). The decision will appear on the BC Supreme Court's site, if it hasn't already. (Incidentally, those who claim the Crown has endless resources to prosecuted cases are clearly ignorant of the facts. They should also acknowledge that almost all criminal defendants in Canada are defended by counsel paid out of the public purse since most people charge with crimes cannot afford to pay for their own defense. Criminal defense attorneys make a fine living out of this arrangement despite constantly pleading poverty.)
  55. rob womack from Canada writes:
    The judge said there was no evidence the guy was a cocaine trafficker...so he couldn't be convicted of trafficking cocaine for a criminal organization....
    Not really that complicated. Some of the posters here, might want to improve their reading skills.
  56. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Steve Allan is correct.

    This same law has been used effectively in Quebec and Ontario. Mind you, police forces in those jurisdictions did not fool around and were not afraid to physically barge into HA clubhouses seizing everything in sight. No chance in B.C. They would never get warrants, evidence would not be admissible and there would probably be a civil suit and censure against the police.

    B.C. features West Coast Lite justice and the HA are gentlemen of leisure representing the noveau riche of the wacky West Coast. We need drug money to keep real estate rolling.
  57. D Thompson from Ottawa, Canada writes: As usual, criminals walk free on a technicality. When will the government get their act together and write laws that make it possible for criminals and terrorists to be held responsible for their actions. The judges only apply the laws, don't blame them. The fault lies with various aspects of the government, from the RCMP, to the PM himself, for our justice system's chronic inability to prosecute organized crime, terrorism, and transnational criminal activity.
  58. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Yeah - that 'technicality' that says evidence needs to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, and that you're innocent until proven guilty.

    Damn those 'technicalities'....

    LOL
  59. Paul Thompson from Canada writes: The knee-jerk reaction is to blame soft-hearted 'socialist' or 'liberal' judges, but it would appear the blame may lie with incompetent conservative law-makers. So, there's plenty of blame to go around, to suit every partisan stripe. I would think however that if many Angels don't have criminal records it's because they've never been caught at anything, and I agree with an above poster who said organized crime is a greater threat to our day-to-day well being than terrorism. Of course, if the Angels are just a bunch of rowdy guys who like to ride around on their hogs and wear their colours like Sonny Barger says, that's fine, I have no problem with that. I don't think the judge made her decision based on intimidation either; the Angels are a business so to speak and they fight the law in the courts with their well-paid defence lawyers. Shootouts between them and the cops are rare, as they know that in the end the state has more power on their side. The former president of the Quebec wing of the club forgot this principle and ended up doing 2 life terms for apparently ordering hits on 2 prison guards.
  60. Me Myself from United States writes: It's funny how you all believe that the Hells Angels are Criminals just by reading an article, but you don't believe they can't be by reading an article. How many of YOU have witnessed any of them commit a Crime? How many of you have SEEN them 'deal' drugs. You only have the information of the 'alleged' crime, but never any of the facts.

    You say you believe they (Hells Angels) are Bad and your cops are Good and ignorant folks say 'throw away the key', But when it's you who gets cited for doing something wrong, you want a judge to rule in your favor. Justifying their jurisprudences is proper. It just can't be one sided in the eyes of the law...It is their job to prove criminal wrong doing, not us proving we are innocent. No matter what the charges.

    Let me tell you 90% of every 'high profile' case is throw out because they have 'insufficient or exaggerated' evidence. But they never report that.
  61. Me Myself from United States writes: And for the record they are a Motorcyle CLUB not a gang.
  62. Shades of Grey from Canada writes: Oh the irony of someone misspelling incompetent (incomeptent???). And I fundamentally distrust someone who refers to himself/herself as 'The Truth'.
  63. jeff franklin from Canada writes: Larry Hill from Canada:

    Alcohol is responsible for more death, destruction etc. than all illicit drugs combined.

    When will our portly P.M. declare Mandatory Minimums/ Prison Time for ANY related Alcohol offence?

    'You do the Alcohol related crime, you do serious jail time'.
  64. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Okay, to the knee-jerk idiots:

    Nobody is saying the HA are good ole boys just having fun, and that they'd be awesome to have move into your neighbourhood.

    Nobody is even saying that the HA don't engage in criminal activity.

    But the HA get the same benefits - and punishments - under the law as the rest of us.

    If evidence is crap, the accused goes free - no matter who they are.

    If the Crown can't make their case - the accused goes free - no matter who they are.

    So either tell us the legal basis of why the accused should have been convicted - or shut your pieholes already.
  65. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: In other words, the Hells Angels now have the Supreme Court's seal of approval as a 'non-criminal' organization?
  66. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: I agree with the judge. How can you be a member of a criminal organization if you never committed a crime? If the other two are members of the same organization does their guilt condemn the first? Seems like the law is going to take a few test drives with the Supremes.
  67. Charles Brown from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: Can't blame Canadians for their total lack of confidence in the justice system when we have idiots such as B.C. Supreme Court Justice Anne MacKenzie.
  68. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: Hey Ricky: When Harper made those comments it was in the context that the Liberals and their media friends were saying how the Conservtives had a hidden agenda and who would stop them from implementing it. Turns out he was absolutely right. The Liberals, particularly their allies in the Senate impede legislation; the media works overtime on the bad news stories (note, the G&M at the time of writing this, still hasn't said anything about today's joint financial announcement between the federal government and Ontario); the civil services leaks like a sieve; and judges have not been hesitant to overturn government legislation.
  69. who's your daddy from Canada writes: HAHA HA!!!! Good lawyer eh !!!!! hahaha
  70. Richard S from Canada writes: Anyone breaking the law needs to be charged.....and if needed to the full extent of the law (maximun penalty for repeat offenders).........whats the problem?????
  71. Freddie B from Woodbridge from Canada writes: Actually the HA are a motorcycle club and some of the members may get involved with illegal activities but profits don't go up the line as they do with the traditional gangs (mafia, triads, ect). A HA member pays annual dues but the dues don't necessarily have to come from illegal means. This law and the similar law in the US has a hard time with 'outlaw' motor cycle gangs.
    And to larry hallat from Canada, CSIS does watch all organized crime and if you go to their web site, they list HA as the biggest threat displacing the traditional italian mob.
  72. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Bill - the usual excuses.

    Cons like those - _____are against us, blah blah blah.

    My point was that, ironically, Harper's point would be true - no matter what the political 'flavour' of the Senate was. And as far as the courts go - why are judges tarred with a political brush ONLY when they stop legislation that the Cons want?

    As I said - excuses - divide and conquer - with us or against us.

    The Harper way.

    No thanks.
  73. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    John - does your mommy know you're fooling around with the computer?

    Yupper..and hey, I'm on your side! Gimme a break!;)
  74. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    John - does your mommy know you're fooling around with the computer?
  75. John Connor from Canada writes: Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    John - does your mommy know you're fooling around with the computer?

    Yes. Have you moved out of your mother's basement yet?
  76. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mike H. from Canada writes: Elect judges! Let democracy work--the people know what is needed; majority should rule!

    That is a superb idea. And what makes it so great is that in order to get elected they will kowtow to the public to get re-elected. Could you imagine the kind of judges we'd have if the commentators on this board voted them in? They'd be pushing for Roland Freisler in a heartbeat. Mord? Mord?
  77. Bill Harrison from Canada writes: Well Ricky, you seem like a well informed person, so can you name me a piece of legislation written by the Chretien-Martin governments that was overturned by the courts. For the record, this is asked in all seriousness.
  78. Charles Brown from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: The only way to improve the system is to get the judges elected on a fixed term. They might be more accountable then.
  79. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Bill - in all seriousness....the only two major pieces of legislation I can think of for Chretien and Martin are the same sex marriage law and maybe the new young offenders act.

    The Clarity Act happened too, but I don't think that was terribly controversial outside Quebec.

    Surely you don't see that as some kind of bias in the courts?

    Seriously, despite my rhetoric, I truly am a centrist thinker - enough to know that the Constitutional changes in 1982 and the entrenching of the Charter (and subsequent interpretations of it re: homosexuals, minorities, etc) reflect a modern liberal interpretation of individual rights - and not a historically conservative one.

    But if you disagree with those - your ideology is entrenched to the point that no evidence will dissuade you of the notion that the SCOC is somehow on a mission to make us all pot-smoking, sodomizing, fetus-aborting, Christophobic, terrorist-loving criminals.

    That's all I got for you on that one.

    Peace.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.