CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:02 pm
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
For every action there is a reaction and this is just one reason running your mouth and then having to back it up with ill thought out legislation leads to problems.

I wonder how many more mistrials we'll see in the future because of our PM and his former Minister of Justices rushed to change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.


WRONG

He didn’t “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.”

In fact it’s the exact opposite.

It was the Lawyers who used peremptory challenges to “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.” And now that’s rightfully no longer legal.


Lawyers being assholes and challenging any potential jurors who won't show compassion for their clients aside, directing the justice system to change the way it works to ensure that criminals of a specific race aren't held accountable for their actions in the same manner as others isn't altering the justice system based on race. Good to know.


That’s a lie though. That’s not what happened at all you’re just making that up. Also you don’t understand what peremptory challenges are: that’s when they dismiss jurors for NO reason. For example if you were the only man on rape trial jury, the prosecutor could use peremptory challenge to have you removed without having to provide a reason and without you ever being asked a single question if he thinks an all-woman jury would help him win. That’s no longer allowed thanks to Trudeau.

$1:
$1:
In his mandate letter to Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada’s first indigenous justice minister, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instructed her to reduce the number of indigenous people in prison. The federal government’s 2017 budget allocated 65.2 million Canadian dollars over five years beginning in 2017 to help reverse the trend.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... ing-worse/


That’s not the same thing at all. That’s just a mandate letter to JWR outlining principles not a change in any law. This guy isn’t getting a new trial because of a mandate letter. He’s getting a new trial because peremptory challenges are illegal.

The outcome of the mandate letter if any would relate to alternative sentencing not about jury selection or tampering with verdicts How can you not understand that?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:52 pm
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:
WRONG

He didn’t “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.”

In fact it’s the exact opposite.

It was the Lawyers who used peremptory challenges to “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.” And now that’s rightfully no longer legal.


That’s a lie though. That’s not what happened at all you’re just making that up. Also you don’t understand what peremptory challenges are: that’s when they dismiss jurors for NO reason. For example if you were the only man on rape trial jury, the prosecutor could use peremptory challenge to have you removed without having to provide a reason and without you ever being asked a single question if he thinks an all-woman jury would help him win. That’s no longer allowed thanks to Trudeau.

That’s not the same thing at all. That’s just a mandate letter to JWR outlining principles not a change in any law. This guy isn’t getting a new trial because of a mandate letter. He’s getting a new trial because peremptory challenges are illegal.

The outcome of the mandate letter if any would relate to alternative sentencing not about jury selection or tampering with verdicts How can you not understand that?


Are you claiming that the changes to the lawyers challenges right after the Gerald Stanley trial are a result of Trudeau wanting to fix an unfair system because that borders on the ludicrous? Let's be honest here. He did it because he felt that Natives on juries unlike the prison population were underrepresented and wanted to fix that issue.

Also, Trudeau's directive to Jody Wilson Raybould was issued before the Liberal party came out and changed the law about lawyers challenges not after, so my original post about him having to back up his mouth still stands unless you're able to refute the timeline.

And, like it or not the change to the lawyers challenges are a result of the mandate letter and his promises not the cause of it. So, as I said in my original post, Trudeau had to do something after he'd run his mouth, sent the letter, let the world know the contents and told the Natives that he was going to fix the problems of their over representation in prison.

So, rather than fix the real problem which is criminal activity in the Native community he chose to alter the Canadian Justice system by removing lawyer challenges to ensure the outcome that he'd demanded his Minister of Justice make happen, did happen.

Did it affect every other fucking convicted criminal in Canada? Yes it did, much to the detriment of the system because now everyone who's ever been convicted will be trying to use this Trudeau cop out to get new trials.

Unfortunately for the Liberals the Gladue ruling didn't work or even slow down natives in prison so this latest attempt at changing the way our courts select juries won't do sweet fuck all because a criminal is a criminal no matter race, creed or colour. And, unless they take it one step further it's doomed to fail unless of course they decide to make all jury's Native only when a native is involved and even then the results Trudeau wants still aren't guaranteed. ROTFL


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:35 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
There would have been Native jurors on the Stanley jury if two things had happened. One, more than a handful of those who were called actually bothered to show up when summoned. And, two, the ones who did show up were overheard in the hall outside the courtroom saying things about Stanley along the lines of "we're gonna hang that fucker". There were reasons, legit ones, that the defense lawyers excluded Natives from the jury, not that Trudeau cares about any of that as long as he can fly his white-knight cred everywhere. It's way easier to scream about racism that it ever is to understand that sometimes these reasons that things happen the way they do are actually important.


No, for the hundredth time there are no reasons provided when a juror is dismissed by peremptory challenge. And jurors can still be questioned and dismissed dismissed for having a bias, that hasn’t changed


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:38 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
Chretien survived Adscam and Shawinigate and got re-elected. Trudeau survived SNC Lavalin and got re-elected. You wildly underestimate the dictatorial power and effective total control a PM has over the party and caucus in the Canadian system.

Chretien resigned after Adscam Martin was elected with a minority government which fell as soon as the 2 conservative parties of thes time merged and then he lost the election to the conservatives.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:21 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:
WRONG

He didn’t “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.”

In fact it’s the exact opposite.

It was the Lawyers who used peremptory challenges to “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.” And now that’s rightfully no longer legal.


That’s a lie though. That’s not what happened at all you’re just making that up. Also you don’t understand what peremptory challenges are: that’s when they dismiss jurors for NO reason. For example if you were the only man on rape trial jury, the prosecutor could use peremptory challenge to have you removed without having to provide a reason and without you ever being asked a single question if he thinks an all-woman jury would help him win. That’s no longer allowed thanks to Trudeau.

That’s not the same thing at all. That’s just a mandate letter to JWR outlining principles not a change in any law. This guy isn’t getting a new trial because of a mandate letter. He’s getting a new trial because peremptory challenges are illegal.

The outcome of the mandate letter if any would relate to alternative sentencing not about jury selection or tampering with verdicts How can you not understand that?


Are you claiming that the changes to the lawyers challenges right after the Gerald Stanley trial are a result of Trudeau wanting to fix an unfair system because that borders on the ludicrous? Let's be honest here. He did it because he felt that Natives on juries unlike the prison population were underrepresented and wanted to fix that issue.

Also, Trudeau's directive to Jody Wilson Raybould was issued before the Liberal party came out and changed the law about lawyers challenges not after, so my original post about him having to back up his mouth still stands unless you're able to refute the timeline.

And, like it or not the change to the lawyers challenges are a result of the mandate letter and his promises not the cause of it. So, as I said in my original post, Trudeau had to do something after he'd run his mouth, sent the letter, let the world know the contents and told the Natives that he was going to fix the problems of their over representation in prison.

So, rather than fix the real problem which is criminal activity in the Native community he chose to alter the Canadian Justice system by removing lawyer challenges to ensure the outcome that he'd demanded his Minister of Justice make happen, did happen.

Did it affect every other fucking convicted criminal in Canada? Yes it did, much to the detriment of the system because now everyone who's ever been convicted will be trying to use this Trudeau cop out to get new trials.

Unfortunately for the Liberals the Gladue ruling didn't work or even slow down natives in prison so this latest attempt at changing the way our courts select juries won't do sweet fuck all because a criminal is a criminal no matter race, creed or colour. And, unless they take it one step further it's doomed to fail unless of course they decide to make all jury's Native only when a native is involved and even then the results Trudeau wants still aren't guaranteed. ROTFL



I don’t even know where to begin with this one.

A mandate letter is not law and doesn’t legally obligate the PM to do anything. Its a letter from the PM to a minister outlining general principles and priorities of the PM. Trudeau didn’t accidentally “run his mouth” in his letter and then dream up some scheme out of fear of not being able to live up to it ,he’s free to simply ignore what he wrote if he wishes or put whatever spun on it he wants.

Nor were they unaware that it would affect other criminal cases. They knew what they were doing. This is what proves your bs theory that this only applies to natives or is about establishing racial quotas on juries is exactly that ...bs. This is about ending the practice whereby lawyers try to unfairly stack juries. Period.

Yes I think the removal of peremptory challenge a was probably a result of the Stanley trial because that was a particularly obvious example of it but it’s not as if it hadn’t been talked about for a long time. The US and the UK outlawed peremptory challenges decades ago and there have long been calls to do the same in Canada. Did you know that? I bet you didn’t. .

I want to repeat this again so you get through your head: Trudeau has done NOTHING that requires racial quotas on juries or any special jury procedures foe FN people. NOTHING..

All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation I repeat: All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation Say it with me now. They can still request a juror be dismissed if they have a valid reason for that individual.

The tactics to meet the goal of reducing native over representation in prison do not involve rigging juries or jury selection. They involve sentencing and socioeconomic conditions that lead to criminal activity such as poverty, substance abuse etc.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:36 am
 


BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t even know where to begin with this one.

A mandate letter is not law and doesn’t legally obligate the PM to do anything. Its a letter from the PM to a minister outlining general principles and priorities of the PM. Trudeau didn’t accidentally “run his mouth” in his letter and then dream up some scheme out of fear of not being able to live up to it ,he’s free to simply ignore what he wrote if he wishes or put whatever spun on it he wants.

Nor were they unaware that it would affect other criminal cases. They knew what they were doing. This is what proves your bs theory that this only applies to natives or is about establishing racial quotas on juries is exactly that ...bs. This is about ending the practice whereby lawyers try to unfairly stack juries. Period.

Yes I think the removal of peremptory challenge a was probably a result of the Stanley trial because that was a particularly obvious example of it but it’s not as if it hadn’t been talked about for a long time. The US and the UK outlawed peremptory challenges decades ago and there have long been calls to do the same in Canada. Did you know that? I bet you didn’t. .

I want to repeat this again so you get through your head: Trudeau has done NOTHING that requires racial quotas on juries or any special jury procedures foe FN people. NOTHING..

All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation I repeat: All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation Say it with me now. They can still request a juror be dismissed if they have a valid reason for that individual.

The tactics to meet the goal of reducing native over representation in prison do not involve rigging juries or jury selection. They involve sentencing and socioeconomic conditions that lead to criminal activity such as poverty, substance abuse etc.



Mandate letters aren't law but they are "directives" that are ignored at the recipients peril.

$1:

5 takeaways from Trudeau’s ‘mandate letters’ to his cabinet

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued marching orders to his cabinet on Friday. While many of the instructions come straight from the Liberal campaign platform, there are a few things that are new, or more detailed than what’s been public before.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6295052/trud ... s-cabinet/


So to say they have nothing to do with any successive events is wrong. The public mandate about aboriginal over representation in the prison system was issued to the Minister of Justice and actions were taken to attempt to change that fact.

But I'm not talking about Trudeau changing the justice system, I'm talking about Trudeau changing the justice system after he gave a public statement admonishing it for not finding guilt where he thought it should have been and if you think it had nothing to do with natives, you've lost the plot.

Remember his statements?

$1:
"Colten Boushie was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. Nevertheless an all white jury formed the twisted view of that obvious truth and found Stanley not guilty," he said, adding that the verdict "crushed the spirit" of the community.


and if this wasn't about race why did he tell the Natives we had to "do better".

$1:
"I'm not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," he said.

"Indigenous people across this country are angry, they're heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-t ... -1.3798036

So keep believing that the Trudeau's meddling in the justice system wasn't in any way shape or form racially motivated because all the optics, timings and reasons given for the changes seem to point to the fact that he was placating this guy

$1:
Following the verdict, his uncle Alvin Baptiste called for change.

"Something has to be done about this. The government, Justin Trudeau, we ask you to give us Indigenous people justice," Baptiste said.


Or, maybe this guy:

$1:
Meanwhile, the head of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, Chief Bobby Cameron, said that Wilson-Raybould agreed to meet with Boushie's family "to make some serious, positive change to meet the recommendations of the family."


And if you don't believe me maybe this guy can explain it a bit better.

$1:
Bad facts make bad laws, as does legislation based on high-profile cases. This was a hallmark of the Harper government. It turns out the Liberals could not resist the temptation either.

In 2018, Gerald Stanley was acquitted of murder for his role in the tragic death of Colten Boushie, a young, Indigenous man from Saskatchewan. After the acquittal, Boushie’s family made allegations that Stanley’s defence used peremptory challenges to exclude any Indigenous-looking juror.

“The deck is stacked against us ... Where is the First Nation’s say in this? We don't have a voice," Boushie's uncle, Alvin Baptiste told the CBC.

Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General (as she then was) Jody Wilson-Raybould, was quick to say that she shared the families concerns but cautioned that any changes to the jury selection process would require “careful study and consideration.”

And then, less than a month later, Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-75 which overhauled the jury selection process.


https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/ ... ile/304369

Nothing to see there folks. Just move along. Well I'm sorry but the fact remains that he ran his mouth and made promises to the natives that he had to keep and was obliged to at least make some changes to the justice system or risk looking ineffective. Unfortunately for us he and JWR choose the jury selection route which opened up a whole new set of court challenges by convicted felons who's lawyers are going to try and get retrials for their convicted clients.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:52 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
For every action there is a reaction and this is just one reason running your mouth and then having to back it up with ill thought out legislation leads to problems.

I wonder how many more mistrials we'll see in the future because of our PM and his former Minister of Justices rushed to change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.


WRONG

He didn’t “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.”

In fact it’s the exact opposite.

It was the Lawyers who used peremptory challenges to “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.” And now that’s rightfully no longer legal.


Lawyers being assholes and challenging any potential jurors who won't show compassion for their clients aside, directing the justice system to change the way it works to ensure that criminals of a specific race aren't held accountable for their actions in the same manner as others isn't altering the justice system based on race. Good to know.

$1:
In his mandate letter to Jody Wilson-Raybould, Canada’s first indigenous justice minister, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instructed her to reduce the number of indigenous people in prison. The federal government’s 2017 budget allocated 65.2 million Canadian dollars over five years beginning in 2017 to help reverse the trend.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... ing-worse/

R=UP R=UP


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:54 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
For every action there is a reaction and this is just one reason running your mouth and then having to back it up with ill thought out legislation leads to problems.

I wonder how many more mistrials we'll see in the future because of our PM and his former Minister of Justices rushed to change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.

And how many criminals will be set free to wreak havoc on society?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:55 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
Wish we could. Americans are lucky they have an impeachment ability. The constitutional monarchy democracies don't. A PM is actually far more powerful in terms of what they can do than a POTUS is. Well, most POTUS's anyway, the ones who follow the law instead of constantly breaking it the way the current monster-in-office does on a daily basis. I highly doubt anyone could pull this kind of meddling with the jury system in the US and get away with it the way Trudeau has though. First the state legislatures would try to stop it and then the state courts, the appeal courts, the circuit courts, and finally SCOTUS would have to be given their input. The courts could potentially stop Trudeau but if he already consulted with the SCOC for their guidance and tacit approval then it's unfortunately a done deal.

Both the interests of the accused as well as the obligation of the state to subject criminals to process and punishment have effectively been wiped out in Canada in the interests of social/ethnic/racial equity. The purpose of a trial, to reveal the truth, has been made a second priority to the social/radical left's idea of racial balance. Whether someone's guilty or innocent doesn't matter now, all that's important is that the jury was diverse enough. There's nothing good that can come from this at all.

You are absolutely right, Thanos.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:56 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
There would have been Native jurors on the Stanley jury if two things had happened. One, more than a handful of those who were called actually bothered to show up when summoned. And, two, the ones who did show up were overheard in the hall outside the courtroom saying things about Stanley along the lines of "we're gonna hang that fucker". There were reasons, legit ones, that the defense lawyers excluded Natives from the jury, not that Trudeau cares about any of that as long as he can fly his white-knight cred everywhere. It's way easier to scream about racism that it ever is to understand that sometimes these reasons that things happen the way they do are actually important.

All true, Thanos.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:58 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
herbie herbie:
So continue to bash the PM with things he didn't do and couldn't do by reversing and misrepresenting the things he did do because he had to.



[huh]

So how did we bash him for something he didn't do? Did he or did he not instruct his Minister of Justice to alter the way the Judicial system dealt with native offenders?

And why did he "have to" play the race card when it came to native justice. What I find hilarious is the fact that liberals keep claiming natives are "over represented" in the prison system. Well they are but, by the same token you could make the claim that natives are "over represented" in the commission of crimes which means that without the latter there'd be no need to claim the first.

Another fact is that if you work the prison population to show specific races you'd find that most non white prisoners are "over represented" in prison based on the percentage of population they have in society.

$1:
The findings indicate that Caucasians, along with Asians, are under-represented in the Canadian federal correctional system, while Blacks are over-represented. As noted earlier, there is a similar disproportionate representation of Blacks in correctional facilities in the United States (Stephan, 2001) and England/Wales (Elkins & Olgundoye, 2001). Furthermore, according to Elkins and Olgundoye, Asians are also over-represented in England/Wales.


https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/r144-eng.shtml

So why didn't Trudeau instruct the Minister of Justice to deal with the over representation of blacks while dealing with the over representation of natives? Although he might have just have been pissed off to find that given the numbers whites in society they were "under represented" in prison.

So, the simple solution for the Liberal gov't would have been to keep their mouths shut and quietly go about fixing the problems of natives like they promised rather than trying to figure out another way to give them a pass when it comes to them committing crimes.

And, some of that money could have gone into looking at why, despite tilting the justice system tables to favour the natives when it comes to native incarceration with the Gladue ruling, it didn't work.

$1:
The court ruled in the 1999 case R v. Gladue that judges should consider alternatives to incarceration when sentencing Indigenous offenders and take into account their unique life circumstances.

That's now known as Gladue factors, which can include family history of substance abuse and intergenerational trauma from the residential school system.

The 1999 Gladue decision was intended to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system.

Many Indigenous justice advocates across the country, however, say the justice system has failed to live up to that promise, including in the North where there are higher rates of Indigenous incarceration.


BTW the justice system is supposed to be blind so, it shouldn't be "living up to promises made by bureaucrats". It should be administering justice to ALL Canadians fairly and equitably and leaving race considerations out of it's findings.

Well put,Freakin'.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:00 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:
WRONG

He didn’t “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.”

In fact it’s the exact opposite.

It was the Lawyers who used peremptory challenges to “change the racial demographics of how our justice system worked.” And now that’s rightfully no longer legal.


That’s a lie though. That’s not what happened at all you’re just making that up. Also you don’t understand what peremptory challenges are: that’s when they dismiss jurors for NO reason. For example if you were the only man on rape trial jury, the prosecutor could use peremptory challenge to have you removed without having to provide a reason and without you ever being asked a single question if he thinks an all-woman jury would help him win. That’s no longer allowed thanks to Trudeau.

That’s not the same thing at all. That’s just a mandate letter to JWR outlining principles not a change in any law. This guy isn’t getting a new trial because of a mandate letter. He’s getting a new trial because peremptory challenges are illegal.

The outcome of the mandate letter if any would relate to alternative sentencing not about jury selection or tampering with verdicts How can you not understand that?


Are you claiming that the changes to the lawyers challenges right after the Gerald Stanley trial are a result of Trudeau wanting to fix an unfair system because that borders on the ludicrous? Let's be honest here. He did it because he felt that Natives on juries unlike the prison population were underrepresented and wanted to fix that issue.

Also, Trudeau's directive to Jody Wilson Raybould was issued before the Liberal party came out and changed the law about lawyers challenges not after, so my original post about him having to back up his mouth still stands unless you're able to refute the timeline.

And, like it or not the change to the lawyers challenges are a result of the mandate letter and his promises not the cause of it. So, as I said in my original post, Trudeau had to do something after he'd run his mouth, sent the letter, let the world know the contents and told the Natives that he was going to fix the problems of their over representation in prison.

So, rather than fix the real problem which is criminal activity in the Native community he chose to alter the Canadian Justice system by removing lawyer challenges to ensure the outcome that he'd demanded his Minister of Justice make happen, did happen.

Did it affect every other fucking convicted criminal in Canada? Yes it did, much to the detriment of the system because now everyone who's ever been convicted will be trying to use this Trudeau cop out to get new trials.

Unfortunately for the Liberals the Gladue ruling didn't work or even slow down natives in prison so this latest attempt at changing the way our courts select juries won't do sweet fuck all because a criminal is a criminal no matter race, creed or colour. And, unless they take it one step further it's doomed to fail unless of course they decide to make all jury's Native only when a native is involved and even then the results Trudeau wants still aren't guaranteed. ROTFL

Excellent rebuttal, Freakin'


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:02 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t even know where to begin with this one.

A mandate letter is not law and doesn’t legally obligate the PM to do anything. Its a letter from the PM to a minister outlining general principles and priorities of the PM. Trudeau didn’t accidentally “run his mouth” in his letter and then dream up some scheme out of fear of not being able to live up to it ,he’s free to simply ignore what he wrote if he wishes or put whatever spun on it he wants.

Nor were they unaware that it would affect other criminal cases. They knew what they were doing. This is what proves your bs theory that this only applies to natives or is about establishing racial quotas on juries is exactly that ...bs. This is about ending the practice whereby lawyers try to unfairly stack juries. Period.

Yes I think the removal of peremptory challenge a was probably a result of the Stanley trial because that was a particularly obvious example of it but it’s not as if it hadn’t been talked about for a long time. The US and the UK outlawed peremptory challenges decades ago and there have long been calls to do the same in Canada. Did you know that? I bet you didn’t. .

I want to repeat this again so you get through your head: Trudeau has done NOTHING that requires racial quotas on juries or any special jury procedures foe FN people. NOTHING..

All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation I repeat: All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation Say it with me now. They can still request a juror be dismissed if they have a valid reason for that individual.

The tactics to meet the goal of reducing native over representation in prison do not involve rigging juries or jury selection. They involve sentencing and socioeconomic conditions that lead to criminal activity such as poverty, substance abuse etc.



Mandate letters aren't law but they are "directives" that are ignored at the recipients peril.

$1:

5 takeaways from Trudeau’s ‘mandate letters’ to his cabinet

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued marching orders to his cabinet on Friday. While many of the instructions come straight from the Liberal campaign platform, there are a few things that are new, or more detailed than what’s been public before.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6295052/trud ... s-cabinet/


So to say they have nothing to do with any successive events is wrong. The public mandate about aboriginal over representation in the prison system was issued to the Minister of Justice and actions were taken to attempt to change that fact.

But I'm not talking about Trudeau changing the justice system, I'm talking about Trudeau changing the justice system after he gave a public statement admonishing it for not finding guilt where he thought it should have been and if you think it had nothing to do with natives, you've lost the plot.

Remember his statements?

$1:
"Colten Boushie was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. Nevertheless an all white jury formed the twisted view of that obvious truth and found Stanley not guilty," he said, adding that the verdict "crushed the spirit" of the community.


and if this wasn't about race why did he tell the Natives we had to "do better".

$1:
"I'm not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," he said.

"Indigenous people across this country are angry, they're heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-t ... -1.3798036

So keep believing that the Trudeau's meddling in the justice system wasn't in any way shape or form racially motivated because all the optics, timings and reasons given for the changes seem to point to the fact that he was placating this guy

$1:
Following the verdict, his uncle Alvin Baptiste called for change.

"Something has to be done about this. The government, Justin Trudeau, we ask you to give us Indigenous people justice," Baptiste said.


Or, maybe this guy:

$1:
Meanwhile, the head of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, Chief Bobby Cameron, said that Wilson-Raybould agreed to meet with Boushie's family "to make some serious, positive change to meet the recommendations of the family."


And if you don't believe me maybe this guy can explain it a bit better.

$1:
Bad facts make bad laws, as does legislation based on high-profile cases. This was a hallmark of the Harper government. It turns out the Liberals could not resist the temptation either.

In 2018, Gerald Stanley was acquitted of murder for his role in the tragic death of Colten Boushie, a young, Indigenous man from Saskatchewan. After the acquittal, Boushie’s family made allegations that Stanley’s defence used peremptory challenges to exclude any Indigenous-looking juror.

“The deck is stacked against us ... Where is the First Nation’s say in this? We don't have a voice," Boushie's uncle, Alvin Baptiste told the CBC.

Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General (as she then was) Jody Wilson-Raybould, was quick to say that she shared the families concerns but cautioned that any changes to the jury selection process would require “careful study and consideration.”

And then, less than a month later, Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-75 which overhauled the jury selection process.


https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/ ... ile/304369

Nothing to see there folks. Just move along. Well I'm sorry but the fact remains that he ran his mouth and made promises to the natives that he had to keep and was obliged to at least make some changes to the justice system or risk looking ineffective. Unfortunately for us he and JWR choose the jury selection route which opened up a whole new set of court challenges by convicted felons who's lawyers are going to try and get retrials for their convicted clients.

R=UP R=UP


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:11 am
 


Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t even know where to begin with this one.

A mandate letter is not law and doesn’t legally obligate the PM to do anything. Its a letter from the PM to a minister outlining general principles and priorities of the PM. Trudeau didn’t accidentally “run his mouth” in his letter and then dream up some scheme out of fear of not being able to live up to it ,he’s free to simply ignore what he wrote if he wishes or put whatever spun on it he wants.

Nor were they unaware that it would affect other criminal cases. They knew what they were doing. This is what proves your bs theory that this only applies to natives or is about establishing racial quotas on juries is exactly that ...bs. This is about ending the practice whereby lawyers try to unfairly stack juries. Period.

Yes I think the removal of peremptory challenge a was probably a result of the Stanley trial because that was a particularly obvious example of it but it’s not as if it hadn’t been talked about for a long time. The US and the UK outlawed peremptory challenges decades ago and there have long been calls to do the same in Canada. Did you know that? I bet you didn’t. .

I want to repeat this again so you get through your head: Trudeau has done NOTHING that requires racial quotas on juries or any special jury procedures foe FN people. NOTHING..

All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation I repeat: All he did was remove the lawyers privilege to arbitrarily dismiss jurors without explanation Say it with me now. They can still request a juror be dismissed if they have a valid reason for that individual.

The tactics to meet the goal of reducing native over representation in prison do not involve rigging juries or jury selection. They involve sentencing and socioeconomic conditions that lead to criminal activity such as poverty, substance abuse etc.



Mandate letters aren't law but they are "directives" that are ignored at the recipients peril.

$1:

5 takeaways from Trudeau’s ‘mandate letters’ to his cabinet

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued marching orders to his cabinet on Friday. While many of the instructions come straight from the Liberal campaign platform, there are a few things that are new, or more detailed than what’s been public before.


https://globalnews.ca/news/6295052/trud ... s-cabinet/


So to say they have nothing to do with any successive events is wrong. The public mandate about aboriginal over representation in the prison system was issued to the Minister of Justice and actions were taken to attempt to change that fact.

But I'm not talking about Trudeau changing the justice system, I'm talking about Trudeau changing the justice system after he gave a public statement admonishing it for not finding guilt where he thought it should have been and if you think it had nothing to do with natives, you've lost the plot.

Remember his statements?

$1:
"Colten Boushie was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. Nevertheless an all white jury formed the twisted view of that obvious truth and found Stanley not guilty," he said, adding that the verdict "crushed the spirit" of the community.


and if this wasn't about race why did he tell the Natives we had to "do better".

$1:
"I'm not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times," he said.

"Indigenous people across this country are angry, they're heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better."


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-t ... -1.3798036

So keep believing that the Trudeau's meddling in the justice system wasn't in any way shape or form racially motivated because all the optics, timings and reasons given for the changes seem to point to the fact that he was placating this guy

$1:
Following the verdict, his uncle Alvin Baptiste called for change.

"Something has to be done about this. The government, Justin Trudeau, we ask you to give us Indigenous people justice," Baptiste said.


Or, maybe this guy:

$1:
Meanwhile, the head of the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, Chief Bobby Cameron, said that Wilson-Raybould agreed to meet with Boushie's family "to make some serious, positive change to meet the recommendations of the family."


And if you don't believe me maybe this guy can explain it a bit better.

$1:
Bad facts make bad laws, as does legislation based on high-profile cases. This was a hallmark of the Harper government. It turns out the Liberals could not resist the temptation either.

In 2018, Gerald Stanley was acquitted of murder for his role in the tragic death of Colten Boushie, a young, Indigenous man from Saskatchewan. After the acquittal, Boushie’s family made allegations that Stanley’s defence used peremptory challenges to exclude any Indigenous-looking juror.

“The deck is stacked against us ... Where is the First Nation’s say in this? We don't have a voice," Boushie's uncle, Alvin Baptiste told the CBC.

Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General (as she then was) Jody Wilson-Raybould, was quick to say that she shared the families concerns but cautioned that any changes to the jury selection process would require “careful study and consideration.”

And then, less than a month later, Wilson-Raybould introduced Bill C-75 which overhauled the jury selection process.


https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/ ... ile/304369

Nothing to see there folks. Just move along. Well I'm sorry but the fact remains that he ran his mouth and made promises to the natives that he had to keep and was obliged to at least make some changes to the justice system or risk looking ineffective. Unfortunately for us he and JWR choose the jury selection route which opened up a whole new set of court challenges by convicted felons who's lawyers are going to try and get retrials for their convicted clients.


Look if JT passed some kind of law requiring FN people always be found innocent or must have a quota of FN on the jury then you should be able to show me the law. All laws and parliamentary bills are online so where is it? It doesn’t exist except in your twisted minds. Instead you cobbled together various public statements which prove nothing. It’s like me trying to prove that Harper passed a law sending liberals to concentration camps by posting various comments he made that criticized liberals. It’s true Harper crticized liberals but it down prive he passed a law sending them to camps. Shame you can’t grasp that.

Trudeau didn’t even pass a new law, he simply struck out a provision of existing criminal code. Specifically the law JT passed simply says the following section is repealed:

$1:
634 [ Repealed 2019, c. 25, s. 269]

Criminal Code
Version of section 634 from 2011-10-24 to 2019-09-18:
Previous Versionof section Next Versionof section

Marginal note:Peremptory challenges

634 (1) A juror may be challenged peremptorily whether or not the juror has been challenged for cause pursuant to section 638.

Marginal note:Maximum number

(2) Subject to subsections (2.1) to (4), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to

(a) twenty peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with high treason or first degree murder;

(b) twelve peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence, other than an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), for which the accused may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding five years; or

(c) four peremptory challenges, where the accused is charged with an offence that is not referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Marginal note:If 13 or 14 jurors

(2.01) If the judge orders under subsection 631(2.2) that 13 or 14 jurors be sworn in accordance with this Part, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one in the case of 13 jurors or two in the case of 14 jurors.

Marginal note:If alternate jurors

(2.1) If the judge makes an order for alternate jurors, the total number of peremptory challenges that the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to is increased by one for each alternate juror.

Marginal note:Supplemental peremptory challenges

(2.2) For the purposes of replacing jurors under subsection 644(1.1), the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled to one peremptory challenge for each juror to be replaced.

Marginal note:Where there are multiple counts

(3) Where two or more counts in an indictment are to be tried together, the prosecutor and the accused are each entitled only to the number of peremptory challenges provided in respect of the count for which the greatest number of peremptory challenges is available.

Marginal note:Where there are joint trials

(4) Where two or more accused are to be tried together,

(a) each accused is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to which the accused would be entitled if tried alone; and

(b) the prosecutor is entitled to the total number of peremptory challenges available to all the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 634 1992, c. 41, s. 2 2002, c. 13, s. 54 2008, c. 18, s. 25 2011, c. 16, s. 8



https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/act ... ml#wb-cont

And for certainty the Criminal CodeSTILL says:

$1:
Challenge for cause

638 (1) A prosecutor or an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that

(a) the name of a juror does not appear on the panel, but no misnomer or misdescription is a ground of challenge where it appears to the court that the description given on the panel sufficiently designates the person referred to;

(b) a juror is not impartial;

(c) a juror has been convicted of an offence for which they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for which no pardon or record suspension is in effect;

(d) a juror is not a Canadian citizen;

(e) a juror, even with the aid of technical, personal, interpretative or other support services provided to the juror under section 627, is physically unable to perform properly the duties of a juror; or

(f) a juror does not speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or both official languages of Canada, where the accused is required by reason of an order under section 530 to be tried before a judge and jury who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or the official language of Canada in which the accused can best give testimony or who speak both official languages of Canada, as the case may be.

Marginal note:No other ground

(2) No challenge for cause shall be allowed on a ground not mentioned in subsection (1).



Notice that nowhere does it say FN must always be found innocent or anything about any quotas


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:39 am
 


Oh and BTW mandate letters are private letters from the Premier/OM to cabinet ministers and they just broadly outline the EXPECTED priorities for the coming term they are not public documents or legally binding documents. And they are not specific instructions to do any specific action but rather the minister is to develop the actions that will address the priorities identified. And the priorities are subject to revision as events unfold. Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne are the only leaders to ever release them to the public. Doug Ford has specifically said he will not release his ( if he even has any)


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.