And with respect to scientific rigour, I will add the one essential element not mentioned: peer review. It’s not enough to articulate the hypothesis, design the experiment, run the tests and evaluate the results. Only by subjecting the entire work to review by other experts should the new knowledge be deemed valid.
It seems to me the closest thing the legislative process has to this is judicial review.
S33 is to provide legislatures the ultimate power to establish laws for the good of the people they govern. I would argue using closure on the debate of a bill to use it to limit or erase the rights of citizens does not allow the legislature to make the executive proposing such a law fully responsible to the people who elected the legislators.
“Right now, the conventional wisdom is that our splendid parliamentary system, with a wise electorate, somehow elects only fools and knaves. Fools and knaves who appoint judges who are wise. Jean Chrétien is often portrayed as a fool and a knave, except somehow the judges – most of whom he appointed – are invested with superhuman wisdom. But these things come in waves. The day will come when the public will want more decision-making power back.”
Let’s not forget how this case ended up in the Supreme Court in the first place:
[9] Louis‑Pier Senneville pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)(a) Cr. C.) and to one count of accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1)(a)). He admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors. Mr. Senneville admitted that he had acquired these images through specialized sites and that he had possessed them for 8 months. He accessed these images for 13 months. Mr. Senneville is a former soldier who was 28 years old and had no criminal record at the time of the sentencing decision. The decision noted that he cooperated with the authorities and complied with strict release conditions. He had no [translation] “pedophilic or hebephilic sexual interests”, and a specialized assessment in sexual offending showed that he was at low risk to reoffend (2020 QCCQ 1204, at para. 41). The sentencing judge found that in addition to having admitted the facts alleged against him, Mr. Senneville was sincerely remorseful and was aware of the harm caused.
[16] In Mr. Senneville’s case, a majority of the Court of Appeal (Ruel and Bachand JJ.A.) allowed the appeal in order to substitute a sentence of one year’s imprisonment for the sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently. Bachand J.A., correctly in my opinion, noted that the sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit [translation] “principally because of the nature of the images involved and the teachings of Friesen” (para. 232).
The original sentence was 90 days over the weekends I assume.
The justice system has many off roads available to handle the ‘reasonable situation’ ie) pleading to lesser charges for example. Additionally, the use of the reasonable situation used in this case assumes a guilty verdict, which I doubt would happen (I admit possible naïveté on my part)
But letting someone be sentenced to 90 days does not reflect societies repugnance for child sexual crimes.
I can’t speak to the reasoning for lesser charges; there are far too many cases cited in the decisions and I wouldn’t want to read them anyway. When it comes to use of the notwithstanding clause, however, I would prefer judges were not restricted from reviewing the cases. I don’t trust politicians to explain law — especially politicians who are not lawyers.
Yikes let’s ignore the good, bad and ugly of democratic govts and give all powers & decision making to a small cabal of judges. Why anyone would argue that democracy can be supplanted by a judiciary is a mystery to me. Govts do change with elections. Judges are in place until they are 75 with no ability to remove them. Fascism writ large. No thanks
I never suggested they get decision-making power. I said their insight is more valuable, and necessary, than the rage-farming we are being subjected to.
Thats not fascism. It may be undemocratic, arbitrary, or some other things, but it’s definitely not fascism.
fascism:
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Excellent.
And with respect to scientific rigour, I will add the one essential element not mentioned: peer review. It’s not enough to articulate the hypothesis, design the experiment, run the tests and evaluate the results. Only by subjecting the entire work to review by other experts should the new knowledge be deemed valid.
It seems to me the closest thing the legislative process has to this is judicial review.
Absolutely — I’ll remember that next time (because I’m sure it’ll come up again… and again…)
S33 is to provide legislatures the ultimate power to establish laws for the good of the people they govern. I would argue using closure on the debate of a bill to use it to limit or erase the rights of citizens does not allow the legislature to make the executive proposing such a law fully responsible to the people who elected the legislators.
Nice
“Right now, the conventional wisdom is that our splendid parliamentary system, with a wise electorate, somehow elects only fools and knaves. Fools and knaves who appoint judges who are wise. Jean Chrétien is often portrayed as a fool and a knave, except somehow the judges – most of whom he appointed – are invested with superhuman wisdom. But these things come in waves. The day will come when the public will want more decision-making power back.”
- Allan Blakeney
Let’s not forget how this case ended up in the Supreme Court in the first place:
[9] Louis‑Pier Senneville pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4)(a) Cr. C.) and to one count of accessing child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1)(a)). He admitted having been in possession of 475 files, including 317 images of children constituting child pornography. Of those images, 90 percent were of young girls between 3 and 6 years of age, some showing victims being subjected to acts of penetration and sodomy committed by adults and minors. Mr. Senneville admitted that he had acquired these images through specialized sites and that he had possessed them for 8 months. He accessed these images for 13 months. Mr. Senneville is a former soldier who was 28 years old and had no criminal record at the time of the sentencing decision. The decision noted that he cooperated with the authorities and complied with strict release conditions. He had no [translation] “pedophilic or hebephilic sexual interests”, and a specialized assessment in sexual offending showed that he was at low risk to reoffend (2020 QCCQ 1204, at para. 41). The sentencing judge found that in addition to having admitted the facts alleged against him, Mr. Senneville was sincerely remorseful and was aware of the harm caused.
[16] In Mr. Senneville’s case, a majority of the Court of Appeal (Ruel and Bachand JJ.A.) allowed the appeal in order to substitute a sentence of one year’s imprisonment for the sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently. Bachand J.A., correctly in my opinion, noted that the sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit [translation] “principally because of the nature of the images involved and the teachings of Friesen” (para. 232).
The original sentence was 90 days over the weekends I assume.
The justice system has many off roads available to handle the ‘reasonable situation’ ie) pleading to lesser charges for example. Additionally, the use of the reasonable situation used in this case assumes a guilty verdict, which I doubt would happen (I admit possible naïveté on my part)
But letting someone be sentenced to 90 days does not reflect societies repugnance for child sexual crimes.
I can’t speak to the reasoning for lesser charges; there are far too many cases cited in the decisions and I wouldn’t want to read them anyway. When it comes to use of the notwithstanding clause, however, I would prefer judges were not restricted from reviewing the cases. I don’t trust politicians to explain law — especially politicians who are not lawyers.
Yikes let’s ignore the good, bad and ugly of democratic govts and give all powers & decision making to a small cabal of judges. Why anyone would argue that democracy can be supplanted by a judiciary is a mystery to me. Govts do change with elections. Judges are in place until they are 75 with no ability to remove them. Fascism writ large. No thanks
I never suggested they get decision-making power. I said their insight is more valuable, and necessary, than the rage-farming we are being subjected to.
I am sure most fee simple homeowners in BC would disagree.
I couldn’t say.
I am a fee simple homeowner in the Lower Mainland of BC. Why would you think I would disagree? You tell me.
Thats not fascism. It may be undemocratic, arbitrary, or some other things, but it’s definitely not fascism.
fascism:
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.