News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 583     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 745     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 599     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

It's good that he's out there pushing for trade, but he really should try talking to people who aren't on side or are undecided. Preaching to the choir is rather ineffective.
 
Videodrome said:
That is scary...
Click to expand...
This is scary. Justice Minister thinks its OK to comment on case.

zz.jpg


https://twitter.com/Puglaas/status/962184439685156864
 

Attachments

  • zz.jpg
    zz.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 408
This is the Trayvon Martin case for First Nations people, though it got considerably less media attention.
 
Last edited:
I also find it a tad troubling that both the Attorney General and Head of Government have felt compelled to comment on a verdict while the complete process; i.e the appeal provisions, is incomplete. There is a reason why the legislative and judicial branches are separate. The Crown can only appeal a jury verdict on a point of law, and it is way above my pay grade what the scope of 'point of law' means. However, it might not be inconceivable that the Crown could try to argue that, by their comments, the AG and Government have expressed a position of the legislative branch that the law is flawed and that the verdict should be overturned. Who knows.

There is no question that the concept of peremptory jury challenges (turning down a prospective juror without reason) needs to be reviewed, but we will never know if a differently composed jury would have ruled any differently. Often, the media and court of public opinion often forget the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' seems to be forgotten.

If it feels so compelled, the government should simply propose an amended law - that's their role.
 
lenaitch said:
I also find it a tad troubling that both the Attorney General and Head of Government have felt compelled to comment on a verdict while the complete process; i.e the appeal provisions, is incomplete. There is a reason why the legislative and judicial branches are separate. The Crown can only appeal a jury verdict on a point of law, and it is way above my pay grade what the scope of 'point of law' means. However, it might not be inconceivable that the Crown could try to argue that, by their comments, the AG and Government have expressed a position of the legislative branch that the law is flawed and that the verdict should be overturned. Who knows.

There is no question that the concept of peremptory jury challenges (turning down a prospective juror without reason) needs to be reviewed, but we will never know if a differently composed jury would have ruled any differently. Often, the media and court of public opinion often forget the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' seems to be forgotten.

If it feels so compelled, the government should simply propose an amended law - that's their role.
Click to expand...
I, like you, do not fully understand the intricacies of the legal system, but I was thinking the exact opposite.

If the Crown decides to appeal the defense will argue that there cannot be a fair trial since the AG and Government has tainted their process by presupposing what the verdict should be.
 
I find it a little strange that Harper & Co. were chastised for their criticism of the judiciary, while Trudeau gets a pass for opining on a trial verdict that may be subject to appeal.
 
He doesn't get a pass from me, I don't mind telling you, @pman.

I thought I was hearing a joke when I heard about government members commenting on the verdict. What the hell were they thinking? Other than politics, obviously.
Week, by week, I lose respect for this government. Down to like 15% after a good 70% drop in respect after the electoral reform lie.
 
pman said:
I find it a little strange that Harper & Co. were chastised for their criticism of the judiciary, while Trudeau gets a pass for opining on a trial verdict that may be subject to appeal.
Click to expand...

Harper going after the Chief Justice was in poor taste for sure, but that 2-42 record probably got him a little frustrated.
 
Interesting week Trudeau has had.
  1. Snubbed by Indian government for the Liberal terrorist ties.
  2. Criticized for 8 day family vacation with on 1 day of actual business.
  3. Signs deal for $750M investment into India and only $250M into Canada - a $500M deficit.
  4. Makes mistake and announces it as a Billion dollar trade deal.
  5. Ridiculed for wearing costumes at every turn.
  6. Uses government money to bring over Canadian (and strong Liberal supporter) chef because he can't find good Indian food.
  7. Invites assassin, convicted of attempted murder of an Indian cabinet minster, to government dinner.
Did I miss anything?
 
As much as I am not a Trudeau fan, I am a fan of facts. He didn’t invite Atwal to dinner and cancelled the imvitation which had been issued.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top