http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-must-consider-history-when-sentencing-aboriginals-supreme-court-rules/article2379145/Judges must consider history when sentencing aboriginals, Supreme Court rules...
Because aboriginals are just not up to the task of being treated equally as other Canadians.
Releasing rulings in a pair of much-anticipated cases that go to the heart of separate [but unequal]* treatment for aboriginal offenders, the court said that considering factors such as cultural oppression and a history of abuse in the residential school system must be central to the sentencing process.If we are mandated by the highest court in our land to "expect less" from aboriginals when it comes to law, are we not also justified in expecting less when it comes to, e.g., employment?
I'm glad I have a high view of equality and am not a liberal.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
(*) my amendment
5 comments:
PM MUST STOP APPOINTING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION JUDGES TO SC
Harper’s Supreme Court appointments of two more left-moderates to the already far left SC denotes that, while he disingenuously grumbles about some rulings when his centre right base requires him to do so, in reality he is pleased to permit the left-wing homogeneous court to make contentious policy decision that he fears would ostracized his political career, even if they would benefit Canadians.
If Harper was an authentic small-c- conservative he would appoint genuine small-c social/judicial conservatives, who are meticulous constructionist, anti-liberal and whom the far-left, bias and unbalanced press wouldn’t label “moderate”. We don’t need anymore so called “moderate” activists judges without judicial restraint who insist on creating laws rather than interrupting legislation passed by Parliament.
Since Trudeau’s Constitutional regime change that inaugurated the Charter of Rights and Freedom the far-left Supreme Court has had no reluctance about methodically interfering with the powers mandated to Parliament by altering, rather than perpetuating Parliamentary laws and the Constitution. At times is appears as if leftist judges are assaulting our culture and values by maneuverings to transform civil society through the judiciary, without the consent of the people. We must prevent judges from behaving in the manner of an ongoing constitutional convention, unilaterally amending the Constitution almost at will. We have traded our Constitutional sovereignty for judicial sovereignty and judicial activism by which activist judges’ claim the right to declare what realistic restrictions are, rather than reserving this right for elected representatives. These liberal, judicial activists often blatantly ignore the premeditated connotations of the BNA pursuant to their own political philosophy. And yet too many Canadians have quietly acquiesced in this ideological corruption of our judicial structure!
Judges must be selected only on merit and their legal expertise; and not by affirmative action pursuant to their gender, color, or language. Harper must never again cave into the French by insisting that every applicant can speak French; this eliminates about 77% of possible SC judges. There is also no reason to make affirmative action appointments in order to maintain the four “women’s chairs”.
---machiavelli
Consider for a moment who has profited most from the "Indian Industry". All the intra- and inter-tribal wrangling, not to mention the endless litigation against companies, charities and governments has fattened many a lawyer's bank account. It is hard not to suspect that judges who are just matriculated lawyers are not cynically looking out for their brothers still at the bar.
"Because aboriginals are just not up to the task of being treated equally as other Canadians."
According to the article (and according to the actual historical record in general) aboriginals have not been treated equally as other Canadians... and that's part of the problem.
What exactly is "Machiavelli's" problem with Harper's appointees?
He does realize that Harper's four appointees to the supreme court include one white female and four white males, doesn't he?
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/rothstein/index-eng.asp
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/cromwell/index-eng.asp
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/moldaver/index-eng.asp
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/court-cour/ju/karakatsanis/index-eng.asp
"Because aboriginals are just not up to the task of being treated equally as other Canadians."
According to the article (and according to the actual historical record in general) aboriginals have not been treated equally as other Canadians, and that's part of the problem.
Post a Comment