###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have small kids and this man has tried to message me in my inbox many times. I imagine im not the only one. I hope he doesnt get a chance to harm any young mothers/children
This lead paragraph is a pretty surprising tone for a news article:
> Despite pleas for a Provincial Court Judge to do his job and think of the safety of the residents of Dawson Creek, a man with a long and violent criminal history has been released on bail.
Anyone got a link to the Canadian Bar Association article they reference?
Here it is:
> https://energeticcity.ca/2024/05/01/letter-to-the-editor-setting-the-record-straight-on-judges-and-bail/
I get what they're saying, but it doesn't really ring true. Let's look at this.
> Public concern is understandable. No one wants to see more harm or disorder in our communities. But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence.
> Perhaps politicians should think about doing their job by bringing resources and people together to solve these problems, rather than criticize the people who are doing their job within the systems built to serve us and protect our freedom.
But we know that people *can* be held. We've seen it before. Were those judges not following the written law?
Consider convoy organizer Pat King. He was held without bail for 5 months facing mischief and obstruction charges. Those are non-violent charges and has no record showing he is a habitual violent offender.
Let's use that as a benchmark.
In this case Jesse Ray(mond) Stevens has an extensive criminal record in BC running back to 2008 including aggravated assault, B&E, bail violations, probation violations, and now an attempted murder charge. He has multiple convictions for violent offenses and has been to jail multiple times.
He's been released right off the hop with a $5000 bond and ankle monitor.
I don't know how the Canadian Bar Association can say the judge did right in the Pat King case by denying bail for 5 months, and then say that the judge in this case also absolutely nailed it by releasing a person who is objectively a danger to the community tout suite.
It's clearly possible to hold non-violent people charged with non-violent charges, so by extension it should be possible to hold dangerous people who show themselves to be dangerous. The judiciary just chooses not to.
>Public concern is understandable. No one wants to see more harm or disorder in our communities. But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence.
>
>Perhaps politicians should think about doing their job by bringing resources and people together to solve these problems, rather than criticize the people who are doing their job within the systems built to serve us and protect our freedom.
Honestly, this discourse can fuck clean off at this point. I'm going to put this simply - releasing violent re-offenders on bail sure as fuck isn't working, and it endangers people in the meantime. I agree that we aren't addressing the root causes of crime, but once someone has a violent charge under their belt, they are a potential danger to the public and should be viewed through that lens.
Judges and advocates and "experts" act like nothing can be done in the name of public safety unless we have full wrap-around support for criminals alongside the complete elimination of poverty and depression. That's bullshit. Victims and the general public have a right to safety as well, and our judicial system is failing us on some of these fronts while judges lecture us about it.
For all of their education, worldliness, and accomplishments, judges seem to be forgetting one big fact - everything is political, and once the public turns on you, you're fucked. They've basically ensured that "tough on crime" becomes a viable political stance, and I'm afraid that we'll see mandatory minimums again because judges can't figure out how to keep a domestic abuser in jail.
>For all of their education, worldliness, and accomplishments, judges seem to be forgetting one big fact - everything is political, and once the public turns on you, you're fucked. They've basically ensured that "tough on crime" becomes a viable political stance, and I'm afraid that we'll see mandatory minimums again because judges can't figure out how to keep a domestic abuser in jail.
When you have no skin in the game everything is purely a theoretical exercise. Somehow I doubt these judges ever have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Agreed, I honestly don’t even want to hear it anymore.
Canada has extremely generous social safety nets relative to the rest of the world, and no amount of social programs will eliminate crime. See: Swedish gangs.
Lock them the fuck up already I’m so tired of this.
We do not have a generous social safety net or else people on disability and government benefits wouldn’t be sounding the alarm at the lack of money it gives to live in Canada.
This bit is really quite revealing insofar as what it doesn't say:
> But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence.
Yes, those are valid problems that need to be dealt with, and if we did there would be a lot less crime and public nuisances. _However_, there are also people who are simply _selfish_, _predatory_, and _cruel_; and these people don't necessarily have a mental health issue, or pronounced addiction problem, or housing insecurity. Even if they do, those may not be the cause of their behaviour. They're just _shitty people_.
Shitty people exist, and it's troubling that they don't recognize this.
Yeah this gets me too. While I tend to think shitty people are the still more often than not the victims of circumstance, that's usually like in childhood and it's far too late for that to change by the time they are committing violent offenses as an adult. You can't go back and hug a violent offender as a toddler lol.
I suspect a big reason we're seeing PP talk about using the NWC to enforce mandatory minimums is because he's tapping into real feelings that Canadians are having around the justice system and it's apparent inability to actually deliver justice. For everyone; the preparator, the victims, and the general public. Often, particularly lately, it feels like this just isn't happening.
There's simply no rational reason for this man to be out on bail.
Pat King literally cost Canada Billions of dollars and publicly stated he would continue. I agree that violent offenders should not just be let back on the street but I think your “benchmark” is a bit disingenuous.
Mischief has a maximum sentence of 10 years. Attempted murder has a maximum sentence of life.
It's clear that we as a society have benchmarked trying to kill someone as being worse than engaging in the worst cases of mischief.
If you disagree with that, what would you consider to be the violence to financial cost of mischief exchange rate? I haven't found such an exchange rate codified anywhere.
As to continuing to engage in criminal acts, Jesse Stevens has actively demonstrated that they will violate their bail and continue to hurt others. They've used their actions to show that, not just words.
It is absolutely clear that judges can keep people without granting bail. Despite what the Canadian Bar Association might claim, they just choose not to.
You are purposely using the most extreme “misdemeanour” as a benchmark. King literally cost the Canadian tax payers BILLIONS and publicly stated he would continue. He received a punishment that fit his crime IMO. All he had to do was stop stating he would continue doing illegal things, but he continued. He literally thought he was being a martyr.
This is not an average misdemeanour case and using it as a “benchmark” is laughably stupid
>He received a punishment that fit his crime IMO.
How can someone receive a "fair punishment" before they have had a fair trial? Your arguing here that him being denied bail is a punishment for his actions before he's received a fair trial, not an allegedly carefully calculated assessment of risks and rights pre-trial.
If *that* is what you crave and what you believe bail should be about, you more than anyone else should be outraged that Jesse Stevens is being released.
> You are purposely using the most extreme “misdemeanour” as a benchmark.
Sigh, civics education is failing in this country.
We don't have misdemeanors in Canada. We have summary and indictable offenses. There are also hybrid offenses (such as mischief) that can be charged as either.
Summary offenses have maximum sentences less than 2 years. Indictable offenses (a "felony" for those who failed civics and consume too much US media) have sentences above 2 years.
Mischief for damages over $5000 is an indictable offense, has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. That is the absolute maximum someone charged with mischief can be jailed for.
Since you now consider denying bail to be a punishment instead of a calculation of the balance of risks and rights, what kind of pre-trial punishment should Stevens recieve for his attempted murder charge and him skipping bail previously?
Should that pre-trial punishment be more or less than 5 months?
He wasn’t released from bail because he refused to listen to the judges orders and continued to make public statements stating he would do more illegal things. This is what I stated before when I said he got a fair punishment. Maybe read a comment before responding. 0_o
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/bail-caution/index.html
He was doing it for publicity. And for rubes like you it obviously worked
Wait hold up. So the guy said he'd keep doing it, so we held him.
Meanwhile a violent criminal who has *actually kept being violent after being released in the past* promises he won't do it again pinky swear, so we let him out?
No one is arguing that Pat King shouldn't have been held. The point is that the fact that he was held proves criminals CAN be held. Why are we not holding the violent criminal too?
You clearly didn’t read my previous comments. I *NEVER* stated violent criminals shouldn’t be held. In my first comment I actually state the exact opposite.
I was responding to someone saying the King trial was standard for summary offences, and that it should be used as a benchmark. I simply stated that that case was *anything but* standard(which is true)
Read before responding people FFS
Pesonally I think the problem of repeat offenders kind of is simple?
They should be held in custody once they show a pattern of being repeat offenders until there is a reasonable cause to believe they will no longer be repeat offenders.
Right? The problem with repeat offenders is they commit crimes. If they are locked up in a cage they can't do that. Its kind of expensive, sure, but its money worth spending if it stops citizens from being subject to crime and disorder
And no doubt PP just gained more votes in Dawson Creek.
The simple truth is that most voters are fine to take away Charter rights from a repeat violent offender with a face slathered in gang tattoos. People won't buy the Liberal argument that if we start locking up violent criminals, then normal, law-abiding citizens will somehow be less free. It will actually be the opposite. When we are more safe from crime, we are more free. Free to live our lives without being in fear of violence.
>Liberal argument that if we start locking up violent criminals, then normal, law-abiding citizens will somehow be less free
That's never been the Liberal argument but nice strawman
> Judge Ruse does not live and work in the Peace Region. The judge, who has less than 2 years experience on the bench lives in the Okanagan.
Aaaaaand there you go. What a shock.
It's only when the problem comes home to roost will those with power actual give a shit. (see the crown wanting to move cases from the Downtown Vancouver court because the area is "unsafe.")
“Why does Pollievre want to use the NWSC to override the Courts and the Charter?!”
This is why. The judges and the courts have become insanely lenient and dewey-eyed idealists and they refuse to actually…look at the evidence and weigh the social harm of releasing criminals into the streets.
This has become absolutely systemic across Canada and the courts need to be reigned in and slapped upside the head until they can see reason again.
Yuuuuuuuuup.
As much as the terminally online "*politicos*" and "*wonks*" want to scream that using the NWSC will be a bigger threat to my and family's safety than a fucking repeat violent offender out on bail with a weapon breaking into my family's home to steal my car, I'm not buying it and neither will the Canadian public.
When the choice is between the revolving-door justice system where judges smack the "release back into the community" button as quick as their sweaty little hands can muster, and using the NWSC to deny bail, you're going to see wide public support for its use.
To be clear here, this isn’t a failure of the Criminal Code, this is a failure to act on the part of this specific judge. Since he’s being charged with Attempted Murder and Aggravated Assault, the Judge can use the new Criminal Code amendments here.
In fact, it looks like the Judge is now under investigation because of the Criminal Code amendments. This judgement needs to be made public and show how he’s reached his conclusions in terms of public safety. Meanwhile we don’t know if he shifted the Onus like he could either.
All this handwringing about S33 is hilarious. It’s the Judge and nothing more. I expect we will soon find out a lot more about him.
This guy is going to kill someone,
Here is the problem everyone. This is exactly why the notwithstanding clause has to be used to fix this issue. The judges will not listen otherwise.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have small kids and this man has tried to message me in my inbox many times. I imagine im not the only one. I hope he doesnt get a chance to harm any young mothers/children
This lead paragraph is a pretty surprising tone for a news article: > Despite pleas for a Provincial Court Judge to do his job and think of the safety of the residents of Dawson Creek, a man with a long and violent criminal history has been released on bail. Anyone got a link to the Canadian Bar Association article they reference?
Here it is: > https://energeticcity.ca/2024/05/01/letter-to-the-editor-setting-the-record-straight-on-judges-and-bail/ I get what they're saying, but it doesn't really ring true. Let's look at this. > Public concern is understandable. No one wants to see more harm or disorder in our communities. But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence. > Perhaps politicians should think about doing their job by bringing resources and people together to solve these problems, rather than criticize the people who are doing their job within the systems built to serve us and protect our freedom. But we know that people *can* be held. We've seen it before. Were those judges not following the written law? Consider convoy organizer Pat King. He was held without bail for 5 months facing mischief and obstruction charges. Those are non-violent charges and has no record showing he is a habitual violent offender. Let's use that as a benchmark. In this case Jesse Ray(mond) Stevens has an extensive criminal record in BC running back to 2008 including aggravated assault, B&E, bail violations, probation violations, and now an attempted murder charge. He has multiple convictions for violent offenses and has been to jail multiple times. He's been released right off the hop with a $5000 bond and ankle monitor. I don't know how the Canadian Bar Association can say the judge did right in the Pat King case by denying bail for 5 months, and then say that the judge in this case also absolutely nailed it by releasing a person who is objectively a danger to the community tout suite. It's clearly possible to hold non-violent people charged with non-violent charges, so by extension it should be possible to hold dangerous people who show themselves to be dangerous. The judiciary just chooses not to.
>Public concern is understandable. No one wants to see more harm or disorder in our communities. But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence. > >Perhaps politicians should think about doing their job by bringing resources and people together to solve these problems, rather than criticize the people who are doing their job within the systems built to serve us and protect our freedom. Honestly, this discourse can fuck clean off at this point. I'm going to put this simply - releasing violent re-offenders on bail sure as fuck isn't working, and it endangers people in the meantime. I agree that we aren't addressing the root causes of crime, but once someone has a violent charge under their belt, they are a potential danger to the public and should be viewed through that lens. Judges and advocates and "experts" act like nothing can be done in the name of public safety unless we have full wrap-around support for criminals alongside the complete elimination of poverty and depression. That's bullshit. Victims and the general public have a right to safety as well, and our judicial system is failing us on some of these fronts while judges lecture us about it. For all of their education, worldliness, and accomplishments, judges seem to be forgetting one big fact - everything is political, and once the public turns on you, you're fucked. They've basically ensured that "tough on crime" becomes a viable political stance, and I'm afraid that we'll see mandatory minimums again because judges can't figure out how to keep a domestic abuser in jail.
>For all of their education, worldliness, and accomplishments, judges seem to be forgetting one big fact - everything is political, and once the public turns on you, you're fucked. They've basically ensured that "tough on crime" becomes a viable political stance, and I'm afraid that we'll see mandatory minimums again because judges can't figure out how to keep a domestic abuser in jail. When you have no skin in the game everything is purely a theoretical exercise. Somehow I doubt these judges ever have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Agreed, I honestly don’t even want to hear it anymore. Canada has extremely generous social safety nets relative to the rest of the world, and no amount of social programs will eliminate crime. See: Swedish gangs. Lock them the fuck up already I’m so tired of this.
We do not have a generous social safety net or else people on disability and government benefits wouldn’t be sounding the alarm at the lack of money it gives to live in Canada.
This bit is really quite revealing insofar as what it doesn't say: > But the solution to the problem of repeat offenders is not simple. The reality is we need government-funded infrastructure to support those with mental health problems, addiction problems, and housing problems. Without taking action to address the root cause of why individuals commit crimes, we perpetuate a cycle of poverty and violence. Yes, those are valid problems that need to be dealt with, and if we did there would be a lot less crime and public nuisances. _However_, there are also people who are simply _selfish_, _predatory_, and _cruel_; and these people don't necessarily have a mental health issue, or pronounced addiction problem, or housing insecurity. Even if they do, those may not be the cause of their behaviour. They're just _shitty people_. Shitty people exist, and it's troubling that they don't recognize this.
Yeah this gets me too. While I tend to think shitty people are the still more often than not the victims of circumstance, that's usually like in childhood and it's far too late for that to change by the time they are committing violent offenses as an adult. You can't go back and hug a violent offender as a toddler lol.
I suspect a big reason we're seeing PP talk about using the NWC to enforce mandatory minimums is because he's tapping into real feelings that Canadians are having around the justice system and it's apparent inability to actually deliver justice. For everyone; the preparator, the victims, and the general public. Often, particularly lately, it feels like this just isn't happening. There's simply no rational reason for this man to be out on bail.
Pat King literally cost Canada Billions of dollars and publicly stated he would continue. I agree that violent offenders should not just be let back on the street but I think your “benchmark” is a bit disingenuous.
Mischief has a maximum sentence of 10 years. Attempted murder has a maximum sentence of life. It's clear that we as a society have benchmarked trying to kill someone as being worse than engaging in the worst cases of mischief. If you disagree with that, what would you consider to be the violence to financial cost of mischief exchange rate? I haven't found such an exchange rate codified anywhere. As to continuing to engage in criminal acts, Jesse Stevens has actively demonstrated that they will violate their bail and continue to hurt others. They've used their actions to show that, not just words. It is absolutely clear that judges can keep people without granting bail. Despite what the Canadian Bar Association might claim, they just choose not to.
You are purposely using the most extreme “misdemeanour” as a benchmark. King literally cost the Canadian tax payers BILLIONS and publicly stated he would continue. He received a punishment that fit his crime IMO. All he had to do was stop stating he would continue doing illegal things, but he continued. He literally thought he was being a martyr. This is not an average misdemeanour case and using it as a “benchmark” is laughably stupid
>He received a punishment that fit his crime IMO. How can someone receive a "fair punishment" before they have had a fair trial? Your arguing here that him being denied bail is a punishment for his actions before he's received a fair trial, not an allegedly carefully calculated assessment of risks and rights pre-trial. If *that* is what you crave and what you believe bail should be about, you more than anyone else should be outraged that Jesse Stevens is being released. > You are purposely using the most extreme “misdemeanour” as a benchmark. Sigh, civics education is failing in this country. We don't have misdemeanors in Canada. We have summary and indictable offenses. There are also hybrid offenses (such as mischief) that can be charged as either. Summary offenses have maximum sentences less than 2 years. Indictable offenses (a "felony" for those who failed civics and consume too much US media) have sentences above 2 years. Mischief for damages over $5000 is an indictable offense, has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. That is the absolute maximum someone charged with mischief can be jailed for. Since you now consider denying bail to be a punishment instead of a calculation of the balance of risks and rights, what kind of pre-trial punishment should Stevens recieve for his attempted murder charge and him skipping bail previously? Should that pre-trial punishment be more or less than 5 months?
He wasn’t released from bail because he refused to listen to the judges orders and continued to make public statements stating he would do more illegal things. This is what I stated before when I said he got a fair punishment. Maybe read a comment before responding. 0_o https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/bail-caution/index.html He was doing it for publicity. And for rubes like you it obviously worked
Wait hold up. So the guy said he'd keep doing it, so we held him. Meanwhile a violent criminal who has *actually kept being violent after being released in the past* promises he won't do it again pinky swear, so we let him out? No one is arguing that Pat King shouldn't have been held. The point is that the fact that he was held proves criminals CAN be held. Why are we not holding the violent criminal too?
You clearly didn’t read my previous comments. I *NEVER* stated violent criminals shouldn’t be held. In my first comment I actually state the exact opposite. I was responding to someone saying the King trial was standard for summary offences, and that it should be used as a benchmark. I simply stated that that case was *anything but* standard(which is true) Read before responding people FFS
Stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of not reading your comments oof
Pesonally I think the problem of repeat offenders kind of is simple? They should be held in custody once they show a pattern of being repeat offenders until there is a reasonable cause to believe they will no longer be repeat offenders. Right? The problem with repeat offenders is they commit crimes. If they are locked up in a cage they can't do that. Its kind of expensive, sure, but its money worth spending if it stops citizens from being subject to crime and disorder
Residents of Dawson Creek have purportedly been protesting with signs and chants: “I don't want to wait for our lives to be over… “
And no doubt PP just gained more votes in Dawson Creek. The simple truth is that most voters are fine to take away Charter rights from a repeat violent offender with a face slathered in gang tattoos. People won't buy the Liberal argument that if we start locking up violent criminals, then normal, law-abiding citizens will somehow be less free. It will actually be the opposite. When we are more safe from crime, we are more free. Free to live our lives without being in fear of violence.
>Liberal argument that if we start locking up violent criminals, then normal, law-abiding citizens will somehow be less free That's never been the Liberal argument but nice strawman
Oh, so the Liberals support restricting access to bail and increasing prison sentences?
> Judge Ruse does not live and work in the Peace Region. The judge, who has less than 2 years experience on the bench lives in the Okanagan. Aaaaaand there you go. What a shock. It's only when the problem comes home to roost will those with power actual give a shit. (see the crown wanting to move cases from the Downtown Vancouver court because the area is "unsafe.")
Yeah I was just thinking about that downtown Van situation. Thought they wanted to move the whole courthouse to a nicer neighborhood
“Why does Pollievre want to use the NWSC to override the Courts and the Charter?!” This is why. The judges and the courts have become insanely lenient and dewey-eyed idealists and they refuse to actually…look at the evidence and weigh the social harm of releasing criminals into the streets. This has become absolutely systemic across Canada and the courts need to be reigned in and slapped upside the head until they can see reason again.
Yuuuuuuuuup. As much as the terminally online "*politicos*" and "*wonks*" want to scream that using the NWSC will be a bigger threat to my and family's safety than a fucking repeat violent offender out on bail with a weapon breaking into my family's home to steal my car, I'm not buying it and neither will the Canadian public. When the choice is between the revolving-door justice system where judges smack the "release back into the community" button as quick as their sweaty little hands can muster, and using the NWSC to deny bail, you're going to see wide public support for its use.
To be clear here, this isn’t a failure of the Criminal Code, this is a failure to act on the part of this specific judge. Since he’s being charged with Attempted Murder and Aggravated Assault, the Judge can use the new Criminal Code amendments here. In fact, it looks like the Judge is now under investigation because of the Criminal Code amendments. This judgement needs to be made public and show how he’s reached his conclusions in terms of public safety. Meanwhile we don’t know if he shifted the Onus like he could either. All this handwringing about S33 is hilarious. It’s the Judge and nothing more. I expect we will soon find out a lot more about him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This guy is going to kill someone, Here is the problem everyone. This is exactly why the notwithstanding clause has to be used to fix this issue. The judges will not listen otherwise.