Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Are LIberal Judges Out to Ruin Us?

Actually I'm confused about just what the hell his point is!
And, concerned that we have just put a wedge into another law.
A wedge designed to weaken our laws and which will ultimately result in harm to Canadian citizens.

In regard to the Anti-Terrorism Act and the clause which defines terrorism.
Justice Douglas Rutherford of Ontario Superior Court chose to "sever" the offending clause from the Anti-Terrorism Act and leave the rest of the law in place.

Rutherford, highlighted a provision that makes proof of terrorism dependent on showing a religious, political or ideological motive for the criminal activity.

It sounds like simple political correctness to remove a clause that mentions religious, political or ideological motive. But is it?
Is this clause a weak link in the ATA that would provide terrorists with a tool to lever their way out of charges on constitutional grounds?
Is the clause an attempt by the writers of the law to protect non- religious/political/ideological offenders from charges of terrorism?

If, lets say....A bike gang blew up a court house or threatened a judge or police or witnesses are they terrorists?
Or does it actually take a religious/political/ideologue to commit crimes that are motivated by those factors to be a terrorists?
What about crimes that are directly or indirectly aiding or abetting terrorist groups?

Well ... let's just say that since this definition of "terrorism" came from the UN I'm not overly thrilled about it's use. But is our court saying that the UN version of things is "Wrong"?
If so, what exactly is the definition of terrorism?

Is the definition of terrorism adopted by our government and Lawmakers flawed?
Is the mention of said R/P/I motivations in the law a "Violation" of the charter? Apparently what Rutherford thinks.
Why would it be improper to mention motivation of any kind in any law?
Without a definition of "Terrorism" can you have an anti-terrorism law?

If the law as written is weak then it makes sense to change it. If it is merely making a position clear it should be left alone.

Unless of course you are more interested in mush headed political correctness than in justice or actuall effective laws I see no reason to invalidate the definition of terrorism in the law.
It seems to me that these judges are bent on meddling and unconcerned about the danger imposed on Canadian citizens because of their meddling.

If we had an organized crime act ( we do but it's already been meddled with by judges) that had real teeth we could simply append the special designation of terrorism to it.
Do we not need strong laws and a justice system committed to enforcing them in protection of our citizens?
But we have what we have and I think it makes sense to make our laws stronger.....what exactly is our Justice Rutherford doing?



Blogger Budd Campbell said...

It seems pretty clear that you don't like judges, or presumably lawyers either. And I take it you regard the Charter as a problem, too.

From the discussion on As It Happens last nite, I gather it's quite unusual for any criminal statute in this country to have a section on motivation. Motive can be discussed at trial as part of the theory of the crime, but it's not generally part of the crime itself, which revolves around the action, not the thought.

10/25/2006 12:40 p.m.  
Blogger PGP said...

In this case I do not understand what justice Rutherford is trying to achieve.

The UN definition of terrorism was adopted by Canada and used in the drafting of the ATA.

I do not approve of judicial activism where judges assume the role of lawmaker or legislator from their position on the bench.
I do not approve of the Charter being used as a tool for judicial activists.

10/25/2006 2:27 p.m.  
Blogger Budd Campbell said...

AFAIK, the only operative definition of judicial activism is judgements one doesn't like.

10/26/2006 12:47 a.m.  
Blogger PGP said...

Our democracy is based on elected officials who can be called to task by the voters being responsible for enacting and shaping laws.
Not unelected political appointees.

10/26/2006 11:07 p.m.  
Blogger Duke said...

If you remove motive from criminal activity, you will have a very hard time convicting anyone of anything.

I don't like Canadian judges in general because they are too mmm progressive which really mean lenient.

I don't like lawyers either because they are .... well ... mostly scum bags.

10/30/2006 7:01 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home