r/notthebeaverton • u/TheRain-King • 5d ago
Supreme Court split over sentencing when the offender and the victim are both Indigenous
https://nationalpost.com/news/supreme-court-canada-indigenous24
u/BIO_Predictive_AI 4d ago
Well, according to many traditions in first-nations dispute resolution the victim or their family should be the ones who pass the sentence on the guilty -- that's easy... I mean, who would have a problem with that?
23
u/CommanderOshawott 4d ago
Anybody even remotely interested in the consistent enforcement of the rule of law.
10
u/Expensive_Island6575 4d ago
Nope. Have you ever read the charter?
The unequal application of the law based on race, religion, and gender is enshrined in the language of Section 15(1). The government reserves the right to discriminate, all under the guise of the fundamental principle of equality.
5
u/TheMagicMiller 2d ago
Have you read the Charter yourself lmao? Section 15 reads:
Equality Rights
15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.There are two primary definitions of discriminate:
1 : to unfairly treat a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis (such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation)
2 : to make a distinctionTypically, when we talk about racial discrimination, we are talking about the first definition, not the second.
To illustrate, consider a doctor giving a different diagnosis or treatment to a patient due to observing they are a member of a particular racial group. For instance, Black Canadians have higher rates of diabetes compared to White or Asian Canadians (source). A doctor may use the fact that a patient is black to diagnose them with diabetes and give them treatment. Technically they are "making a distinction based on race" because they may not give that same diagnosis to a white patient. However, we don't call the doctor's actions racial discrimination.
For the same reason, we don't say the government has the right to discriminate on the basis of identifiable groups. They have the right to enact programs through law that seek to ameliorate, alleviate, or remedy disadvantages that people or groups face due to being members of identifiable groups.
5
-8
u/mischling2543 3d ago
Yet another way the Trudeau family has irreparably damaged this country
5
u/BTrippd 3d ago
Can’t believe Trudeau wrote the charter of rights and freedoms 😫
-1
u/Expensive_Island6575 2d ago
He didn't write the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He took credit for it, but he didn't write it, nor was he even part of the negotiations. All Trudeau did was initiate the process with the goal of stripping the provinces and Parliament of their power and handing it over to politically appointed, unelected, and unaccountable judges in an attempt to de-democratize the federation and centralize power in Ottawa...
Prior to the Charter, our rights were already defined by the Canadian Bill of Rights, which followed the rules of British common law and parliamentary supremacy. The Charter itself did not define any rights for Canadians, nor did it have any other protections. Section 1 can still eliminate any right by a stroke of a pen, much the same way the Canadian Bill of Rights could. The only difference is we don't get to elect the judges who wipe those rights away; they are hand-picked by the Laurentian elites which was Trudeau's ultimate goal.
2
u/BTrippd 2d ago
Literal bot behaviour lmao.
0
u/Expensive_Island6575 2d ago
The perfect response from a person who thinks like a bot, and has nothing of substance to add to the conversation.
2
u/BTrippd 2d ago
No, it’s actually because I was clearly being sarcastic and you wrote out paragraphs at me as if it was a serious comment.
Bots are typically incapable of parsing sarcasm, therefore you are engaged in bot-like behaviour.
Make sense?
1
u/Expensive_Island6575 1d ago
No, it’s not "clearly" sarcasm to anyone who understands the actual context of this statement:
"Yet another way the Trudeau family has irreparably damaged this country"
To which you clearly don't understand, but then again... context is generally something someone who thinks like a bot wouldn't understand.
0
u/BIO_Predictive_AI 4d ago
Bah, who needs the rule of law. World got on fine with the Rule of Men for the longest time. Heck, rolling the bones did a decent job for eons.
-4
u/tubeslime 4d ago
According to many traditions in first-nations dispute resolution, the victim's family tortures the guilty to death.
1
21
23
u/breakitbilly 5d ago
Wow who would have thunk it were a NaPo article.
They really don't even try and hide their agenda, eh?
19
-5
u/NoSentence0A 5d ago
Agenda being reporting on news you disagree with?
20
u/breakitbilly 5d ago edited 5d ago
Sure duncecap, definitely not the biased headline phrasing.
Its not about the body of the article, it's the headline that no journalist with any smidge of integrity would ever publish. Journalistic impartiality is important, or at lease the illusion of it is
-1
1
u/VanTaxGoddess 4d ago
No, they literally platform white suPrEmAcIsTs. I don't know if Postmedia was always like this and I was naive, but this isn't the paper my grandfather used to read.
-2
u/NoSentence0A 4d ago
🙄 You can't be serious
0
u/I8FurryJello 11h ago
Oh, but they are. And if you disagree, no matter the facts of the case, they get to call you a racist
-1
u/VanTaxGoddess 4d ago
I am serious, my grandfather subscribed to the National Post from its very first issue! I remember the paperweight he had with a mini copy of their first front page! John Glenn had just returned from his Space Shuttle flight.
0
u/Crude_Classic 1d ago
This is a real case that the actual Supreme Court of Canada is dealing with. You can look it up. Why are you bothered by outlets reporting on it? It touches upon several lightening rod issues and is obviously newsworthy.
0
u/I8FurryJello 11h ago
So you're ok with a race based legal system? Is that all the time, or just because it was in the NaPo?
8
2
u/IllBrilliant3816 1d ago
Why is there a problem?
Oh, yeah. Different legal standards for different people.
1
1
3
u/Referenceless 5d ago
Damn, the chuds on that sub sure do love to use the ol "this is actually reverse racism"
17
u/Informal-Citron2844 4d ago
No, this is just blatant racism because it literally uses race as prerequisite.
-1
-1
u/ralphswanson 3d ago
But it's 'good' racism because it 'benefits' a politically-correct group. Reducing people to skin colour is peachy keen under those circumstances. Also, do what I say, not what I do.
1
-1
1
u/CanPat-TNSAF 3d ago
Oh so there is a thought about actually considering a victim of crime.
What a novel concept.
0
-1
-4
48
u/Jeramy_Jones 5d ago
Shouldn’t the two cancel each other out?