CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

The flooding in quebec is pretty bad; my parents basically finished recovering from the 2017 floods like a month ago and now it seems like they might be evacuated *again* last time I checked into them yesterday. My siblings have been helping them out in my stead as I don't live remotely close by anymore since changing provinces for work.

I'm a little concerned that climate change might make it such that no one can live there anymore within the next 50 years and I'd kinda have liked for us to keep the house we grew up in for like my siblings kids to use as a vacation home or something during summers or somewhere for me to retire to 30 years from now. But dealing with floods every 2 years to possibly every year seems like to not be sustainable.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 01:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 11:04

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Yo Drew, would you agree that our justice system being adversarial is a fundamental flaw? Maybe I've been watching too many crime docs, but it really seems like an inquisitorial system with professional judges would be more fair.

On the other hand I think of all the poo poo judges have said to sexual assault victims, and maybe it's no panacea.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 02:05

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-rise-of-an-uncaring-canada/amp/

quote:

Last week, Frank Graves of EKOS tweeted a rather alarming finding. According to a poll conducted between April 3 to 10, 40 per cent of Canadians said they believe there are �too many �visible minorities coming to Canada.�

This was, according to Graves, the first time that EKOS had found such a result in the 25 years it had been tracking Canadian sentiment on the matter. The poll was further broken down by party affiliation, which showed another striking outcome: not only did 28 per cent of NDP-affiliated respondents agree there are too many visible minority immigrants, but 34 per cent of Greens and seventy one per cent of Conservatives feel the same way.

The only party showing an overall decline in this sentiment were Liberal members, 34 per cent of whom agreed in 2013, but only 19 per cent of whom would say the same today.

Here is the peculiar thing about that poll. Its respondents have few real ways of quantifying their feelings.

Statistics Canada tracks immigrants by their country of origin, not their ethnic self-identification. An immigrant from the U.K., for example, might likely identify as Black, and have a Nigerian background. On the other hand, an immigrant from Jamaica might likely identify as white, and have a British background.

And given that Canada�s immigrant population is fairly broadly distributed between a range of countries (unlike the U.S., for example, where the plurality of immigrants come from Mexico), there is no real basis in fact for this �too many visible minorities� sentiment. Only the deeply wonkish would have a working knowledge of the ethnic makeup of Canada�s immigrant population, which effectively made EKOS� poll a litmus test on Canadian racism.

Over the past few years, ever since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted a message of welcome to �those fleeing persecution, terror & war,� there has been a steadily rising wave of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country. This sentiment has tended to collapse the concept of �immigration� with �refugees,� and much of it has been directed towards irregular border crossers, who file asylum claims once they�re on Canadian soil.

READ MORE: The new underground railroad to Canada

There are a few inconvenient facts that don�t often seem to sink in with the anti-immigrant crowd. To name a few, that Canada needs immigrants in order to maintain economic solvency, that Canada has international obligations, as well as moral ones, to take in refugees, and that our total refugee intake is small compared to other G8 nations.

In 2018, the RCMP intercepted just below 20,000 irregular border-crossers, a slight drop from 2017, which saw 20,593 interceptions. For reference, Germany (a country 1/28th Canada�s size) saw 51,558 requests between January and November of 2018, and enforced 8,658 deportations during that time.

Overall, refugees represent a rather small portion of Canada�s total immigration targets (approximately 5 per cent, according to the Ministry of Immigration�s 2019-2021 plan), which are set for 350,000 by the year 2021. That number has managed to spark a widespread backlash from anti-immigrant groups, as well as right-wing columnists, who seem to be more concerned with how Canadians �feel� about immigrants, than with the realities of Canada�s need for them.

Regardless of those feelings, the fact is that immigrants account for almost a quarter of Canada�s labour force, and up to 90 per cent of its labour force growth. Without immigration, the Conference Board of Canada projects that deaths in this country would exceed births by the year 2034, that the labour force would shrink, social services would face �significant difficulties� in funding, and the necessary tax hikes would likely causes businesses to forego investment in this country (if not pull up stakes and leave).

Now normally, in the course of column writing, this is where the writer is expected to map out a thesis, lay out supporting evidence, and wrap up pithily. But the subject matter of this column�immigrants and Canadian sentiment towards them�requires much more context than a few set-up lines. In fact, this is more or less the problem with most column writing that has anything do with immigration�weighing how Canadians feel about immigration against the reality of what creates migrant patterns to begin with.

Much of that reality has to do with our own apathy, (and often our complicity), towards the conditions that create what we label as �dysfunctional� and �failed� states�our willingness to look the other way, in a sense, is what creates the problem to begin with.

So let�s look towards the background of one particular refugee story.

In the reshuffling of colonial interests following the end of the Second World War, rapid change arrived to the Horn of Africa. Italian Somaliland was re-classified as a �trusteeship,� administered by Italians while under British supervision, with a provision that the territory would become an autonomous state within 10 years.

Political conflict over the Haud and the broader Ogaden region�under Ethiopian control yet heavily populated by Somalis�was further inflamed after both Somaliland territories achieved independence and unified in 1960 as the Somali Republic, re-fashioned as a Marxist-Leninist state after a 1969 military coup led by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre (more on him in a moment), and fashioned into Cold War proxy heavily influenced by Russia.

By 1977 Barre, having instituted sweeping nationalist reforms, set his mind to capturing the disputed region and assimilating its inhabitants into his vision for Greater Somalia. The incursion was heavily opposed by the Russians, who backed Ethiopia.

Meanwhile, the United States, Saudi Arabia and several Arab oil states began entreating with Somalia. In the end, Somalia and Ethiopia experienced a near-total switch of Cold War allegiances. But heavy military support from several communist states was enough to repel and severely weaken the Somali military. Barre�s political standing was heavily compromised, and members of the military attempted a coup in 1978.

This led to increasing totalitarian rule, which eventually collapsed into all-out civil war in 1991, once the end of the Cold War all but eliminated Somalia�s strategic importance to its western and Arab allies. When the violence of this civil war tore through Mogadishu, many families fled the country as wartime refugees.

One of those was the family of a young man named Ahmed Hussen.

In a New York times interview, Hussen recounted the generosity shown to him by everyday Canadians�how to send mail, how to operate the coin washers at a laundromat�that helped him through his transition to Canadian residency, and eventually, citizenship.

READ MORE: How Canada�s border towns are dealing with a growing stream of refugees

Hussen did what is generally expected of young people who arrive to Canada as refugees�completed high school, earned a postsecondary education, and went on to become a highly productive member of society.

He worked his way through university, landed a job with a provincial political party, and later applied to law school in order to become a better advocate for Somali communities in Canada. With his law degree, and what was described in the Times article as an �encyclopedic grasp of world history,� Hussen would go on to open a law practice which, in part, represented asylum-seekers.

This legal background in working face-to-face with immigrants to Canada, as well as his knowledge of global affairs and world history, ultimately put him on the path to becoming Canada�s first Immigration Minister who came here as a refugee.

To the average Canadian, born in Canada, and likely having no firsthand knowledge of the refugee experience, the story of Ahmed Hussen begins the moment he arrived at Pearson airport.

Again, if we�re being completely honest, that average person would hardly have the time to research the entire geopolitical context behind Hussen�s evacuation from Mogadishu. For someone who hasn�t experienced seeking asylum, his life before arriving here barely counts as a footnote.

But refugees are, quite literally, the world�s most vulnerable people. They flee their homes with what little they can carry, leaving behind not only the lives they made prior the conflicts that drove them out, but leaving behind their national belonging as well. They are preyed upon by smugglers and traffickers, attacked en route to safe havens and exploited by criminals after they have arrived.

Such is the case for many visible minorities who come to this country as refugees, who then find themselves having to contend with the prejudices and half-formed opinions of people who seem to believe in the idea of Canada as an informal caste system, rather than a full-fledged democracy.

The decades of western exploitation and political destabilization, the inability to function as sovereign nations and free people while in the shadow of conflict between military superpowers, and the classification as economic �basket cases� once those superpowers have left ruins behind them�none of that context seems to matter in Canada�s immigration conversation, and especially that of refugees.

What matters is the perception, stoked by immigration opponents in Canadian politics and news media, that people are arriving on our shores, bypassing our borders, and using our immigration and refugee system to claim a type of protected legal status that a formalized caste system would reject out of hand. Regardless of our own laws, and obligations under signed international charters, what matters is how the most vocal among us feel about them having the same rights and freedoms we do.

This is why, for example, Ontario MPP Lisa MacLeod can flippantly call Hussen a �bully,� when called to the carpet on her government�s misinformation campaign on the �housing crisis� in Ontario, supposedly created by asylum-seekers (and not the province�s long-term neglect of social housing).

It is also why Conservative MP Michelle Rempel can credibly classify asylum-seekers as �abusing� Canada�s asylum system on the Commons floor, and accuse them of being granted privileges unavailable to those �trying to legally enter the country.� Even Border Security Minister Bill Blair, Hussen�s own Liberal colleague, indicated that refugees abuse the system by �asylum-shopping.�

However one feels about his shortcomings as minister of immigration (and there are certainly valid criticisms), on one side stands Hussen, with a decades-long career in immigration and community organizing for refugees and immigrants prior to his appointment. On the other side stand immigration pessimists, in government and media, often pandering to the worst impulses of white nationalists, who carry no such bona fides.

Yet they are free to simply fabricate myths about the way asylum-seeking works in Canada and both sides in this debate, regardless of experience and expertise, weigh even on the scales of credibility.

This cancer in the discourse isn�t limited to the body politic. It�s long since spread into broader society, with real repercussions for those who can be categorized (even wrongly) into that bottom caste. This is why, for example, Jama Hagi-Yusuf (a Canadian of Somali descent) allegedly had his job application rejected on the basis of his ethnic background in the spring of 2015.

But the Somali community is not alone in its struggle. A spate of high-profile anti-refugee incidents have cropped up in Alberta, including anti-Syrian graffiti spray-painted in a Calgary LRT station and on transit vehicles, anti-Syrian graffiti spray-painted on the walls of a Calgary junior high school, the arrival (and later fragmentation) of far-right anti-immigrant groups in Edmonton, and a viral outburst from a Denny�s patron, who was captured on video shouting, �You�re not dealing with one of your Syrian bitches right now. You�re dealing with a Canadian woman� to two men who turned out to be of Afghani background.

The complex background of the Syrian Civil War, mired in the forces of post-WWII colonial withdrawal and Cold War politics, factor not at all into the rhetoric of immigrant skeptics.

Kyle McKenzie, who was convicted for vandalizing the Tuscany LRT station, said, �I did all of the tagging as I was mad at ISIS because they shot up the people of Paris and I am French Canadian�I don�t hate all Muslims, but I do hate what ISIS stands for.�

In other words, Syrian families survived bombs being dropped over their homes�the outcome of a series of political conflicts rooted in the French occupation of former Ottoman regions�only to be categorized as terrorists by a French Canadian, as an excuse for the hate crimes he committed against their community after their arrival in Calgary.

Additionally, the Yellow Vest movement, which purports to advocate for oil pipelines and jobs in Canada�s oil patch, as well as opposition to a federal carbon tax, has also given itself over to fringe anti-immigrant elements. Its scattering of Facebook groups, boasting thousands of members, are often saturated with anti-immigrant posts and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories, and yet some of the most prominent politicians in Canada are willing to legitimize them.

While Alberta has seen a nearly 40 per cent rise in hate crimes as of 2017, the province is far from unique in this regard. Reported hate crimes are rising the fastest in Ontario and Qu�bec (67 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively), and most hate crimes across the country are committed against those who are Black, or are of West Asian backgrounds. Crimes targeting Muslims (which very much capture the aforementioned groups) have risen by 83 per cent.

To say this emerging pattern represents a phenomenon outside of politics or media coverage was absurd before the EKOS poll. But to persist in such willfully blind beliefs after the poll�s release is outright denialism. Even as members of our government continue to insist that hate crimes and tough-on-immigrants legislation have nothing to do with one another, it�s almost impossible to miss the correlation.

So when Doug Ford�s government presents a budget that slashes legal aid services to refugees�again, the most vulnerable people on earth�after months of slagging both asylum-seekers and the federal government�s immigration policy, Ford�s supposed bona fides with non-white communities in Ontario ought to weigh far less heavily in the conversation than the actual effects of his government�s policies.

To what extent does the premier�s supposed tolerance of ethnic minorities matter to an ethnic Roma like Janos Timku, whose people face outright violence and hostility from everyday Hungarians and the Hungarian government itself? Should asylum seekers facing the inhumane family separation and internment camp conditions sanctioned by the U.S. government, if deported, be comforted that no one really means them any harm, and that Ontario simply places the political victory of �balancing the budget� ahead of their mental health and safety?

These are the kinds of questions that rarely get asked, in the blizzard of political news cycles, unless industrious journalists make it a point to do so. And in the absence of proper context, the absence of accountability from our political and pundit class, and the absence of accurate information about the vital contributions that immigrants provide to Canada�s ability to sustain itself, what we�re left with is the type of person who can overhear the laughter of patrons speaking another language in a Lethbridge diner, and decide that a threat to �leap across this table and punch you in the f�king mouth� is a reasonable response.

Because, if truth be told, as a nation we don�t very much care about the Scramble for Africa, the Arab Cold War, or the pogroms against the Roma in Hungary. Despite what we�d like to think of ourselves, an entire 40 per cent of the electorate has, on no quantifiable basis at all, decided that we are taking in too many non-white immigrants and refugees.

And in response, we have placed confidence in several provincial parties who have accepted white nationalist sympathizers in their ranks, pledged to withdraw support for asylum-seekers, and tabled legislation to force religious minorities to choose between expressing their religious faith and remaining employed.

And so we find ourselves, not so many years after celebrating our country�s willingness to take in a Somali-born youth and furnish him with the opportunity to become the face of Canada�s immigration policy, turning towards a nationalistic sentiment that would rather have shut him out.

Two out of five people in this country�enough to elect a majority government�look at an educated young man like Jama Hagi-Yusuf and feel some tug of sympathy towards the alleged bigot who denied him a job.

Heaven help the rest of us if they get what they want.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 02:32

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Risky Bisquick posted:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-rise-of-an-uncaring-canada/amp/

Yeah, this is why NDP is a dog poo poo party - because they are not actually progressive and fearful of deploying left leaning policy because they continue to try to court their lovely blue collar racist base.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 02:41

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Why it�s almost as if racism won�t be meaningfully addressed by leftist economic policy by itself!

I mean, that way leads to the erstwhile DDR, now a breeding ground for lovely racists.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 03:07

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

https://twitter.com/PokerPolitics/status/1120090713625116672

The grift is so strong.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 03:38

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

One day Ezra is going to run up to a polar bear just to record himself saying "See they arent extinct!" and then promptly be mauled and eaten by said starving polar bear and we will all be better off for it.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 03:44

shades of eternity: Nov 9, 2013; Where kitties raise dragons in the world's largest mall.

cowofwar posted:

Yeah, this is why NDP is a dog poo poo party - because they are not actually progressive and fearful of deploying left leaning policy because they continue to try to court their lovely blue collar racist base.

actually it's because the liberals keep stealing their policys. :p

# ? Apr 22, 2019 03:47

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Furnaceface posted:

One day Ezra is going to run up to a polar bear just to record himself saying "See they arent extinct!" and then promptly be mauled and eaten by said starving polar bear and we will all be better off for it.

The thought of Levant being consumed by a large carnivore warms the cockles of my heart. I would like to see it filmed and narrated by Attenborough, this is my new fondest dream.

Maybe with a hint of �The Circle of Life� from the Lion King. :discourse:

# ? Apr 22, 2019 03:58

supersnowman: Oct 3, 2012

Raenir Salazar posted:

I'm a little concerned that climate change might make it such that no one can live there anymore within the next 50 years and I'd kinda have liked for us to keep the house we grew up in for like my siblings kids to use as a vacation home or something during summers or somewhere for me to retire to 30 years from now. But dealing with floods every 2 years to possibly every year seems like to not be sustainable.

While it might not be what you want to read about it, one of the few way to deal with that would be to have anything that get rebuilt after such flooding to be 100% above ground on stakes or something like that. If it continue anywhere near a "every 2 year" trend, the help from the govt will dry out at some point when public pressure rise against the idea of paying to help people restore their home for the Xth time.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 05:17

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Raenir Salazar posted:

The flooding in quebec is pretty bad; my parents basically finished recovering from the 2017 floods like a month ago and now it seems like they might be evacuated *again* last time I checked into them yesterday. My siblings have been helping them out in my stead as I don't live remotely close by anymore since changing provinces for work.

I'm a little concerned that climate change might make it such that no one can live there anymore within the next 50 years and I'd kinda have liked for us to keep the house we grew up in for like my siblings kids to use as a vacation home or something during summers or somewhere for me to retire to 30 years from now. But dealing with floods every 2 years to possibly every year seems like to not be sustainable.

I hate to pile on since you clearly already know this, but this kind of thing is what climate change looks like for us right now in relatively-safe Canada. Gradually getting poorer as a society as we spend two years of money and time rebuilding after the last flood, only to get flooded again. And then we have to decide to either invest more time and resources into rebuilding again, despite knowing that we're likely to just get flooded again in another two years, or abandon our homes and move somewhere else, and lose both the financial wealth and the personal meaning we've invested in our old home. Either way, we get poorer as a society and have fewer resources to invest in things other than climate mitigation.

Now imagine this happening with wildfires, or hurricanes, or droughts, or parts of our climate becoming receptive to disease-carrying mosquitoes, or a thousand other problems, as well as flooding, and you get an image of our Canadian future in the next couple of decades (not to mention the flood of refugees asking for our help as the same problems hit their homes elsewhere in the world and they're forced to flee because they don't have the resources to rebuild and mitigate the way we do). That's the part of the climate change future we can imagine. After a few decades, we stop being able to imagine it anymore because it will be so different from our current experience.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 05:20

incontinence 100: Dec 21, 2018; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Ignoring Ezra Levant is so difficult though. I would have to miss all of his otherwise non racist analysis on issues related to the economy that only a conservative could accurately expound. Please friends, let us consider the grave consequences of removing a platform from those we don't necessarily with with in full and in the spirit of absolutely and consequentially free speech open our hearts to the Marketplace of Ideas.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 05:22

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

PittTheElder posted:

Yo Drew, would you agree that our justice system being adversarial is a fundamental flaw? Maybe I've been watching too many crime docs, but it really seems like an inquisitorial system with professional judges would be more fair.

On the other hand I think of all the poo poo judges have said to sexual assault victims, and maybe it's no panacea.

So, despite what most people think about the justice system, and how judges rule impartially and follow the law, there are good judges and there are bad judges. As an aside, what makes you think that the current system doesn't employ professional judges already?

I think it's wholly incorrect to assume that the adversarial system is flawed - in what way would it be flawed that the inquisitorial system would fix?

I think that a robust cross examination function, coupled with the burden of proof on the crown to establish the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt is the best system we got.

I don't need no judge sticking his beak into the proceedings and loving everything up for me, thanks. :v:

# ? Apr 22, 2019 05:33

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Drewjitsu posted:

So, despite what most people think about the justice system, and how judges rule impartially and follow the law, there are good judges and there are bad judges. As an aside, what makes you think that the current system doesn't employ professional judges already?

I think it's wholly incorrect to assume that the adversarial system is flawed - in what way would it be flawed that the inquisitorial system would fix?

I think that a robust cross examination function, coupled with the burden of proof on the crown to establish the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt is the best system we got.

I don't need no judge sticking his beak into the proceedings and loving everything up for me, thanks.

I actually don't have much of a complaint about judges, quite the opposite, that's why I'd like to entrust them with a more active role, rather than acting as arbiters. The flaw in the system as I see it is the poor quality of juries. The only particular example I could name is Gerald Stanley; even if he wasn't convicted of manslaughter (which I would attribute pretty much solely to racism), there must be a litany of charges regarding the way he handled his firearm; IANAL but even his telling of it sounded negligent as hell.

But I am admittedly irrationally sour on juries at the moment due to having just watched O.J.: Made In America.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 05:45

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

I wonder what your average anti-immigration voter would have to say about white refugees, who are probably rare since the Bosnian war but might include fairer-skinned Roma, Syrians/other Middle Easterners, or even Egyptians. Why not South Africans too? Or those fleeing proto-fascist states like Hungary or near-future Brazil? Are lighter-toned Venezualans welcome? How about Belarus or somewhere around the Caucasus?

This reminded me that everyone in my family is an immigrant. I got my citizenship in a ceremony attended by then-premier Bob Rae and I'm trying to imagine Doug Ford doing the same with some difficulty.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 06:02

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

From what I gather, nothing good, although "white" is a club and membership is rather fluid. When my father came to Canada he and his adoptive family were not white, by the 80s or so they were.

And hoo boy there were some opinions on Roma back in 2010-2012 or so. Even our boy Ezra Levant got in on that action

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Apr 22, 2019

# ? Apr 22, 2019 06:17

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

PittTheElder posted:

I actually don't have much of a complaint about judges, quite the opposite, that's why I'd like to entrust them with a more active role, rather than acting as arbiters. The flaw in the system as I see it is the poor quality of juries. The only particular example I could name is Gerald Stanley; even if he wasn't convicted of manslaughter (which I would attribute pretty much solely to racism), there must be a litany of charges regarding the way he handled his firearm; IANAL but even his telling of it sounded negligent as hell.

But I am admittedly irrationally sour on juries at the moment due to having just watched O.J.: Made In America.

Good question, why do you think that a defence lawyer (in consultation with his client) decides that a matter should be tried by a judge and jury?

# ? Apr 22, 2019 06:28

shades of eternity: Nov 9, 2013; Where kitties raise dragons in the world's largest mall.

After catching up on Brex-it info, I'm seriously thanking Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Jean Chrietien and Stephan Dion for their actions during both Quebec Referendums.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 15:40

Mr Luxury Yacht: Apr 16, 2012

Don't a lot of countries with inquisitorial systems/all judge trials (like Japan) have absurdly high conviction rates of like 98%?

That doesn't seem that great.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 16:00

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

Drewjitsu posted:

Good question, why do you think that a defence lawyer (in consultation with his client) decides that a matter should be tried by a judge and jury?

Because they expect a more sympathetic treatment from a jury of lay people I would think? But it seems to me a lot of the reasoning behind that relies on juries not being particularly good at interpreting and weighing competing evidence, despite the system nominally relying on them to do so. It seems that everyone who has ever worked a courtroom freely admits that juries tend to be biased as hell (in favor of police officers and their testimony, against minorities or simply defendants overall), and that judges are at least less susceptible to those biases.

I have no doubt that there are cases where you as a the accused would want a jury trial because those biases would work in your favor; Gerald Stanley is a perfect example.

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Don't a lot of countries with inquisitorial systems/all judge trials (like Japan) have absurdly high conviction rates of like 98%?

That doesn't seem that great.

In Canada the rate is 97%. 99% if you exclude Quebec.

That includes plea bargains, but still.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 16:40

Chillyrabbit: Oct 24, 2012; The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet; Ultra Carp

You can look at a high conviction rate in 2 ways:

1. Just convicting anyone who actually gets in front of a judge due to the inequality of the system, ie poor people.

Or

2. The Crown only proceeds with cases that are sure slam dunk convictions so we don't waste the courts time by trying innocent people.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 17:10

Toalpaz: Mar 20, 2012; Peace through overwhelming determination

Chillyrabbit posted:

You can look at a high conviction rate in 2 ways:

1. Just convicting anyone who actually gets in front of a judge due to the inequality of the system, ie poor people.

Or

2. The Crown only proceeds with cases that are sure slam dunk convictions so we don't waste the courts time by trying innocent people.

Mostly the slam dunk convictions are against innocent poor people who take plea bargains. You can marry those two views.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 17:19

Nine of Eight: Apr 28, 2011; LICK IT OFF, AND PUT IT BACK IN; Dinosaur Gum

Easter Monday memes for secular teens

I hear yesterday was some kind of significant secular spiritual day?

Man in Facebook comments either Dinesh Dsouza level sophist or regularly mixes up their left and right.

If there�s one historical event that Quebec�s nationalists would like to forget, it�s definitely the conquest of Quebec.

Apparently Omar Khadr had a pretty good bit on TLMEP last evening.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 17:38

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

PittTheElder posted:

I have no doubt that there are cases where you as a the accused would want a jury trial because those biases would work in your favor; Gerald Stanley is a perfect example.

Is that necessarily a thing the system should act to prevent? I mean, I don't think that verdict was correct and I'm disappointed about that, but I don't think the ideal solution is a system that's even more likely to convict people, with fewer defences for the accused. If we want to have a system that prevents, as much as possible, innocent people being convicted of crimes, we have to accept that it's going to involve some amount of (factually, not legally) guilty people going free. I don't think that's necessarily something to be pissed off about, but it does mean we have the opportunity to discuss how everyone involved in the criminal justice system can do their jobs better in order to minimize errors in either direction.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 18:26

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

PittTheElder posted:

Because they expect a more sympathetic treatment from a jury of lay people I would think? But it seems to me a lot of the reasoning behind that relies on juries not being particularly good at interpreting and weighing competing evidence, despite the system nominally relying on them to do so. It seems that everyone who has ever worked a courtroom freely admits that juries tend to be biased as hell (in favor of police officers and their testimony, against minorities or simply defendants overall), and that judges are at least less susceptible to those biases.

I have no doubt that there are cases where you as a the accused would want a jury trial because those biases would work in your favor; Gerald Stanley is a perfect example.

In Canada the rate is 97%. 99% if you exclude Quebec.

That includes plea bargains, but still.

Pulling back the curtain for a second, absent some compelling personal circumstances (read: cop) that would suggest a jury trial, most of the time you are running a jury trial is because your guy is hosed, and you might as well throw it to the jury. Some counsel have suggested that you take organized crime matters before a jury, because while a jury will likely convict, a judge alone will definitely convict, then work backwards to appeal-proof the judgement (as they have no qualms about being intellectually dishonest towards professional crime).

If you have good facts or good law, (reminding me of the old phrase, If the Facts are against you, pound the law; If the Law is against you, pound the facts. If the Facts and the Law are against you, pound the table), you're most likely going to put it in front of a judge, so if they don't get those right in their reasons for judgement, you have grounds for an appeal.

While the conviction rate is high, I would be very curious about what the conviction rate is for just trial matters (or even trial matters where the accused is represented by counsel). I'm pretty sure that including guilty pleas really skews your thought on the affect that Judges have on trial matters. Trials usually happen for a few reasons:
i) Your client doesn't want a criminal record;
ii) The allegation is serious enough that the Crown wants jail, even on a guilty plea, which the client can't handle; or
iii) There are significant issues with the Crown's case that demand the matter to be litigated, and the Crown won't back down due to "optics" (read: they don't want to be yelled at by the public).

# ? Apr 22, 2019 18:27

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

As toxic as this thread can be for one's mental well-being I would rather talk politics with you than face the exhausting prospect of debating an idiot in real life. I just had a lady come into my store today looking for some bullshit book written by Tommy Robinson about the alleged rapist Muslim pandemic in the UK.
I mentioned offhand to my manager that we might not carry the book because he's a right wing jackass (not in those words)and his book might not be stocked due to anti-hate speech laws, and the lady came over to me to lecture me about how I should read his stuff because "he seems to be the only person talking about this problem."
All I'm thinking is "gee, I wonder why nobody else is talking about this nonsense." I didn't respond to her because I'm not paid to debate politics and I doubt my boss would appreciate me telling customers to go gently caress themselves unless they were harassing other customers.

Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 22, 2019

# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:04

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

Drewjitsu posted:

Pulling back the curtain for a second...

Interesting stuff. Appreciate your explanations.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:41

Suplex Liberace: Jan 18, 2012

Arcsquad12 posted:

As toxic as this thread can be for one's mental well-being I would rather talk politics with you than face the exhausting prospect of debating an idiot in real life. I just had a lady come into my store today looking for some bullshit book written by Tommy Robinson about the alleged rapist Muslim pandemic in the UK.
I mentioned offhand to my manager that we might not carry the book because he's a right wing jackass (not in those words)and his book might not be stocked due to anti-hate speech laws, and the lady came over to me to lecture me about how I should read his stuff because "he seems to be the only person talking about this problem."
All I'm thinking is "gee, I wonder why nobody else is talking about this nonsense." I didn't respond to her because I'm not paid to debate politics and I doubt my boss would appreciate me telling customers to go gently caress themselves unless they were harassing other customers.

I empathize with you. Selling the newist Ben Shapiro and Dennis D'souza books hurt my soul.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:52

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

The Butcher posted:

Interesting stuff. Appreciate your explanations.

Trust me, if you knew how the criminal justice functioned, you'd probably run screaming from the room.

There are rumors that there's going to be a 5% pay cut for all crown attorneys in the province (thanks UCP!). I can tell you that the crown's office is probably 5-8 people quitting away from a complete eve-online style failure cascade. To say nothing if the UCP echoes it's idiot friends in Ontario with a 30% legal aid budget cut, you'll see defence lawyers commence job action on that alone.

:ohdear:

# ? Apr 22, 2019 19:53

Arc Hammer: Mar 4, 2013; Got any deathsticks?

Suplex Liberace posted:

I empathize with you. Selling the newist Ben Shapiro and Dennis D'souza books hurt my soul.

Thankfully I've only been asked my opinion on Jordan Lobsterman once and the customer shut up real quick when I said I don't care for him. And I looked it up and there's no way in hell my store is going to sell a book written by a British neo nazi.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:16

Lien: Oct 17, 2006; <img src="https://forumimages.somethingawful.com/images/newbie.gif" border=0>

Drewjitsu posted:

Trust me, if you knew how the criminal justice functioned, you'd probably run screaming from the room.

There are rumors that there's going to be a 5% pay cut for all crown attorneys in the province (thanks UCP!). I can tell you that the crown's office is probably 5-8 people quitting away from a complete eve-online style failure cascade. To say nothing if the UCP echoes it's idiot friends in Ontario with a 30% legal aid budget cut, you'll see defence lawyers commence job action on that alone.

I assume the crown attorneys are excluded from the union? Around my ministry, most of the talk is about being split up or amalgamated, but the sense is that union jobs are *probably* safe, but that management positions might be hooped. I'm honestly not entirely opposed to that, because there are some weirdly management heavy areas in some of the ministries-- up to a 1:1 ratio of staff to management, but I also don't think the UCP are going to be churning through org charts with that degree of detail.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:25

Chillyrabbit: Oct 24, 2012; The only sword wielding rabbit on the internet; Ultra Carp

Drewjitsu posted:

Trust me, if you knew how the criminal justice functioned, you'd probably run screaming from the room.

There are rumors that there's going to be a 5% pay cut for all crown attorneys in the province (thanks UCP!). I can tell you that the crown's office is probably 5-8 people quitting away from a complete eve-online style failure cascade. To say nothing if the UCP echoes it's idiot friends in Ontario with a 30% legal aid budget cut, you'll see defence lawyers commence job action on that alone.

thanks for the extra info!

And cutting the overpaid salaries of the Crown attorneys is not going to have any cascading effects due to the Jordan ruling no siree. Those attorneys just need to concentrate on getting poor people to plead guilty and let the complex white collar crimes have their charges stayed from highly paid lawyers.

Jesus if the justice system isn't going to be more lopsided.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:31

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

The only good part of this thread sont les memes

cowofwar fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Apr 22, 2019

# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:32

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

cowofwar posted:

The only good part of this sont les memes

plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

# ? Apr 22, 2019 20:34

Booourns: Jan 20, 2004; Please send a report when you see me complain about other posters and threads outside of QCS

~thanks!

I mean if the only thing you like about a thread is when people emptyquote things being said elsewhere then maybe this isn't the right thread for you

# ? Apr 22, 2019 21:39

Legit Businessman: Sep 2, 2007

Chillyrabbit posted:

thanks for the extra info!

And cutting the overpaid salaries of the Crown attorneys is not going to have any cascading effects due to the Jordan ruling no siree. Those attorneys just need to concentrate on getting poor people to plead guilty and let the complex white collar crimes have their charges stayed from highly paid lawyers.

Jesus if the justice system isn't going to be more lopsided.

Yeah, it's gonna get real bad for people that aren't criminal defence lawyers. :v:

# ? Apr 22, 2019 21:56

Gorau: Apr 28, 2008

It�s interesting because I have relatives both in the Crown�s office and on the bench. The ones in the crowns office are staring at the reduced pay and other cuts and making dark noises about the fact the public isn�t going to be happy with their inability to prosecute offences the way the public believes they should be, with the resulting blowback on the crowns office. The relative on the bench is already pretty pissed at trial delays and I get the feeling they are going to be more and more open to Jordan defences.

All in all it looks like it�s going to be a very rough time for the justice system, and I�m willing to bet the public aren�t going to buy that it�s avoidable with more funding and they�re going to get even more regressive with regards to the justice system.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 22:10

Nine of Eight: Apr 28, 2011; LICK IT OFF, AND PUT IT BACK IN; Dinosaur Gum

Booourns posted:

I mean if the only thing you like about a thread is when people emptyquote things being said elsewhere then maybe this isn't the right thread for you

N�importe quoi pour oublier l�atrocit� qu�est vos post.

E: Nothing is more Canadian than bitching about mandatory Cancon rules sponsoring weird Quebec art.

Nine of Eight fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 22, 2019

# ? Apr 22, 2019 22:38

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Gorau posted:

It�s interesting because I have relatives both in the Crown�s office and on the bench. The ones in the crowns office are staring at the reduced pay and other cuts and making dark noises about the fact the public isn�t going to be happy with their inability to prosecute offences the way the public believes they should be, with the resulting blowback on the crowns office. The relative on the bench is already pretty pissed at trial delays and I get the feeling they are going to be more and more open to Jordan defences.

All in all it looks like it�s going to be a very rough time for the justice system, and I�m willing to bet the public aren�t going to buy that it�s avoidable with more funding and they�re going to get even more regressive with regards to the justice system.

What I don't get is, like, aren't the UCP all about tough-on-crime? How does cutting prosecutorial resources make any sense to them?

Or is their cheapness finally overriding their desire to lock people up?

# ? Apr 22, 2019 23:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 11:04

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

Drewjitsu posted:

Trust me, if you knew how the criminal justice functioned, you'd probably run screaming from the room.

There are rumors that there's going to be a 5% pay cut for all crown attorneys in the province (thanks UCP!). I can tell you that the crown's office is probably 5-8 people quitting away from a complete eve-online style failure cascade. To say nothing if the UCP echoes it's idiot friends in Ontario with a 30% legal aid budget cut, you'll see defence lawyers commence job action on that alone.

The party of law and order!

# ? Apr 22, 2019 23:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »