babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Fighting back against Harper's omnibus crime bill
November 17, 2011 - 10:05am
.
Continued and expanded from here.
Quebec Justice Minister challenges senator over anti-crime bill
The HarperCons appear to be running roughshod like a steamroller over all and any opposition, with a view to crushing dissent.
Whoa! I'd better cut down on the coffee today.
This is really unfortunate - the federal NDP had better get on track fast. Maybe name Françoise Boivin as interim leader?
Grits side with Quebec in crime bill spat with Feds
Read it and weep.
(edited for breaking news)
Conservatives hide from opposition and impose closure on their controversial crime bill
They intend to pass this omnibus bill before midnight. They have imposed a 5 min. per party review of each clause in order to speed up the process.
Is it just me, or is this not a piece of legislation that cries for a filibuster move?
Or at least some F-bombs from Pat Martin!
But I thought I just saw a headline on RDI saying they had relented under pressure from the NDP and would not impose closure!? Gotta look around now...
If the provinces are on the hook for 90% of the price of this fascist legislation,they should be able to VETO federal bills.
I hope the provinces do not give an inch to this.
On the other hand,Quebec's dormant sovereignist movement may actually have REAL issues besides language to sell and package another referendum.
King Stephen already recognized Quebec as a 'nation within Canada'
Time for Quebec to act like a nation and use this piece of legislation for what it really is---toilet paper.
A study in contrasts:
Manitoba Grand Chiefs want to halt PM's crime bill
From the Manitoba NDP's campaign material, in September:
The Liberals have now made it # 4 for their convention
http://convention.liberal.ca/justice/117-legalize-and-regulate-marijuana/
And now even Senator Claude Nolin is piping up !
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20111216/nolin-opposes-crime-bill-111216/
Bravo !
First off,kudos to Nolin..A REAL Progressive Conservative.
Secondly,if the Libs are serious about decriminalization,I would seriously consider voting for them next election.
Why the hell doesn't the Libs and NDP finally merge?...Bring in the Bloc and Greens as well....At this point,it's the only shot of defeating the Cons.
The next election is four years away. Lots of time to forge the NDP into a real contender for power. If the other parties want to move to the NDP, no problem, eh?
If coffee increases opposition to the Conservative agenda, then it should be double-doubles for everybody!
This is from a few wks ago, but it's pertinent:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/quebec-justice-minister-sa...
I don't know how this would work logistically, however. I mean, firstly, can Ontario and Quebec simply ignore federal legislation? And also, how do they make Ottawa pay? When people are arrested and going to trial, the costs are entirely borne by the provinces. Convicts only go to federal prisons if they are sentenced to two years or more.
This opposition sounds nice, and I cheered when I heard it. But I don't see how it can work.
Isn't Quebec a 'nation within Canada'?
Wouldn't 'nationhood' mean full control over domestic policies?
Quebec has a legal leg to cop out of this bill.
You just need some imagination. The provinces could engage in civil disobedience. Extremely favourable plea bargaining for crimes where minimum sentences have been increased. Or, no charges laid at all. That's what I'd do. That's why they won't let me be premier.
Now, if you reply that provinces would be too scared shitless to rock the boat, you might or might not be right. But that's how Harper prevails over everyone. He acts, with strategic and tactical nerve, and they capitulate in disarray.
I think the appropriate thing for us to do is to praise and encourage the opposition of some provinces, while calling governments like that of Manitoba by their true names. There should be a political price to pay for attacking one's own youth and Indigenous people and the mentally ill and the poor, while planting moist kisses on the buttocks of Stephen Harper.
Dontcha think?
With all due respect
It is not "Decriminalization"
Please do not say that
Besides that is just a made up word for fence sitting cowardly bent politicians and more importantly not SAID
This resolution says Legalize !!!
"" BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving ""
I guarantee you this policy passing will reverse the ndp/liberal seat numbers by the next election
Some plan to make sure of it
pcml:
This will NEVER happen under a Lib regime. It DOESN'T MATTER what the membership passed, and I think you know it.
Dream on.
Actually, in the 2015 election, I strongly suspect Harper will again take advantage of there being four opposition parties, and will cruise to another majority government. If Harper plays his cards right, he could conceivably become Canada's longest consecutively serving Prime Minister. All because the Opposition to him remains so divided.
That's why the opposition must merge.
Yes, but easier said than done, as long as the NDP and Liberals hate each other so much. That's music to Harper's ears.
Division is the the hallmark of Tory power.
Either very bad drafting, an intent to suffocate the marijuana industry, or hand it over to big business!
The liberals will "ensure the regulation and taxation of its...use"???
Are they going to pass regulations prescribing the size of joints and the frequency of permitted smoking — and levy a tax every time you light up?
And if they are going to "legalize" marijuana, what exactly is "illegal" trafficking, importation or exportation? If I'm legally in possession of some weed, will it be illegal for me to share it, or have it with me when I fly in from Mexico? And aren't the current penalties for "illegal" trafficking, importation, and exportation, and impaired driving, already "strict" enough?
ETA: Too bad the "period" key on your keyboard isn't working, pcml. It must be very hard for you to surf the internet when you can't even type a "dot"!
If you're not a passenger on one of the CIA's unmarked Air America fleet carrying a shitload of dope and detainees to be tortured, then it's illegal.
Fidel:
LOL!!!!!!!
But the work in the criminal justice system is done by thousands of people. You'd have to get the cops, crown prosecutors and judges all engaged in a coordinated effort to break the law. How could that work?
Edited to add: maybe if direction came from the Attorney General it could work. But the Attorney General directing everybody to break the law?? Hmm...
Hey, thousands of people were all involved in the 9/11 plot to destroy the World Trade Center through controlled demolitions, according to Fidel, and not one of them has ever confessed or ratted on the others.
Compared with that, this "civil disobedience" campaign would be a piece of cake!
Yes, political direction was exactly what I had in mind. And is it even "breaking the law" to engage in plea bargaining, or simply refusing to prosecute outright certain offences?
I need a lawyer here. Would this be lawful?
The government of Quebec did precisely that when the PQ was elected in 1976 ("refusing to prosecute outright certain offences") in the case of abortion (when they occurred outside certified hospitals under the supervision of a committee of 3 doctors—the only circumstances in which they could legally be done after the introduction of amendments to the Criminal Code in 1969).
However, the issue with C-10 relates essentially to sentencing (the mandatory minimum schemes), as far as I understand (I haven't actually read the bill). It is thus much harder—if even possible—to exert control over the "final result" that is sentencing by way of adjusting prosecutorial directives.
(BTW, legally speaking, while one might be inclined to think that the prosecution of criminal law is attributed to the provinces by virtue of s. 92(14) of the Constitution, which encompasses the "administration of justice" [you often hear/read such statements, in fact], this is actually not the case (see, e.g., A.G. (Can.) v. Can. Nat. Transportation, Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 206). It is the Criminal Code that actually confers upon the AG of the provinces the power to prosecute Criminal Code offences (and upon the AG of Canada for non-Criminal Code offences).)
Thank you for your knowlegeable reply. Since this bill involves sentencing, does this mean there are no changes to the Criminal Code? Or does the Criminal Code also include directions on sentencing (totally not a legal person here; I'm a pharmacist who works with people who have addiction problems and a great deal of contact with the criminal justice system).
And it seems that if the AG directs judges in his/her province to not impose sentences that this bill legally compells, that's a breathtaking act of activism such as you never see from AGs.