Judge makes a stand against laws designed to protect pedophiles

'-

Socialists would rather protect criminals rights than victims rights in Canada. Fighting for victims rights is only something socialists do in other countries for the photo ops to send back home to prove how caring hearted they are.

But right here in Canada socialists have no compassion for victims rights. It would go against their leftwing ideology on how all criminals can be rehabilitated. Criminal rights over victims rights are their main focus. (maybe because so many criminals are socialist leaning?) Criminals rights trumps victims rights in Canada.

Another one

What you engaged in there, Webbietalkjam, is called "the strawman argument", and it is a fallacious argument.  Issues of crime and punishment get discussed on the left and there is broad dissagreement between people who identify as left.  

With absolutely no respect... I will say that the pedophile judges on the bench who have been keeping sentences this low in the first place must be removed from any positions of power. {italics mine}

while I certainly won't adopt that only a pedophile deffends a pedophile, there being jurisprudence on this from Salem, Massechessetts, I would join with you that judges that have a track record of undervaluing the protection of the vulnerable and weak in our society should be removed from the bench.

where is the article or story about what prompted this rant?

Good question.  It's obviously been deleted and not by me.

Technical glitch?

Well I'll repost it and see if it's deleted again.  I doubt it's a copyright issue because I posted less than half the article.

Maybe I'll just put up the link.

With absolutely no respect... I will say that the pedophile judges on the bench who have been keeping sentences this low in the first place must be removed from any positions of power.  

The fearful tone of the Honourable Justice Hawco, who is the only judge willing to go against the wishes of his "peers" and not give in to pressure to follow the status-quo by giving pedophiles a mere two years of free room and board, is a good indicator of the levels power he is standing against.

An extra year of free room and board isn't much but as this case demonstrates - it is a difficult and highly contested step in seeing that any justice at all is ever adminstered against pedophiles.I better go get extra virus protection... or stop typing.  Too late...

Typical left wing wimps had to censor webbietalkjam's comments because it upsets the High Priests of separatism on this board. Must protect Quebec's interests at all costs.How much money are the separatisst poring into this board to protect their interests with english leftwing wimps anyways.

Say hello to Gilles DuCeppe the unofficial leader of the anglo left wing in Canada by the looks of this board.

Oh look, it's raining morons.

Your link doesn't work, Yarg, but I found the column, and it's stupid.  

For one, Dalton McGinty can't just tell the SIU not to investigate something.    The SIU investigates whenever there is death or serious injury during a police action.   And, rest assured as always, no matter what the police did or didn't do, they'll rubber stamp their approval, whether the police acted wrongly or not.   Idjit boy who writes for the Sun tabloid either chose to ignore that, or doesn't know. 

I believe Dalton McGinty has a lot to answer to, but trying to link him and a skating trip to those deaths is the kind of pap the Sun tabloid likes to engage in.  It really doesn't further anything.

Perhaps if Warmington could write, and had half a brain, he'd have observed that the whole justice system in Ontario is in dissaray.  The SIU is being investigated again by the Ombudsman.  The head of the OPP is before the courts.   Crown Attourney's ignore the directives of the Attourney General.  A pathologist makes stuff up and ruins lives, yet there are no  consequences, as there are no consequences for Crowns who withhold exculpatory evidence.   

It's nice to believe, if it gives you comfort, that there's some kind of partizan political bias in our judicial system and law enforcement, or some kind of left wing/right wing conspiracy-- according to one's own bias-- in the system.    But it's not that.

It's an institution that has come to exist for it's own benifit, to protect and promote first and foremost and it seems exclusively, the interests of the institution.  

They are, quite litterally,  out of control.   And you can put anyone you like in the legislature, it's unlikely to change.

But, just for fun, why not ask Warmington his oppinion on the soft hearted judge that let fellow "columnist" John Snobellin skate from a weapons charge?

Well, you completely overreacted to the story I posted, perhaps it's my fault for not explaining myself more.  I don't blame McGuinty any more than any other politician really, i was commenting more about the criminal in the story with dozens of convictions still on the street.  We can't rehabilitate everyone. Perhaps that column was not the right example but I had read it somewhere recently so it came to mind.

Before anyone makes any strong statements against the well organized pedophile community ensure that you are taking precautions.  This link will give you some idea of how they can phuck with your life.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/about9409.html&highlight=

If you seen their words it would be obvious. 

I'm not talking about this forum. 

I believe all people should be free to speak their beliefs. So feel free to disagree with me for any reason.[italics mine]

"

With absolutely no respect... I will say that the pedophile judges on the bench who have been keeping sentences this low in the first place must be removed from any positions of power.  "

Yeah you kinda did, especially you single out one judge only as different from the pack and even you heap abuse on. So according to your statement, all others must be pedophiles

Im not translating, Im simply quoting. You could explain further but the quote, shows that what you say now is not what you said earlier.

Im not in favour of tougher or lighter sentences to be honest, I prefer a wide range of discretion for sentencing by the judge

Yes, Bacchus, are you maintaining that you're NOT a pedophile??

lonewolfbunn: are you also not a pedophile? Hurry and answer, before I jump to some conclusions!

I just dislike draconian minimum sentences. They never seem to work and often lead to the law going around them to avoid it. Like finding them guilty of a lesser offense to avoid using them.

I prefer a wide range of sentencing available without strict minimums or maximums.

No discretion IN a pedophile, thanks for that driveby slur Remind but discretion in sentencing.

No to mention education for judges in rehabiliatation for sexual offenders and the odds of success versus incarceration

We do have maximums, though. And while I've heard lots of people argue against mandatory minimums, on the grounds that judges should have discretion, I've yet to hear any of them argue against mandatory maximums. Which is laughably inconsistent. If you trust judges, then trust them. If you don't, let's talk mandatories.

That seems reasonable to me.  But who are we among so many?

Ban them from using the internet or being within 500 meters of a school or childs playground-for life.

You crossed a iine LWB... however repellent a criminal's act may have been, there is no call for suggesting that the state surgically mutiliate them.

LWB - interesting drive by slur, referring to others as "pro-pedophilia". I don't know if anyone flagged it as offensive (I didn't, although I would have marked it if there was a "flag as ignornant" option) - but in all seriousness, calls for surgical "punishment" or capital punishment have no place on a board that describes itself as progressive. And if this is you last post here, door/ass (you can picture the rest).

"wish to do so within a humane and progressive framework"

I wonder if the future victims of released multiple/high risk/sexual offenders will consider their assaults humane and progressive, I wonder if the victims families from the op think so.   If you think that matters you can't agree with releasing the man in the op, or at least i can't imagine how any logical person could, he made his choice.

Eyes of Truth

Wow, that was so totally Kiplingesque...

First, I lost track of this thread, so sorry to Yarg for not responding, and thanks Bacchus for the update on Fantino.  I thought you had offered up the whole article Yarg, as something wholly salient, hence my reaction.

I'm not sure that physical removal of the testes or even penis would be a silver bullet solution, voluntary or otherwise.   

While it's understandable that we all want a 100% garantee that would protect children, it's not going to happen. But, that's not to say we shouldn't do our best.    

I wonder, Keystone, if we should offer career and pathological theives the option of hand amputation to long sentences?

Thinking about this, it strikes me that we are going to remember, and the media is going to report only the worst cases.   They won't report, and we won't take note of cases where people have been rehabilitated, and never go on to drive drunk again, or return to attacking children.  

So, I'm not sure we should be all set to recalibrate our laws to suit the abhorent cases alone.

Like Bacchus above, I like the idea of judges having discretion in sentenceing.  I wonder though, how wide it should be.    I remember the case lonewolfbunn cited above.   That was inexplicable. Unforgivable.   And, I wonder how judges like that got to where they are.   Well, I don't wonder.  I've been active in politics enough to know that many judges are judges not on knowledge of law, but on knowledge of political fundraising.

Which isn't a segue into the idea of electing judges or Crown Attourney's.   We see that system in the States, and we also see abhorent sentences and misscarriages of justice there.

I think it's all about consequences.    There's no consequences for idiot judges.  And there's no consequences for Crown Attourney's that screw with the law.   And, I think we'd see a bit less of these tragic cases like offenders given too many chances after demonstrating that they shouldn't and maybe a bit less of the tragic cases where people are wrongfully convicted if there were consequences for the administrators of justice when things go awry, beyond the scope of normal human error.

In short, it would make the administration of justice a little less capricious than it is now, and we'd all be a little safer.

http://www.change.org/petitions/ontario-minister-of-justice-and-attorney...

"Without tougher laws against pedophilia, Canada will continue to be a safe haven for pedophiles.
More resources need to be devoted to protecting children from pedophiles.

Measures taken to protect children from child molesters should exceed the measures taken to protect the rights of suspected child molesters.
The following is one suggestion that will protect children from sexual predators and child killers. We ask that this as well as other strategies be implemented to protect children.

Mandatory screening of any individual accused of sexually abusing a child. Due to the difficulty involved in finding solid evidence testing is recommended in cases with little or no evidence.
The rights of children to grow up without being raped and murdered should supersede the privacy rights of suspected child rapists and murderers.
Screening should include the most advanced polygraph testing available.
The cost of testing will be a small expenditure in the war to stop sexual abuse of children and will greatly reduce the amount of missing children.

We the undersigned believe that any adult that is sexually attracted to children is dangerous and should be removed from society. Every resource must be utilized to protect children from rape and murder."

Umm Generally we do NOT support vigilantism