Thu 12 Oct 2006
The phrase “guilty until proven innocent” conveys horrible images of trials in authoritarian countries like the USSR or China, where the accused has to prove their innocence. The sad part is, it’s impossible to prove innocence in nearly all cases. Enter on stage right, Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper! Not just for the USSR or China anymore, coming soon to a Canada near you!
The sentiment of the bill, trying to keep repeat sexual or violent offenders off the streets is a worthy goal. However that is absolutely no excuse for the sort of authoritarian precedent this sets for Canadian law. The “three strikes” law where you are automatically jailed for life on your third offense isn’t ideal either, but at least in that case you don’t have mock trials of people trying to prove they are not dangerous. How on earth is one to prove they are not dangerous, anyhow? The concept is truly absurd.
People who said “what’s so bad about Harper?”: I told you so. Now we finally see the wolf that has been hiding in sheep’s clothing for so long, and it’s just as bad as the naysayers feared.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:17pm
I’m convinced that our thankfully activist courts will find that law to be in violation of Charter rights.
To change the subject slightly, don’t you think it’s great that Russia and China, the authoritarian powers you mentioned (and yes, Russia’s pretty much the same as the USSR…), hold the rest of the cards in the North Korea nuclear situation? That’s just super.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:38am
Joey: Yeah I totally agree that is not near ideal. The UN Security Council was good for what it was designed to do (prevent WWIII), but has turned out to be not so good at what they try to turn it into, which is a world police/military force to control smaller rogue countries. An organization that allows trade concerns to trump world security is fatally flawed. The UN was an improvement over the League of Nations, but it seems to me there will have to be a successor orgination that is designed with modern realities in mind.
Oh, and I hope you’re right about the courts. I still find it exceptionally troubling that Harper and crew want to do this, and that like US Republicans they also want to stack the courts with judges who will subjugate themselves to the other branches of government.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:32pm
Ugh.
Hopefully Harper’s government will fall soon.
———————————————
Ryan: I agree that something will probably have to replace the UN, but the point remains that trade concerns are going to trump world security as long as the majority of the people are more concerned with trade.
October 13th, 2006 at 2:01pm
aphrael: What I envision is a organization that via trade imposes financial penalties for bad behaviour, and rewards for good behaviour. If designed and implemented correctly it could implement a predictable set of conditions that nations could adapt their behaviour towards to improve (or worsen) their financial condition.
I have put a lot of mental effort towards how such an organization might work, but I’ve yet to put it all on paper. At some point I’ll explain better what I mean.