The Ugly Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

To me, this comment is right on target about the conversation we need to be having in society. In some ways this case is a bit like the Rodney King episode of the early 1990s. Race was in all likelihood a key issue that influenced the events, as well as the interpretation of the events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

There is no escaping the elephant in the room.

did the punishment suit the crime? did this punishment occur because the individual was aboriginal (and by extension, because the defendant was not)? did this influence the jury?

if the answer to the first question is "no" and the answer to at least one of the other questions is "yes" or "maybe", clearly we have a major, major ugly truth that we need to face with respect to Canadian society.

It's interesting you (and perhaps another poster also) should bring up Rodney King.

One senses that there is or was an eagerness on the part of some for Canada to have its own "Rodney King" issue that triggers... something.

"Rodney King" as an issue happened over 25 years ago in the U.S. And yet there are still tons of problems in relations between law enforcement and the citizenry down there. Especially when those citizens are minorities, and you can even drill down and talk about African-Americans.

Some might say the problem is as bad as it's ever been - at least since the civil rights era when abuse of (minority) people by the police was fairly systematically glossed over and ignored as an issue.

I mentioned before on SSP that the Boushie-Stanley case is perhaps a poor choice of a "hill to die on" in the essential struggle to cure the ill that poisons this relationship.

There have been more than enough cases involving the criminal justice and law enforcement systems that were clearly more cut and dried and obviously deliberate, including for example the practice that was brought to light and ended not that long ago of police in certain Prairie cities grabbing aboriginal men off the streets and dumping them out of town in fields in the middle of nowhere in -40 degree weather. A number of these men died as a result of this. some police officers were charged and convicted I am pretty sure, but this did not suffice to spur a "Rodney King-esque" national outrage like this case has.

Perhaps we're just living in a very different era at this precise point in history, but if the situation in the U.S. is any indication, I'd say there is little hope for a single "day where everything changed" moment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've generally got the same position as Acajack here, except that I'm not yet ready to say that I think I know better than the entirety of the jurors who did have access to a lot of evidence I haven't been privy to.
.

I don't recall saying something like that.

Am I misunderstanding something in your post here?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't recall saying something like that.

Am I misunderstanding something in your post here?

I'll clarify, I probably wasn't verbose enough there for my post to convey absolutely everything I meant totally clearly...

"I've generally got the same position as Acajack here" (generally because so far I agree with what he's been saying, but I may have missed tiny bits here and there I don't agree with, and also I'm not in his brain, so I'm definitely generally in agreement but I can't guarantee we're in total agreement)

"except that I'm not yet ready to say that I think I know better than the entirety of the jurors who did have access to a lot of evidence I haven't been privy to." (Which is the one "exception" where I am going against what seems almost a consensus here so far, that he should've been found guilty of manslaughter, therefore worth pointing out.)

When I posted that, there had already been pages and pages of discussion, so I wasn't exactly sure about your position regarding the verdict. The second part was meant to express the only part my own position which diverged from the common position here (i.e. the only part that may possibly be worth mentioning, since for the rest, I agree with you), which may or may not have been yours, not sure.

If you don't recall saying something like that, then you didn't

(In fact I know for sure that second part can at least be directed to MonctonRad and others, if not you...)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'll clarify, I probably wasn't verbose enough there for my post to convey absolutely everything I meant totally clearly...

"I've generally got the same position as Acajack here" (generally because so far I agree with what he's been saying, but I may have missed tiny bits here and there I don't agree with, and also I'm not in his brain, so I'm definitely generally in agreement but I can't guarantee we're in total agreement)

"except that I'm not yet ready to say that I think I know better than the entirety of the jurors who did have access to a lot of evidence I haven't been privy to." (Which is the one "exception" where I am going against what seems almost a consensus here so far, that he should've been found guilty of manslaughter, therefore worth pointing out.)

When I posted that, there had already been pages and pages of discussion, so I wasn't exactly sure about your position regarding the verdict. The second part was meant to express the only part my own position which diverged from the common position here (i.e. the only part that may possibly be worth mentioning, since for the rest, I agree with you), which may or may not have been yours, not sure.

If you don't recall saying something like that, then you didn't

(In fact I know for sure that second part can at least be directed to MonctonRad and others, if not you...)

Merci pour ces précisions.

For the record, I don't think he *should* have been charged with manslaughter or that he *should* have been found guilty of that. But given the information I have at my disposal - which is less than the police, Crown prosecutors and the jury, and also seems to be subject to some degree of media filtering that you need to make an effort to circumvent - I'd probably use the word *could* for those statements, as opposed to *should*.

So in this sense I am probably of a similar mindset to you. I am not sure if the jury made the right or the wrong decision. What I am sure of, is that they studied the case and all of the legal aspects of it more than I ever could or will.

Another thing I am pretty sure of is that a lot of people are misguided if they think that a jury that wasn't "all white" (assuming this actually is true) would in all probability have arrived at a different decision.

Again, based on the information I have access to, it seems highly unlikely that a jury made up of whichever percentages of various demographics you want, would have found Stanley guilty as charged.

The administration of justice is not and cannot be about getting the verdict that you or someone else "wants".

If that were the case there'd be something even more problematic with the system than the challenges it already faces.

[O-tacular]

An interesting read showing how little things have changed in Saskatchewan in terms of miscarriage of justice towards native people.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...-in-saskatchewan-crisis/article37945105/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

An interesting read showing how little things have changed in Saskatchewan in terms of miscarriage of justice towards native people.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...-in-saskatchewan-crisis/article37945105/

Again, I have somewhat of a problem with this part:

Originally Posted by article

The fate of Mr. LaChance and the sentence and protection given to Mr. Nerland is only one of many cases that point to the systemic failure of the justice system in the province of Saskatchewan. It only heightens the fear and mistrust many Indigenous people feel toward both the RCMP and the courts. There is little faith that justice will be served or that one will be judged by one's peers. History has borne this out, from the fate of eight Indigenous men 132 years ago to Mr. LaChance 27 years ago to Mr. Boushie last week. Justice was not served.

So...
"Justice was not served", this random guy has declared.

How can anyone seriously believe the only correct possible justice is to get the exact verdict that some armchair quarterback somewhere had decided in advance was going to be the right one?

This process, trial by jury, is as close to perfect justice as is realistically possible.

I certainly don't think the recommended alternative ("let's poll all Canadians via social media, tally up the answers, and go what's got the more votes as our verdict") would be an improvement.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The administration of justice is not and cannot be about getting the verdict that you or someone else "wants".

If that were the case there'd be something even more problematic with the system than the challenges it already faces.

Exactly! QFT. 100.00% agreed.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

I certainly don't think the recommended alternative ("let's poll all Canadians via social media, tally up the answers, and go what's got the more votes as our verdict") would be an improvement.

If we did begin to mete out justice in this manner, I'm willing to bet a quick return to the stocks & pillory, public flagellation, tar & feathering as well as lynchings - these sort of things go hand in hand with mob rule..........

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The administration of justice is not and cannot be about getting the verdict that you or someone else "wants".

FTR, here is a quote from the Boushie lawyer a week before the verdict was delivered (presumably when they may assumed that the verdict would be the one they wanted )

Relatives of the young man shot on a Saskatchewan farm are thankful to jurors for their service as deliberations continue for a second day at Gerald Stanley's murder trial, the lawyer for Colten Boushie's family says.

"The jury's job is to render a just verdict, so they're taking their job seriously … whatever verdict the jury comes up with in this case, I believe that based on the evidence that they've heard that it will be a reasonable verdict," criminal lawyer Chris Murphy said outside the Battleford courthouse where the case is being tried.

"It's very apparent that the jury is taking their oath very seriously."

[vid]

There were 3 options, they had a 66% chance of getting what they wanted. With those odds, most people would feel optimistic.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Big crowd for Doug today on the campaign trail

[HomeInMyShoes]

^The demographics of that room are astounding.

[WhipperSnapper]

Looks like he has a leg up on the competition.

[FrankieFlowerpot]

I suppose the location of the event can go here as well

[O-tacular]

Hahahahahahahahahahahwhahahahahaa!!!!!!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

I suppose the location of the event can go here as well

Wow. What an inviting chateaustaurant!

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^The demographics of that room are astounding.

It looks like the demographics of people who complain at City Council meetings. about new development projects.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

I suppose the location of the event can go here as well

cooter'sasshole

Inside: MAGA
• Video Link• Video Link

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^The demographics of that room are astounding.

LOL, such a diverse crowd.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by FrankieFlowerpot

Big crowd for Doug today on the campaign trail

The guy in the front looks so... greasy.

This is somewhat what I imagine the bowels of Clockzilla to look like except it would have used piles of Depends and barrel fires.