If the shoe fits, amirite?

Ah shucks, guess we should just give up and not do anything. Most people aren't going to do every single thing on that off-the-cuff list, or the dozens of other ideas you can surely quickly come up with to reduce GHG gasses. Maybe you pick away over time, upgrading things as the break down, for instance. But the point is that almost everybody can do SOME things to reduce their GHG emissions. We live in one of the most GHG rich per capita countries in the world. Do better. Don't just make excuses on every possible idea.

Crucially, recall that residents of small communities get a bonus 10% supplement on the CAI. I don't disagree that it is somewhat harder for such folks to cut energy expenditures, but thankfully Trudeau specifically helped them, and regardless the answer isn't they can't do anything!

Well, it net helps poorer people and net hurts poorer people (both in the tax itself and the rebate). So it is pretty ****ing progressive. B

Well they are completely transparent about how it is spent. But regardless, if there was no rebate and the government kept 100% off the revenue for other projects as opposed to 10%, I don't believe for a minute you would ever consider this. That is a VASTLY larger burden on families. If you don't support the smaller burden, why woudl you support the larger one?

Friendly reminder after yesterdays mass school shooting that the CPC platform still lists wanting to repeal the assault rifle ban.

"...Convicting someone for how they conducted themselves while in a state of automatism violates principles of fundamental justice. Our criminal justice system is based on the notion of personal responsibility..."


I still argue this can and must be addressed by charging them with some form of negligence (manslaughter or homicide) for the actions they took prior to this voluntary automatism. I could understand this defense if someone slipped you something unbeknownst to you but when you take it voluntary and then act, seems to me could fit into the types of laws that hold you responsible for down stream actions, you did not intend, after you do something that proves to be reckless and stupid.

Letting a person walk absolutely free is not the right answer imo.

"...In Canada, two elements of fundamental justice are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. They are a guilty action; and a guilty mind. Neither element is present when a person is in a state of automatism.”

Again, it is entirely possible that guy street racing at 150 thru residential neighbourhoods has not intent to crash his car or harm anyone. It is likely actually. But if he does do so and causes death, the lack of the guilty mind should not prevent him being held accountable for that death and I agree with the initial judge who stated that and was over turned. But I think a law that does not require intent might be able to pass here.


Supreme Court says MRU student's magic mushroom assault defence was valid
May 13, 2022

The country’s highest court has concluded extreme intoxication can be used as a defence in assault cases, ruling in favour of a former Mount Royal University hockey player who attacked a professor while high on magic mushrooms.

In a decision released Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed a July 2021 ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal that struck down an acquittal of Matthew Brown, who attacked an MRU professor in her home while high on psilocybin in 2018.

The court unanimously concluded Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. That section, passed by Parliament in 1995, was specifically written to prevent extreme intoxication as a defence in violent cases. The Crown used Section 33.1 during Brown’s trial to argue against his use of automatism as a defence.

“Convicting someone for how they conducted themselves while in a state of automatism violates principles of fundamental justice. Our criminal justice system is based on the notion of personal responsibility,” the court stated in a brief of the decision.

“In Canada, two elements of fundamental justice are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. They are a guilty action; and a guilty mind. Neither element is present when a person is in a state of automatism.”

...the magic mushrooms he consumed had caused Brown to be in a state of “extreme intoxication akin to non-insane automatism.”

...He stripped naked and broke into the nearby home of Hamnett, who was assaulted and suffered life-altering injuries to her hands.

...After his acquittal, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the pre-trial judge should not have validated the automatism defence and overturned Brown’s acquittal.

In that decision, Justice Frans Slatter said those who consume hallucinatory drugs should know doing so can lead to severe consequences.

“It is demonstrably justifiable to hold persons like (Brown) accountable for their decisions to consume substances known to affect human behaviour,” reads Slatter’s decision.

But the Supreme Court concluded Section 33.1 violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by leading society to believe a person’s choice to become intoxicated is an intention to commit a violent offence, while freeing prosecutors from the need to prove the assault was voluntary.

On Friday, a “disappointed” Hamnett said in a statement she fears the Supreme Court decision will have negative repercussions for other victims and gives carte blanche to offenders.

...“That is the shocking part — today the Supreme Court basically said it’s allowable to attack, hurt and even kill someone, if the perpetrator is out of control due to drugs or alcohol that were most likely ingested intentionally and willingly.”

The federal government enacted the existing law limiting intoxication as a defence in 1995 amid a backlash over a court ruling that recognized drunkenness could be raised as a defence against a sexual assault charge.


-------------------------------------




‘Absolutely absurd’: London women’s groups react to Supreme Court extreme intoxication ruling

Many London, Ont., women’s groups are displeased with what could be seen as a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada last Friday.

On May 13, the Supreme Court issued a decision to allow criminal defendants in cases involving assault – including sexual assault – to use a defence known as extreme self-induced intoxication.

That means defendants who voluntarily consume intoxicating substances and then assault or interfere with the bodily integrity of another person can avoid conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

Under Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, extreme intoxication cannot be used as a defence in criminal cases where the accused voluntarily ingested the intoxicating substance.

Formally known as non-insane automatism, the term is defined in Canadian law as “a state of unconsciousness that renders a person incapable of consciously controlling their behaviour while in that state.”

The federal government added the provision to the Criminal Code in 1995 with concern “that self-induced intoxication may be used socially and legally to excuse violence, particularly violence against women and children.”

However, the court’s ruling declared that section unconstitutional, saying it conflicts with and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is too broad.

This led to a unanimous nine-judge vote to declare the law unconstitutional.

“The Criminal Code for a long time prohibited the use of extreme intoxication as a defence, and for this to make its way all the way to the Supreme Court and for all nine judges to decide unanimously that it is a viable defence now really throws the criminal justice system into some confusion as to where this is going to go,”

...“The defence is available; it doesn’t mean it’s going to fly in every case, or in the majority of cases, but it certainly does try to balance offenders’ row or accused individuals’ rights,”...

...“Women are already disproportionately affected when it comes to assault and sexual assault so this will affect them tenfold,” said Dunn. “To be able to use that as an excuse and potentially not be convicted for their crimes is absolutely absurd.”

...Anna Lise Trudell, manager of marketing, education, training and research at Anova, says about 50 per cent of sexual assaults involve the use of alcohol and that the extreme self-induced intoxication defence is worrisome.

“When we think about a possible comparator, if you drink and drive and you harm somebody, you are responsible for those actions,” said Trudell. “There seems to be this odd double standard in particular to sexual assaults and sexual violence.”

Yes and the assault rifle ban was nothing more than a PR stunt . The liberals did not ban handguns and actually reduced jail time for crimes committed with a handgun .

Shootings are actually up across Canada

You misinterpreted the quote. The comment about "guilty mind" isn't about an intent to harm anyone. Your street racer example presumably was fully conscious about their actions and intended to drive at 150 through residential neighbourhoods so their is an alignment between their action and their state of mind. Whatever one thinks of the decision on extreme intoxication where you are unaware and unable to affect your actions, nobody is slippery sloping this to a case where a sober driver is absolved from all crimes as long as they didn't intend the harm!

And the party you voted for trying to undo the assault rifle ban? Just a PR stunt, right? Ultimately it doesn't matter who is PR stunting more, the simple reality is that assault rifles have no place in Canada and the Liberals are correct to ban them and the CPC incorrect for trying to unban them. Your party stinks, bud.



This is misleading. They didn't change the amount of jail time, and certainly not focused on gun crimes specifically. What they did was remove the terrible Harper era practice of mandatory minimums which are all kinds of problematic, which includes mandatory minimums on gun crimes. It is still up to the specific facts of the case and the details involved what the length of the sentence is.

And the liberals should ban handguns. But of course your party doesn't support this either. I always find it weird how you try and criticize the Liberals from the left on issue after issue, but then vote for the party to the right of them.

Again that is an opinion of yours . If your a rural individual a firearm may be your only line of defense to rural crime. The best weapon is a shotgun or an AR 15 .


Well they could have kept mandatory minimums for on gun crimes which they didn't so in fact they reduced the sentence. If Trudeau truely cared about crime he would tackle the handgun issue as that I would agree is something no one needs to own. AS well if you commit a crime with a handgun you deserve serious jail time.

Why would I vote right ? So I am supposed to vote for a party that really has delivered on next to nothing other than being concerned and broken promises and ethics violations .

Look at Mondays appearance of Justin in Kamloops. He had massive amount of Indigenous folks shouting at him as they know as well he is all show and delivers on nothing. Though he talks a good game

Lmao. In lozen's mind it is totally reasonable for assault rifles to be legal but handguns should not. Amazing. The twisted contortions you have to jump through to find a way to simultaneously hate on the liberals while voting conservative is amazing.

Lets see a majority of all crime is being committed with handguns No debate.

You forget in order to buy that AR 15 you need a firearms aquisition certificate which involves extensive training and background checks. All these handguns are generally illegal and in the hands of organized crime the folks Justin has gone soft on

I understand there are distinctions and differences to be argued here. What i am saying is I think a law can be crafted along the same lines regardless of that.

I think there is a slippery slope challenge inevitable based on this for all crimes where a 'guilty mind' was not present and the actions taken lead to harm to others, including death.

Read this again and pay special attention to the bolded statement as laid out by the SC.


"...In Canada, two elements of fundamental justice are required for a person to be found guilty of a crime. They are a guilty action; and a guilty mind..."

So first a prosecutor must define the crime that was committed. (Easy part generally)

Second they must prove the person did the action that broke that law ("guilty action")

Third they must prove they had a "guilty mind" ('the ability to form intent and the desire to carry thru')


A sober person speeding way over the limit who kills someone, may have all the intent in the world to break a traffic law but none of the intent to cause any bodily harm to anyone.

I find it impossible to believe defense lawyers will not test that 'guilty mind' requirement in instances like this to limit the charges to the only thing he did have a 'guilty mind' for which was the speeding.



Worse and seperate to all this, this, as I see it, opens the door to committing crimes like rape and murder. dialing 911 anonymously, and then quickly getting black out intoxicated immediately after so that when help arrives they look after you and can testify that you were definitely black out intoxicated as, my understanding is that our science is not good enough to narrow the window of when the person got so intoxicated that tightly.

How can that not provide doubt, if the law is clear that if they are black out drunk they are to walk free and clear, and there is no live witness to say when the person got themselves into that state.

I think you just understandably don’t know anything about Canadian law. We have a principle (fancy name is Mens Rea) that requires broadly speaking that “guilty mind” to prosecute someone. The limits and interpretations of that are well established and argued over centuries of Canadian Jurisprudence. While this SC case adjusts one of the limits in the case of extreme intoxication, there is no real worry of a slippery slope unraveling of mens rea as your examples suggest. Your sober excessive spreader will get interpreted exactly as before. But IANAL so wtf do I know.

You do not know much as you illustrate above with your language again suggestive of right or wrong instead of differing opinions, of which there are many on this topic.

I am not saying this will cause a slippery slope cascade of other areas falling but I do feel confident that this reasoning cited will be used by defense lawyers to challenge many other areas of 'voluntary intoxication defenses' and we will then have to wait and see how the SC rules on each and every one of them.

If your position is 'I think all other cases will fail', that is fine, and I might even tend to your position, but as soon as you suggest 'I don't understand this' and 'there is no real worry',... well you are echoing the Right talking points in America where they say the if that Roe V Wade ruling stands, no one should fear any slippery slope challenges to other such rights. You can find all sorts of Righties speaking exactly as you do with certainty that is not justified.


So let me predict your reply since I feel pretty confident you will say this is nothing like the Righties hand waving concerns re Roe V Wade, why? Because on that topic your OPINION is, that having all these open to that litigation again, is a concern.

But here you say, you feel confident it will not lead to any slippery slope concerns, Why? Because your OPINION is other on this one.

The defining difference being your 'confidence in your OPINION, such that you can speak to agreeing to disagree in either, and will insist you are right while the other person just does not understand things like you do. (Carlin Meme)

The example you cited sure seemed like a slippery slope into other areas. Here was your example:

Nothing in the SC case indicates a broader weakening of the principle of mens rea in Canadian jurisprudence. You might be right that there will be other cases that hammer out specific details as it relates specifically to intoxication, but it really seems like a slippery slope to suggest this case is throwing out mens rea more broadly and could ever apply to let sober speeders get away from charges if they harm someone.

This is getting ****ing weird. Of course I'm stating my opinion. Why do you keep full caps emphasizing this? Who else' s opinion would I be giving, the Pope of Canada? Heck, I was even unnecessarily explicit it was just my opinion so you couldn't possibly be confused, yet nevertheless you were:

Do you not see the tension with being in support of legalizing assault rifles and banning hand guns? Do you not see the tension with droning on about how wonderful the certificate and training process was on assault rifles while talking about hand guns being illegal?

You are contorting yourself completely backwards because of your attempts to find fault with the Liberal position (which is not perfect) while voting for the Conservatives (strictly worse). Of course assault rifles should be as strong if not not stronger in any regulations or bans as hand guns, this should be completely obvious.

How many times you say I am stupid and you cant see that you are totally ignorant on the topics of guns

First off Canada does not have a problem with legally owned guns and never has
Canada has a great system for those looking to purchase a firearm as in training and the application process
The one mass shooting we had last year or the year before with an assault style rifle was illegally obtained and we can all attest many died due to the RCMP's incompetence
Canada does have a problem with illegal firearms especially handguns
The liberals passed the assault rifle ban to score political points only if they were truly concerned about Canadians safety than increasing the sentences for crimes with a handgun and gang related may be a start
As for personal safety no one needs a handgun the best tool would be a shotgun or AR 15 and I see that more for rural folks. Folks in the city best advice call 911 even though liberal mayors have decimated police budgets in the name of wokeness. For that reason I support a handgun ban.

This is just illogical. If there is no problem with "legally owned guns" then why advocate for a ban on handguns? That's just silly. And secondly, it is absolutely ass backwards to think that an AR 15 should be legal but a handgun should not. The capacity for AR 15s to cause events like what we just saw in the US (and in many mass shootings before it) is way in excess of a handgun, banning the latter but not the former is just completely illogical.

Man you are a scumbag. Anything to push your political agenda.

Ah yes, the conservative talking point that one really should never talk about banning the guns that cause pass shootings when a mass shooting happens. This discussion should always happen.....well.....sometime.....over there.....

No the scumbag is Justin who takes a tragedy in the USA to announce new gun measures coming. Of course he has no idea what they are but if he can capitalize on a tragedy he will


Canada does not have a gun problem other than illegal handguns from the USA which Justin has done nothing about other than reduce sentences for those committing crimes on handguns

Phony on all levels including climate change

Im sure polievre isn’t trying to use media trend with its political agenda either huh ?
Bitcoin
Trucker
BOC
Etc ..

Put your house in order before blaming Justin action that just copy conservative strategy ….

Aghh Pierre isn't the PM and using a gun tragedy like JT is is disgusting. Were have I even supported Pierre . My support is for Jean but I will vote Conservative if Justin is the other candidate no matter if its Pierre or whomever

Kudo's to the Kenney government to hold Edmonton's mayor to the task. This city isnt safe. Personally myself I had a knife pulled on me in a liquor store and walking home from the hockey game through downtown I thought I was going to get mugged

Crime on our transit system is through the roof and we all we hear is the Defund the police crap

https://edmonton.citynews.ca/2022/05...nton-on-crime/


While I am ranting When is the federal government going to get rid of these stupid travel restrictions ?

Do you “shouldn’t politicize a tragedy” folks think it was wrong when l’ecole polytechnique wasn’t the spur for many of Canadas fun regulations that lozen claims he liked?

The reality in many countries with significant gun control is that politician actions followed a major mass tragedy. This is appropriate. A tragedy can shake us out of our political ennui and prompt actual action. My view? It is an honour to the memory of the victims to not let their lives be in vein with political indifference to prevent it in the future.

3 days ago you were complaining that Canadian politics is becoming too much like the US. Then the following day you use a tragedy that happened in US as an attempt to bash your political opponents and suggest anyone that is Conservative doesn't care that these tragedies happen. You are a scumbag.

How about gun crimes have increased under Trudeau, including the worst mass shooting in Canadian history. 85% of gun crimes are done with smuggled firearms and repeat offenders. Making specific firearms impossible to get legally isn't stopping criminals from getting them illegally. How about the government stops illegal gun smuggling and harsher punishment rather than stupid phrases and political theatre like "banning assault rifles" and punishing law abiding citzens.

Let me put it this way. Yesterday I took my kid to kindergarten orientation. Big gymnasium full of kids. Maybe in an ideal world we could be entirely disconnected from American news, but as a parent it is impossible not to have the idea of an assault rifle mowing down those kids in the back of your mind after this weeks events. My heart breaks for those kids.

I don’t want an assault rifle to be legal in Canada. And I feel that stronger and more forcefully this week than I do in other weeks. I don’t think I’m alone. So of all the weeks to emphasize that there are still Canadian political parties in support of legalizing assault rifles, this is the week to say that.