Sad Day For Canadian Women

Packerjohn

Packerjohn

Packerjohn
Location
Canada
Canada should be very ashamed today. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that getting drunk out of your mind or being high on drugs is a good excuse for killing your wife or girlfriend. I can't believe this! The way, I understand it is if you hate your wife or want to get rid of an annoying girl friend, just get high on something, kill her and then hire a good lawyer who will pledge that you were out of your mind and didn't know what you are doing. You go free and she is never seen again!

I thought Canadian laws were rather progressive. Not anymore, we are regressing. Women watch out if you husband/boy friend starts getting mad at you. Gee! I wonder what sort of "people" they appointment to the supreme court in this country? Truck driving rednecks who like beer?

I hope that enough anger is shown in Canada regarding this new law that it will be overturned. Women rights have come a long way here in this country and yes, we still have a ways to go to get complete equality but this law is definitely a case of 1 step forward but 2 steps back.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
 

Last edited:
Packerjohn said:
Canada should be very ashamed today. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that getting drunk out of your mind or being high on drugs is a good excuse for killing your wife or girlfriend. I can't believe this! The way, I understand it is if you hate your wife or want to get rid of an annoying girl friend, just get high on something, kill her and then hire a good lawyer who will pledge that you were out of your mind and didn't know what you are doing. You go free and she is never seen again!

I thought Canadian laws were rather progressive. Not anymore, we are regressing. Women watch out if you husband/boy friend starts getting mad at you. Gee! I wonder what sort of "people" they appointment to the supreme court in this country? Truck driving rednecks who like beer?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
Click to expand...
Well, at least Canada has less guns..........
:LOL:
 
The decision is lengthy, but here is a Summary. This ruling dealt with an automatistic act. I would assume these are extremely rare in Canadian criminal law?

...In this case, Mr. Sullivan can be acquitted because he had proven that he was intoxicated to the point of automatism and the trial judge had found he was acting involuntarily. For his part, Mr. Chan can argue the automatism defence at his new trial, Justice Kasirer explained....

https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2022/39270-eng.aspx
 
Pepper said:
Seems as though the whole planet is in a regressive stage. If anyone is a student of astrology, what do the stars & planets say---"This sure ain't the Age of Aquarius!"
Click to expand...
Pluto is retrograde as of May 4, 2022 and will be retrograde for the rest of this year = a rise in authoritarianism. Plus Mercury will be retrograde until the first week of June so NO laws should be passed at this time because with Mercury retrograde you really need to think about what you say and do and avoid signing documents, ( especially legislation ). Big mistakes could be made in this area. As we are seeing.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I believe the Canadian court system and the US system are somewhat similar. Courts do not make laws, that is the job of the legislature. Courts can declare a law illegal, but they can't create laws. It's obvious the Canadian Legislature has work to do to correct this situation.
Click to expand...
Actually, courts do make laws. I remember when gay marriage became legal in Mass.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has been legally recognized since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts.

Courts can change a law by clarifying the definition of a word. In a case I had, the word was "kindergarten". The clarification was that a kindergarten was not an elementary school. The legislature hurried up and added "kindergarten" to the law (about drug dealing close to a school). When they did that, the law covered pre-schools and private schools who held classes outside of an elementary school.
 
chic said:
Pluto is retrograde as of May 4, 2022 and will be retrograde for the rest of this year = a rise in authoritarianism. Plus Mercury will be retrograde until the first week of June so NO laws should be passed at this time because with Mercury retrograde you really need to think about what you say and do and avoid signing documents, ( especially legislation ). Big mistakes could be made in this area. As we are seeing.
Click to expand...
See? See!? We need to be mindful of our retrograde behaviors on Earth, because we affect the behavior of the planets. I knew that all along.
 
WHAT???!!!!!! And what happens when the woman kills her attacker in self defense? We had better watch out. Between what's going on with Roe vs Wade, the threat of birth control also being outlawed (not that far fetched these days) and this insane new Canadian ruling, which hopefully won't catch on in other places, women's rights and safety will be even less protected than they are already.
 
Pepper said:
Seems as though the whole planet is in a regressive stage. If anyone is a student of astrology, what do the stars & planets say---"This sure ain't the Age of Aquarius!"
Click to expand...
Yea, I have to say I give some credence to Astrology. The last time Pluto was where it is now was about 250 years ago which is about 1777. Revolution! The masses rose up against the ruling elites and took back their human rights. But, that means that everything is getting completely divided. We are already at war in our country culturally, and with this regressive rise, it is likely to have an opposite but equal reaction from those that have had it. It is going to get worse for several years. We also are at war and the world economy is reeling, and what is really fascinating is we have overpopulation, and existential climate crisis...the possibility of extinction. The battle lines are being drawn. If we continue to predominantly choose competition as our model of building societies instead of cooperation the process will take longer, and that is dangerous. The nnew wine of the Aquarian age is upon us. Many are are hearing it's influence. Justice, truth, brotherly love, communities, altruism, universal love....But many are holding on to the old paradigms and there is an attempt to keep us in the dark. We old people won't experience any off this speculation, so who the hell really knows. :)
 
WheatenLover said:
Actually, courts do make laws. I remember when gay marriage became legal in Mass.

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has been legally recognized since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts.

Courts can change a law by clarifying the definition of a word. In a case I had, the word was "kindergarten". The clarification was that a kindergarten was not an elementary school. The legislature hurried up and added "kindergarten" to the law (about drug dealing close to a school). When they did that, the law covered pre-schools and private schools who held classes outside of an elementary school.
Click to expand...
Correct. Courts have been so called "making/creating law" since Marbury v. Madison.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
WHAT???!!!!!! And what happens when the woman kills her attacker in self defense? We had better watch out. Between what's going on with Roe vs Wade, the threat of birth control also being outlawed (not that far fetched these days) and this insane new Canadian ruling, which hopefully won't catch on in other places, women's rights and safety will be even less protected than they are already.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly what usually happens here in USA: she could be charged and convicted.
 
I think GETTING intoxicated is a voluntary act, and that should count more than what one does when; hold them liable for GETTING intoxicated in the first place. Is there anyone alive who does not know that consuming a lot of alcohol or certain drugs leads to irrational behavior?
Agreeing that things seem to be heading in a regressive direction especially for womens rights and LBGTQ rights.. very concerning.
Also an increasing trend toward lawless here in The Wild West.
Think I’ll take a second look at astrology, not just some 2+sentence column in the paper. I had an old friend who studied it seriously (and calmly, not looking for cataclysms)
And I’ve always thought that Canadians were reasonable and fair too.
 
Well, delete this if it crosses the no-politics line, but a certain U.S. Senator with the initials Rand Paul sent me a letter enclosing a bunch of forms to sign and mail to various senators requesting a Life At Conception Act which, among other things, declares that:

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed;

A Life At Conception Act by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand​

In other words, if you get knocked up, there would be NO option for abortion, period, and if you had one, you'd be guilty of murder.

I will cease here, as this is getting me too ticked off.
 
Devi said:
Well, delete this if it crosses the no-politics line, but a certain U.S. Senator with the initials Rand Paul sent me a letter enclosing a bunch of forms to sign and mail to various senators requesting a Life At Conception Act which, among other things, declares that:

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed;​
​
A Life At Conception Act by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand​

In other words, if you get knocked up, there would be NO option for abortion, period, and if you had one, you'd be guilty of murder.

I will cease here, as this is getting me too ticked off.
Click to expand...
"but a certain U.S. Senator with the initials Rand Paul sent me a letter" This gave me a chuckle Devi. :ROFLMAO:
 
Pepper said:
Seems as though the whole planet is in a regressive stage. If anyone is a student of astrology, what do the stars & planets say---"This sure ain't the Age of Aquarius!"
Click to expand...
No, it isn't Pepper. The news is so negative that I have learned to read less and less of it. These days I mainly read titles on the web. I never read anything about the war in Ukraine nor that old dead horse, Covid 19.
 
Devi said:
Well, delete this if it crosses the no-politics line, but a certain U.S. Senator with the initials Rand Paul sent me a letter enclosing a bunch of forms to sign and mail to various senators requesting a Life At Conception Act which, among other things, declares that:

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed;​
​
A Life At Conception Act by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand​

In other words, if you get knocked up, there would be NO option for abortion, period, and if you had one, you'd be guilty of murder.

I will cease here, as this is getting me too ticked off.
Click to expand...
I agree that life begins at conception but life is not viable until about 20 weeks. Stillborn babies should be given a proper funeral, not discarded as human waste. (off-topic, I know).
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I believe the Canadian court system and the US system are somewhat similar. Courts do not make laws, that is the job of the legislature. Courts can declare a law illegal, but they can't create laws. It's obvious the Canadian Legislature has work to do to correct this situation.
Click to expand...
Just a little nit-pick - only the Supreme Court can declare a law illegal. Lower courts have to just deal with it. And, trust me, a lot of lower court judges hate having to let criminals get away with stuff.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top