June 11, 2015

Supreme Court's medical marijuana ruling ticks another item off the progressive agenda

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder

All hail our robed masters of the Supreme Court!

They've ruled that medical marijuana needs to made available in more forms.

Would they do this with any other drug? Would the Supreme Court order the distribution of liquid Viagra?

No, but pot is a progressive agenda item and our all-powerful robed masters in the Court are progressives, too.

Even if you support legalization or decriminalization, you should be worried that the highest court in the land gets to decide drug policy in this country. That's not how our system is supposed to work.

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

VISIT our NEW group blog The Megaphone!
It’s your one-stop shop for rebellious commentary from independent and fearless readers and writers.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- it's been called "the political book of the year.”

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-06-12 22:26:05 -0400
Great decision by the SCC. Little kids who take marijuana to reduce their seizures, shouldn’t have to smoke it.
commented 2015-06-12 22:06:02 -0400
Richard Vanderlubbe, I can’t agree. People don’t have to create local associations and property zoning to keep marijuana out of their neighbourhoods. Barring a medical exemption and proper licensing, marijuana is still an illegal, federally controlled drug. The burden should be on those who need to use marijuana for medical treatment to ensure that their usage doesn’t unreasonably affect their neighbours.
commented 2015-06-12 13:13:24 -0400
The SCC seems to be making all decisions on medical issues, eg. assisted suicide, now ‘medical’ marijuana. This is a power struggle to demonstrate the legal system (judges) will dictate what physicians, government and Canadians will do.
There will be no such thing as medical marijuana because it will be exploited and become too expensive for the people who really need it. Some doctors/services are already charging $300-500 for telephone consultation fees and we’ll see if future abuse of the system will be covered by provincial healthcare. Plus, the pharmaceutical companies won’t stand for this kind of intrusion in and threat to their industry.
Because of my own medical issues, I am personally encouraged that other forms of hemp (eg. oils) will now be available for legitimate medical patients, but, the SCC made this decision without any programs or plans for quality control, etc. in place. The SCC has basically thrown a piece of meat into shark infested waters and said ‘take that’ Stephen Harper’s government, again!
Erin Berney: thank you for this info.
commented 2015-06-12 08:55:11 -0400
If you don’t want to smell/taste/breathe cannabis, I’d advise you to find like-minded people and create some sort of Homeowner’s Association where your specific area is regulated… Doing it provincially or nationally is an overstep of authority. It may work in your cookie-cutter Vaughn suburb, but like with guns, it is not your place to be telling those in the country, living on large acreages, what they can and can’t do with a plant. I think we have a bunch of “rebels” here who are unwilling to deregulate the government largess in this case.
commented 2015-06-12 06:01:06 -0400
Why does the Court not even turn its attention to the nature of Smith’s business affairs and profit-generating operation of the Club and store, the legitimacy of which are at best questionable? How does it explain or justify this lapse?
These are the kinds of questions that torment me and keep me up at night.
commented 2015-06-12 05:49:34 -0400
How does the SCC’s phrase “prohibit a person with a medical authorization from possessing cannabis derivatives for medical purposes” apply to Smith, who did not have a medical authorization?
commented 2015-06-12 05:40:38 -0400
Even you Joan, I wanna hear from you… despite our disagreements, I still appreciate your offering the occasional insight or two…
commented 2015-06-12 05:37:55 -0400
I apologize again for the length of my previous post. Please read it, though, and don’t hesitate to comment.
commented 2015-06-12 05:31:51 -0400
Once again, the Charter is used as a red herring, distracting from the real issue: the defendant/respondent and the “club” in which he was involved in dispensing medicinal marijuana did not themselves have a license. At least one justice in B.C. seems to have got it right, unfortunately in dissent: “Chiasson J.A., dissenting, held that Mr. Smith did not have standing to raise the constitutional issue, and that in any event the restriction did not violate s. 7 because medical users could legally convert dried marihuana into other forms.”
Of the expert medical evidence that was tendered, none of it came close to suggesting (on a balance of probabilities) that ingesting marijuana in processed forms is superior or more beneficial than smoking or vaporizing marijuana in its dried form. The trial judge gave inappropriate weight to the testimony of medical marijuana patients who preferred alternate forms of consumption. The judge accepted the patients’ own, non-expert conclusions as to the efficacy and/or reasonableness of medical marijuana consumption via cannabis cookies, THC-infused massage oil, or gel capsules filled with THC.
The biggest question raised by the SCC decision, and the earlier trial and BCCA decisions, is since when does a patient’s medical opinion as to how best to take their medication supplant that of an actual doctor? Second, I fail to understand why Smith was even granted standing to argue the Charter issue considering he was not a medical marijuana user, and furthermore, neither he nor the Vancouver cannabis club with which he was associated in producing and distributing various manufactured forms of marijuana were even licensed?
I have no problem with medical marijuana patients taking their medication via an alternate delivery method than smoking, so long as the method is prescribed by their doctor. On the plus side, passive inhalation of marijuana smoke by immediate neighbours is avoided, although local nuisance law already protects people who may be impacted by the noxious odours and potential deleterious effects of exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke. The onus to prevent the smoke from escaping and causing damage is always squarely on the property owner and/or occupier of the premises.
The trial judge in Smith specifically accepted, from the accused’s own medical expert, that:
• One can ingest the compound orally: if one were taking THC for gastro-intestinal conditions such as Crohn’s disease or Irritable Bowel Syndrome this would arguably deliver the therapeutic benefit more directly to the site of pathology. [“arguably”]
• Oral ingestion also has the benefit of prolonging the effects of the drug in the system, with the corresponding detriment of taking longer to build a therapeutic level of the drug than would occur with smoking, for example.
• Because of the slow build-up of the drug in the body, dosages are more difficult to manage, as it takes some time to determine when the optimum therapeutic level has been reached.
• Because orally ingested THC or CBD stays in the system longer, it would be better for someone with a chronic condition of pain or glaucoma, where some level of therapeutic dosage would remain while the patient slept.
• Smoking achieves a far quicker benefit, as the drug enters the body through the lungs and is dispersed rapidly.
• The level of THC in the body also declines much more quickly with smoked marihuana than with orally ingested THC.
• Smoking would be a better way to take a therapeutic dose in case of a sharp increase in pain or discomfort.
• Smoking also has harmful side effects associated with inhaling smoke which, although less deleterious than tobacco smoke, pose risks to health nonetheless.
But alternate, manufactured forms of consumption of marijuana disguise the nature of the substance, making marijuana more susceptible to be accidentally ingested by children and pets, and making it much more difficult for law enforcement to detect illegal or unlicensed marijuana trafficking. Further, since manufacturing alternate forms of marijuana consumption is currently unregulated, there is no oversight, and therefore no guarantee of full ingredient disclosure or even quantity of THC. Even with dried marijuana, there is potential for the presence of other chemicals and drugs, but this is much easier to ascertain contamination by other substances when marijuana is still in its dried, unprocessed form. Processed marijuana, however, presents serious risks of contamination and substitution of unknown substances, as well as the danger of under and over-dosing. As the trial judge in this case found:
58 Drugs derived from or based on plants are taken through the Food and Drugs Act processes under the Natural Health Products Regulations, SOR/2003-196. Cannabis products are excluded from this process by the combined operation of the definition of “natural health product,” their inclusion in Schedule II of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and their consequent exclusion through Schedule 2 of the Natural Health Products Regulations.
59 Marihuana produced under contract to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada or under a designated-person production licence as defined in the MMAR is exempt from the application of the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations by the Marihuana Exemption (Food and Drugs Act) Regulations, SOR/2003-261.
60 If the ingredients of a substance offered as a medicine are not fully identified, or if the quantities of any ingredients that have been identified are not known, there are risks that include over-dosing and under-dosing, complications arising from combining the effects of cannabis marihuana with prescribed or other drugs, and risks of contamination or adulteration in the unregulated production process.
61 There is an obvious difference between those who produce their products in an industry that is tightly regulated, such as the pharmaceutical drug industry, and unregulated producers such as the Club: with the former, there will be standards of production and inspection that ensures consistency of content, predictability of results of use, and greater assurance that contaminants will be eliminated or prevented in the manufacturing process; by contrast, in a bakery such as operated by the Club and staffed by the accused, the cannabis marihuana plants used can only be subjected to visual inspection for contaminants, the processes for rendering active compounds out of the cannabis plant are unsophisticated and unregulated, and the active compounds contained in the foods, oils, and topical products are not capable of precise measurement.”
There was clearly ample reason for the SCC to allow the appeal and uphold the federal MMA Regulations as being constitutionally valid in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice demanded by section 7 of the Charter. If nothing else, the MMARs are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and clearly satisfy the section 1 exception. If anything, there is simply a gap in the Regulations in that they don’t address alternative forms of ingestion; they only speak of dried marijuana. Rather than just address this obvious gap, the SCC outrageously declared that “ss. 4 and 5 of the CDSA are of no force and effect to the extent that they prohibit a person with a medical authorization from possessing cannabis derivatives for medical purposes.”
The SCC could have at least suspended its declaration of invalidity for a year or so, to allow the government time to amend the MMA and Food and Drug Regulations so as to properly regulate the production and distribution of alternative forms of medical marijuana like cookies, butter, pills, oil, sprays, etc. In this way, the government can still protect public health and minimize safety risks (in the same way as any other manufactured product sold in Canada), while also ensuring medical marijuana users who prefer alternate modes of administering their medication are able to calculate and control their dosage. This is how the supposed “dialogue” between the SCC and Parliament is supposed to work, but reading the decision, it’s as if the high court has just abandoned the concept of dialogue entirely. Seriously, read it yourself: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15403/index.do
There is (Ontario human rights tribunal) case law, in which a multitude of expert medical evidence was tendered as to the singular issue of medical benefit of smoking marijuana vs. ingestion by some other means, such as cookies or pills, as well as noting the detrimental effects of passive inhalation. See Ivancicevic v Ontario (Consumer Services), 2011 HRTO 1714:
73 Dr. Ware explained that patients who use herbal cannabis and smoke it, as opposed to pill forms and oral-mucosal spray, have a much more rapid onset of action, in the order of minutes. Because it is absorbed into the lungs and straight into the bloodstream, it is far less metabolized by the liver, and more of the drug is available to the tissues where it is being distributed. Where patients have symptoms that require rapid relief, or very tight control of the amount of the drug, they find that inhaling it gives them a more precise means of controlling symptoms. Patients who have inhaled cannabis and then try an oral or a pharmaceutical preparation experience a very different effect. All of the pill forms, and the oral-mucosal spray, have a pharmacokinetic profile consistent with an orally-administered medication, with a relatively slow onset and long duration of action.”
The HRTO decision in Ivancicevic involved a medical marijuana license-holder who claimed section 15 discrimination on the basis of his “stigmatized” and disabling dependence on medicinal marijuana, because he was prohibited from possession and/or smoking his medically-prescribed dried marijuana on licensed property such as bars, whether inside or outside on a licensed patio/balcony. Normally HRT decisions flabbergast me, and their conclusions are typically so flawed and ridiculous as to render me speechless (which is clearly rare). But this one seems to have got it right. Although the applicant was discriminated against by being statutorily prohibited from smoking marijuana on licensed premises, the HRTO found that the prohibition was valid, and in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
The Ivancicevic decision provided ready-made medical evidence that the SCC ought to have considered in Smith. As it has demonstrated in the past, the SCC is not opposed to referring and relying upon cases and materials that weren’t even cited by the parties. Considering this tendency, it is extremely noteworthy that here, in the Smith case, the SCC overtly refrained from inquiring beyond the record of proceedings. The SCC blatantly ignored that the trial judge’s so-called fact-finding was not, in fact, based on actual medical evidence. Worse, the Court completely failed to consider the trial judge’s glossing over of his own factual findings as to the public health and safety risks inherent in unregulated processing and manufacturing of marijuana into alternate forms which are then distributed to medicinal marijuana patients.
In drafting the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations the way it did, so as to permit access to only the dried form of marijuana, the government clearly exercised a policy decision that presumably took into account all the above factors, and likely several more I didn’t even consider. The bottom line is that the MMARs ought to have been declared valid and the appeal allowed, or the SCC should have signalled Parliament to amend its legislation to address the statutory oversight.
As a final side note, I expected the SCC to provide a better analysis as to Smith’s standing, and at the very least, discuss his and the Club’s lack of license, unclear operational structure (the Club is a sole proprietorship owned by Smith that operates similar to a society), lack of official record-keeping, lack of clear membership records (of the 3,700 to 4,000 members, estimated by Smith, he states that perhaps 5% to 10% of those hold a valid Authorization To Possess dried marihuana issued by Health Canada under the MMAR), and failure to collect/remit HST and pay income tax, despite Smith’s estimates that the store operated by his Club generates between $6,000 to $6,500 in revenue each day.

Sorry for the length, but it pisses me off.
commented 2015-06-12 02:33:43 -0400
As for the SCC, courts are not entitled to second-guess government policies. Once a policy is in place, however, they can weigh in on the operational side of things. Unfortunately, the distinction between policy and operation often isn’t clear-cut. In my view, upon reviewing the decision, the SCC has ventured outside their jurisdiction and into the realm of medicinal marijuana policy.
commented 2015-06-12 02:27:58 -0400
Hey Joan, here’s where you and I agree. I’m not against marijuana per se, but I am against legalizing it outright. Decriminalization may be the best way to go as long as consumption and production are thoroughly regulated so as to protect non-smokers in public and private spaces, and ensure kids don’t have even easier access than they already have.
I find the smell alone to be noxious, but what worries me more is Health Canada’s issuance of personal production licenses to just about any Joe Schmoe claiming to have an alleged “health” issue. There is so much abuse of the licensing process already, though it’s still an illegal, schedule I controlled substance. It just makes me sick.
I’ve dealt with no less than THREE civil cases against licensed marijuana grow-ops in apartment-style condominiums in the past year alone. In each case, individuals were licensed to produce some 160-200 plants in their homes. The damages ranged from mould contamination of not just the licensee’s condo unit (or rented unit), but to common property and other units, noxious odours filtering to other units, unsafe disposal of grow chemicals in the plumbing drains, tampering with electrical and gas supply fittings, theft of electricity and gas from neighbours, break-ins, and property devaluations, to name a few. The condominium corporation (i.e. the neighbours) ultimately bears the health and financial burden.
commented 2015-06-11 23:05:45 -0400
I’m sure they’ll serve up some nice GMO Monsanto “legal marijuana”. Enjoy slaves. “Banning” cannabis does nothing but create police, courts, and “corrections” industry jobs, enriches other violent organized groups as well. After prohibition of alcohol, these tyrants have still failed to get the message. They created the Al Capones. You can’t even keep “marijuana” out of your own jails, what a joke you people are.

Throwing more people in jail does not create less criminals. From a conservative perspective, look at CANADA CORP’s debt, look at ONTARIO CORP’s debt… Do you have the money to keep this fraudulent “war on drugs” running? Think you can pull that off without kamakaze-ing our children’s economic future into the ground?
commented 2015-06-11 22:33:06 -0400
Here’s my beef with legalizing smoked pot. I don’t want to smoke it but if it is legalized, I’ll be forced to inhale a lung full every time my neighbour smokes it. Hack hack, cough cough.

Some years ago, I rented a flat in a house where the two other tenants were heavy pot smokers. One had epilepsy and worked for Ontario Municipal Affairs and Housing. He smoked pot all day and all night, drank Baileys in his coffee all day, and drove around Ontario’s highways. The other tenant had money but didn’t work so he also smoked pot all day and sll night.

I’d wake up a couple of hours after falling asleep with my sinuses and eyes puffy and runny and I’d find it hard to breathe. I had to sleep in my car until I could find another place to live. It was winter and it was cold, not to mention needing to go inside if I had to use the bathroom. How is that fair? And what recourse will folks with smoke allergies have if smoked pot is legalized?

We are still going through that issue over tobacco smoke and now we have to spend another huge wad of cash and spend years figuring out where and when pot smokers can smoke it?

Make the cannibas mouth spray available on prescription and give doctors total discretion what conditions to treat with the spray. I don’t care who makes the spray as long as it is not organized crime. Crack down hard on bootleg pot products.
commented 2015-06-11 22:25:43 -0400
“Marijuana” is a Mexican slang word meaning “bad or of little use” which was propagandized by William Randolph Hearst… SUPREME COURT OF CANADA can do whatever they want with their “marijuana”, in my Lawful jurisdiction this is a plant called Cannabis, known to slow or stop cancer.

“Legalizing marijuana” is apart of the globalist authoritarian agenda. They want to use it to pacify a great deal of the public as they install Agenda 21. It’s sort of a form of “bread and circuses”. The politicians love money, so the idea of forming a crown-corp called MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO and profiting from a monopoly is appealing.

Can’t you see that “marijuana” already is “legal”, they’ve got loads of regulations, tickets, and fees for you. And if you don’t pay, and grow it solo, they’ll probably throw the book at you even harder than they do now… All with this sort of forged moral superiority, like they do with alcohol or tobacco, “how dare you, those are health care dollars at the MCBO” type lies.

Lastly, if I own property and pay my hydro bill, don’t sell to kids, have everything wired to code, you Ottawa types have no Lawful authority to do ANYTHING without proving injury. I can grow whatever the hell plants I damn well please, the seeds were created by God, not you.

The BAR Association is filled with such a bunch of ridiculous tyrants, you all are practicing a perversion of “law”, it is a corporate legal fiction. You have NO such authority to regulate a plant, your power comes from pointing guns at people and stealing their property. Nothing more than a bunch of highwaymen and charlatans.
commented 2015-06-11 20:57:52 -0400
Taras Pater sai, “Umm, not sure where you get your info but 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Harper. Last I heard, he was a conservative.”

The flaw in your logic is in assuming that because Harper appointed them that they are Conservatives.
commented 2015-06-11 20:11:13 -0400
legalize dope…tax the snot out of it…use the revenue to create a whole new industry, jobs for all those university BA graduates, psychologist, therapist, etc..for all the drug centres needed for those that develop issues. I have read also that hash oil can help with skin cancer and I would like to try that without having legal concerns.
commented 2015-06-11 20:04:47 -0400
I don’t give a damn about pot, couldn’t care less. But what I am concerned about is this topsy-turvy relationship between Parliament and SCOC. The SCOC has been running amuck, over-stepping their mandate and usurping power from Parliament for many years now, and that’s just not how a democracy is suppose to work. When the hell is Parliament going to get some backbone and invoke the “not withstanding” clause, and start to push back at the SCOC’s intrusion into their territory, and limit the power of the SCOC to that which it was originally intended to be?
commented 2015-06-11 19:33:27 -0400
Brian, I’ve been watching you for a few years now and I finally get to see your true colours on this issue. I agree with you on almost everything, but in this you are just wrong; way, way wrong. You rant (1:15) “We’re going to make up YOUR minds, too”, where the heck do you get that from the SC’s decision? This move gives more ability of ordinary Canadians to make up their own minds on this issue that impacts their daily lives in (in many cases) huge ways, instead of an openly critical intrusive bureaucratic government agency telling them how they can take care of their own health. Yes, that’s a libertarian argument but it also happens to be a conservative one, last time I voted, and IMHO it’s the correct one because it’s a lot better than the alternative which you apparently support! You rant about the court being unelected and therefore not having a mandate, but what about those we do elect who choose to ignore common sense as well as the will of the people (according to polling showing support for legalization as well as a desire for a relaxing of the laws among conservatives) simply for political purposes? There’s one clear way to handle this issue, and continuing the prohibition simply isn’t it. I agree that the SC shouldn’t, as a rule, over-ride the politicians but how else is the public’s will to be served when the politicians play their games that results in Canadians suffering because, well, because Trudeau? Also – the government (Health Canada) can’t seem to decide if pot is medicine or not (and you can’t either apparently) so the SC actually ruled today on more of a Justice issue than anything else. It takes away Health Canada’s ability to sic the narcs on edibles users. Maybe consider that in your rants. Finally, you acknowledge the “it’s been used for generations now with no Reefer Madness” argument but you don’t really answer it. Your next comment is about the SC “unleashing” pot in non-smokable form on a (supposedly unsuspecting and therefore vulnerable) populace. Not only is that seriously short on logic and long on rhetoric, it was a total dodge on the issue you brought up! It’s like you asking Trudeau “what’s your opinion on Muslim terrorists in Canada” and he answers “That’s a very good question. Next!”. So, maybe break a rule here and respond Brian. Tell us why we should be scared of the demon weed when hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been smoking (and eating or whatever) pot for over 40 years now and society hasn’t fallen apart? The only point the prohibitionists have is the “increased chance of mental illness among smokers in their teens” argument but by the government’s own statistics there have been thousands and thousands of Canadian teens smoking pot for decades now, and no corresponding increase in mental health rates. Please, Brian, explain that for us! Sorry to come down on you so hard on this Brian, but as I say in another post even a broken clock is right twice a day. You just have to have the common sense to check it out at the right time, I guess!
commented 2015-06-11 18:52:25 -0400
Glenn Craig, I’ve gotta agree with you but I’d take it one step further. A perfect world would have the current Conservative govt. come to it’s senses and, maybe a month before the writ is dropped, announce decriminalization. The wind would completely die from Trudeau’s sails, and it would absolutely guarantee a Harper majority. I’m taking into account recent polling that says not only a majority of Canadians prefer to legalize pot, but even a majority of those who would vote Conservative would like to see a relaxing of the laws. This has always been a purely political issue, and as more and more science shows not only the benefits of pot but the disproving of almost all the negative lies told by prohibitionists more and more conservatives and Conservatives are realizing that. The only thing holding legalization back is the fact that the NDP and the Liberals are for it, so the Conservatives gotta be against it, no matter what. It’s one of those “even a broken clock is right twice a day” things and Harper’s too blind to see it. Frustrating for a conservative like myself.
commented 2015-06-11 18:33:08 -0400
I may or may not stand corrected. Just because a Gov’t reccomends an appointment (actually the Governor General appoints) does not necessarily preclude their political affiliations. I believe the last Justice attempted for appointment was an identified Conservative and thusly rejected by all the progressives including the Chief Justice of the SCOC. Gee, wonder why? Anyway follows is a list of current Justices with dates of appointments.

Chief Justice McLachlinin. April 1989, she was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 7, 2000, she was appointed Chief Justice of Canada. She is the first woman in Canada to hold this position.

Justice Abella was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004. She is the first Jewish woman appointed to the Court.

Justice Rothstein was appointed to the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada on June 24, 1992; while a judge of the Trial Division, he also served as a member ex officio of the Appeal Division, a judge of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and a judicial member of the Competition Tribunal. He was elevated to the Federal Court of Appeal on January 21, 1999, and, finally, to the Supreme Court of Canada on March 1, 2006.

The Honourable Thomas Cromwell was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on December 22, 2008. He had previously been appointed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on August 27, 1997.

Justice Moldaver began his judicial career as a member of the High Court of Justice for Ontario when he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario (later the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)) on April 12, 1990. He was elevated to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on December 22, 1995 and to the Supreme Court of Canada on October 21, 2011.

Justice Andromache Karakatsanis was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in October 2011.

Richard Wagner. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on October 5, 2012.

Mr. Justice Clément Gascon. He was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal on April 5, 2012 and to the Supreme Court of Canada on June 9, 2014.

The Honourable Suzanne Côté was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on December 1, 2014.
commented 2015-06-11 18:30:10 -0400
Sorry…not with you on this one….I do not support the marijuana prohibition and if ANY issue could bring down Harper and crown Justin Trudeau as king it is this one and only a fool would dismiss and trivialize that. My suggestion is to stop making this a partizan issue and steal the Liberal’s thunder. Make the ending of the Marijuana prohibition a national referendum question on the election ballot and let real democracy rule on it.
commented 2015-06-11 17:26:14 -0400
“Lieberal appointed wannabe dictators”

Umm, not sure where you get your info but 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Harper. Last I heard, he was a conservative.
commented 2015-06-11 17:22:24 -0400
The high court, indeed.

I think this move is intended to cater to organized crime. Who runs government in Canada? That loose network of terrorist organization that bin Laden created that contracts out its sales of drugs, arms, sexslaves and propaganda to mob organizations that hire bikers and street gangs to squeeze government agents including the ones who rule in our courts. Sigh.
commented 2015-06-11 17:16:29 -0400
This sounds like another SCOC important decision was had today.

Can’t wait for the SCOC’s ruling on how many times a day I can take a sh*t. And will beverly maclachin be ruling on how many wipes are allowed as well. beverly maclachlin being the POS that she really is – I would guess she knows all too well about “dingle berries syndrome” when the correct number of wipes are not completed.
commented 2015-06-11 17:11:44 -0400
I’m tired of the Supreme Court madness, too, Brian. I would much prefer if Justin won a minority government and held it just long enough to legalize pot and then lost a confidence vote and got turfed in the following election.
commented 2015-06-11 17:07:10 -0400
Lieberal appointed wannabe dictators. What’s next? Mandatory marijuana use? Jail time if you refuse? It is long past due when the judiciary should be elected terms responsible/accountable to the community and laws of this country!