April 15, 2015

Supreme Court's mandatory sentencing decision part of its "weak on crime agenda"

Brian LilleyArchive

The Supreme Court's decision is based on hypotheticals, and they admit it.

The result? Lots of criminals caught with illegal guns are going to get lighter sentences.

I walk you through the decision and explain the impact it may have on law-abiding gun owners.

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

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 2015-04-15 20:14:48 -0400
A new bill addressing the concerns of the majority (bogus hypothetical concerns according to the minority) should be put forward ASAP.
commented 2015-04-15 17:20:54 -0400
Although I support a general ‘tough on crime’ policy, it does make me a little nervous when there’s absolutely no discrepancy on the part of judges…as in a scenario where “paperwork” isn’t proper, or up to date. This is one of many scenarios where certain extenuating circumstances may come into play. Judges are there to judge, and to judge according to every possible circumstance that may arise. Automatic sentences bar all recourse no matter what the actual facts are, and this seems a little undemocratic.
commented 2015-04-15 15:14:52 -0400
Totally agree with the comments, the Supreme Court judges are way out of control and need desperately to be reigned in. It’s time that we the people get to elect them.
commented 2015-04-15 14:23:38 -0400
Gun Crimes should be taken off the books period, remember a gun is a tool and murder is murder regardless of how it was accomplished. Lets deal with the crime and not the weapon. No amount of legislation will stop a criminal from owning a gun, consider Australia’s gun laws where 10% of illegal guns seized in Australia are home made. So lets allow law abiding citizens to arm themselves if they choose and keep murderers and rapists locked up where they belong and let the rest of us live Freely!
commented 2015-04-15 13:56:46 -0400
MAURICE POTVIN with respect to “Why doesn’t a majority government ever use the ‘not withstanding’ clause?”, with the Supreme Court earlier this year overturning a previous law prohibiting assisted suicide, I have written to my MP requesting the same. This usurpation of Parliament and democracy (According to Chief Justice McLachlin, “And the secret of judicial law making, formally came out of the closet.”) has gone on far too long and must be stopped. That should be the justification for Parliament invoking the Notwithstanding clause to regain the elected Parliament’s control and responsibility for law making and put the unelected judiciary back into its “closet” with the responsibility to affirm and interpret the law. When the judiciary can over-write a duly-passed law, it is not much different than having a dictatorial elite oligarchy run our country!
commented 2015-04-15 13:36:52 -0400
Why doesn’t a majority government ever use the “not withstanding” clause? It’s there. Why not use it? The Supreme Court has way too much power. Elected bodies should have the last word on laws. The roll of the courts should be to interpret and apply, period; And the roll of the Senate (at least until we have an elected Senate) should be to suggest and advise. I believe that when the Supreme Court strikes down a law passed through both Parliament and the Senate, a Parliamentry vote of 50% + 1 should have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court.
commented 2015-04-15 13:00:59 -0400
We have to remember that the Law Society in Ontario is controlled by Liberals. Therefore candidates for the bench are most likely Liberal. The Notwithstanding clause is therefore a necessary tool to keep the unelected Hottentots from controlling the country. If we think the Supreme Court is not politically influenced, we are just kidding ourselves.
commented 2015-04-15 12:12:47 -0400
Peter Palmer, I couldn’t agree more or said it better.
commented 2015-04-15 11:51:28 -0400
The Supreme Court is out of control and Parliament should regularly invoke Section 33, (the “notwithstanding” clause), to override the black-robed buffoons. Section 33 was the only part of Trudeau’s disgusting rape of our heritage that gives the people any control over the judicial mafia, and it needs to be used – on a daily basis if necessary – to kick them back into place.

Parliament also needs to more clearly define what is truly criminal, (e.g. murder, rape, robbery, or running around armed to the teeth in public), and what is merely a statutory transgression in some regulation, (e.g. not strictly abiding by some stupid gun storage requirement).
commented 2015-04-15 11:45:48 -0400
Brian, thanks for the background, you have to wonder, who are they trying to protect?
commented 2015-04-15 11:28:26 -0400
I think it started going downhill when trudooo sr. pushed the “constitution” down our throats. Now the liberal leaning Supreme Court is using it to run the country. They will oppose everything Harper tries to do. Why bother with elections if the SC are the ones making the laws. Mind you if, God forbid, the jr drama teacher ever gets in the SC will suddenly start approving things like gun control, cap & trade, etc etc. It is all so depressing.
commented 2015-04-15 11:07:03 -0400
PETER NETTERVILLE, hard to come to such a conclusion if one reads the editorial. For example, the Editorial said, “Sometimes, even the Supreme Court gets it wrong. On Tuesday, it did just that on the issue of mandatory minimum sentences in firearms cases… Justice Moldaver got it right. The law should have been upheld”.
commented 2015-04-15 11:03:31 -0400
Easily solved problem. Hang the judges for treason. They’ve proven their willingness to release pedophiles and white collar criminals along with murderers and drug dealers…Treason has a just dessert…Hanging.
commented 2015-04-15 10:36:15 -0400
Ross – ““one of starkest examples in Canadian history of two branches of government openly turning against one another, the red robed members Supreme Court of Canada have spent months systematically shooting down virtually every issue the Conservatives hold dear.”
Woa, I can’t believe it the Globe & Mail in an editorial, “Supreme Court guns down good law on mandatory minimums”, agrees with your assessment Brian:”

The only difference is that the Globe & Mail say that will glee and a sense of victory.
commented 2015-04-15 10:19:28 -0400
The National Post provides, “A scorecard of the Harper governments wins and losses at the Supreme Court of Canada”:
describing it as “one of starkest examples in Canadian history of two branches of government openly turning against one another, the red robed members Supreme Court of Canada have spent months systematically shooting down virtually every issue the Conservatives hold dear.”
Woa, I can’t believe it the Globe & Mail in an editorial, “Supreme Court guns down good law on mandatory minimums”, agrees with your assessment Brian:
Also, this morning, the Supreme Court ruled that elected officials do not have the right to recite prayers at municipal council meetings.
Another pearl from imperious Chief Justice McLachlin, revealing her contempt for democracy: “Majority rule is a principle that democracy shares with fascism, communism and other populous forms of totalitarian government.” The implication being that a country should be ruled by an elite oligarchy like her and her cohorts.
commented 2015-04-15 10:01:34 -0400
And the Courts wonder why Canadians are so distrustful of the “Judicial System”…
commented 2015-04-15 09:25:38 -0400
Allison, but you see, if they actually put criminals away for longer, then their lawyer buddies wouldn’t have work. The lawyers defending criminals no doubt make a lot of money. Gotta keep the system going! (sarcasm)
commented 2015-04-15 09:17:12 -0400
Who is governing this country anyways? As per the Supreme Court earlier ruling overturning a previous law prohibiting assisted suicide, we have another example, of unelected, appointed judiciary acting as philosopher kings ruling over our country, agreeing with an earlier decision labelling the law cruel and unusual punishment.
In the recent ruling Chief Justice McLachlin took aim at the government’s core justification for tough sentencing laws, writing, “The government has not established that mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment act as a deterrent against gun-related crimes. Empirical evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes.” This is infuriating! Quite frankly, who cares about McLachlin’s opinion?
The judicial tyranny at play in Canada is not hidden. Chief Justice McLachlin has such an understanding as declared so in her own words, “There is little point decrying the fact judges make law they do and they must.” Seems like we, in McLachlin’s view, should shut down Parliament and let ourselves be ruled by the philosopher kings!
According to the overview of the Canadian Parliamentary system, "Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch represented by the Governor General, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch (contrary to McLachin’s imperious assertion: “There is little point decrying the fact judges make law they do and they must.”), made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches.”
Time to restore the proper functioning of Canada’s parliamentary system of government. We could begin by requiring McLachlin and her cohorts to take a civics class!
commented 2015-04-15 08:59:35 -0400
Let’s face it , keep those jail cells opening and closing , revolving jail doors are good for business , keeps judges and lawyers fat at the trough , the hell with law abiding people no money there , said it for years , we need to start electing our judges to get them of their high horses
commented 2015-04-15 08:02:11 -0400
Yep – Canadian liberal pig courts say citizens can’t have guns, but criminals can (and do) and will get a slap on the wrist for it. The American system isn’t too far off – where you can defend yourself and your home with the use of a firearm. The message is clear – courts endorse crime and cops don’t show up.
commented 2015-04-15 07:59:58 -0400
The Judges are the problem,The government shouldn’t need to install mandatory minimums, if judges made common sense decisions. Put violent criminals away and use common sense on non violent paper crimes.
commented 2015-04-15 07:54:51 -0400
The bad thing about this finding is that they will be dumping gang bangers back on the street with a slap on the wrist, the good thing is, they won’t be using this to nonsense to nail a farmer who didn’t renew his license in time.