MatterVille
...Can The Howls Of "Activist Judges!" Be Far Behind?
Regardless, it looks like the Framers of the Cons figure they can make hay (or at least change the channel away from the Trostkyiest Abortion Zombies for a newscycle or three) with this one.
How else to explain why Mr. Harper instead of some flunkie, as in days past, was out front with the usual law and order babble after Friday's decision by the Supreme Court that Insite can stay:
...(Prime Minister)Harper expressed disappointment with the latest decision.
“The preference of this government in dealing with drug crime is obviously to prosecute those who sell drugs and create drug addiction in our population and in our youth,” he said in Quebec City.
“When it comes to treating drug addiction, [the government’s preference is] to try and do so though programs of prevention and treatment rather than through the issues that were in front of this court in terms of so-called harm reduction.”...
And on the 'all treatment, no harm reduction' point.....
How long will it be before the Framers, and their US DOJ backers, wheel out the good Dr. Mangham to start cranking the Wurlitzer with his own not-so purist peer-reviewed research that is all, how shall we put it.....
_____
And Philip Owen is getting lots of well deserved props these days for helping make the Four Pillars happen in Lotusland....However, it would be a real shame if we didn't remember that somebody had to show the then Mayor, Mr. Owen that the junkies and the sick are people too....Me, I figure one of the most important somebodies in that regard was filmmaker Nettie Wild.
Oh, hang on....I'd missed the fact that the good Dr. Mangham and friends, now with new and, we can only assume, 'improved' sponsors like 'Real Women Canada' has already been out on the hustings priming the wurlitzer's pump with his usual 'analysis' that is not based on any primary data generated by either himself or his close colleagues.
.
4 comments:
Wish you were correct Ross - but I don't think you are.
This decision is VERY narrow and applies ONLY to Insite; I don't believe it can be extrapolated to apply, except in very narrow circumstances, to similar operations in other locations or other provinces AND - it is certainly not (what was implied in the press) - an extension to provincial powers relative to the federal crown.
Those arguments were made and they were clearly rejected by the court.
Here's the disposition from the judgement it self:
Disposition
[156] The CDSA is constitutionally valid and applies to the activities at Insite. However, the Minister of Health’s actions in refusing to exempt Insite from the operation of the CDSA are in violation of the respondents’ s. 7 Charter rights. The Minister is ordered to grant an exemption for Insite under s. 56 of the CDSA.
[157] Canada’s appeal is dismissed, as is VANDU’s cross-appeal. I would answer the constitutional questions as follows:
1. Are ss. 4(1) and 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, constitutionally inapplicable to the activities of staff and users at Insite, a health care undertaking in the Province of British Columbia?
No.
2. Does s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, infringe the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
No.
3. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
It is not necessary to answer this question.
4. Does s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, infringe the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
No.
5. If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
It is not necessary to answer this question.
Source: http://scc.lexum.org/en/2011/2011scc44/2011scc44.html
Any further similar operations are going to have to hang all their arguments on the sec 7 clause and that's going to be very difficult, in my view.
If Insite tries to extend or broaden or extend its operations I expect Harper will act...I hope I'm wrong.
Fair enough GW--
Thanks for the in-depth analysis of the specifics of the legal decision itself.
Especially given that, I'm pretty sure, nothing like it has appeared anywhere in the proMedia.
Yeh, it's sad, and fairly pathetic - there ARE people out there who could provide some decent analysis instead of fueling what I fear will be false hope...
There is one really good thing that comes out of the case though - the current operations of Insite are probably safe now.
I'd suggest another agency - maybe here, maybe somewhere else - will now have to start pushing back or this 'victory' won't mean a lot.
And, I'd be willing to bet (if someone takes the initiative) that Pee Wee will force the issue all the way to another performance of the 'Supremes', if you know what I mean.
Say what?!
Mr. Herman is playing on a double bill with Diana Ross somewhere deep within one of the finest gold-embossed private back rooms of OttaWash?
(ya, I get what you mean- thanks again GW)
.
Post a Comment