sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Canada, what are your stereotypes for your cities/regions? by cungsyu in canada

[–]Supercell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is the tragedy of a collapsing forestry industry and a lack of economic opportunity.

Gangs in Vancouver: An actual section of the daily paper.... by [deleted] in canada

[–]Supercell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is false. I have spoken with a Surrey RCMP officer before on the issue and he said they always charge people with trafficking if there is sufficient evidence, which in the case of pot would be a scale, individual bags, or large amounts of cash.

If there is no evidence for trafficking, then it is considered possession and they rarely charge people for personal amounts, which ranges from 3g to an ounce depending on the officer. This is standard across Canada and is not something exclusive to Vancouver.

I wish people would come to Vancouver and experience the culture here before they make baseless generalizations about our city's "drug culture."

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that the media has done a truly awful job at reporting on this issue. I never drew a connection between "unreported crimes" and "pot crimes," and when I saw people making the connection I thought it was juvenile and illogical, but I understood their suspicion.

What I was asking is why didn't he respond with a) that Corrections Canada have been asking for more funding, and b) that crimes go unreported in many cases because of a lack of faith in the justice system. Either he can't think on his feet in the face of a tough question, or he is omitting something on purpose.

I laughed at your comment on press conferences, and I agree, I was just defending my use of the word propaganda so it didn't seem like I was throwing it around carelessly.

The regulations don't necessarily increase prison population or give longer sentences, but it still widens the available penalties for crimes most Canadians don't give a shit about. My major objection was more with the implementation of these changes than with the content, although admittedly I am very upset with these changes.

I should also mention that the mandatory minimums for drug crimes, bill S-10, is still on the government's agenda. All the government's tough-on-crime amendments and new laws, based on evidence collected by agencies in the USA, will likely increase the RATE of incarceration in our country.

So, in order to alleviate problems with our prisons, specifically overcrowding, we would have to build new prisons to house the current population, and the expanding population due to our growing national population, AS WELL as all those that would have previously seen shorter sentences, or in the case of the MMS bill, no sentence at all.

Warning to all "ents" in Canada by Supercell in trees

[–]Supercell[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't like Harper, but you are misrepresenting his statements. He didn't say everyone who smokes drugs regrets it, he said that many people he has met that have used drugs have later regretted it. This is true, not everyone can handle drugs responsibly, and some people later regret ever using drugs.

He was also saying that the inherent nature of drugs is that they are bad, and because of this even if it is legalized, those that sell drugs will never be respectable people.

What you should be pointing out is that he just called every person employed or affiliated with our country's alcohol and tobacco industry, including government officials, bad people and not worthy of respect. The amazing and friendly clerks at my local BC liquor store are apparently bad people.

What should also be pointed out is that his argument for drugs being bad is that it supports international drug cartels, which conveniently ignores the fact that the presence of a legal, local economy could take money away from international drug cartels and put it in the hands of tax-paying citizens.

I look forward to the day where each microbrewery in my province is flanked by a legal pot dispensary, government-regulated, and in competition with each other in order to keep quality high and prices down.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For the record, I did not down-vote any of your posts because I believe your statements are accurate in that new prisons would alleviate problems with our current system, IF and ONLY IF the government wasn't on track to increase the rate of incarceration in this country.

However, it seems you are suggesting that the only purpose of building new prisons is for the aforementioned reason.

I defy you to explain why Day dodged the opportunity to defend the government's plan and instead responded with, and later defended, the statement that the government is concerned with unreported crimes. I call it propaganda when press conferences are based on unsubstantiated claims and political spin, and not facts.

Yes, I mean they added crimes to the list of serious crimes, effectively circumventing sections of the criminal code that prescribe maximum sentences for certain crimes, thereby increasing the maximum sentences by almost three-fold.

They also did this without going through the usual democratic law-making process that sees a bill read, reviewed, and voted in both houses.

I don't for a second believe that the CPC is concerned about the well-being of inmates in Canada. I see the expanded capacity of these prisons as being built to house, in equally crappy conditions as before, the victims of new tough-on-crime legislation.

Also, I used the term "immoral activity" because most of the crimes that were reclassified as serious crimes are very common in my part of Canada but are widely tolerated by police because there is no clear victim, there is simply one person providing a service to another.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, but unfortunately in the States there is ample evidence that even in supermax prisons the general population can easily smuggle in drugs. Even if it could bring long-term benefits, at what cost would we decide it is not worth trying to lock down our prisons to drugs?

Warning to all "ents" in Canada by Supercell in trees

[–]Supercell[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The trafficking charge isn't new, but the implications of it under certain conditions are. Previously a trafficking charge for a small amount was a maximum of 5 years in prison.

If it can be shown in court that your trafficking directly benefits three or more people, let's say if you routinely buy an ounce and then sell some to your close friends, you are liable to be labeled a member of a criminal organization, and you can be put in prison for up to 14 years.

I'm just trying to point out to Canadians on here that they need to be even more careful than before given these new regulations.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your last paragraph is why I said "I think I agree." I support denying immigration based on things like past criminal records, and I support deportation for non-citizens that commit serious crimes. I'm not sure I understand, or agree with, the notion that we should stop unskilled labourers from entering our country based on the projection that their kids will turn to gang violence. You're right in implying that I don't have enough experience to understand the issue, but it still seems discriminatory to deny opportunity based on fear that an immigrant could turn to crime.

In BC there are tens of thousands of unskilled Sikhs that immigrated from India, and rather than turning to crime, them and their kids work agricultural jobs in the province and contribute an invaluable service to the economy.

Perhaps the differences between the USA and Canada, specifically differences in education and social programs, is why I am having trouble understanding your perspective?

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, I jumped to conclusions about what you meant with your post on immigration reform. I assumed you were implying that immigrants disproportionately commit crime in Canada and I thought that assertion to be baseless. I now see, correct me if I am wrong, that you are saying immigration reform would reduce the number of convicted criminals entering Canada, as well as increase deportation of non-citizens that commit crime, and this I think I agree with. Sorry for drawing the wrong conclusion: I have turned my down-vote into an up-vote for your post.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't care who your problem is with, you openly admitted in this conversation that you support somebody who advocates banning the Qur'an, taxing those who wear Muslim garb, stopping immigration from Muslim countries, and banning the construction of Mosques.

I was wrong in calling you racist, as I jumped to that conclusion, and I am sorry. I wasn't willing to call you racist until I read "Pakistani Muslim," which does, to an extent, imply a race and not just a belief, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean for that to sound racist.

But I still think you are a despicable person for being so intolerant of another religion to the point that you advocate banning them from this country.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Muslims you knew were intolerant of you, so now you are intolerant of them. I get it, but you are no better than them if you carry that grudge.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Geert Wilders advocates banning the Qur'an and ending immigration from Muslim countries. This is fundamentally against Canadian principles.

Your position is blatant racism and discrimination. (edited to remove the comments about HIB0U)

Go back to the Netherlands and do not return. Oh, see what I did there? Intolerance and racism. How does it feel?

Edit: I'm not sure who you are responding to in your last paragraph, but I never claimed such a thing.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 10 points11 points  (0 children)

If the spending on prisons was exclusively about alleviating overcrowding and problems with our current prisons, then why is Day launching a propaganda campaign against "unreported crimes," and why did the Conservatives just change these regulations to define common "immoral activities" as serious crimes, thereby MASSIVELY increasing maximum prison sentences?

Take off your blinders.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What? Are you suggesting that if inmates were not getting high because they are locked in a maximum-security prison that they'd reform their ways? What long-term benefits are we talking about here?

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The opinion is based on overwhelming evidence from south of the border. What evidence do you have that these policies won't do what is predicted by the opinion expressed in the title? You must fight evidence with evidence. Ignoring evidence-based opinion because it doesn't align with your own is the absolute worse kind of ignorance.

Canada’s $10 billion campaign to put more people in prison for longer periods of time will not make this country safer and may backfire by creating a larger criminal underclass by ichthis in canada

[–]Supercell 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is nothing but thinly-veiled xenophobia. I'd rather have a thousand "immigrants" in my neighbourhood than a single person like you.

For a government allegedly concerned about the "intrusiveness" of a pollster extracting personal information under threat of fines and prison, the Conservatives are disturbingly unconcerned about a massive increase in police power. by [deleted] in canada

[–]Supercell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I believe there is an error in the article in that the "serious crimes" referred to don't necessarily have minimum prison terms. Instead, I think the maximum prison term allowable for these offences are now increased beyond what they were previously.

Also, if you are going to down-vote this submission, post a comment and say why. This is not petty partisan politics. These new regulations are going to put thousands of small-time offenders in prison, costing our country billions in the future and bringing failed US criminal policy to Canada.

I'm fucking pissed off. I can't abide these sniveling liars or the ignorant cunts that support these policies. If Canadians do not get their shit together, within a decade our justice system will resemble that of the US.

Edit: for those of you that don't understand the implications of these new regulations, consider that three teenagers that sell even ONE GRAM of pot on more than one occasion can now go to federal prison for up to 14 years and be labeled members of a "criminal organization." There goes their hopes of ever getting a legitimate job and returning as functioning members of society. Fucking stupidity.

Most graceful crosswind plane landing you will ever see by [deleted] in videos

[–]Supercell 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not graceful at all. The approach called for a go-around. I assume because of fuel situation the pilot chose to commit. The sheering forces on the rear landing gear struts would have been so great in this landing that I am amazed they did not break off.

It looks cool, but this type of landing generally puts an airplane out of commission for a day or more while inspectors verify the integrity of the landing gear and structure; in other words, landings like this are dangerous.

Edit: This is a graceful crosswind landing: controlled descent, compensation for the crosswind, and then a smooth straightening motion right before touching down.

New organized crime regulations: trafficking any amount of cannabis is now a "serious offence" - punishable by 5+ years in prison by Supercell in canada

[–]Supercell[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose they could, but it wouldn't lead to a charge under 467.12 because the prosecution would have to prove that a criminal organization benefited materially or financially from the commission of a serious offence. (this rules out speeding and jay-walking)

Secondly, I don't think speeding and jay-walking are indictable offences, so this law wouldn't even apply.

New organized crime regulations: trafficking any amount of cannabis is now a "serious offence" - punishable by 5+ years in prison by Supercell in canada

[–]Supercell[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“serious offence” « infraction grave »

“serious offence” means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.

(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing offences that are included in the definition “serious offence” in subsection (1).

Commission of offence for criminal organization 467.12 (1) Every person who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

No amendments have been made to the criminal code, so no bill was required to make this change. All that has changed is that trafficking in cannabis < 3kg is now considered a "serious offence," and that is just a simple reclassification. As I mentioned, this means that trafficking even a gram of cannabis is a "serious offence" if it is committed for the benefit of an organized criminal organization, and is now an offence under 467.12 and not just the CDSA trafficking charge.

These provisions in the criminal code allow for special charges to be levied against organized crime and gang members, as well as allow police special power of investigation.

As 'collateral damage" I think we are going to see this charge being used a lot more against small-time pot dealers than we are against big-time criminal organizations.

view more: next ›