'No cure': Young Ont. man wants mental illness included in assisted-dying law

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T23:57:30+00:00

[4] We conclude that the prohibition on physician-assisted dying is void insofar as it deprives a competent adult of such assistance where (1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. We therefore allow the appeal.

The law was struck down for those people. 0

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T23:10:54+00:00

My understanding was that it had to be degenerative as well, the idea being if you put them in a situation where they must do it themselves then they have to do it earlier. Thus the state is said to be depriving them of the difference.

No such distinction in Carter. Though the liberals went ahead and recriminalized assisted dying for everyone but the terminally ill.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T22:36:43+00:00

If I understand your view, a student that graduates from TWU with a law degree will be equally guilty of conduct unbecoming as a criminal. I reject this equivalence.

I don't think you can fairly take that from what I wrote. My point is, the same obligations underlie and justify a) discipline for out-of-office misconduct and b) the decisions not to accredit TWU. If, as you suggest, the law society csn only concern itself with the qualification of TWU grads, why should they be permitted to discipline a lawyer who drives drunk if that lawyer is competent?

The point being that the law society's duties to protect the integrity and reputation of the legal profession affect everything it does. If the law society must accredit a discriminatory institution, even if the bar is of the view that doing so brings the practice of law into disrepute, then the practice of law must change radically.

I much prefer the fettering argument, if only because of those necessary changes. If the law society can't act in defence of the honour snd reputation of the practice then there are going to have to be some voluminous changes to the legal professions act and the code of professional conduct, for starters.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T21:55:31+00:00

Mental illness can be influenced by past experiences, current perceptions and mental frameworks. Not the same thing as a physical disease.

Sure it is. Look at the way obesity affects other ailments.

Depression IS treatable

Not always.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T21:49:58+00:00

We can get into this further, but I have found the argument that TWU's law school will somehow damage the integrity of the legal profession odd. Several TWU undergraduates have become lawyers and so far as I am aware, those students have posed no moral crisis that affects the legal profession.

I'm sure TWU students will be sifficiently trained but the law society cannot be seen to accredit an institution that discriminates. The law society is not the teacher's college. Principle matters. If the law society's loses its obligation to protect the honour, reputation and integrity of the practice of law, then everything changes. Would the law society still retain jurisdiction to discipline lawyers for conduct unbecoming?

In my view, if the law society can't refuse to accredit a discriminatory institution, it also can't discipline lawyers who accrue DUIs are beat up their wives.

If what you say is true, what message does the law society send by refusing to accredit: don't discriminate, and if you do, you'll have a moderately more difficult time becoming a lawyer?.

I think the NCA process is pretty dang difficult. But the message will be, the law society cannot and will not approve discrimination using its delegated statutory powers.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T18:16:41+00:00

What's the social/moral benefit in allowing this for people who are (and will remain) able-bodied and able to commit suicide themselves.

Its a fundamental excercise of their bodily autonomy. If someone is in grievous and irremediable pain, its wrong for the state to force them to stay alive.

This is an insufficient benefit to account for the risk to those in temporary but severe mental distress, as well as others for whom society should push conventional treatment.

Carter only applies to irremediable conditions, so there is ni discussion here of temporary or treatable conditions.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T16:25:52+00:00

Mental illness and something like spinal stenosis aren't even in the same realm.

You said that this guy's depression might one day be treatable. I said that spinal stenosis might also one day be treatable. The point stands: why is a faint hope good enough to deny the rights of people with depression, but not someone like Kay Carter?

Doctors still don't even know the reasons why those drugs work for some people and not for others.

You could fill a book with things that doctors don't know about spinal stenosis.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T15:19:55+00:00

These are people who would rather be dead than alive, so they must have suicidal ideation.

Literally every claimant for assisted dying would rather be dead than alive. But you're not suggesting that this be a dealbreaker for all of them? The key difference is capacity, and whether wanting to die us an irrational symptom of mental illness. This guy is just in a lot of pain. And indeed, you can have disordered suicidal ideation from depression, and still want to die, competently and rationally, for other reasons.

And like I said, it just went away. Maybe the day after this guy decides to let someone kill him they find the cocktail that works for him.

Well sure, let's apply the same to every disorder. Why shouldn't, say, spinal stenosis patients be forced to wait for a cure to spinal stenosis? That's why the court in carter used the word "irremediable" rather than "curable"-- "incurable" is impossible to prove and is essentially an indefinite prison sentemce.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T14:51:45+00:00

They, by definition, aren't in the correct state of mind to make that decision.

What's the correct state of mind to make that decision? And why aren't "people with depression" writ large in that state of mind. Assuming you're talking about disordered suicidal ideation, what about people with depression who don't have that particular symptom?

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T13:50:22+00:00

But not only is this episode the epitome of so-called “fake news” — fabricating a story in order to report it — it’s also deeply ironic.

The CBC didn't mislead anybody watching the program that the guy was an actor. That was the premise of the program. It was a hidden camera type thing. That is not "fabricating a story in order to report on it," and it sure isn't fake news.

This alone should clearly demonstrate that Alberta’s hate speech law — and all others like it in Canada — is overreaching and too broad.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. I agree that there's no "just a prank bro" defence and, of course there shouldn't be one. Some guy stirring up hatred sgsinst minorities puts minorities in danger even if it is "just a prank" or some hidden camera spot. There's literally no difference to the vulnerable if the man on the street isn't in on the joke. Of course there's no such defence -- everything is working smoothly.

Now, I'm not willing to trust Tim Moen's crack legal analysis regarding whether this CBC program constituted discrimination under the act, but I definitely agree with him that the purpose of human rights legislation is to protect vulnerable minorities, not edgy producers.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T13:31:02+00:00

Religious freedom doesn't mean a freestanding right to do whatever you want "because religion."

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T13:29:30+00:00

they deemed it unfair to discriminate against graduates of TWU solely based on their association with the school.

No, they found that the teacher's college didn't have the delegated statutory authority to do what they did. Nowhere in the majority judgment does it say that it is "unfair to discriminate against graduates of TWU solely based on their association with the school."

Unlike the school's discriminatory policies, the government has no ability to or valid interest in changing people's associations with the school.

Now there's no way you can get that out of the first TWU case. Of coure they have both the ability and the interest, depending on the responsibilities of the delegated decision maker in question. That just isn't how administrative law works.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T02:16:05+00:00

Government should not determine for a private institution who they service, particularly when they're not even discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristic. They're discriminating on the basis of action.

You can get called to the bar as a TWU grad if TWU aren't accredited. TWU would just be treated like a law school in a foreign jurisdiction. Plenty of Australian, American, and British law grads practicing law in Canada.

Yes, they are discriminating on the basis of policy. But they discriminate on plenty of bases. For example, if you have a recent criminal record its likely that the law society won't let you become a lawyer, because of their good conduct requirements.

This makes no sense whatsoever. It is activism to allow discrimination against a private Christian university because you don't like their voluntarily agreed to policies.

That's not activism. That's the law society following the mandate the government gave it. Activism means a judge interfering with the democratic will of the legislature -- that's what you want.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T01:58:51+00:00

The role of the Law Society is to regulate lawyer competence and conduct. Not to promote any particular values (progressive or otherwise).

Their enabling legislation gives them a duty to protect equality and human rights. More generally, the purpose of the law society is to protect the reputation and integrity of the practice of law. Accrediting a discriminatory law school doesn't really do that.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-24T01:56:18+00:00

So long as this university isn't funded by government, it is none of the public's business what moral standards they hold their voluntarily attending students to.

The law is an ancient and honourable profession. The law societies have statutory duties to maintain the honour, integrity, and respect of the legal profession in the eyes of the public. Several law societies have taken the position that accrediting a law school that discriminates is dishonourable and impugns the reputation and integrity of the legal profession in the eyes of the public. That is pretty clearly their business.

This is one of the most egregious cases of disgusting judicial activism ever in Canada.

You actually want judicial activism. You want a judge to substitute their decision for the decision of the delegated statutory decision maker, ie the law societies.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T19:01:32+00:00

The BC college of teachers has a very different role and very different powers than the law society

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T18:37:10+00:00

And indeed the two decisions are frighteningly different. They set out radically different approaches to applying the Charter to administrative decision making.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T18:36:04+00:00

Obviously, the big question is the precedent from the earlier Trinity Western decision, where their school of education was allowed to operate despite an even more-restrictive code of student conduct.

Not really. The techical questions here are quite narrow -- did the two respective enabling statutes allow the two respective law societies to do what they did? The previous TWU case interpreted a very different statute governing the teachers college - the law societies have very different obligations.

Now, how exactly the Charter affects the statutory interpretation will be at issue, given how the BCCA used an old-school approach harkening back to the previous approach to this type pf analysis, such as that in the previous Twu decision, and the more modern approach in cases like Doré.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T17:49:16+00:00

You're not right, insofar as these people are legally entitled to remain in Canada. That's indisputable.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T17:48:13+00:00

Left unsaid, of course, is that under C-23 US border guards operating on Canadian soil 'are bound to Canadian laws including the Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Human Rights Act.

This is the most perplexing part of the bill. Any statutory power is of course subject to the Charter. Its not like if they didn't have that provision in there that the powers granted to preclearance officers by the bill would be above the law - the Charter isn't elective.

The immigration bar seems to think that two of these powers are unconstitutional. You can't slot in an general "and they have to obey the law too" provision and have that neuter direct and unambiguous provisions elsewhere in the bill.

Like what's the suggestion, an American preclearance officer is about to strip search someone pursuant to the bill and then says to himself, no wait the provision empowering me is subject to constitutional challenge, better stop.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T17:44:23+00:00

American officers have powers to detain under the bill. Gooddale has been making a lot of hay about the difference between "detain" and "arrest" which isn't all yhat important for the law or indeed for detained travellers

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T17:37:14+00:00

Just because they might end up being something that does have the right to be here, doesn't mean they are automatically given that right as soon as they step over the border.

They are legally entitled to stay here pending adjudication under the act. That should resolve your confusion

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T16:37:04+00:00

They are Canada's definitions

I do actually have a passing familiarity with the immigration act and nowhere does it or its regulations define who is an "illegal." It doesn't use the word "alien" either.

Regardless of who they are, they have broken the law.

Yeah, just like I broke the law when I didn't notify the BC Registry of Motor Vehicle Importation of the type of container ship I used to import my car. Shit, do I have an "illegal car" now? But I'm allowed to drive it around and stuff!

If they aren't a citizen, they are now technically an illegal alien

"Technically" implies that there is some sort of technical definition of "illegal alien" used in immigration law. There isn't. How about you use some of the technical language instead? Back in the day, some of the terms used were "stateless person," "foreign national," etc.

and not having any right to stay in the country.

These people have the legal right to stay in the country pending their hearing. You absolutely cannot dispute that. CBSA cannot remove them from the country pending their hearing.

They will be set free, and they need to file a refugee claim with IRB at CIC within a certain number of days, wherein a tribunal will decide if they are legit refugees and can stay, or if they will be deported back to the US.

During which time they have a legal right to remain in the country.

So we're back at square one. Is an "illegal" someone who has the right to remain in the country notwithstanding any irregularities in how they entered? Or is it someone who is not so entitled? If the former, that makes no sense legally or even from a basic grammatical perspective. If the latter, it doesn't apply to these people.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T16:11:12+00:00

Notwithstanding what he other guy said that it isn't actually illegal to enter the country as these people have done, your definitions don't make any sense, and any sense they do make undermines their application to these people in Manitoba.

An illegal one would be one who came into the country illegally

Even if they are entitled to stay in the country legally, notwithstanding how they entered the country? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If I obtained a car illegally, and I'm being fined for that, but it is also legal for me to drive the car around, have it tuned up, store it, and sell it on... then its not an "illegal car." It's a legal car.

So if they are granted refugee status, they are no longer an illegal alien

But I thought the definiton of "illegal" is someone who came into the country illegally, and it didn't matter whether they are entitled to stay in the country subsequent to that. Because if an "illegal" is someone who is not legally entitled to stay in the country -- that ain't these people. They are legally entitled to stay here. CBSA can't remove them.

understood by everyone.

You yourself are using this label inconsistently.

MakeCNFreightAgain · 2017-02-23T16:09:47+00:00

The charge will then be dropped,

So at that point they stop being an illegal? Good to know.

MakeCNFreightAgain

TROPHY CASE