• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Neutral

About Seifer86

  • Rank
    Aces Star

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
  1. There's something happening hereBut what it is ain't exactly clearThere's a man with a gun over thereTelling me I got to bewareI think it's time we stopChildren, what's that sound?Everybody look - what's going down?There's battle lines being drawnNobody's right if everybody's wrongYoung people speaking' their mindsGetting so much resistance from behindIt's time we stopHey, what's that sound?Everybody look - what's going down?What a field day for the heatA thousand people in the streetSinging songs and carrying signsMostly saying, "hooray for our side"It's time we stopHey, what's that sound?Everybody look - what's going down?Paranoia strikes deepInto your life it will creepIt starts when you're always afraidStep out of line, the men come and take you awayWe better stopHey, what's that sound?Everybody look - what's going down?
  2. Announced last November. Legislation is being crafted to put this in effect. Could be a while though as the Act is already complex and an amendment would have a ripple effect.
  3. I couldn't stop laughing at this. People are now giving me a wide berth on the skytrain. Thank you.
  4. A bit of a contradiction there. If there are different tribes and bands then the concept of a closed culture with "boundaries" is not a foreign one. But I see where you're coming from.
  5. R v JA A very polarizing case. It established that consent must be continuous and that no one can consent to being sexually touched while unconscious. The decision went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices were split 6 to 3 on the ruling. The 3 dissenting judges actually had a pretty compelling argument but it would open up for a lot of wiggle room with regards to consent. The problem with this case is that the complainant brought it forward 2 months after it happened because the guy was threatening to take sole custody of their child. She recanted her complaint but the case went ahead anyway. R v Ewanchuk is the decision I'd recommend reading. Consent is based solely on the subjective mind of the person giving consent. If, in their mind, they are not consenting, but their actions may say otherwise, there is no consent. Honest and mistaken belief is a possible defence for the accused, although judges are remiss to put a concrete definition on what "honest" means in this instance.
  6. Shocking...
  7. This would actually be much more complicated than most might expect. Remember that the position of Prime Minisiter doesn't actually exist anywhere in our constitution. The PM is selected by the Queens Representative, the Governor General. They serve at the Queen's leisure. Everything about the PM is based on convention. The GG doesn't even have to select the leader of the party as the PM, but does so because it is tradition. There is no qualification to be PM. It would be hard to impose rules like term limits for a job that doesn't technically exist. To do so would likely require an amendment to the constitution...which as we know is no easy feat.
  8. What a dumb post. It was bad before so it's ok that it's just as bad now. Solid outlook there bud.
  9. The person/people who named officers that had nothing to do with this are going to be neck-deep in defamation lawsuits from now to eternity. The Internet is not the free for all that many think it is.
  10. Unfortunately that's not always true. This is a pretty clear cut case. The comments are defamatory, they were published, and they referenced the plaintiff. For libel cases you don't have to prove damage (unlike slander). Aside from a justification defence (that her comments were true) or qualified privilege based on her moral duty to inform the community of the teacher's "preferences", she was pretty much SOL. A party can't bring irrelevant evidence forward. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff was a dick neighbour or if there were other confrontations between them, it's not relevant to a defamation issue and thus it is inadmissible.
  11. Exactly. Sexual assault is about consent at the time the alleged assault was committed. Giving consent, and then realizing months later the guy is a douchebag and you never should have consented does not equal a crime. It is possible that some people would feel slighted by being the "loser" in this situation and may trump up an assault charge, but then it comes down to complainant testimony as the primary evidence. So the only thing the Crown can do at that point is convince the judge or jury of the credibility of the complainant. This gives the defence a leg-up as they only need focus on attacking that credibility and since the defendant doesn't have to testify, all that is required is to bring reasonable doubt into the judge/juror's mind of the credibility of the witness and innocence is automatic. One thing that needs to be considered by many people commenting on this case is that stigma is a powerful force these days. It is unlikely that someone would throw around a rape accusation without some sort of factual basis to lean on. The repercussions many victims face from making rape allegations is a big part of what leads to large gaps in time between occurrence and reporting
  12. It is by no means a perfect system but it is the best option we have at the moment. As others have commented, the defendant has a choice of judge or judge + jury. Remember that even with a jury trial, the judge still decides whether certain evidence can be presented to the jury. The judge also instructs the jury on how much weight to give a particular piece of evidence, including witness testimony. Many appeal cases are based on an error the judge made when instructing the jury. The two cases mentioned by the OP are high profile cases where, because of public knowledge and exposure, there was a high risk of prejudice before the trial. The more the jurors know about the case before the trial starts, the more likely it is that they have formed an opinion on the accused and they will then fit the evidence into their preconceived notion. A more intense screening process for jurors would be great, however this would slow down the trial process even further in an already back-logged court system. Choosing a judge over a jury, especially in certain criminal proceedings, is not a favourable choice for the accused in my opinion. As a law student I can tell you that many, many judges have their own narrow line of thinking and it is quite difficult to sway their decision unless you have a particularly crafty lawyer. Remember that the reasonable doubt standard in criminal trials is purposely set higher than the balance of probabilities standard used in civil proceedings. This is because our system is built around the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent one. This also helps to counteract the imbalance in power and capability between Crown and defence parties. The Crown has a lot more resources at its disposal.
  13. You're dreaming. And considering where Washinton will finish, that 3rd rounder is waaaaaay low down. This whole "we should be sellers at the deadline" thing only works if there are BUYERS, and plenty of them. The headlines basically say that 1/3 of the league are/should be sellers for picks and prospects. But if the new way of doing things in the cap era is to stockpile picks and have good young players on entry level deals, then why would teams trade these away for rental players? Hamhuis for a 1st is ridiculous. Vrbata for more than a 4th is ridiculous. So many people delude themselves into thinking that players who haven't been doing well on our team are somehow worth young future stars for other teams. Thinking that the Canucks are the only team who can come up with: SELL OUR UNDERACHIEVING PLAYERS FOR OTHER TEAMS DRAFT PICKS is idiotic. Don't get me wrong, I would like nothing more than to see our GM fleece other teams for picks and prospects, however my expectations are actually grounded in reality. Obviously I'm not saying there will be NO rental deals ( since some have already happened) but some people need to come back to earth.