Monday, October 02, 2006

More Two-Tiered Justice in Canada

There is an interesting article in today's Hamilton Spectator about on-line gambling and the division it has caused in the Six Nations. Seems that the federal government is linked at some level as well.

Please read Online Gambling Divides Six Nations.


Native claims, such as those made by the Kahnawake Mohawks, that they retain sovereign rights over online gaming have never been properly defined in court.

"Has it been tested in the courts? No. Are (the Kahnawake Mohawks) carrying on openly and transparently? Yes," said Lipton.

"Does the Quebec government know about it? Yes.

"Has the Quebec government gone on record to say that it's legal or illegal? They said that it's illegal back in 2001 but they haven't done anything about it."


Comments are welcome. This is an area where I have little background, but it does seem to be more evidence of two-tiered law enforcement in Canada.

More at Wake-up Call.


Update: Three native gambling sites fold.

30 comments:

Mac said...

Steve Janke of Angry in the Great White North has covered the gambling side of this story rather extensively on his blog.

Labels like 'two tier justice' don't do justice (bad pun, sorry) to the reality of the criminal justice system. There are many levels if one considers the various options available for prosecution and/or diversion.

There's youth court (young offenders) at two levels; provincial and supreme plus informal diversion (where young offenders meet with the victims of their crimes and make a contract for reparations). For those of native ancestry, there is also diversion options through some band councils. For some serious offences, they can be moved up to "adult court" although they're not exposed to the full range of sentencing. So there's five levels, just with youths.

Is it any wonder folks need a lawyer to understand the justice system?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow. Thanks for that background, Mac. No wonder there seems to be a reluctance to charge the natives.

liberal supporter said...

With the loss of the court challenges programme, there opens up yet another tier. The existing one for those who can afford to pursue endless legal wrangling (such as tobacco companies fighting for freedom to advertise legal products) and a new tier for those who the CCP was intended to help.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

a new tier for those who the CCP was intended to help.

The CCP was already a two-tiered system designed to fund Liberal-friendly activist groups to push their various agendas. Nothing for any group that differed from Liberal philosophy.

Anonymous said...

Liberals allow crime to continue at the expense of Canadians because they believe treating people fairly might cost them votes, they don't mind discrimination at all.

Crimes that directly benefit the Liberal Party are heartily endorsed by them of course.

Liberals voters must be morally bankrupt, there is no other explanation.

Anonymous said...

What would you expect from a party that won't even wipe the Volpe off it's shoes?

liberal supporter said...

"The CCP was already a two-tiered system designed to fund Liberal-friendly activist groups to push their various agendas. Nothing for any group that differed from Liberal philosophy."

Okey dokey (that means I don't agree)

liberal supporter said...

"Crimes that directly benefit the Liberal Party are heartily endorsed by them of course. "

Hey anon, that sounds kind of libellous. I'm sure you will come back with "truth is a complete defence". I'll cue the band for the rimshot. It is also a sufficient defence if the libellous words are so outrageous that few people would believe them.

Rest easy...

Anonymous said...

Hey lib supp,

The Gomery inquiry wasn't even about whether or not millions of dollars were stolen, everyone agreed that the money was stolen, the inquiry was only ordered to obfuscate justice so that the Liberals could get away with stealing millions of dollars - and they did!

That's common knowledge now, so anyone who votes for that kind of theft is morally bankrupt.

liberal supporter said...

When liberals screw up, money gets stolen. When conservatives screw up, people die.

Take your pick.

vicki said...

ls ...you can probably research the CCP. It sounded ideal for the underprivileged...that is not how it was being used...rather abused.

PGP said...

What the hell does the CCP have to do with native run casinos and online gambling?

liberal supporter said...

sorry pgp it was a dumb sidetrack.

Joanne was talking about two tiered justice in reference to native issues.

The phrase "two tier" probably was alluding to the "two tiered health care" tag that gets stuck on the conservatives.

This is a common thing on this blog, the use of buzz words normally associated with liberals, being used sarcastically and out of context.

Similar to how the "freedom march" is framed as "freedom of speech", even though many people think exercising this freedom at the DCE site will likely result in violent incidents. I would not be surprised if the natives end up "starting" the new violence, but the point is it will not resolve the situation there.

Another example of this sarcasm was in the BC situation where the gay teacher is at the table in putting gay stuff in the school curriculum,. The demand for parents vetting of that (and all other parts) of the curriculum, and demanding advance notice so that children can be excused from classes dealing with the material in question is called wanting equality.


So following the "two tiered" theme, I said that taking away CCP also results in another tier in the justice system. I won't dispute that it can be abused, but it seems throwing it out is not the answer. I didn't see it demonstrated that it failed to help anyone.

liberal supporter said...

I think the online gambling situation will change, since I heard that the US has just banned online gaming. The US has in the past applied its laws to other countries, (for example, Canadian companies owned by Americans cannot trade with Cuba). It will be interesting to see how they apply this new law to the online casinos hosted on the reserve.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. Wow! I'm still recovering from the shock of the apology you gave PGP!

Better check for signs of the end times!

I didn't see it demonstrated that it failed to help anyone

I dont think it helped Bishop Fred Henry or the B.C. Knights of Columbus, or several western marriage commissioners who were threatened with dismissal if they didn't perform same-sex marriages. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

BTW, the Caledonia rally won't be at DCE.

PGP said...

Its a confused world we live in!
Very gracious of you LS.

It seems to me that all efforts at creating special exemptions or accomodations for one group always end up costing a lot of others.

The only real answer is to put an end to the ideology of GROUP rights and ensure that individual rights are respected. This would require that the rule of 'One Law' for all be applied universally. The result would be the END of many sacred cows in the social/progressive pantheon.

Take your pick which ones you think would be most threatened!
How are we benefitted as a society by selective enforcement of laws?
How are we benefitted by selectively discriminatory laws?

If we are a society as opposed to a collection of disparate groups seeking self preservation and personal advancement then we need to forego the divisive concept of groups rights and social accomodation of selective groups.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The only real answer is to put an end to the ideology of GROUP rights and ensure that individual rights are respected.

That makes so much sense. Why isn't this happening?

Mac said...

joanne (true blue) said "That makes so much sense. Why isn't this happening?"

For a very good reason: LPC and NDP don't respect individual rights. I'm sure our good friend Liberal Supporter will disagree but I would encourage everyone to take an objective view.

The NDP make no bones about their desire for socialism. Socialism, by it's nature, suppresses the rights of individuals for the "good" of society. I put italics around "good" as my interpretation of what's good for society might not resemble what the NDP believes to be good.

The LPC play at being a centrist party but they're a party of the left. Look at their legacy of legislation and you'll see more and more invasive laws, stripping away privacy and property rights, all in the name of protecting Canadian society.

Trudeau spent his entire time as Prime Minister working to bring socialism to Canada. If he could have made it palatable, he would have introduced Communism but that was too extreme for Canadians. The small "c" conservatives of the prairies and the business communities in Ontario & Quebec would not allow it.

Trudeau's final "legacy" to Canada was his Constitution and the Charter of Rights. Is it simply coincidence that the Charter does not recognize property rights?

Luckily, the provincial premiers forced Trudeau to add the Not Withstanding Clause as a much-needed check & balance to the Constitution. What did Paul Martin say during the last election? He promised to eliminate the Not Withstanding Clause. Does this sound like the words of someone who wants to respect individual rights or does it sound like someone who wants to use the Constitution as a blunt instrument?

One of the front runners for the LPC is Bob Rae, former provincial NDP premier. Has Rae abandoned socialism? Not likely and since the NDP is unlikely to ever be elected as government, Rae needs the LPC to bring his dreams to fruition.

Joanne, I've mentioned libertarianism to you before in describing my personal philosophy. Had you ever heard of libertarianism before I mentioned it?

If so, I would be surprised since, to my knowledge, there is no mention of libertarianism in the public school curriculum. Why do you suppose a political philosophy which encourages individual rights and self reliance with a strong emphasis on personal responsibility would be ignored completely?

Provincially, the NDP has had more success than federally and, of course, teachers are all unionized. The relationship between unions and the NDP is well known.

Draw your own conclusions.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joanne, I've mentioned libertarianism to you before in describing my personal philosophy. Had you ever heard of libertarianism before I mentioned it?

Only once - Someone I canvassed with in the last federal election said he was a libertarian.

The connection between teachers' unions and socialism is well known indeed.

Cherniak_WTF said...

to my knowledge, there is no mention of libertarianism in the public school curriculum. Why do you suppose a political philosophy which encourages individual rights and self reliance with a strong emphasis on personal responsibility would be ignored completely
Maybe because your version of libertarianism is akin to a mixture of Fascism and Con doctrine.
You seem to identify with the "business" aspect of Conservatism (however flawed it is) but don't espouse the rights of individuals aspect of it.

If so, I'd see you posting in a more progressive manner.

What I see is a uber-Con and not a Libertarian...

Mac said...

Thanks, c_wtf... that was trollriffic!!

Cherniak_WTF said...

No Mac, far from trollriffic.
As someone who strongly leans toward Libertarianism, I'm tired of the term being hijacked by clowns with a thin grasp of the concept.

I'm sure that you can have a better rebuttal than that.
From the posts that you have made, there is very little that tends towards Libertarianism as a whole. You seem embrace the uber-con doctrines and show weak knowledge when it comes to subjects show as individual freedoms.

I'm ready to be proven wrong, in fact, I'd like it.

Mac said...

Do you suppose I'm going to further a discussion with someone has been unfailingly rude to Joanne and others, including myself? I won't be "feeding the troll" as I'm not interested in playing your little game.

Cherniak_WTF said...

I've been rude and polite to Joanne but have always respected her. The same can be said of my postings over at Red Tory...

Now you bring up the Libertarian doctrine (many of the values that I agree with) - yet take offence when I point out that you are no Libertarian - or if you are, it's well hidden.

When it comes to online gambling, I'd expect someone like you to encourage it and hope that it would also be legalized outside of the reservations. You may not like gambling but it's an individual choice.

Of course your weak diatribe is rather amusing - attacking the Charter of Rights. I'd like to see the individual rights in Canada be even stronger.
Now you may argue that there is no property rights in the Charter (and you'd be right) but the Charter is a good start in protecting individual right...

So please, don't masquerade as a Libertarian when your philosophy seems lined up with something else.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Seems to me that being a 'Libertarian' is subject to individual interpretation, as are so many other labels or beliefs, such as being a Conservative, Liberal, or even a Catholic.

However, it's not a big deal one way or the other, IMHO. Just semantics.


If so, I'd see you posting in a more progressive manner.

Cherniak (and Jdave wherever he is) often seem to attempt to imply that others should be trying to live up to their expectations; that we are somehow falling short or being disingenuous or hypocritical.



I won't be "feeding the troll" as I'm not interested in playing your little game.

It is a an attempt to obfuscate and be controlling. I agree with your decision, Mac.


Cherniak, I enjoy your contributions here, for the most part. I respect your opinion more though when it is objective and not aimed at personal attack. That is your choice though, as is mine to moderate as I see fit.

(Now isn't that a "libertarian" attitude?) ;)

Cherniak_WTF said...

Cherniak (and Jdave wherever he is) often seem to attempt to imply that others should be trying to live up to their expectations;
You should live to your expectations, not mine.

I believe that we should have more freedoms. I don't like soft drug use (hash, pot etc) but will push for drug legalization. I'd be a hypocrite not to support it.

as is mine to moderate as I see fit.
You have also laid down a few other ground rules such as no swearing. I did they have been respected. And, yes this is your house - so I try to respect the rules.

neo said...

i guess us white people just don't get that online gaming is covered under "the great law of peace".

who knew 'the great spirit' anticipated the internet?

Mac said...

I expect the US government's objection to online gaming is they don't get their "cut" of the action.

In BC, the provincial government calls lotteries and other gambling which they regulate "voluntary taxation" for some reason.

Personally, I don't see the attraction is to online gambling. At casinos, one plays games of skill and chance as a form of social entertainment. I've never gone to a casino alone solely for gaming and I don't expect I ever will. Likewise, I don't see myself gambling online.

To clarify for certain induhviduals, although I have no interest in doing so, I have no objection to online gaming and I believe it is wrong for the government to attempt to suppress those who wish to engage in such activities.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You have also laid down a few other ground rules such as no swearing. I did they have been respected. And, yes this is your house - so I try to respect the rules.

Thanks, CWTF. I appreciate that.