Supreme Court’s Racist Hogwash Excuses Red Indian Criminals!
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that aboriginal background should be a paramount consideration when sentencing violent offenders who have breached long-term supervision orders.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/03/23/north-supreme-court-aboriginal.html
By ‘aboriginal,’ of course, they mean Red Indians, not those dark chaps from Australia.
In a 6-1 decision, the justices ruled on a pair of cases in which offenders on long-term supervision were sentenced after violating the terms of their orders. Both men had long, violent, criminal histories.
But Canada’s glorious judiciary believe in blind justice, blind to any sense of personal responsibility for crimes.
“To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide and, of course, higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal Peoples,” Justice Louis LeBel wrote for the majority.
Mr. Harper! Your top priority now must be clear legislation to pre-empt this racist hogwash.
The Notwithstanding Clause exists to deal with situations where courts run amok. This court needs impeached, but that is probably too complex and long-drawn-out a process, though a start should be made.
There is absolutely no excuse for savages, red, white, brown or black, who commit violent crimes against decent folk.
Like that demented vixen Collin in France, who tried to corral her students into a moment of silence for the shariah-freak who killed those children, these equally demented judges insult both the principles of justice and the victims of evil-doers, when they spout gibberish about ‘disadvantaged backgrounds.’
How many people do you know, and I ask this of every reader individually, who came from broken homes, inner-city slums, poverty and other wretched circumstances, yet went on to live decent lives and do honest jobs?
If there’s one can do it, then so can all the rest. It’s called self-discipline.
.
edward 12:19 on March 25, 2012 Permalink |
As usual political correctness from lefturd lunacy, which already rules academia, religion, and government, is on display next to it’s companion, ignorance, in the highest court of injustice in the land. Only fools think that truth does not wreak it’s own vengeance.
LikeLike
vojo 02:56 on March 26, 2012 Permalink |
Ross, to refer to the aboriginals or the natives of Canada as “Red Indians” is ridiculous, and that title alone renders the rest of your comment also ridiculous. I agree that crimes of violence shouldn’t be easily excused, however; even if they are native and have had a hard life and they commit violence, they must be punished.
LikeLike
ross1948 03:34 on March 26, 2012 Permalink |
vojo, ‘Indians’ would once have been perfectly adequate, but since there are now many Asian Indians in Canada, Red Indians is the easy way to indicate who we are taking about. It is a term long in use and in no way pejorative, and replacing it with ‘aboriginals’ or ‘natives’ is just PC silliness. You and I are natives of Canada, We are not Indians.
The point of the article is that nobody should get special treament due to colour or race if a crime is committed, and that point is not ridiculous.
LikeLike
vojo 20:57 on March 26, 2012 Permalink
Never mind that there are a lot of “Asian Indians” in Canada, there are more than 1 billion of them in a little country called India. It was just ignorance that kept us calling our aboriginals Indians for so long, but to add Red sounds racist and like something out of old Western movies. Why can’t we call them Aboriginals?
LikeLike
ross1948 23:38 on March 26, 2012 Permalink
You can call them Aboriginals if you like, vojo, but to most people that word conjures up images of boomerangs in the Outback.
It was not ignorance that kept us calling them Indians for hundreds of years. Initially the word was used in error, but it wasn’t long after 1492 that people realised the Americas were not East Indies after all, yet the name stuck.
And with the large Asian Indian population in Canada these days, mention of which seems to exacerbate your stresses, Red Indians is a useful definitive description, though I suppose Copper might be technically more accurate. Are we not to describe Blacks or Whites by their colours either?
And what’s wrong with old Western movies? I suppose they were all ‘racist’ because villains wore black hats?
You’ll be banning ‘baaa baaa black sheep’ from nursery schools next!
Canada has had more than enough of all this tosh about ‘racism.’ You should try to be more tolerant instead of demanding we all speak as the PC lobby dictates.
LikeLike
vojo 00:48 on March 27, 2012 Permalink
Ross, I don’t think calling Canadian natives just that or Aboriginals is not being politically correct, but rather using language to reflect reality. Few people in Canada today use the term “Indian” unless referring to people from India, and I’ve never heard anyone use the term “Red Indian”. You’d be laughed at in most places using language like that, and beaten up or worse in others.
Okay, I’ll try not to cringe when I read some of your 1950s terminology for people.
LikeLike
ross1948 04:20 on March 27, 2012 Permalink
We can of course agree to differ, but your penultimate sentence is the rub.
Naturally we often laugh at our political opponents, and given the absurdity of much Political Correctness, it affords us many a chuckle.
Equally, my critics can deride my views as 1950s, a decade which in my opinion exemplified good manners, taste and quality of life, though i was very young.
But you are undoubtedly spot on when you say that dissenters from PC norms risk getting ‘beaten up or worse.’
Whilst you, vojo, retain the democratic instinct to debate rationally, the real nazi mentality today is located squarely among the left-libs. If they can’t get a human rights tribunal to silence free speech, they bring on goon tactics.
LikeLike