View Full Version : Canadian Supreme Court = Freedom!
:canada::canada::canada:
Yes sir!
:canada::canada::canada:
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that random school and public place inspections with drug sniffing dogs are unconstitutional.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7cef5f97-7bfa-48bb-97db-05e8754897eb
I don't want drugs in school, but I don't want cops with dogs roaming the halls putting kids up against their lockers for no reason either. If you want to search someone, get a warrant, get a reason, or get the hell out. JFK said it best, "You can have freedom without peace, but you cannot have peace without freedom." Thank God we still have some freedoms in this country.
A fine day for all Canadians. :sunny:
(We are still subject to random searches in airports, and that's ok with me.)
Crazed Rabbit
04-25-2008, 23:29
(We are still subject to random searches in airports, and that's ok with me.)
Lol at the irony.
CR
Lol at the irony.
CR
Not sure I know which irony you speak of.
Reverend Joe
04-25-2008, 23:35
https://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1677/cul019fullky3.gif
Vladimir
04-26-2008, 03:55
Lol at the irony.
CR
Think about who you're talking to. :juggle2:
InsaneApache
04-26-2008, 04:01
God bless Her Majesties constabulary.
Think about who you're talking to. :juggle2:
Good Lord I must be thick, I still don't see what you're on about. :embarassed:
Tribesman
04-26-2008, 12:21
Good Lord I must be thick, I still don't see what you're on about.
Think about it , there was no irony in what you wrote except that which someone imagined .
However what they wrote is really ironic:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Adrian II
04-26-2008, 12:31
Good Lord I must be thick, I still don't see what you're on about. :embarassed:Neither do I.
1. Searching for bombs and guns and box cutter at airports is different from sending drug sniffers into skools, right?
2. And how would that be ironic because it's coming from Crazed Rabbit instead of someone else?
Guess I'm thick a well. ~:confused:
ICantSpellDawg
04-26-2008, 12:44
That sounds like a good decision. Airport security is one thing, putting kids into a police state is totally different.
That sounds like a good decision. Airport security is one thing, putting kids into a police state is totally different.
Exactly. :beatnik2:
Freedom has reasonable limitations. Section 8 of our Constitution protects us not from being searched, but from being unreasonably searched. Being searched before boarding an airplane does not, in my mind, constitute an unreasonable search.
Apparently the court hasn't made a final decision on airport searches but I can't believe they would disallow them. If they did, the government would use the Notwithstanding Clause in the Constitution and overule the court. It's been done before, but not often and always creates a huge fuss.
KukriKhan
04-26-2008, 14:33
Just a wild guess here, but our favorite dog-loving esteemed Moderator, with
"Unto each good man a good dog" as his sig, applauds a decision wherein drug-sniffing search dogs will lose some of their business...
might be considered mildly ironic.
Sure loses something in the 'splainin', eh?
Anywayyyyy:
...get a warrant, get a reason, or get the hell out
Amen, Brother.
Exactly. :beatnik2:
Freedom has reasonable limitations. Section 8 of our Constitution protects us not from being searched, but from being unreasonably searched. Being searched before boarding an airplane does not, in my mind, constitute an unreasonable search.
Apparently the court hasn't made a final decision on airport searches but I can't believe they would disallow them. If they did, the government would use the Notwithstanding Clause in the Constitution and overule the court. It's been done before, but not often and always creates a huge fuss.
I fly an alot with my new job, and at least in the United States Airlines are primary a private business with Governmental oversite. I am willing to bet, since I havent read the ticket that closely, that by the purchase of the ticket you are agreeing to be searched. Going to have to look into that to make sure.
So I am not sure if ruling a search of a school locker without a warrant as unconstitutional is ironic because if the state allows the agreement to be searched to be a precondition of the ticket purchase. That would constitute a reasonable expectation of being searched.
Now it all depends on how the constitution is worded also. From your describition of the Canadian constitution seems to cover the case of an airport search anyway as a reasonable search.
Now one could argue that searching students at school for contraband as listed on the school charter and rules document would be constitutional if it was alreadly established in its charter - because the expectation of a reasonable search would be there alreadly. Would all depend on the actual documents involved, and if the documents passed the courts review as being within the constitution.
Either way when the court rules to insure an individual rights over the state - its always a good thing.
Now it all depends on how the constitution is worded also. From your describition of the Canadian constitution seems to cover the case of an airport search anyway as a reasonable search.
The relevant text from the Canadian Contstitution:
LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
SEARCH OR SEIZURE.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Now one could argue that searching students at school for contraband as listed on the school charter and rules document would be constitutional if it was alreadly established in its charter - because the expectation of a reasonable search would be there alreadly. Would all depend on the actual documents involved, and if the documents passed the courts review as being within the constitution.
The court ruled that a student has the same right of privacy regarding what's in his schoolbag as an adult has regarding their purse of briefcase. And you sure as shoot cannot stop a woman and ask what's in her purse without a helluva god reason. Even if you're married to her. (Especially if you're married to her.)
Either way when the court rules to insure an individual rights over the state - its always a good thing.
Amen indeed. :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
04-26-2008, 17:21
Oh, schools and airports are very different things of course.
But what was funny to me was Beirut acting excited about the court stopping random searches in schools, then proclaiming he had no problem with random searches in airports.
I don't know how those searches work in Canada, but here in the US it's mainly screening whoever's convenient - old grannies and the like - and the screeners also seem to fail whenever govt agents put on a covert 'exam' by trying to sneak things on planes.
And then there's always Richard Warman.
CR
Oh, schools and airports are very different things of course.
But what was funny to me was Beirut acting excited about the court stopping random searches in schools, then proclaiming he had no problem with random searches in airports.
I swear the thickness of my skull must increase exponentially by the hour because I still don't see what you're getting at.
Your first sentence says that schools and airports are very different, which I agree with and already said. Then your second sentence says that you found it funny that I consider schools and airports to be very different.
Sorry to be a shmoo, but if you could spell out this irony in Grade 3 English, perhaps using fo-ne-tik spehling I wood apriciate itt.
Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2008, 18:58
Don't public searches like these tend to result in the confiscation of quite a lot of drugs though? They do that quite a lot here in the UK, mostly in pubs, and they tend to get good results.
The schoolchildren will be glad to get out of class anyway.:shrug:
Crazed Rabbit
04-26-2008, 19:52
I swear the thickness of my skull must increase exponentially by the hour because I still don't see what you're getting at.
Your first sentence says that schools and airports are very different, which I agree with and already said. Then your second sentence says that you found it funny that I consider schools and airports to be very different.
Sorry to be a shmoo, but if you could spell out this irony in Grade 3 English, perhaps using fo-ne-tik spehling I wood apriciate itt.
Just an incongruity between the first part of your post - 'Yay for no random drug sniffing dogs!' and the last sentence - 'Random searches at airports are fine by me'.
CR
Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2008, 19:56
Just an incongruity between the first part of your post - 'Yay for no random drug sniffing dogs!' and the last sentence - 'Random searches at airports are fine by me'.
CR
Well as you said there's quite a difference between them.
Crazed Rabbit
04-26-2008, 20:53
Indeed. I'm not faulting his reasoning, just pointing out that it seemed ironic.
CR
Indeed. I'm not faulting his reasoning, just pointing out that it seemed ironic.
CR
I kind of maybe perhaps see what you're getting at, but I fail utterly to see the comic irony in differentiating between two situations we both agree are worth differentiating between.
But I'm Canadian, and we're kind of slow, eh. ~:wacko:
Banquo's Ghost
04-27-2008, 09:46
I kind of maybe perhaps see what you're getting at, but I fail utterly to see the comic irony in differentiating between two situations we both agree are worth differentiating between.
But I'm Canadian, and we're kind of slow, eh. ~:wacko:
I suspect it's more because CR considers you a leftie, and therefore anything you say risible.
:wink3:
I suspect it's more because CR considers you a leftie, and therefore anything you say risible.
:wink3:
Those be fightin words.
It's times like this that I have to stop giving my northern-dwelling brothers and sisters well-intended and well-meant crap, and a firm handshake instead. This is the kind of stuff that I keep wishing my country would do, instead of maintaining this "reasonable security measures" bullcrap which is just that... bullcrap.
Hats off to the 'nucks. :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
04-28-2008, 06:29
I kind of maybe perhaps see what you're getting at, but I fail utterly to see the comic irony in differentiating between two situations we both agree are worth differentiating between.
But I'm Canadian, and we're kind of slow, eh. ~:wacko:
Yet connected with a common foundation - random searches.
But, meh, doesn't matter.
CR
ICantSpellDawg
04-28-2008, 19:19
So if I said "Yay for no flowing sewage through my front yard" it would be ironic if I said "I am for flowing sewage in our sewage systems?".
If the government forces you to go to school and school allows random, warrant less invasions of privacy with your "consent" upon entrance into school - the government has, in a way, forced warrant less invasions of privacy on private citizens. This would be, in effect, the government condoning what the constitution expressly forbids for a massive portion of your life.
School devastation poses nowhere near the risks that Airline transportation or even subway transportation poses. The government might as well allow full searches and seizures without a warrant anytime it wants.
There are serious differences in situations like these.
EDIT: the discussion seems to be over
Well it is a good day to be a Canadian I guess, but I do not have the same great feeling that everyone else seemingly does, about airport searches. Airport searches - well at least the more 'detailed' ones - are normally aimed at 'certain' people and are done for no other reason than preconceived prejudices and sterotypes. If we were searching everyone the same, fine - if it was a condition of going onto a plane and you knew that before you travelled, I would have less of a problem with it - though still a significant problem, what next everytime you enter a train station? - but it isn't. Searches of people who have done no wrong and there is no evidence of them doing wrong, should NEVER be searched. For those who think it is fine, how many people have actually been stopped blowing up planes, or whatever, because of a search at an airport? .. None. They are stopped through intelligence and good policing, not by illegal searches at airports which make people feel great in their insecure heads, but really do nothing but alienate and discriminate.
ICantSpellDawg
04-28-2008, 20:24
Well it is a good day to be a Canadian I guess, but I do not have the same great feeling that everyone else seemingly does, about airport searches. Airport searches - well at least the more 'detailed' ones - are normally aimed at 'certain' people and are done for no other reason than preconceived prejudices and sterotypes. If we were searching everyone the same, fine - if it was a condition of going onto a plane and you knew that before you travelled, I would have less of a problem with it - though still a significant problem, what next everytime you enter a train station? - but it isn't. Searches of people who have done no wrong and there is no evidence of them doing wrong, should NEVER be searched. For those who think it is fine, how many people have actually been stopped blowing up planes, or whatever, because of a search at an airport? .. None. They are stopped through intelligence and good policing, not by illegal searches at airports which make people feel great in their insecure heads, but really do nothing but alienate and discriminate.
The Black after the White and Grey finally rears it's ugly head.:wall:
UglyandHasty
04-29-2008, 06:23
The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that random school and public place inspections with drug sniffing dogs are unconstitutional.
Amen to that !
Geoffrey S
04-29-2008, 16:32
Seems like Rabbit's point, that random searches at schools and random searches at airports/anywhere else are all equally pointless, is being missed completely. And intentionally?
Well it is a good day to be a Canadian I guess, but I do not have the same great feeling that everyone else seemingly does, about airport searches. Airport searches - well at least the more 'detailed' ones - are normally aimed at 'certain' people and are done for no other reason than preconceived prejudices and sterotypes. If we were searching everyone the same, fine - if it was a condition of going onto a plane and you knew that before you travelled, I would have less of a problem with it - though still a significant problem, what next everytime you enter a train station? - but it isn't. Searches of people who have done no wrong and there is no evidence of them doing wrong, should NEVER be searched. For those who think it is fine, how many people have actually been stopped blowing up planes, or whatever, because of a search at an airport? .. None. They are stopped through intelligence and good policing, not by illegal searches at airports which make people feel great in their insecure heads, but really do nothing but alienate and discriminate.
I'm going to have to agree with JAG here.
Tribesman
04-30-2008, 07:38
Seems like Rabbit's point, that random searches at schools and random searches at airports/anywhere else are all equally pointless,
Are they though ?
Adrian II
04-30-2008, 10:36
Seems like Rabbit's point, that random searches at schools and random searches at airports/anywhere else are all equally pointless, is being missed completely. And intentionally?The risks involved aren't the same. And random searches aren't really random, they are based on profiles of potentially threatening persons or behaviour. They replace the total searching of everyone boarding a plane, and as such are cost-effective. Bad random searching revolves around stereotypes as JAG said. A good random search is an intentionally (computer-)randomized search. If there is no obvious pattern, it makes it impossible for potential terrorists to circumvent it.
As for their efficiency: the thorough search practices in modern airports have led terrorists to target trains and subways instead of planes. If they continue to do so, we may have to consider searches in train stations and subway stations as well.
That's what terrorism does to a nation. It destroys confidence. Its effect far outweighs its deathtoll.
Are they though ?
The searches in schools and airports might not be pointless, but that is not really the point. Whether the searches are being conducted with respect to constitutionally protected civil rights, that's the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point.
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-01-2008, 05:07
If they continue to do so, we may have to consider searches in train stations and subway stations as well.
Wonderful.
And our Supreme Court has a whole other set of brains in them as well.
"The Supreme Court of Canada refused to travel down the road of American-style damages lawsuits Thursday in a ruling that rejected a hair stylist's bid for $341,000 in redress for suffering "debilitating psychological injury" after finding a dead fly in his drinking water."
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f5dbeb17-c75a-42e2-a435-0d8d0c132596
Our government might be nuts, but I'm really digging The Supremes! :sunny: :canada:
And our Supreme Court has a whole other set of brains in them as well.
"The Supreme Court of Canada refused to travel down the road of American-style damages lawsuits Thursday in a ruling that rejected a hair stylist's bid for $341,000 in redress for suffering "debilitating psychological injury" after finding a dead fly in his drinking water."
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f5dbeb17-c75a-42e2-a435-0d8d0c132596
Our government might be nuts, but I'm really digging The Supremes! :sunny: :canada:
What, you mean a spilled cup of coffee isn't worth millions of dollars?
Come on man! :juggle2:
Crazed Rabbit
05-23-2008, 06:12
And our Supreme Court has a whole other set of brains in them as well.
"The Supreme Court of Canada refused to travel down the road of American-style damages lawsuits Thursday in a ruling that rejected a hair stylist's bid for $341,000 in redress for suffering "debilitating psychological injury" after finding a dead fly in his drinking water."
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f5dbeb17-c75a-42e2-a435-0d8d0c132596
Our government might be nuts, but I'm really digging The Supremes! :sunny: :canada:
Now that I can't complain about. If only some of that good old common sense would leak south of the border.
CR
Banquo's Ghost
05-23-2008, 06:59
Mustapha said the decision discriminates against the psychologically vulnerable by reinforcing a "get-a-life" attitude that he encountered throughout his legal battle.
"I simply don't believe justice has been served," he said. "This discriminates against people who are less robust in fortitude."
That has got to be the very pinnacle of politically correct codswallop.
We used to call such a fragile a "big girl's blouse".
:no:
KukriKhan
05-23-2008, 14:07
"Hey, Waiter! What's that fly doing in my soup?"
"Hmmm. The backstroke, I think."
The Classics. Gotta luv 'em.
PanzerJaeger
05-23-2008, 15:28
Airport searches - well at least the more 'detailed' ones - are normally aimed at 'certain' people and are done for no other reason than preconceived prejudices and sterotypes.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in America.
It demonstrates a certain sickness in society when, for reasons of political correctness, a 20 something year old arab man from the Middle East is let on a plane with no problem, but a 60 something year old woman from Connecticut is escorted by men with guns to have her bras trifled through. Anyone who flies a lot knows what I'm talking about.
Have authorities forgotten why we have all these new measures?
EDIT: Removed hotlinked pictures of 9-11 and 7-7 terrorists. Feel free to host these photos yourself and include them again. BG
The FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm).
rotorgun
05-23-2008, 15:53
In a sense though, aren't public schools considered public property? In the US the right to prevent unwarranted searches of your person or property is based upon it being that which is your private property. If a place is owned by all, doesn't that change the notion a bit? Military bases, for instance, have signs posted that by entering them, you can be subject to random searches at any time. No warrant is required. I am not sure if even probable cause is needed in such cases. If a military property is a protected public premise, than isn't a public school as well?
Crazed Rabbit
05-23-2008, 17:26
No, schools aren't public property - visitors have to sign in and people just wandering around will be escorted off.
Bad random searching revolves around stereotypes as JAG said. A good random search is an intentionally (computer-)randomized search. If there is no obvious pattern, it makes it impossible for potential terrorists to circumvent it.
Sure there is: numbers. Send two terrorists and even if they strip search 50% of people one will, by the numbers, get on. It's easier to get past than good profiling. Let's face it; all the hijackers were Muslim men. As were all the 7/7 bombers. Most were younger Arabs. Now, just looking for people with beards and turbans would be foolish as the terrorists of 9/11 did not fit that profile, as they changed there appearance to combat that image.
But the current system of random searching of everyone is criminally pigheaded political correctness.
CR
Banquo's Ghost
05-23-2008, 17:35
But the current system of random searching of everyone is criminally pigheaded political correctness.
CR
And even human rights advocates such as me would agree - as long as the profiling is done intelligently and based on real evidence, not just prejudice. Of course, random searches also have their place - as you point out, not everyone fits the assumed profile.
Tribesman
05-23-2008, 19:57
We used to call such a fragile a "big girl's blouse".
But thats sizeist , sexist and attireist Banquo , you just can't say that nowadays:smash:
Of course, random searches also have their place - as you point out, not everyone fits the assumed profile.
What you mean like the shoebomber or that prick in Exeter yesterday
Panzer , the link you provide shows why profiling for types is crap , that list has people from everywhere of all descriptions .
PanzerJaeger
05-23-2008, 21:26
Panzer , the link you provide shows why profiling for types is crap , that list has people from everywhere of all descriptions .
You can't spot any patterns? Do a google of "9/11" hijackers.
I don't think anyone is arguing for profiling to the exclusion of all other methods. However, with the limited resources available, common sense is the order of the day.
My friend's grandmother was pulled a few weeks ago. Willful ignorance or pure negligence for the purposes of political correctness? :shame:
Goofball
05-23-2008, 22:28
In a sense though, aren't public schools considered public property? In the US the right to prevent unwarranted searches of your person or property is based upon it being that which is your private property. If a place is owned by all, doesn't that change the notion a bit? Military bases, for instance, have signs posted that by entering them, you can be subject to random searches at any time. No warrant is required. I am not sure if even probable cause is needed in such cases. If a military property is a protected public premise, than isn't a public school as well?
We also don't legally mandate that our children report to a military base in their neighborhood every morning at 9am, hang around and listen to people older and wiser than them speaking, and stay there until about 4pm either...
See a difference?
Tribesman
05-24-2008, 01:22
You can't spot any patterns?
Look at the link you provided Panzer .
rotorgun
05-24-2008, 05:06
We also don't legally mandate that our children report to a military base in their neighborhood every morning at 9am, hang around and listen to people older and wiser than them speaking, and stay there until about 4pm either...
See a difference?
Of course there is a difference between students in a public school and soldiers at a military base. My example was a poor one I realize, but it was the only one I could think of off the top of my head at the time. I was merely trying to make the point of public property is different than private property in the eyes of the law. Still the question remains: In a sense though, aren't public schools considered public property? In the US the right to prevent unwarranted searches of your person or property is based upon it being that which is your private property. If a place is owned by all, doesn't that change the notion a bit?
What examples can you think of that might be similar? I can think of searches conducted by security before a concert, or a major public gathering. Those are done to try and intercept weapons, drugs, and illegal contraband aren't they?
Crazed Rabbit No, schools aren't public property - visitors have to sign in and people just wandering around will be escorted off.
You mean private schools aren't public property. My question was: In a sense though, aren't public schools considered public property? We are also talking about students being subjected to random searches with police drug sniffing dogs, not strange looking terrorists walking about the place. :jarswim:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-24-2008, 05:27
Look at the link you provided Panzer .
What are you trying to say? Unless I am much mistaken, everyone on that list is very non-Western looking.
PanzerJaeger
05-24-2008, 06:08
Look at the link you provided Panzer .
I can identify several similarities between them.
A completely random search would not distinguish between those terrorists and Britney Spears.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-24-2008, 06:11
A completely random search would not distinguish between those terrorists and Britney Spears.
I am of the opinion that both terrorists and Britney Spears should suffer to the fullest extent of the law.
~;)
seireikhaan
05-24-2008, 06:30
I am of the opinion that both terrorists and Britney Spears should suffer to the fullest extent of the law.
~;)
Bah, we all know you just want to give her a body cavity search. :whip:
Alexander the Pretty Good
05-24-2008, 07:51
Have you seen her recently? Eww.
Tribesman
05-24-2008, 10:28
What are you trying to say? Unless I am much mistaken, everyone on that list is very non-Western looking.
Really , have a look at Adam Pearlman , apart from one photo where he wears headgear how would you single him out from any pile of white Americans ?
I can identify several similarities between them.
Really ?
And what are those similarities ?
Lord Winter
05-24-2008, 23:52
I can identify several similarities between them.
A completely random search would not distinguish between those terrorists and Britney Spears.
and if they recuirt/pay/blackmail some normal looking westerner then what happens when there only checking arabs?
CountArach
05-24-2008, 23:55
Bah, we all know you just want to give her a body cavity search. :whip:
*shudder*
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.