What?

The only “6 month rule” in Canada applies to minor offences. It does not apply to murder or rape.

Please try to use actual facts to make your point.

Most average people know that Murder is wrong because of the collective Morals and conscience of Society that agreed it was wrong ….long befor the SCOC was created .
The SCOC has made Marriage a Human-Right when not one Document on Earth or at the U.N. has declared Marriage a Right , so remember this when 3 people want to marry just for the Benefits , and when 2 brothers want to marry and have no plans for children who will tell them it’s wrong because Marriage isn’t a Human Right.

In 1985 the SCOC ruled that anyone outside of canada is protected by the Charter Of Rights for legal Aid and Welfare if they can step on Canadian soil , since then we spend over $500′000′000.00 ayear to support Tourists that have now been in canada for up to 15 years as they use legal Aid to fight being removed.
With 6.5 Billion people outside of canada it will only be a matter of time befor we are bankrupted by Refugee Lawyers and Human Smuggling rings that the NDP supports , remember Olivia Chow at the “Noone is Illegal” rally to let Mexicans stay in canada and get free Schooling for their Kids, and the C.W. Jeffrey’s cover-up
from Miller’s “Don’t ask..Don’t tell” that the Union agreed to.
One dead plus a gang rape and the Principal walks free on a legal loophole for the 6 month limit on the crime reporting.
And on and on and on…….

Again - not sure what you mean.

Do you have any rational arguments against this decision?

Which particular point in time would you pefer decisions to be set in stone from? I’m curious as to which particular era you’d see as being unchangeable, and why you’d pick that particular year.

So you do the crime, you do the time…

Your concerns are addressed by the fact that 14 year old may still be liable to face an adult sentence, should the conditions merit such a sentence.

As for your last point, that is why I wrote this in my first post:

“They are bound by previous decisions unless there is a change in circumstances.”

What you describe is a change in circumstance.

As for the last paragraph above, it’s quite simple: the Charter, so the myth goes, is ambiguous in order to adapt to changing dynamics in our culture. Such reasoning has been used to overturn not only existing laws, but previous decisions laid down by the courts of yesteryear.

As for the last paragraph above, it’s quite simple: the Charter, so the myth goes, is ambiguous in order to adapt to changing dynamics in our culture. Such reasoning has been used to overturn not only existing laws, but previous decisions laid down by the courts of yesteryear.

Actually, the different treatment of 17 and 18 year olds was not constructed by the Court. This country has long held the age of 18 as the age of being an adult. This applies to rights as well as responsibilities. It may be an arbitrary age, but it is one that has delineated the difference between child and adult for a long time.

How do you feel about giving 16 and 17 year olds voting rights? How about the right to consume alcohol, take out a bank loan, sue someone etc.

What about the 20 year old man who suffers from brain damage and who is required to be sentenced as an adult even though emotionally and intellectually he has the mind of a child?

As for your last paragraph, I am sorry but I do not know what you are trying to say.

I wouldn’t dismiss much of what you easily do above, but certainly the ability of judges to overturn any rulings though as many, on all sides of the political spectrum, have been hoping and sometimes seen wholesale deconstruction of previous rulings, what with judges that run around explaining the Charter and society as “evolving”, and what not!

In practical terms I do not think this ruling is terribly significant. By way of example, in Alberta several courts have ruled this reverse onus unconstitutional, but then went on to sentence the young person to an adult sentence anyway.

An assertion that youth sentences are “Happy Meals” is simply false.

Finally, you do not seem to understand the legal rule of stare decisis. The Court cannot over-rule a previous decision simply due to a change in composition of the court. They are bound by previous decisions unless there is a change in circumstances.

How can all 8 Judges be correct in their views until 1 lone yahoo enters the room to break the tie , if this is how canada is run then why not save money and have 5 Judges who can have a 3-2 ruling because it all comes down to 1 Judge picking which 2 Judges they agree with rathee than what’s best for canada.

These people aren’t even Elected and yet can tell me what Rights I’m granted according to their perception of reality.