The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)

[perfectparanoia]

@mnemosyne

Since I learned the expression while living in Hamilton, I thought you might know it - here is a map... see the curve of Lake Ontario? If the Niagara penninsula was an arm, where would the armpit be? It really was a joke - Burlington is a rather nice little city.

I can’t really compare it to the other cities you mentioned, because I haven’t lived there - I know London is full of roads with the same name (as a teen, my friend moved from Grand Avenue to Grand Road…or maybe it was Grand Street or Grand Crescent?). All I know about Smith Falls is that my friend’s ex grew up there and he’s an asshole. Kingston isn’t bad, but kind of boring, at least the parts I’ve seen when visiting for a day or two.

I don’t know what it is about the GTA that I dislike, but I was really unhappy there - I felt that people were always very stressed, always very much in a hurry and cared WAY too much about status symbols like houses and cars. People I worked with, early 20s just out of university, were practically racing each other to buy up $300 000+ condos and houses on $40 000/year salaries because it was the thing-to-do, despite being left without enough money to have a drink after work once a week or even once a month. It was weird. I could never predict how people would drive and hated driving in the city there, but I have no issues whatsoever in Montreal. Lots of little things that added up.

There are just enough cultural differences between that area and where I grew up that I disliked living there. Toronto feels very different from Montreal - I live on a busy 3 lane road in a densely populated area of Montreal now, so it’s not the crowds and business that bothers me at all.

I agree with you, actually, that it really is all about what you’re looking for - and the GTA was most definitely NOT what I was looking for in life and is most assuredly not the best place to live in Canada…IMHO.

That said, we might be going back up this summer to visit friends and try and fit in as many of the pubs and restaurants and places we liked when we lived in the Hammer. Ever been to Lo Presti’s at Maxwell’s? Place looks like it’s owned by the mafia, but for a fancy dinner and amazing food, it’s worth sitting next to the Godfather. It’s where I got engaged!

I’ve lived in Toronto, Mississauga, Oakvile and Hamilton. Then we moved to Burlington because it was close to my work. It really is a different place. Everyone goes to the festivals/downtown and hangs out. They are really proud of their city. I hadn’t seen that before. We have a community.

To me, it is significantly different than the rest of the GTA.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

And Thomas Mulcair is the new leader of the NDP…

[Ike_Witt]

I was just flipping through the Globe and Mail site and noticed this picture. For some reason it made me think of this image.

Is there a Photo Op Staging for Socialists book?

[RickJay]

@Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela

And Thomas Mulcair is the new leader of the NDP…

I know NDPers who are really dissatisfied with him - they don’t want to be dragged kicking and screaming away from outright socialism - and yet it seems the only logical choice to me.

[RickJay]

@perfectparanoia

I’ve lived in Toronto, Mississauga, Oakvile and Hamilton. Then we moved to Burlington because it was close to my work. It really is a different place. Everyone goes to the festivals/downtown and hangs out. They are really proud of their city. I hadn’t seen that before. We have a community.

Incidentally, I agree at least in opposition to Oakville. Comparing it to huge cities like Toronto, Mississauga and Hamilton isn’t entirely fair.

In general though I find something to like about most places. This part of the thread is just more of the usual Canadian propensity for hostility and insult to other parts of Canada, which is one of our national traits I find endlessly irritating. I honestly don’t get it; there’s no part of this country I can think of that doesn’t have something to recommend it, unless you get as specific as the very worst and poorest parts of a particular city. It might not fit my lifestyle and needs at this particular time, but that doesn’t mean it sucks.

[Kenm]

@Ike_Witt

I was just flipping through the Globe and Mail site and noticed this picture. For some reason it made me think of this image.

Is there a Photo Op Staging for Socialists book?

You’re using two photos to call Layton and the NDP Communists, instead of saying it outright.

The next time Harper’s in front of a crowd, I’ll see whether I get away with posting links to a Nazi torchlight parade and Dachau while asking, is there a photo-op staging for Nazis book?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Malthus

As I said, I got nothing against Burlington. But it’s no different than other satellite suburb cities close to Toronto. A prosperous enough community, nice restaurants, low crime, but it has absolutely nothing to distinguish it. The same arguments about Burlington apply to Oakville, for example.

Hell, I could see someone claiming Niagra on the Lake is tops, or Montreal, or plenty of places that have some claim to, well, something. But as I said, clearly the writers of the mag have different opinions from me about what makes a place livable.

Its Niagara-on-the-Lake, or at least it was before it became a tourism caricature of itself as I remember growing up there in the 50s and sixties. It is only a town as well rather than a city.

I too was surprised by the Oakville Burlington choice for #1 and #2 having lived nearby. I moved out of the Golden Horseshoe in the 70s and ended up on Vancouver Island many years ago.
It just took too damn long to get to Algonquin Park to get a break from heavy vehicle traffic, pavement and all that modern civilization entails.

[Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela]

@RickJay

In general though I find something to like about most places. This part of the thread is just more of the usual Canadian propensity for hostility and insult to other parts of Canada, which is one of our national traits I find endlessly irritating.

I think it derives from the extreme end of our attempts to define what it is that makes our cities and regions distinct from one another.

On the one hand, I find it interesting to try to put my finger on why Vancouver is not like Edmonton, apart from the obvious topographical differences. On the other hand, when it devolves into ‘Edmonton sucks!’ ‘Oh, yeah? Well, Vancouver sucks!’, it is indeed endlessly irritating.

I’ve actually been meaning to post this for a couple of days and just haven’t got a spare 15 minutes at the computer to write it out properly.

In the realm of the purely hypothetical - Assuming that you would have a worthwhile and satisfying job, a comfortable place to live, friends and even family accessible, is there anywhere in Canada that any of you would absolutely refuse to live? Or, conversely, is there anywhere that no matter how bad your situation was, you would not willingly leave?

Along similar lines, what are the things that you look for in choosing a city/town/region? Purely for curiosity and friendly discussion, mind you. I get enough ‘Toronto sucks’ in my life as it is…
I’m very lucky, in that I get to spend 4 - 6 weeks in various Canadian cities from time to time. It gives me an interesting basis for comparison. How easy it is to get around in a city without a car is a huge factor in how much I enjoy the place. Unfortunately, it can lead to a skewed judgment, depending entirely on what neighbourhood I’m in. The last time I was in Calgary, I had an apartment in Inglewood. It was nice, but… getting groceries without a car was not at all easy, and depending on transit while not being on a standard 9 to 5 schedule was awkward. Whereas in Victoria, everything I needed was an easy walk from where I was staying. If, however, I’d had to get to UVic on a regular basis, I would have had a completely different view of the place. Banff is beautiful and the hiking is fantastic, unless you don’t have access to a car, in which case it’s an hour and a half’s schlep from the Banff Centre to the Norquay trailhead, or to the start of the Sulfur Mountain trail. The Harvey Meadows are right out…

For me, too, access to concerts and shows is a huge factor in whether I want to live in a city or not. I grew up in a town where most performances meant a 4-hour drive - being able to spontaneously go to the symphony, a play or a jazz club is invaluable to me. Hence my strong preference for the larger cities in Canada, although places like Québec or Victoria that ‘punch well above their weight’ culturally also have a great appeal.

Cornwall, ON is about the only place in the country that I just cannot abide; I just had so many bad experiences in the three weeks I was there. I’ve never had any reason to go back.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@RickJay

Incidentally, I agree at least in opposition to Oakville. Comparing it to huge cities like Toronto, Mississauga and Hamilton isn’t entirely fair.

In general though I find something to like about most places. This part of the thread is just more of the usual Canadian propensity for hostility and insult to other parts of Canada, which is one of our national traits I find endlessly irritating. I honestly don’t get it; there’s no part of this country I can think of that doesn’t have something to recommend it, unless you get as specific as the very worst and poorest parts of a particular city. It might not fit my lifestyle and needs at this particular time, but that doesn’t mean it sucks.

So, your next move is going to be to Red Deer?

[mnemosyne]

@Ike_Witt

I was just flipping through the Globe and Mail site and noticed this picture. For some reason it made me think of this image.

Is there a Photo Op Staging for Socialists book?

You gotta admit, the similaritiesare striking…

:rolleyes:

[RickJay]

@Cat_Whisperer

So, your next move is going to be to Red Deer?

If it had a job and there was some way to keep my kid with me, sure, why not? It seemed like a nice place when I was there.

It’s a long way from family, but I’d love to live out West for a few years, at least. See something new. It’s only an hour out of Calgary if I need some bigger city stuff.

[RickJay]

A rather good point made by Supreme Court justice MArshall Rothstein.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/jonathan-kay-justice-marshall-rothsteins-insightful-view-of-special-legal-treatment-for-long-term-offenders/

[mnemosyne]

Am I understanding this right?

The criminal code allows for more rehabilitation (alternative sentencing) for Aboriginals, based on the premise that historical/cultural*/poverty etc factors may have pushed them into a life of crime etc. In part, it recognizes that if a person who committed a crime is given a chance to reconnect to his or her community in a positive way, then they might not go on to commit further crimes in the future.
And yet for non-aboriginals, that entire concept has been rejected and minimum mandatory sentences have been brought in and the attitude of once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal is reigning supreme.

Is that about right? I’m not talking about the serial killers and rapists like in the article Rick Jay linked to, but just as a general philosophy towards dealing with criminals.

Aboriginals - quite rightly, IMHO - get an opportunity at rehabilitaition because their upbringing may have played a role in their crimes, but no one else gets that chance because…the are criminals?

Something isn’t adding up here, and there’s a very good chance that it’s due to my understanding of the laws, but it kind of seems that there is a disparity between these two philosophies, as if it’s entirely impossible to be the abused orphaned child of alcoholics if you’re a white guy living in Toronto.

I’m confused.
ETA: I’m not saying Aboriginal culture leads to crime, I think it’s more other cultural influences on them that lead to marginalization or whatever other factors that cause crime that I’m just too tired and confused to put a definition to. Sorry if my wording is awkward, please don’t read any ill intent or insult into my phrasing.

[Grey]

Here’s the actual judgement and what I think is the key part of Judge Rothstein’s dissent

“[101] With respect to sentencing of Aboriginal offenders, I agree that s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, pertaining to Aboriginal offenders, is mandatory and must be applied in all cases, including the case of long-term Aboriginal offenders. However, once an Aboriginal individual is found to be a long-term offender, and the offender has breached one or more conditions of his or her LTSO, alternatives to a significant prison term will be limited. The risk the Aboriginal offender poses in the community is substantial and the management of that risk has been compromised. That is the reality facing the judge charged with fixing an appropriate sentence in such circumstances.”

Here is the relevant section from the Criminal Code with section 718.2(e) bolded

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

    (i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

    (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,

    (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,

    (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,

    (iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

    (v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

**(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.**

So really 718.2(e) appears to be related to trying to address the disproportionate number of aboriginals in the prison system by trying to maintain the majority in the community. Rothstein agrees with the section BUT points out that security of the community needs to come before that of the long term offender that fails to be rehabilitated by the community sentencing.

[Leaffan]

I didn’t read in that article where minimum sentencing wouldn’t apply in the case of aboriginals.

Also, background is most certainly taken into consideration for all sentencing in Canada, well maybe not in Quebec. I don’t know how civil law compares to common law in this regard.

Is it stated somewhere that aboriginals would be exempt from minimum sentencing?

[Northern_Piper]

@Leaffan

Also, background is most certainly taken into consideration for all sentencing in Canada, well maybe not in Quebec. I don’t know how civil law compares to common law in this regard.

The Criminal Code is a federal statute and applies uniformly across Canada. The Code is based on the common law, so the criminal law is common law in Quebec as elsewhere.

[Leaffan]

@Northern_Piper

The Criminal Code is a federal statute and applies uniformly across Canada. The Code is based on the common law, so the criminal law is common law in Quebec as elsewhere.

Ah. Thank you.

[Muffin]

A court is expected to come up with an appropriate sentence that fits within the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code and the sentences given by other courts (particularly higher level courts). If the circumstances are such that an appropriate sentence could keep a person out of jail, then the court is supposed to apply this rather than put the person in jail. This applies to everyone, not just aboriginals.

The Criminal Code directs judges to keep this in mind particularly when dealing with aboriginals.

Refer to s. 718 and following of the Criminal Code.

The question then is whether the reminder is truly a reminder to ensure that aboriginals are treated the same as non-aboriginals and not left to be run through a system that often they are not capable of dealing with, or ifthe reminder means that aboriginals should be treated differently and not receive jail time that a non-aboriginal would receive under similar circumstances.

[mnemosyne]

Oh, I see where I went wrong - I took it to mean that the Criminal Code had provisions for alternate sentencing for aboriginals, rather than for everyone, but in particular aboriginals and it led me down entirely the wrong track. I thought it didn’t make sense! I think part of the issue is that in the various things I’ve read about the new laws, there hasn’t been much mention of alternative sentencing of any sort, and then since this article more-or-less focused on it I took it to mean that there were two different standards or philosophies at play.

I’m glad that’s not the case, and the world makes a bit more sense to me now! I might need a nap to get through today - my brain is clearly having trouble thinking straight!

Thanks for the explanations!

[Cat_Whisperer]

Originally posted by Grey -

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

Isn’t that racist, to treat one race differently than others?