‘Expanding Discriminatory Legal Treatment’

First, they instituted ‘Gladue’, which provided for lighter sentences for aboriginal criminals; now, considering that most violence against aboriginal women comes from aboriginal men, they are proposing STIFFER sentences for aboriginal men. Racism is always illogical. A Constitution that enables this kind of racial discrimination in law is a Constitution that’s not worth the paper it’s written on:

“The federal government will adopt changes to its criminal justice legislation, ‘Bill C-75’, that will require judges to consider harsher sentences in cases of violence against ‘indigenous’ {they mean ‘aboriginal’} women, according to a motion from Justice Minister David Lametti.

“Lametti told reporters on Monday that the changes to the bill are “in the spirit of the {segregated} inquiry into {only} missing and murdered ‘indigenous’{‘aboriginal’} women and girls”, which made several {discriminatory} recommendations for changes to the Criminal Code aimed at applying stiffer penalties to those who commit crimes against ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women.

“While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to develop a national ‘action plan’ in response to the national inquiry’s 231 ‘calls for {discriminatory} justice’, released on June 3, this was one of the government’s few opportunities to make legislative changes based on the inquiry’s recommendations before Parliament rises for the summer.

“The government’s decision was welcomed by Independent {‘Liberal’ aboriginal racist} Sen. Lillian Dyck {See below}, who proposed the amendments to a Senate committee last month based on testimony from the national inquiry’s chief commissioner, Marion Buller.

“I believe it’s going to make a significant change”,
Dyck told the National Post.
“How long that’ll take, I don’t know.”

“But the changes are a source of concern for Jonathan Rudin, program director of Toronto-based ‘Aboriginal Legal Services’, who believes the amendments will simply result in “more incarceration”, and will have a negative impact on vulnerable ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} people.

“The House of Commons was expected to begin debate on Lametti’s motion on Monday evening.

“Dyck proposed two amendments to Bill C-75 that could lead to harsher sentences in cases of violence against ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women. One required judges to prioritize denunciation and deterrence in cases of domestic violence, as opposed to the rehabilitation of offenders — a requirement that generally results in stricter sentences. In Lametti’s motion, the government has expanded that requirement beyond domestic violence cases to include abuse of any person who is vulnerable
because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female.”

“The second amendment requires judges to consider the “increased vulnerability” of female victims, particularly ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women, during sentencing of domestic violence cases.

“This was something that was identified as a potential better balance in this piece of legislation,”
Lametti said.

“In a statement, a justice department spokesperson said the changes

“seek to ensure that sentencing judges take into account (i.e. treat more seriously) the increased vulnerability of ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women as victims at sentencing for all violent offences”.

“Neither change to the Criminal Code is exactly what the national inquiry recommended, which was to consider violence against ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women an aggravating factor during sentencing. But Dyck said her amendments will have largely the same effect. She said research she’s conducted in partnership with the University of Saskatchewan shows that offenders convicted of killing ‘indigenous’{‘aboriginal’} women tend to get paroled several months earlier than in cases with non-‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} victims {Because the criminals are aboriginal}. These changes will “tip the balance to something more even”, she said.
{What incredible foolishness. Simply removing ANY racially-discriminatory sentencing would achieve that!}

Senator Lillian Dyck, aboriginal race activist. (Jason Warick)

“Dyck tabled a bill in 2015 that would have made violence against ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} women an aggravating factor in sentencing, but it was defeated in the House of Commons earlier this year.

“I’ve been trying for four years to get this done with great resistance”,
she said.
“The difference was the release of the (national inquiry’s) report and Commissioner Buller’s testimony.”

“The national inquiry also recommended automatic first-degree murder charges in homicide cases where there is a pattern of domestic violence. The government has not acted on that proposal.

“However, Rudin said it was “unfortunate” to see the government moving so quickly on these particular recommendations from the national inquiry.

“What (these changes) will accomplish is likely having more vulnerable people, including ‘indigenous’ {‘aboriginal’} people, jailed for longer periods of time”,
he said.
“I think these are steps backward.”

“Rudin said the changes will likely encourage Crown prosecutors to take “much more aggressive positions in terms of sentencing”, and will push some judges to dole out stiffer punishments.

“Meanwhile, the government is compromising on another controversial aspect of ‘Bill C-75’: preliminary inquiries, which are court hearings to determine if there is enough evidence to move to trial. As originally drafted in the legislation, the government planned to remove most of them in order to reduce court delays, and also to prevent the “re-victimization” of requiring two rounds of testimony — particularly in sexual assault cases. The original bill only allowed them for the 70 Criminal Code offences carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

“But many legal organizations criticized this move, arguing preliminary inquiries were a tiny drain on overall court time but still provided a valuable early test of the prosecution’s evidence — and in some cases, even helped reduce court delays by avoiding a trial. The Senate voted to restore preliminary inquiries for nearly all indictable offences, with the condition that the judge ensure the impact on complainants is mitigated. This change would have boosted the number of qualifying Criminal Code offences to 463.

“The government decided to find a middle ground, proposing to allow preliminary inquiries for offences with a maximum sentence of 14 years and above. That would bring the number of offences for which preliminary inquiries are available to 156.”

–‘Government to accept Criminal Code changes pushing for harsher sentences in crimes against Indigenous women’,
Maura Forrest and Brian Platt, National Post, June 17, 2019
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/government-to-accept-criminal-code-changes-pushing-for-harsher-sentences-in-crimes-against-indigenous-women

COMMENT: “Once again, I’m astounded by so-called “progressive logic“. On one hand, they freak out at the mere hint of a two-tiered health care system, but on the other hand, they apparently have no problems whatsoever with a two-tiered justice system. How does that make any sense? Furthermore, they lament the alleged “over-representation” of ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} people in prison, especially among ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} men. So, how are they going to reconcile meting out harsher sentences to perpetrators of violence against ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} women with the attendant stiffer sentences against ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} men, which will surely occur, since the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} women are ‘indigenous’ {aboriginal} men?”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“The facts would seem to suggest that Aboriginal men are being let out of prison earlier than others, as desired by these rights groups, because their race is a “mitigating factor”. Yet still they make up a larger portion of the prison population than others. The rights groups want race as a factor when sentencing to further reduce the number of aboriginal men in prison. The government response will do the exact opposite. By increasing the severity of crimes against aboriginal women, those 70% will now be facing stricter penalties and longer jail sentencing. When this law comes into effect and we see the subsequent increase in aboriginal prison population, whichever government is in power at the time will be called racist, and will have to make yet another special case law to address aboriginal cases, which will largely undo these changes and further damage and complicate our legal system. Let’s just go back to basics. 1 law, 1 punishment. Murder is murder. Kidnapping is kidnapping. If the punishment is insufficient to address the crime, increase the punishment for that crime across the board. Special considerations and race be damned. Justice is supposed to be blind. Ours is just stupid.”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“I suspect Liberal activist judges will find a way to exempt aboriginal men from the new, harsher penalties, but woe betide non-aboriginals. We will have two-tier justice at its most hypocritical…”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“If this proposed law is passed, it will make things rather interesting come sentencing time for the convicted. Assuming similar evidence, a white man would get more for killing an aboriginal female than for killing a white woman; hmmm! An aboriginal man would get more for killing an aboriginal female than for a white woman but it then has to be considered, because he is aboriginal, is subject to a lighter sentence. So, is the government saying the life of a white woman is of less value than an aboriginal and the act of murder by a white man more heinous? Wow! Isn’t this racist?”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“How about that…the virtue laden Trud-ites are now passing “race based” legislation. Since 70% of murdered native women were killed by native men (as reported by StatsCan and the former Commissioner of the RCMP) will these greater penalties be levelled upon native men?”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“As is true with every demographic/community, the offenders are statistically more likely to be of the same demo/community. Therefore the reason for earlier parole is because of similar illogic which aimed to reduce the sentences of indigenous offenders. Now they’re using the situation they created (lessening sentences based on perceived racial bias) to justify doing the exact opposite (ie stiffer penalties based on perceived racial bias). It’s scary how stupid some ‘educated’ people truly are…”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“So we’re just giving up on equality then?”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“…The Criminal Code needs to apply EQUALLY to EVERYONE, not have special provisions for certain groups.”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“So…. literally putting racism into the Canadian code. What a joke…”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“There is no room for racism in our justice system, in fact it is easily argued that racist sentencing is a contributing factor in many of these tragic native women’s murders. The fact that dangerous native men were on the loose combined with the knowledge that they would get light sentencing for their crimes doubtless cost many women their lives. It is time our government got out of the racism business and treated all Canadians equally. Canadians are not guilty of genocide but rather many ‘progressive’, activist lawyers are.”
^^^^^^^^^^^
“…Having two systems of justice is not a good idea and will lead to further fragmentation as each minority group wants their own special considerations taken into account.”
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
See also:
Call For More Systemic Discrimination’ (MMIW) {May 11, 2019}:
“The head of the dysfunctional MM‘I’W Inquiry now wants the lives of aboriginal women, girls and LGBT people to be worth more than other Canadians…”
http://endracebasedlaw.ca/2019/05/11/call-for-more-systemic-discrimination/

Cree MP accused by Cree Senator of acting like a ‘white man {January 2, 2015}:
“A ‘First Nations’ transparency bill…has attracted new controversy after a Senate ‘Liberal’ accused the ‘Conservative’ MP behind the legislation of acting like a “white man”. Both parliamentarians come from Saskatchewan and both are Cree. ‘Conservative’ MP Rob Clarke is now calling on Senate ‘Liberal’ Lillian Dyck to publicly apologize and withdraw her comments. Dyck says SHE DOESN’T CONSIDER HER COMMENTS OFFENSIVE…”
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.59519.332982123470694/581586835276887/?type=1
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Post also at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s