ZZZZZZZ Premium Member join:2001-05-27 PARADISE |
ZZZZZZZ
Premium Member
2015-Jan-13 4:32 pm
[Serious] Latimer appeals travel restrictions» www.torontosun.com/2015/ ··· rictionsDon't these clowns have more important issues to deal with? |
|
1 edit |
He has a chance of reoffending, I agree with the restrictions. If his wife had done it she would of been on her 20th trip around the world....end sarcasm rant.
Seems like the parole board is power tripping. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2015-Jan-13 6:00 pm
said by Lothario:He has a chance of reoffending, I agree with the restrictions. Hogwash. Of all people who have been charged and convicted of murder, he is the least likely of them all to ever reoffend. |
|
|
Added sarcasm tag.... |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
to Gone
said by Gone:said by Lothario:He has a chance of reoffending, I agree with the restrictions. Hogwash. Of all people who have been charged and convicted of murder, he is the least likely of them all to ever reoffend. I absolutely agree. |
|
|
to ZZZZZZZ
What a sad situation. From the language used by the parole board, it sounds mean and vengeful. Probably they were resentful of a judge ordering them to do the review in the first place, so this is their response.... There is no risk of re-offending here. It is not as if he has ever suggested some Kevorkian-type crusade. He is not going to travel to seek out mercy killings to perform. The parole board is being petty and childish. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to Lothario
Haha, you're that good! |
|
neochu join:2008-12-12 Windsor, ON |
to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:What a sad situation.
From the language used by the parole board, it sounds mean and vengeful. Probably they were resentful of a judge ordering them to do the review in the first place, so this is their response....
There is no risk of re-offending here.
It is not as if he has ever suggested some Kevorkian-type crusade.
He is not going to travel to seek out mercy killings to perform.
The parole board is being petty and childish. The decision is politically motivated given the system right now wants to ENFORCE AT ALL COSTS the idea that "assisting in somone's suicide" is 1st degree murder. That means denying every request made in all means or possibilities. Until the supreme court de-lists it from the criminal code zero tolerance means petty punishment by the parole board. |
|
|
She didn't have the mental faculties to consider suicide, it was a mercy killing to him. |
|
neochu join:2008-12-12 Windsor, ON |
neochu
Member
2015-Jan-14 9:28 am
said by Lothario:She didn't have the mental faculties to consider suicide, it was a mercy killing to him. Which is one of the reasons why he is being made of an example of. |
|
BigSensFan Premium Member join:2003-07-16 Belle River, ON |
to Lothario
said by Lothario:She didn't have the mental faculties to consider suicide, it was a mercy killing to him. So now we can pick and choose who wants to be "put down"?? To some (including his mother in one flippant remark) the man out lined in this article I am linking, would have/should have been killed out of mercy » www.people.com/article/s ··· ve-state |
|
|
Obviously not, the courts ruled against him.
Ps, the Sens can mercy kill this season. |
|
|
to ZZZZZZZ
I'm looking at this article and frankly I can see why the Parole Board made the decision that they did.
Traveling internationally is not a Charter right and Latimer still denies that what he did was murder.
Why should he be granted a privilege of out of country travel when (based on the article) it doesn't appear to be for anything medically necessary to prolong his life?
Oh the irony if that was his reason and the article didn't mention it.
Sorry he gets no sympathy from me.
NefCanuck |
|
|
Karla got the privilege, don't think she admitted anything. |
|
|
Problem in trying to compare Homolka and Latimer is that Karla "cut a deal" where Latimer refused to do anything of the sort and remains convinced to this day that he did the right thing.
NefCanuck |
|
|
to NefCanuck
said by NefCanuck:Traveling internationally is not a Charter right.... Actually it is. 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. » laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· -15.htmlsaid by NefCanuck:....Latimer still denies that what he did was murder. I had thought that the purpose of a criminal justice system is to regulate behavior and actions, not beliefs. Government cannot force beliefs. |
|
|
Nice find, you need a booyah on that. |
|
NCRGuy join:2008-03-03 Ottawa, ON
1 recommendation |
to NefCanuck
said by NefCanuck:Problem in trying to compare Homolka and Latimer is that Karla "cut a deal" where Latimer refused to do anything of the sort and remains convinced to this day that he did the right thing.
NefCanuck Karla is a completely different situation. She was not out on parole. She served her full sentence, after which the government couldn't impose conditions. Latimer is out on parole. |
|
El QuintronCancel Culture Ambassador Premium Member join:2008-04-28 Tronna |
to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:said by NefCanuck:Traveling internationally is not a Charter right.... Actually it is. Traveling is a right, but the government of the country you live in is not obliged to vouch for you by issuing a passport. You can still go to a consulate or the embassy of the country you intend to visit, and apply for an entry Visa through them. That being said, my understanding is that Latimer is currently on parole and as such, is not allowed freedoms normally allowed to other Canadian citizens. |
|
|
|
said by El Quintron:That being said, my understanding is that Latimer is currently on parole and as such, is not allowed freedoms normally allowed to other Canadian citizens. I think THAT is the point---being on parole. Otherwise I don't think that the Canadian government could refuse to issue a passport to someone. It follows from the explicit statement in the Charter. By contrast, there is no such guarantee anywhere in the US Constitution, regarding leaving the country. |
|
|
He's been on parole for 4 years, he might as well stick to his guns. |
|
NCRGuy join:2008-03-03 Ottawa, ON |
to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:said by El Quintron:That being said, my understanding is that Latimer is currently on parole and as such, is not allowed freedoms normally allowed to other Canadian citizens. I think THAT is the point---being on parole. Otherwise I don't think that the Canadian government could refuse to issue a passport to someone. It follows from the explicit statement in the Charter. By contrast, there is no such guarantee anywhere in the US Constitution, regarding leaving the country. Te government very much can revoke/refuse passports even when someone is not on parole. They have being so with Canadian citizens who have gone overseas to fight with ISIS/ISIL. Remember, the rights in the Charter are subject to reasonable limits. |
|
|
to Lothario
said by Lothario:He's been on parole for 4 years, he might as well stick to his guns. Perhaps that last phrase is what concerns the parole board (although in this case the method was carbon monoxide). |
|
PX Eliezer1 |
to NCRGuy
said by NCRGuy:Remember, the rights in the Charter are subject to reasonable limits. Indeed, it all comes down to what constitutes "reasonable". ----- I wish that Bieber could be denied a passport. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
to PX Eliezer1
as a Canadian citizen, you may have the right to leave Canada, but the country to wish to enter is not under ANY obligation to allow you entry...that essentially makes that "leaving" part moot. |
|
|
to Lothario
said by Lothario:He's been on parole for 4 years, he might as well stick to his guns. ...and he will be on parole for the rest of his life. |
|
ZZZZZZZ Premium Member join:2001-05-27 PARADISE |
ZZZZZZZ
Premium Member
2015-Mar-3 4:18 pm
|
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2015-Mar-3 4:45 pm
He may now be free to travel, but I'm unsure anyone would actually allow him into their country. |
|