I truly would like to hear how he squares this with the judicial concept of "presumption of innocence". I would also like to hear if, as a supposed anti-communist, he rejects the soviet concept of "pre-crime", and if he does, how he squares that with his support of C-309.
Finally I would like to hear how, as a supposed conservative, Mr. Worthington supports the concept of individual responsibility, and how he squares that with, again, support of C-309.
For example: Lets suppose there's a gathering in TO.... some Black Block whackjob at the front edge of the crowd thows a garbage can through a store window. Lets suppose there's 200+ people there, and on the rear edge of the crowd, totally out of sight of the broken window event, we have some teenagers who just showed up wearing Guy Fawkes masks to, frankly, just be trendy. Are we really to believe that they're as guilty as the black block whacko who took the *action* of destroying private property? Are we really to believe that the teenagers in the back of the crowd should be charged and be facing a sentance of 5 years?
I would also like to know if this law could be applied if no "order to disperse" such as this:
"Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life. God Save the Queen."
(Which was read last June in Vancouver) had been given.
Can any authority just say that there's a riot without giving an order to disperse?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Peter Worthington on C-309. Is senility setting in?