Anber argued a potential jury pool could be prejudiced from “the animosity fomented by local politicians and the media; the formal position of the City of Ottawa; the civil (lawsuit);…
Or the thousands of people who were tortured, harassed, intimidated, threatened, put out of work, and forced to deal human shit all over the street and diesel fumes for weeks?
There is a 100% sure way to assure that you don’t get an unfair trial for a crime that you committed. Don’t commit the fucking crime
There is a 100% sure way to assure that you don’t get an unfair trial. Don’t commit the fucking crime
Methinks you have not thought this through. There have been a number of wrongful conviction cases seen over the years. They got an unfair trail without ever having committed the fucking crime.
Yes, thanks for jogging my memory. I would have just ignored you and let my comment stand but I got to get the dig in about being a pedant so I figured I owed it to you since you were technically right which any pedant will tell you is the best kind of right.
you were technically right which any pedant will tell you is the best kind of right.
Nah. The best kind of right is when you are wrong. That way you can learn something new.
If I’m being honest, I was hoping you would poke holes in what I said. I guess I need to challenge myself more next time. But thanks for the chat either way!
In my experience you’re not interested in a conversation, just making circular, pedantic, bad faith arguments. I’m not interested in that kind of conversation.
just making circular, pedantic, bad faith arguments.
How else are you going to validate that something is true? You have to push a bunch of ridiculous falsehoods and if they all fall down then you can, with reasonable confidence, know that the truth has presented itself.
Occasionally, what originally seems ridiculous actually holds water, and at that point you know something is suspect with what is presented as being true. This is why validation is necessary. Otherwise you’re going to start believing a bunch of things that aren’t true, and that would be silly.
Why would this be any different than any other crime? Yes, there is generally a preference for trying cases in the community in which the offense occurred, but this wouldn’t be the first time that a trial was moved somewhere else in order to improve the chances of an impartial judgement.
I’m well aware. I was responding to what seems to be your opinion that justice is always best served by keeping the trial in the community in which the offense occurred.
I don’t think you should be able to go to Singapore and commit drug crimes then expect to be tried in Canada and I don’t think you should be able to come to Ottawa and torture, harass, threaten, intimidate, and put out of work tens of thousands of citizens then expect to be tried somewhere else.
Singapore is nonsensical, because that’s a completely different jurisdiction.
For Ottawa-specific laws, there is probably no real choice but to stay in Ottawa. For provincial and federal laws, there are options. I don’t necessarily agree that change of venue should be a given, but it is a commonly accepted means of trying to ensure impartiality. I’m not sure that there is anywhere in Canada where this trial could be conducted without the spectre of bias, but, whether we like it or not, change of venue is one of the tools available.
Or the thousands of people who were tortured, harassed, intimidated, threatened, put out of work, and forced to deal human shit all over the street and diesel fumes for weeks?
There is a 100% sure way to assure that you don’t get an unfair trial for a crime that you committed. Don’t commit the fucking crime
Methinks you have not thought this through. There have been a number of wrongful conviction cases seen over the years. They got an unfair trail without ever having committed the fucking crime.
I always forget about the fucking pedants.
I’ve updated my statement.
Removed by mod
Yes, thanks for jogging my memory. I would have just ignored you and let my comment stand but I got to get the dig in about being a pedant so I figured I owed it to you since you were technically right which any pedant will tell you is the best kind of right.
Nah. The best kind of right is when you are wrong. That way you can learn something new.
If I’m being honest, I was hoping you would poke holes in what I said. I guess I need to challenge myself more next time. But thanks for the chat either way!
In my experience you’re not interested in a conversation, just making circular, pedantic, bad faith arguments. I’m not interested in that kind of conversation.
How else are you going to validate that something is true? You have to push a bunch of ridiculous falsehoods and if they all fall down then you can, with reasonable confidence, know that the truth has presented itself.
Occasionally, what originally seems ridiculous actually holds water, and at that point you know something is suspect with what is presented as being true. This is why validation is necessary. Otherwise you’re going to start believing a bunch of things that aren’t true, and that would be silly.
K
As a part-time pedant (is there a thing?) I think I love this statement; even if I hate myself for doing so.
One of my favourite jokes for pedants.
What’s blue, hangs on the wall, and whistles?
Pedant: I don’t know, what’s blue, hangs on the wall, and whistles?
A herring.
Pedant: But a herring isn’t blue.
So you paint blue.
Pedant: But a herring doesn’t hang on the wall!
So you nail it to the wall.
Pedant: BUT A HERRING DOESN’T WHISTLE!!!
So a herring doesn’t whistle. It’s a joke!
Why would this be any different than any other crime? Yes, there is generally a preference for trying cases in the community in which the offense occurred, but this wouldn’t be the first time that a trial was moved somewhere else in order to improve the chances of an impartial judgement.
The answers you seek are in the article, and the ruling.
I’m well aware. I was responding to what seems to be your opinion that justice is always best served by keeping the trial in the community in which the offense occurred.
I don’t think you should be able to go to Singapore and commit drug crimes then expect to be tried in Canada and I don’t think you should be able to come to Ottawa and torture, harass, threaten, intimidate, and put out of work tens of thousands of citizens then expect to be tried somewhere else.
Singapore is nonsensical, because that’s a completely different jurisdiction.
For Ottawa-specific laws, there is probably no real choice but to stay in Ottawa. For provincial and federal laws, there are options. I don’t necessarily agree that change of venue should be a given, but it is a commonly accepted means of trying to ensure impartiality. I’m not sure that there is anywhere in Canada where this trial could be conducted without the spectre of bias, but, whether we like it or not, change of venue is one of the tools available.
And it was denied. And I’m good with that.
So am I 😉