[EmperorMagus]

The Federal Court of Appeals declared this morning that the consultation process for the Kinder Morgan pipeline was so inherently flawed that it has to be redone before the project can go ahead. It means there is going be another two years of delay (at least) before the project can go ahead.

I'm simply delighted.

[QuickTidal]

EmperorMagus, on 31 August 2018 - 07:08 AM, said:

The Federal Court of Appeals declared this morning that the consultation process for the Kinder Morgan pipeline was so inherently flawed that it has to be redone before the project can go ahead. It means there is going be another two years of delay (at least) before the project can go ahead.

I'm simply delighted.

Yes, this is great news.

[LinearPhilosopher]

https://www.theglobe...ness-in-sexual/

Well great... Just when you think society is making process.

And how does one prove one is drunk to the state of automation?

[D'rek]

LinearPhilosopher, on 31 August 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

https://www.theglobe...ness-in-sexual/

Well great... Just when you think society is making process.

And how does one prove one is drunk to the state of automation?

The same way you prove it as a defence for any other crime, presumably. This particular ruling affirms that it is a defence for sexual assault, but it's been used as a defence in many other trials for other accused crimes, too.

Though personally I'm not so sure I believe that it should be a viable defence, for any crime... at least, not when the accused voluntarily got themself that drunk. If someone else had roofied this guy's drink at a bar without him knowing and he committed a crime in his roofied state - okay, fair enough, that's not his fault. But voluntary intoxication leading to these acts does not sit well with me, and I feel like there could at least be some middle ground where someone with a history of misdeeds while intoxicated should be expected to take into account the likely outcome of them doing it again.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 31 August 2018 - 05:11 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 31 August 2018 - 03:45 PM, said:

https://www.theglobe...ness-in-sexual/

Well great... Just when you think society is making process.

And how does one prove one is drunk to the state of automation?

The same way you prove it as a defence for any other crime, presumably. This particular ruling affirms that it is a defence for sexual assault, but it's been used as a defence in many other trials for other accused crimes, too.

Though personally I'm not so sure I believe that it should be a viable defence, for any crime... at least, not when the accused voluntarily got themself that drunk. If someone else had roofied this guy's drink at a bar without him knowing and he committed a crime in his roofied state - okay, fair enough, that's not his fault. But voluntary intoxication leading to these acts does not sit well with me, and I feel like there could at least be some middle ground where someone with a history of misdeeds while intoxicated should be expected to take into account the likely outcome of them doing it again.

I agree with all of this.

[Morgoth]

In Norwegian law, a state of intoxication etc cause by ones own actions is not admissable as evidence. Or to put it differently, if you got drunk yourself the court will treat you as if you were sober.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Morgoth, on 02 September 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

In Norwegian law, a state of intoxication etc cause by ones own actions is not admissable as evidence. Or to put it differently, if you got drunk yourself the court will treat you as if you were sober.

Interesting. I mean if you kill someone while drunk driving, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving while impaired. What are the drunk driving laws in norway?

[Maark Abbott]

From Google: "Norway has very strict drink driving laws, only allowing 0.1milligrams of alcohol per millilitre of blood - stricter than the UK where the limit is 0.8, and the strictest in Europe"

My take on the above is that if you got yourself drunk it'll be a charge of drunk driving and maybe vehicular manslaughter but upgradeable to something more severe?

[Morgoth]

LinearPhilosopher, on 02 September 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 02 September 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

In Norwegian law, a state of intoxication etc cause by ones own actions is not admissable as evidence. Or to put it differently, if you got drunk yourself the court will treat you as if you were sober.

Interesting. I mean if you kill someone while drunk driving, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving while impaired. What are the drunk driving laws in norway?

As Maark said, they are very strict. You'll be charged for vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. You'll get a serious prison sentence, a major tort claim from the victims family, and lose your licence.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Morgoth, on 07 September 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 02 September 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 02 September 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

In Norwegian law, a state of intoxication etc cause by ones own actions is not admissable as evidence. Or to put it differently, if you got drunk yourself the court will treat you as if you were sober.

Interesting. I mean if you kill someone while drunk driving, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving while impaired. What are the drunk driving laws in norway?

As Maark said, they are very strict. You'll be charged for vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. You'll get a serious prison sentence, a major tort claim from the victims family, and lose your licence.

Got it, so alcohol is considered when it leads to a crime but only under certain situations. Pretty much identical to here (apparently if you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter the victim can sue the individual and the insurance will be the one footing the bill.)

Side note aside, this recent leaves me queasy. Rareness of the defense yes or no, this leaves me queasy, whats the standard for assessing drunk to the point of automation? Beyond that given a lot of rape cases involve alcohol, what's stopping this defense from being attempted in future cases. Like its a giant can of worms we're dealing with.

Another question, if both parties are "drunk to the state of automation" and they hookup, did a rape occur? Neither party able to consent.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 08 September 2018 - 05:52 AM

[Maark Abbott]

LinearPhilosopher, on 08 September 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 07 September 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 02 September 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 02 September 2018 - 07:40 AM, said:

In Norwegian law, a state of intoxication etc cause by ones own actions is not admissable as evidence. Or to put it differently, if you got drunk yourself the court will treat you as if you were sober.

Interesting. I mean if you kill someone while drunk driving, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter and driving while impaired. What are the drunk driving laws in norway?

As Maark said, they are very strict. You'll be charged for vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. You'll get a serious prison sentence, a major tort claim from the victims family, and lose your licence.

Got it, so alcohol is considered when it leads to a crime but only under certain situations. Pretty much identical to here (apparently if you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter the victim can sue the individual and the insurance will be the one footing the bill.)

Side note aside, this recent leaves me queasy. Rareness of the defense yes or no, this leaves me queasy, whats the standard for assessing drunk to the point of automation? Beyond that given a lot of rape cases involve alcohol, what's stopping this defense from being attempted in future cases. Like its a giant can of worms we're dealing with.

Another question, if both parties are "drunk to the state of automation" and they hookup, did a rape occur? Neither party able to consent.

From a cursory glance at Norwegian law, the only defense to diminish the responsibility that I can see is if someone had their drink tampered with. If they willingly let themselves get that drunk, it'd be a full charge, is my take.

EDIT: Didn't read the full question (send coffee). But I think the same logic would apply to both parties involved, so long as it can be proven that it was a hookup and there was no force involved.

This post has been edited by Maark Abbott: 10 September 2018 - 07:19 AM

[Morgoth]

If you take advantage of someone when they're drunk that's an offence, and if sex is involved that's rape. If both parties are drunk then we're back to the he said she said problem that often emerges in rape cases. Where both parties too drunk to give consent? If one party was catatonic and the other had sex with that person the answer is clear, but what if both parties were actively engaged, but if either one had been sober it would be considered rape, what then? How do you measure drunkenness without access to both parties blood samples at the time? It's a tricky question.

[QuickTidal]

Well holy shit. All the legal TV pundits swore that Ford's case was pretty airtight to slash the Toronto council....and here we are the Superior Court justice struck it down!

I mean he will obviously appeal....but to have struck the first legal blow against this petulant toddler feel mighty nice.

[QuickTidal]

And better news...."The city clerk will commence preparations to administer the October 22 election under the 47-ward model, with advance voting starting on October 10. Nominations for candidates under the 47-ward model were closed on July 27 and certified."...(they had already been forced to drop it to the smaller number so more work going back)...

I mean I wasn't expecting the City win this morning against Ford...to hear that they will also revert to the 47-ward for the actual election? Amazing.

I mean Ford is still going to fight this like the spiteful manbaby he is...but damn this is popcorn-worthy!

[QuickTidal]

From the judges actual statement...this when the court asked WHY this bill had to be jammed through in the middle of an election..."Crickets"

Amazing. Judge has a sense of humour. Loves it.

 HAHaDoug.jpeg (64.53K)
Number of downloads: 0

[EmperorMagus]

QuickTidal, on 10 September 2018 - 04:29 PM, said:

From the judges actual statement...this when the court asked WHY this bill had to be jammed through in the middle of an election..."Crickets"

Amazing. Judge has a sense of humour. Loves it.

HAHaDoug.jpeg

I love Canadian judges too.

[QuickTidal]

Ugh, and OF COURSE Ford is going nuclear and using the Notwithstanding clause....ugh.

[QuickTidal]

 Snort.jpg (59.58K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Nevyn]

What an absurd move, to invoke an embarassing constitutional escape hatch which requires tacitly admitting you are violating people's rights just to win in your petty municipal grudge.


This would be an excellent time for any conservatives either with principles or concerned about their jobs post Ford to seriously consider whether they want to toe this line. Biggest issue of course, is the PCs don't have that much representation in Toronto area ridings, and their rural voters may just like messing with Toronto.


I wonder how quickly the city could get an emergency hearing on a new law. The clause only applies to specific parts of the charter, so if you could get a judge to find it violates other clauses ....

Unlikely, but even this ruling was a surprise.

[QuickTidal]

A great thread on why it's so bad to allow Ford or even be okay with... his desire to use the Notwithstanding Clause for the Toronto Council decision he dislikes and wants to override...

click for entire thread..

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 September 2018 - 06:47 PM