- cross-posted to:
- ottawa
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Do your crime in Ottawa, face trial in Ottawa.
This is the way.
This is the way.
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
deleted by creator
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.
technically right which any pedant will tell you is the best kind of right.
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!
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
change of venue is one of the tools available.
And it was denied. And I’m good with that.
So am I 😉
Removed by mod
K
