A Convenient Lie

In comments, Kursk writes about Vic Toews' hatred for Charter Rights:

You do know that this is a common place way of conducting a trial in Quebec...It's based on the Napleonic code of reverse burden of proof.

This is one of those things that gets said, and everyone says "yeah, I heard that too."

It's false. Simply false.

The Quebec (provincial) Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms says the following:

33. Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

Moreover, it's silly to think this could be true, at least since the Canadian Charter was brought in. Whether Quebec signs or not, the Constitution is in force, and the Supreme Court has the right to strike down any aspect of Quebec law. More importantly, criminal law is within federal jurisdiction, so any criminal conviction would by definition be under the Charter. If Canadian citizens were being presumed guilty, it would be flatly unconstitutional, and would be struck down.

It's not even clear to me that this is true of Civil Code legal systems in general - Wikipedia says this is a common misperception about the Civil Code.

Now, having shown himself to be ignorant of basic matters of Canadian law, it might be gratuitous to keep the spotlight on Kursk, but here's the rest of his comment:

And really,if you have been convicted of previous violent crimes,and are therefore a violent recidivist,what problem do you have in making this person prove to the courts why he does not belong in jail?

It has been the lefts soft approach on crime that has led to this..too many people walking the streets that should be in jail,but are free to roam and cause mayhem because of lax and short sentences.

Right... because the courts never make mistakes, the innocent are never convicted, and the constitution says clearly that Canadian citizens lose their inherent rights after the third criminal conviction. I'm sure it must, or else Kursk here would just look like an idiot.

But he's right about one thing - it's all the left's fault that criminals are on the loose. I know - living in Canada's biggest city - that I can't step out my door without being mugged or raped. I live in constant terror of being shot or stabbed.

Look, Canada has real problems, and some of them even involve violent criminals. But if we actually want to "get tough" (as if prison is currently a spa) then simply increase the sentences. I don't think it will work, but that at least would be logical. This - undermining basic constitutional rights for an election campaign - is just stupid. And did I mention the constitution?