Friday, September 16. 2022

Today's schedule is CDAB

C/D Blocks Social and Environmental Sciences - You start with Benton today where you'll  continue your look at the water samples from Towhee Creek conducting a sample water analysis from CARO labs, metals, anions, alkalinity, etc. Comparison to Health Canada limits for specific water uses, drinking, irrigation, etc. Lab Component: examine water samples and test for pH, colour and turbidity. I posted these for you before, however as a reminder...We looked at the ecological connections to water in our observations of and mapping the riparian features of Towhee Creek. Many beings depend on freshwater and understanding the whole can help guide us to make better decisions for the future. Today you'll start with a water analysis. 

You'll look at what is in freshwater

 

After you'll be with Young continuing your work on your Towhee Creek mapping activity. Check out yesterday's blog for help as well as:

What All Good Maps Should Have

What makes a good map?

A Good Map is Worth a Thousand Words

Making Maps 101 - Layout, elements, and design

Elements of a Map

A Block Criminology - So because we didn't get to it yesterday  today we'll look at the difference between deviance and criminal behaviour (acts that are criminal but not deviant and deviant but not criminal). What is deviant behaviour? A simple explanation of deviant behaviour could be any action that violates cultural norms (formal norms like laws - or informal norms like nose picking). This is a difficult concept because what an individual or sub culture in society defines as deviant is contextually situated (meaning what I think is deviant may be different for you; it is subjective - influenced by personal considerations).

  

Take smoking in public. You may think that this behaviour is acceptable because an individual has the choice to consume a cigarette and they are merely harming themselves...no problem right? You may, however, think this behaviour is unacceptable. Second-hand smoke is hurtful to others because they could be harmed by someone else's behaviour. So what is deviant in many cases is subjective. What is criminal is the codification of what a society as a whole deems as deviant. Homicide is criminal because as a society we believe that taking another life is unacceptable and deviates from the accepted cultural norm that we wish our country to be like.

To end the class, using the text and your brains you need to come up with a list of things that are deviant but not criminal and a list of things that are criminal but not deviant

B Block Legal Studies - Today we're going to watch an episode of Law and Order from season 9 called True North. From tv.com...The double murder of a wealthy man and his daughter leads the detectives to the wife and stepmother of the deceased. However, Canada's objection to the death penalty hampers McCoy and Carmichael in seeking crucial evidence for obtaining a conviction. 

Hmmm...death penalty and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms 7 - 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I wonder if those two are incompatible?  In 1976, the majority of the House of Commons voted to abolish capital punishment for all offenses under its Criminal Code. This anti-death penalty sentiment was later reiterated and reinforced in a 1987 House of Commons vote, when the reinstitution of capital punishment was again met with stern disapproval.

The cases of Atif Rafay and Sebastien Burns ended up making new extradition law in death penalty cases. The two Canadians were charged with the 1995 murders of Rafay's parents and sister in Washington state. They fled to Canada and Washington State subsequently asked for their extradition. The Canadian justice minister said he was not bound to automatically seek assurances that they would not face execution. "If the general rule was that Canadians were never to be returned to face the death penalty in the United States, the result would be unsatisfactory," said a release from the justice department. "Canadian suspects who managed to return to Canada before arrest would gain an advantage, since they would never be extradited without assurances." But on reviewing this case in 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister of justice is constitutionally required to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed in all but "exceptional" cases. The court did not spell out what it meant by "exceptional."

From the legal analysis of our Charter

Where individuals are affected by a Canadian or foreign government action that took place outside Canada, the extent to which they may rely upon section 7 will depend on the circumstances, and may require the claimant to establish Canadian government “participation in activities of a foreign state or its agents that are contrary to Canada’s international obligations or fundamental human rights norms” 

In extradition and deportation cases, where the government’s participation is a necessary precondition for the deprivation of the rights to life, liberty or security of the person by another state, and the deprivation is an entirely foreseeable consequence of the participation, deportations or extraditions must accord with the principles of fundamental justice (United States v. Burns, 2001)

So, the decision of United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, 2001 SCC 7 specifically states (the Supreme Court of Canada ruled) that people cannot be extradited to face the death penalty abroad, unless the country requesting them agrees to keep death off the table. Welcome to the beginning of our discussion about Charter and Human Rights in Canada.