Going back to post #57, I very much doubt if the judge was simply playing with semantics.
There may be many things that the judge considered to which we are not privy. How then can we make a contrary ruling without all the facts?
Simple because something may or may not be legal in Canada does not necessarily make it legal in Britain where the case was purportedly heard.
In a more general sense, one of the things countries seem to like, and insist on at times is, for want of a different term, legal sovereignty.
For example and in the case of drugs; the import of drugs to one country may bear a vastly different penalty as opposed to imported to another country. Some people may jump up and down at what appears to them as an extreme penalty but a lot of people would simple say “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”
I think it could also be argued that if legal sovereignty was dismissed then the process of law could become one of lowest common denominator. In other words, if you can do it anywhere else, then you can also do it in Rome.
I doubt if most people, in any sovereignty, would see that as a viable alternative to what they already have. I see legal inertia as a good thing whereby change is not overly responsive to the whims of the day.
The points I’m making here are:-
Without the facts of the case how can we come to some conclusion of the case?
Without the facts, post #57 has no proof and becomes hearsay.
With the hearsay from post #57, post #58 and post #59 become an opinion based on hearsay.
I very much doubt if the judge was forming a judgement based on hearsay.
Chris.
.
