Fighting Crime Should be the NDP's Top Priority
Yesterday I received a flyer from my Conservative MP, Dave MacKenzie (Oxford). The flyer was entitled "Let's made a deal" and it showed a picture of handcuffed hands. When I opened the flyer I saw an image of hands grasping a prison bar with a smiling Dave MacKenzie at the bottom of the flyer.
The flyer said:
He's too dangerous for bail.
Why should his jail sentence be reduced"
It shouldn't
The Conservative government is acting to make sure that sentenced criminals do the jail time they earned.
By scraping the "2 for 1" law, criminals will only get credit for the jail time they've actually served.
Who is on the right track to protect Canadians from crime?
Michael Ignatieff -- Stephen Harper -- Jack Layton -- Elizabeth May
<--- Check one
MacKenzie was chief of police in Woodstock and I first assumed he was simply flogging his favourite hobby horse. But then I noticed that the "poll" was available online. Notice how the little arrow that says "Check one" is pointing at Harper's name.
I got angry when I saw this flyer because I know people who will respond positively. Many people will vote for MacKenzie because they are concerned about crime, regardless of statistics.
So why would I suggest the NDP get into the crime fighting business? To get votes, that's why. But the NDP would have to use a different tact. Simply put, the Conservatives (and the Liberals when they get on the crime fighting bandwagon) ignore various types of "crime." The NDP could focus on some of them.
It is a crime when politicians line their pockets with our money.
It is a crime when politicians don't work together to improve social services.
It is a crime that our electoral system is broken.
It is a crime that we send troops to die in foreign adventures.
It is a crime that we have people living in the streets.
It is a crime that we need soup kitchens and food banks.
It is a crime that some senior citizens have to eat cat food.
It is a crime that some FN people live in third world conditions.
It is a crime that some people can only afford food but not their prescription meds.
It is a crime that banks and corporations get favourable treatment but the rest of us don't.
It is a crime ......
You get the picture.
So, should the NDP get into the crime fighting business?
Well, the Liberals claim that stimulus money is being funneled to infrastructure projects heavily favouring Conservative held riddings.
While there's no doubt in my mind the Liberals would do the same, the same amount of doubt exists that this is corruption.
How about a minimum sentence of 5 years hard labour for this kind of corruption?
it was astonishing that sueann levy, torsun columnist (she once bragged that she liked to crap in alleyways downtown and blame the homeless!) the famous local reactionary rightwinger, LOST her bid for power in that byelection. Have the people of that riding not bin getting the well spoken lies? Have they seen through the reactionary trickery? Are they daft (in a nice way)? 35 years ago in Thunder Bay, a rightwing reactionary racist stooge named 'rick smith' was constantly raging on the local hate radio about crime, and the coddling of them criminals! In Vancouver, in Halifacts, in Montreal, and everywhere in between, the same old same old...ie Canada is too darn liberal, and we gotta change! So Canada changed...Trudeau begat justice min kim campbell (who refused to meet dave milgaards mom shortly before dave got freed, and bunch of $$$ for the frameup as a 16 year old boy) who begat Turner who begat mulroney- 12 long years of that old bandit! And he begat Chretien, the Quebec nationalist, who begat....ANYWAY HARPER sorry caplocks...stephane harper took the wheel and...well crime fell as we baba boomers got old and sobered up a bit, so ....how inn hell does the reactionary right get to use crime as a get-rich-quick scheme when they've been in the driver's seat mostly (if you except the Quebec nationalist like Pierre and Jean and the CSL guy) for 3 decades and counting????????
maybe it's the frickin newsmedia, lying like the bearskin rugs on SS Titanic(?)
Ocsi, while I understand your reaction, and I agree with the slogans you propose, I think it's really the wrong approach. It abandons the agenda and the game right from the start. It presumes that Canadians will indeed vote for anyone that comes along with a "tough on crime" agenda. If that's true, then why are we bothering? Think you're gonna outwit the Conservatives at that game?
We should: (a) ignore the crime issue entirely - it affects very few Canadians in their daily lives; and (b) if forced to reply occasionally, we should say that our solution to crime is not to lock up past criminals forever while future ones are created while we build more prisons - it is to eliminate crime by providing free universal social services, jobs and recreation and future for youth, fighting against discrimination and humiliation of marginalized people, identify and target social problems of individuals and provide social and economic and health-care solutions. And by the way, those things aren't even aimed at crime - they're aimed at the vast majority of law-abiding working people that need all these services provided by society. Reduction of crime is the inevitable byproduct of building a more caring society.
If you just can't face up to "tough on crime" questions without buying into the "Yes, but..." replies, then why bother?
White-collar crime in Canada Too trusting The EconomistWhy does justice move so much more slowly north of the 49th parallel?
With So Much White Collar Crime in Canada a Pension Chief Finally urges common rules for savers
A good country for crooks: Canada's losing war against white-collar crime 2007 Two former top cops in the RCMP's elite IMET squads are blowing the whistle on a justice system that is losing the war on white-collar crime
Harper soft on white collar crime Canadian workers and taxpayers have paid a high price for made-in-Canada market fraud and abuse
White Collar Fraud and Theft worth $20 BILLION a Year in Canada Judicial training has historically keyed on blue-collar wrongdoing
NDP takes on unchecked corporate crime 2007
Ocsi, while I understand your reaction, and I agree with the slogans you propose, I think it's really the wrong approach. It abandons the agenda and the game right from the start. It presumes that Canadians will indeed vote for anyone that comes along with a "tough on crime" agenda. If that's true, then why are we bothering? Think you're gonna outwit the Conservatives at that game?
I'm suggesting we redefine what "crime" is. As it is today, the right wing gets to define what crime is, who a criminal is and how much penalty they should receive. And every time they need more votes they just turn the screws a bit more. Even the NDP got on the anti-crime bandwagon when Jane Creba was killed in 2005.
We should: (a) ignore the crime issue entirely - it affects very few Canadians in their daily lives; and (b) if forced to reply occasionally, we should say that our solution to crime is not to lock up past criminals forever while future ones are created while we build more prisons - it is to eliminate crime by providing free universal social services, jobs and recreation and future for youth, fighting against discrimination and humiliation of marginalized people, identify and target social problems of individuals and provide social and economic and health-care solutions. And by the way, those things aren't even aimed at crime - they're aimed at the vast majority of law-abiding working people that need all these services provided by society. Reduction of crime is the inevitable byproduct of building a more caring society.
I agree with you, Unionist. Perhaps "crime" is the wrong word to use but until we are provided with free universal social services, why not use that word to refer to the lack of social services as a political crime?
My thinking on this issue might be muddled but I'm frustrated that the right wing uses this issue so effectively so often.
Ocsi, as I suspected, we're pretty much on the same wavelength - I don't know what the best approach is either, but my instinct still tells me that we should steer clear of the Lib/Con agenda and terminology both.
Yes, I know - as well as the Clarity Act and refusing to call for withdrawal from Afghanistan and promising not to raise taxes and saying there was nothing wrong with private clinics and Broadbent saying we shouldn't "demonize" Harper and not condemning Harper's $100 per month baby bonus in lieu of child care... All those bad memories of the 2005-6 campaign combined to my voting for the BQ candidate to try to unseat the Liberal in my riding, without feeling that I was missing out on anything decent. Jack Layton has improved somewhat since then (under pressure from the rank and file), but it's always fragile. That's precisely one reason why I don't trust him talking about crime, no matter how you define it.
There's no crime in Canada. And when there is, the two old line parties have private property law down pat. It's taboo, so don't go there, Jack Layton!!
Fidel, you know that is not what unionist is saying. Gosh, is there no critism of the NDP allowed with you? It's rather silly and very very off putting for those, like me, who vote NDP but would like to see a more left change.
If the NDP gets tough on crime, are the candidates going to be issued tights, capes and utility belts? Maybe the next campaign should feature the Jam's version of the Batman theme as the audio background.
unionist, the NDP does need to mention crime and tackle it. Do you think free universal services and after-school programs are going to end rape, murder of women and other violence against women? At the moment, repeat offenders are being out after barely half their sentence served and are abusing women again. You can easily write that crime does not affect the daily lives of Canadians very much, but for a woman it is not that simple. We do not have the luxury of being so flippant about the threats we are under.
I'm just not getting what people are saying. I'm merely saying the old line parties have let white collar crime run amok in our Northern Puerto Rico, and that unchecked corporate and white collar crime really is an issue in Canada. Apparently Canada is world renowned for not just the two old line parties' apartheid policies since Confederation but for their being lax on crime that pays, too. White collar crime and corporate crimes are not a third rail issue - these are pretty large issues when various investment agencies look at international business environments and how safe their investments might be. Our stooges dont care though as the only foreign investment theyre concerned about are US takeovers of Canada and financed largely with Canadians' savings by our big six banking monopoly.
I am an NDPer, and I resent being told that my party "right or wrong" doesnt understand issues of law and order when it's simply not true as in false and misleading. Unlike Canada's two colonial administrative parties on the take for years and years, the NDP takes law and order very seriously. Saying that either of the two old line parties "own the issue of law and order" is a long-time myth. Canada is viewed by other countries as a haven for white collar crime as well as influence pedalling, kick-back and graft at the highest levels of government.
Aw okay, I fully agree with you. Cracking down on white collar crime would be a good choice. I hope the NDP will do what it takes to make that happen. I would love nothing better than for white collar crooks to spend more time in jail than child molesters currently do. There is something seriously wrong when a man who sexually assaults a few kids is let out after 3 months while major white collar crooks are not even sentenced.
Ghislaine, as someone who has been sexually assaulted I do not want to see tougher sentences. I want to see rehabilitation. Not more tough on crime policies. That never, ever works. People get released someday and they need to be able to reintegrate back into society. Spending a long time behind bars is not going to help me, or you. We need to see programs that will rehabilitate sexual predators. Not doing so ends up working against us, not for us.
Or did she get caught crapping in the alleyways AGAIN?
unionist, the NDP does need to mention crime and tackle it. Do you think free universal services and after-school programs are going to end rape, murder of women and other violence against women? At the moment, repeat offenders are being out after barely half their sentence served and are abusing women again. You can easily write that crime does not affect the daily lives of Canadians very much, but for a woman it is not that simple. We do not have the luxury of being so flippant about the threats we are under.
Ghislaine, odd as it sounds, I do think that if we tackle the social, economic, and political causes of inequality of all kinds, then it will indeed end rape, murder of women, and other violence against women. You think longer sentences will protect women. Well, go vote for those reactionary misogynistic men who unfailingly promote these "tough on crime" measures, and I truly hope you'll feel safer.
I think men and some small percentage of women will rape or murder regardless of social policy. There is no cure for pedophilia. There is no Ludovico technique.
I want to see rehabilitation. Not more tough on crime policies.
I'd like to see restitution as the driving force behind sentences. I think the point is that victims be made whole, and that they are made whole by the person who committed the crime.
But, of course, there are crimes where restitution is not possible. You can hurt someone or take something away that can never be replaced. And, of those criminals sentencing has to try to separate those that can be rehabilitated from those that can't.
People who have shown themselves unworthy of being trusted with liberty should have a certain onus on them to show why they should be trusted with it again. If there's no personal plan for redemption, they can stay in jail untill they think of one.
I think men and some small percentage of women will rape or murder regardless of social policy. There is no cure for pedophilia. There is no Ludovico technique.
Actually, I read somewhere a while back that the rate of recitivism is higher amoung bank robbers than it is pedophiles. But, no one wants to appear to deffend pedophilia, so the myth persists.
I don't even want to google pedophillia and recitivism, but I will.
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm
" Erica Schmitt, a statistician who co-wrote the report, said research repeatedly has shown that released sex offenders tend to get arrested less often than those convicted of theft, robbery, stealing vehicles or illegal weapons trafficking. But a small core of sex offenders often commits similar crimes over and over, she said."
Of course, crime statistics are infinately arguable. But we cannot be selectively sceptical. If we call into question statistics on these kinds of crimes, surely we must also call into question the idea that pedophiles are always going to re-offend.
Tommy, how would you feel if the authorities notified you that they would be moving a paroled sex offender into your neighborhood? Then imagine he's also a Catholic priest accused of a string of violations against children,
People who have shown themselves unworthy of being trusted with liberty should have a certain onus on them to show why they should be trusted with it again. If there's no personal plan for redemption, they can stay in jail untill they think of one.
Tommy, you speak as if crime is some personal choice of the offender - as if society doesn't exist. Would you like to preach your "personal plan for redemption" to real people in prison?
Aboriginal Adults (2005-2006)
Lots more here to chew on.
Society needs to be healed. Not individuals.
And that reminds me. I think the first step of any effective twelve step healing program for society should begin with cleaning the two old line parties out of Ottawa and Queen's Parks as well as their judicial appointments.
But society has to ADMIT it needs help, first.
Here's a recent very detailed report from July 2009:
The incarceration of Aboriginal people in adult correctional services
Hopefully the NDP can do better than the other parties by distinguishing between fighting crime and fighting criminals.
unionist, we all know that there is deep systematic racism in our justice system. That is a seperate issue which has to tackled and in my view the NDP is the party most likely to tackle it. This is the area where crime is also most likely to go nearly completely down as societal inequality and living conditions at the very worst.
I don't agree with you that ending all societal inequalities will end violence against women. I have worked with some of the worst offenders. I have been with women when they have gotten the call from the police (which police aren't even required to do) that their ex is being released early and they think he is still a danger to her. Suddenly, her life is in turmoil. She has to move again, live in fear, etc. ,etc. What do you propose in situations like this? It is fine to talk about longer-term solutions, but in her life right now she and her kids need to be protected. A long jail time may not rehabilitate the guy (without other measures at the same time), but it will keep him from hurting her again or other women. It will definitely give her a feeling of safety without a doubt.
What about serial rapists? There are rich, white guys with every privilege in the world beating, raping and murdering women. What type of rehabilitation do you suggest for these men? At the moment, women are considered to have less worth than money (robbery cases) in our system.
Ghisliane, serial rapists should be kept locked up for a long time. They have proven they aren't capable of living in society without destroying lives. For these men, I'm not so sure there is any help. Likewise repeat pedos. Tommy, there are a ton of stats that show exactly the opposite of the study you posted and I am inclined to believe those stats. Pedos are just the least likely to get caught but on average, they have committed 10 crimes prior to being caught and they do have the highest recidivism rate (unless something drastically has changed between 1997 and now, which I doubt).Give a pedo alcohol and access to kids, there is a high probability he will reoffend.
I think there are obvious people who need to be in jail a long time, like the balcony rapist, Bernardo types, repeat child moloestors...(the latter because there is no cure and until we find something that will take away their motivation to hurt kids they have to be sent to rehad and deprogrammed - if that is possible. Or treated chemically).
I agree too that women's broken lives are considered les than a guys stolen wallet. That is the justice system, which has always been stacked against us.
I think there are obvious people who need to be in jail a long time,
But that is the problem. To our justice system and to some in our thread that is far from obvious.
Tommy, how would you feel if the authorities notified you that they would be moving a paroled sex offender into your neighborhood? Then imagine he's also a Catholic priest accused of a string of violations against children,
I'd tell the "authorities" to go fuck themselves, and put they guy in a judge's neighborhood.
Rant aside, the fact is Fidel that there's offenders already in my nieghborhood and yours, and doubtless offenders amoung our extended families, friends and aquaintences.
Not sure if you have kids, Fidel, but spend less time worrying about the guy at your local half way house and start paying attention to the people you know. If you have daughters, get to know their boy friends, watch thier behaviors.
That is very true, Tommy. Quite a lot of violence against women and children is done by people they know. Not, by strangers. This means we have to be extra vigilant in teaching children (and fostering an environment for women) that they can feel comfortable and safe to come forward and testify.
Ghislaine, you want to base our society's approach to crime on serial rapists and rich white guys who beat up their wives, go right ahead. I'm quite sure that once you have life sentences in place for all kinds of such offenders, we will find the rich white guys cramming the prisons, and women across Canada will feel a whole lot safer. But make sure you elect the Stephen Harpers and Vic Toews and Stockwell Days of this world, because they will follow such policies consistently, without a bunch of bleeding-heart party members and activists talking about "prevention" and "root causes" and "rehabilitation".
Tommy, you speak as if crime is some personal choice of the offender - as if society doesn't exist. Would you like to preach your "personal plan for redemption" to real people in prison?
Choice enters into it. I've got lots of sympathy for people with substance abuse problems, or people who weren't, say, as skilled as David Frum or Ben Mulroney to get themselves born to a famous or infamous parent with connections.
And, you know that.
But, I've got a bit more sympathy for the single mom who doesn't screw with anyone else's life, and works hard, but gets her lap top stolen from her apartment by some asshole.
I don't care if she's being ripped off by bank service fees, Pay Day Loan Sharks, or some B&E dickhead trying to support his oxycontin habit, she's the one first and foremost deserving of our sympathy, and consideration and our protection.
Society needs to be healed. Not individuals.
To a very large extent, this is true. However, it's naive to apply that as a blanket approach. Some people, rich, working class or poor, are just assholes, Unionist.
Tommy, there are a ton of stats that show exactly the opposite of the study you posted and I am inclined to believe those stats. Pedos are just the least likely to get caught but on average, they have committed 10 crimes prior to being caught and they do have the highest recidivism rate (unless something drastically has changed between 1997 and now, which I doubt).Give a pedo alcohol and access to kids, there is a high probability he will reoffend.
I don't dissagree, in fact that's why I said these stats are infinately arguable. I'm uncomfortable though, with how pedophilia has become akin to being accussed of being a witch back a few centuries ago. I think it's important to examine sceptically the idea that Fidel put forward. Not to protect pedophiles. But to protect the rest of us.
Speaking of the Balconey Rapist, I live in the neighborhood where he committed a number of his crimes, though that was before I moved to this part of London.
He has applied for release from the institution he's in, but psychological assessments report that he is still unchanged, and conclude he's unlikely to.
I agree too that women's broken lives are considered les than a guys stolen wallet. That is the justice system, which has always been stacked against us.
That is true. In fact, I could list outrages that I've read and seen locally that have left me wondering just who deserves the greatest part of my impotent rage: the offender, the judge or the Crown.
Society needs to be healed. Not individuals.
To a very large extent, this is true. However, it's naive to apply that as a blanket approach. Some people, rich, working class or poor, are just assholes, Unionist.
Let me be simple-minded here. What's our main emphasis when it comes to crime? Either it's healing society, or healing individuals (and then wondering why the hell, after we've punished and incarcerated everyone, crime carries on!!??).
No kidding that there will always be some criminals and some murder and some violence against women and some racist attacks and all the rest of it. No kidding we will always need police and courts and prisons.
But this thread was opened because some people think that many Canadians are ignorant, backward, and vindictive, and there are lots of votes to be got by showing we are "tough on crime". The NDP has bought into that rant since the Kreba shooting in January 2006, and it has never retreated. Trouble is, no dinosaur will vote for the pinkos when they can vote for the dinosaurs.
I just happen to believe that ardently advocating our own enlightened views and education people in the course of that works better than pandering. Some of us figured that out long ago:
While the removal of economic inequality will do much to overcome the most glaring injustices in the treatment of those who come into conflict with the law, our present archaic system must be changed and brought into accordance with a modern concept of human relationships. The new system must not be based as is the present one, upon vengeance and fear, but upon an understanding of human behaviour. For this reason its planning and control cannot be left in the hands of those steeped in the outworn legal tradition; and therefore it is proposed that there shall be established a national commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially minded jurists and social workers whose duty it shall be to devise a system of prevention and correction consistent with other features of the new social order.
You'd think we were suffering from more violent crime today than we were then, to hear some people talk - and that the dream of building a new social order was dead.
unionist, I do not want to vote for the Cons as their crime policy is completely one-sided. Not to mention the fact that they want to waste resources on victimless crimes like drugs and ignore the systematic racism and sexism that are part of the system right now.
What I want as a voter is a party that takes a comprehensive approach. Tough on crime to those who I mentioned, as well as tackling root problems and causes and addressing racism and sexism. It does not have to be an either-or thing. You are falling into the Cons' trap that there is either the "let the criminals out of jail with some free stuff and an understanding counsellor" or "lock them up and throw away the key" approach. I want a policy that takes a multi-dimensional approach: protecting victims now and addresses root causes for the future. Crime is a huge issue amoung many Canadians, especially women - it is not something that doesn't really affect our daily lives.
You've got to admit, the "2 for 1" rule makes no sense whatsoever. Any party willing to admit that will immediately score one Common Sense Point with the voter.
In fact, I don't think we need to return to thumbscrews and the Catherine Wheel in order to "get tough on crime". Just make a few of the more blatant stupidities make sense and "get smart on crime". That's going to mean an emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation, but it might also mean that someone with 30 or 40 or 50 convictions might have to go to jail for a while.
But this thread was opened because some people think that many Canadians are ignorant, backward, and vindictive, and there are lots of votes to be got by showing we are "tough on crime". The NDP has bought into that rant since the Kreba shooting in January 2006, and it has never retreated. Trouble is, no dinosaur will vote for the pinkos when they can vote for the dinosaurs.
Well, this is the sad political reality and the sad depths to which public discourse has been driven by the media. No political party wants to get "Willie Hortoned" and you know it.
And, you know, I have absolutely no sympathy for any of those kids who sprayed bullets into a crowd the day Kreba was killed. However, it outrages me that during all the public and media outrage over that event, John Snobellin, former Tory Cabinet Minister was quietly let off a firearm offence that should, in this zero tollerance atmosphere, resulted in jail time.
Personally, I have no problem with a "tough on crime" real politik stance, and enacting tough sentences for the type of offenders Stargazer mentions. But at the same time, that doesn't prohibit a political party from enacting legislation that aims to "heal society."
Violent crime in 15-year decline
A report entitled Canada's Vital Signs 2009 from the Community Foundations of Canada says there was an average of 932 incidents of violent crime per population of 100,000 in 2008.
The report's figures show a 12 per cent overall decline in crime since 1991. [...]
Since 1991, homicides have dropped 32 per cent, sexual offences by 36.4 per cent and abductions by 64.5 per cent, according to the report.
Which no doubt people on the right will credit to Harper's "tough on crime" policies.
Funny thing the media. Violent crime has been declining for decades, but to listen to the media, and the police, you would think we're all going to be robbed or murdered whenever we leave our house.
As I've learned, it doesn't matter one bit if violent crime is going down. What matters is people's perceptions that it is increasing. Thus we spent a ton more on more police and far less on rehabilitaion or funding for places that help people reintegrate back into society, like the John Howard Society.
I think that for too long the NDP has been silent on issues that are typically abandoned to the right wing. The NDP should speak on the issue of crime, be tough on crime but be even tougher on the root causes of crime which we know is socio-demigraphic in nature. The mistake the NDP makes is failing to touch the issue and allowing the right to monopolize the issue whilst making it appear as if the"soft" left is not interested in this issue. The NDP needs to speak on issues like crime so they can become relivent to center and right of center voters who might respect the NDP for having an opinion on matters such as this. In short Joe six pack needs to hear a point of view and not just the typical weak "we need to house the homeless at the cost of those who work" routine.
Like Bob Rae (borrowing from Tony Blair)?
Tommy, how would you feel if the authorities notified you that they would be moving a paroled sex offender into your neighborhood? Then imagine he's also a Catholic priest accused of a string of violations against children,
I'd tell the "authorities" to go fuck themselves, and put they guy in a judge's neighborhood.
Rant aside, the fact is Fidel that there's offenders already in my nieghborhood and yours, and doubtless offenders amoung our extended families, friends and aquaintences.
Not sure if you have kids, Fidel, but spend less time worrying about the guy at your local half way house and start paying attention to the people you know. If you have daughters, get to know their boy friends, watch thier behaviors.
Okay then, what if they told you Earl Jones has just made off with your life savings? Do you think that white collar crime and punishment(or the lack of) should be left to our two old line parties to deal with(or not deal with apparently) when in government as ineffectively as they have for too long?
Ocsi, while I understand your reaction, and I agree with the slogans you propose, I think it's really the wrong approach. It abandons the agenda and the game right from the start. It presumes that Canadians will indeed vote for anyone that comes along with a "tough on crime" agenda. If that's true, then why are we bothering? Think you're gonna outwit the Conservatives at that game?
We should: (a) ignore the crime issue entirely - it affects very few Canadians in their daily lives; and (b) if forced to reply occasionally, we should say that our solution to crime is not to lock up past criminals forever while future ones are created while we build more prisons - it is to eliminate crime by providing free universal social services, jobs and recreation and future for youth, fighting against discrimination and humiliation of marginalized people, identify and target social problems of individuals and provide social and economic and health-care solutions. And by the way, those things aren't even aimed at crime - they're aimed at the vast majority of law-abiding working people that need all these services provided by society. Reduction of crime is the inevitable byproduct of building a more caring society.
If you just can't face up to "tough on crime" questions without buying into the "Yes, but..." replies, then why bother?
This reminds me of an article I came across in my travels through the interwebz. I think it sounds pretty nice. It may not have been perfect but it seems far better than what we have now.
Okay then, what if they told you Earl Jones has just made off with your life savings? Do you think that white collar crime and punishment(or the lack of) should be left to our two old line parties to deal with(or not deal with apparently) when in government as ineffectively as they have for too long?
Sorry, Fidel, I thought this thread had gone dead.
As for Earl Jones, the joke would be on him. As far as the rest, No.
Norbourg ex-CEO gets 13 years for fraud
Judge Richard Wagner handed down the sentence Friday morning in a Montreal courtroom, describing Lacroix as the biggest fraudster in Canadian history.
Yay!! Justice is done at last!!! Now Canadian working people can feel secure in the knowledge that white-collar crime will be crushed!
Mind you, 26 years would have made me feel even more vindicated and secure, or maybe 52 years. Still, it's a great step forward!!!!!!!!
Sending shivers down the spine of thousands who've done business with the Ontario government lately.
wtf no more that means if they hold me for 6 months before a trial I get no credit for that? WTF so I have to do even more.
Hmm so lets see who this targets disproportionately because they more likely to be denied bail, get a higher bond, not be able to afford it, worse lawyer etc.
nuff said
Harper is soft on corporate and white collar crime in Canada. And before this latest round of corruption in Ontario government, Canada was already world renowned as a safe haven for white collar criminals, and influence peddling at the highest levels of government.
Harper wants to continue the tradition, we can be sure. He and his reformaTories are desperate for a phony majority same as Mulroney was handed by Canadian voters in 1988. Whether they sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling or ripping off the Beatles, the results tend to be the same.