Tom Mulcair - Might Be Time To Forgive Karla Homolka

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Tom Mulcair - Might Be Time To Forgive Karla Homolka

===

Mighty Middle

Tom Mulcair has raised the question of whether it might be time to forgive and move on, adding Homolka has paid her debt to society.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/7346098--she-s-dangerous-karla-homolka...

Mulcair says first and foremost the security of children must be taken care of, but beyond that, it becomes a question of forgiveness.

“Everybody is going to have to take their own stock of that and ensure that first and foremost that the security of their kids is taken care of,” Mulcair said Wednesday.

“Beyond that, it becomes a question of forgiveness.”

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

He's only saying that because a week ago, Homolka tweeted "maybe it's finally time to forgive Tom Mulcair".

voice of the damned

I think this is the kind of situation that the phrase "That's a hill you don't want to die on" was invented for.

I'm not saying I want a round-the-clock hatefest against Karla Homolka in Canada, but on the other hand, given what she did, I don't think it's too onerous a burden for her to see a few uncomplimentary opinions about herself in the media every now and then.  

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Does this mean Karla Homolka's entering the NDP leadership contest?

quizzical

voice of the damned wrote:
I don't think it's too onerous a burden for her to see a few uncomplimentary opinions about herself in the media every now and then.  

why should the press even be dogging her?

what social purpose does it serve? other than click bait for advertisng dollars?

i feel this is like bullying her kids.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
what social purpose does it serve?

In this case, to point out that somehow Homolka is working with children whose parents were not informed of this.

Quote:
i feel this is like bullying her kids.

If Homolka would like to insulate her kids from this kind of attention then there must be better ways for her to do that.

But speaking of those kids, I wonder what KarlyKurls tells them about "Aunt Tammy"?

NorthReport

Who friggin' cares!!!

6079_Smith_W

Geez. I could think of a couple of words he might have been wiser to use, like "privacy".

Forgiveness is really a matter for her victims. And while she is out, I think it is fair that some people might wonder whether justice has been served, considering how she managed to serve the sentence she did.

 

 

Mighty Middle

NorthReport wrote:

Who friggin' cares!!!

Just who is the current leader of the Federal NDP? That is why.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And while she is out, I think it is fair that some people might wonder whether justice has been served, considering how she managed to serve the sentence she did.

Exactly.  She cut a nice plea bargain by pretending that she was some battered partner who had no choice but to go along to get along, until a discovered tape showed that she got her rocks off on rape/murder too.  And that's the part that she never owned up to.

I think that a lot of Canadians don't really like the idea that she's laughing at them, because she tricked them with her "poor me" story.  If she's unwilling to address that then I'm not sure why I should be telling any Canadians that it's time to forgive her.

If she's ready to finally say "Yes, I lied about my involvement to cut a sweetheart deal, but then the Scooby Gang found that tape and now I'm ready to be honest" then I'd be the first to say "let's hear this out".

mark_alfred

Mighty Middle wrote:

Tom Mulcair has raised the question of whether it might be time to forgive and move on, adding Homolka has paid her debt to society.

That's misleading.   Here's what he said in full context:

Reporter wrote:
Are you concerned that serial killer Karla Homolka has been occasionally volunteering at a Montreal elementary school? Do you think there should be any rule changes or law changes to prevent a criminal like Karla Homolka from being able to volunteer in scenarios like that?

Mulcair wrote:
The crimes of Karla Homolka are so horrific that it’s so difficult to look at a case like that otherwise than through the horror of the crimes she committed. On a human level it’s very difficult to go beyond that. There’s an open question for the people in that community and in those schools.

I understand she’s been volunteering in a Christian school. Everybody is going to have to take their own stock of that and make sure that first and foremost the security of their kids is taken care of. Beyond that, it really becomes a question of forgiveness. I guess that’s part of this discussion and whether or not someone who’s paid their debt and if you’re ensuring the safety of the kids, beyond our revulsion at the horror of the crime, is there any way for atonement and forgiveness? I’m going to leave that to those parents because they have the obligation of ensuring the security of their kids.

Reporter wrote:
Changing any rules or some on the other side? The Conservatives are —

Mulcair wrote:
I’ve been at this for a long time so whenever there’s an individual case that you can hold up and say doesn’t this require us to go back through all the rules what you’re essentially asking is, what’s your opinion on the horror of those crimes?

You can’t get beyond that. No one is going to understate the horror of the crimes of Karla Homolka. It’s not a question of what the federal government does or doesn’t do or what the Parliament does or doesn’t do after that. It’s a question of whether or not the people in that community, a Christian community apparently from what we’ve read, find it in their hearts to ensure first and foremost the safety of their kids and the degree of atonement when somebody has paid their debt to society. I think those are tough ethical and moral questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/01/thomas-mulcair-karla-homolka-com...

quizzical

thanks m_a

robbie_dee

I think the concept of "forgiveness" makes a lot of sense in the context Tom is talking about i.e. a private Christian school and its community of students and family. They ought to be afforded some leeway to put into practice the "forgiveness" that is a core tenet of their faith. Even towards someone as disreputable as Karla Homolka.

I wouldn't want her near my kids, though.

Mighty Middle

mark_alfred wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Tom Mulcair has raised the question of whether it might be time to forgive and move on, adding Homolka has paid her debt to society.

That's misleading.  

The quote was lifted straight from a story written by the Canadian Press

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/7346098--she-s-dangerous-karla-homolka...

Pogo Pogo's picture

Misleading none the less.  A real good cut and paste smear job.

 

voice of the damned

I'll admit that the impact on her children is the one thing that makes me think twice about shrugging off the ongoing villification of Homolka. That said, I'm sure that Bill Cosby's grandkids don't like seeing jokes like "I wonder if he spiked the pudding pops?" in the comments section under his old Jello ads. But, at the end of the day, it's not the You Tube wits who are responsible for the fact that his name has become notorious.

Sineed

Leslie Mahaffy, Kristin French, and Tammy Homolka never had the opportunity to have children. 

But yes, it's a good point. She should have been in jail for at least 25 years, but that didn't happen, and we need to make peace with that reality in some way, remembering that at least Paul will be in jail for the rest of his life.

Mighty Middle

Pogo wrote:

Misleading none the less.  A real good cut and paste smear job.

 

Then blame Canadian Press for their "misleading" sentence.

 

josh

Much ado about nothing.

lagatta4

There can never be "justice" for those murdered girls. However I would prefer seeing Ms Homolka left alone now, not out of "forgiveness" but for the sake of her blameless children and because such "outrage" is a gift to rightwing law and order types, when in this case, law and order screwed up and made a mess of a search of a small bungalow and an obvious hiding place. 

I agree with Mulcair's statement in full; the problem is that the gutter press has already eviscerated it to make him and by extension the NDP appear soft on violent crime, and in this case femicide. 

6079_Smith_W

The media aren't solely to blame, so long as they have people giving them fodder. I don't appreciate it when the media cloud difficult court cases by featuring people calling for blood. Happened here just a few weeks ago in the La Loche shooting trial. There was a couple of days in which the entire news coverage was solid vitriol and calls for adult sentencing, which got turned on its head when the mother of two of the victims testified that she forgave the shooter and felt he should not be going to jail at all. Didn't get quite the same airplay.

They have also done it every time Vince Li's case has been in the news.

As for this story, I don't think it is any less galling that it is coming from the other side. I think Mulcair would have done better to just answer the question about the law, and spare the sermon. He might have couched it a bit, but it was still an irrelevant moralizing lecture which presumes a lot, and he should know better.

Maybe they are letting reality TV impact too much on the real reality TV.

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
I don't think it's too onerous a burden for her to see a few uncomplimentary opinions about herself in the media every now and then.  

why should the press even be dogging her?

what social purpose does it serve? other than click bait for advertisng dollars?

i feel this is like bullying her kids.

Exactly. Thank you, quizzical, for telling the plain truth about this bullshit scandal story.

Misfit

I watched the video of Mulcair and I think he answered the question very well. 

6079_Smith_W

Sure, hounding her with cameras is primarily to sell ads, but the reporter asking Mulcair a fair question is something completely different.

There are ways in which he could have dealt with it and called out the press without making presumptions about how we should and should not respond to her crimes. If the press is unfair to her, well how fair is it to shine the spotlight back on the families of her victims by raising the question of whether people are big enough to forgive her?

Rev Pesky

I think a statement by Mulcair that he was not in a position to comment on Karla Holmoka would have been fine. Sometimes it's not what you say, but that you say anything at all.

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There are ways in which he could have dealt with it and called out the press without making presumptions about how we should and should not respond to her crimes.

​how abouts you indicate what words he used to get you to this point cause i saw no presumptions or statment about  how someone should respond to her crimes. i saw the opposite.

If the press is unfair to her, well how fair is it to shine the spotlight back on the families of her victims by raising the question of whether people are big enough to forgive her?

well seeing as how he didn't shine the spotlight back anywhere or raise the question of whether people are big enough to forgive you should probably just stop making it up.

6079_Smith_W

The actual answer to the question is either "yes there should be laws to stop her volunteering", or "no, when a person has served his or her time it is no one's business other than a parole officer".

What is made up here is the notion that atonement or forgiveness has anything to do with it. An ex-prisoner might be completely unrepentant and at risk to reoffend, and those protections would still be just as valid.

Some people here don't mind what he said, fine. I might be inclined to cut him a bit of slack for thinking on his feet, but I think it was really unnecessary and presumptuous and confusing to the issue.

(Edit to paragraph 1)

... or there's Rev's suggestion, probably appropriate for an outgoing party leader on a policy issue "no comment".

 

 

Debater

Mulcair doesn't have the best political instincts -- we saw that during the last election.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They ought to be afforded some leeway to put into practice the "forgiveness" that is a core tenet of their faith. Even towards someone as disreputable as Karla Homolka.

Not "even" toward someone as disreputable as Homolka, but "especially" toward someone as disreputable as Homolka.

Churchy types LOVE to have someone really unforgiveable to forgive.  The real question here is why some volunteers would be subject to a criminal background check (probably on their own dime) but Karly just slipped right in.  Maybe she forgot to be honest with them about who she is and what she's done.

As for her kids, my thinking is "them's the breaks".  I would 101% agree that the kids themselves must be "off limits", now and forever, but their mom is still KarlyKurls, and she was when she chose to have them.  She doesn't go from infamous to anonymous just by having a baby.

That said, I don't really envy her -- when most parents brace themselves to have "the talk" with their kids, it's just about the birds and the bees.

quizzical

no if you are volunteering and require a criminal record and a child abuse check, which all volunteers do who work with children or have contact with them, it's a free service at your local RCMP station. if it's for work it costs you 25/per.

Mighty Middle

Rebel Media is now after Tom Mulcair for his comments using the headline

"Thomas Mulcair defends serial killer Karla Homolka"

I'm sure Pogo will say the above headline from Rebel is misleading. But because Rebel Media has such a HUGE following watch for Rebel Media video on this be shared & re-tweeted thousands of times.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Ah.  I think that must vary by province, then.  When my wife needed one for work, it cost us about $100, IIRC.

I'll suggest again, though, that it's funny that Homolka didn't need one (assuming she was volunteering in an official capacity), and also telling that she either pretended she wasn't Karla Homolka, or else the school decided that that's not a problem.  I don't think the public is out of line to wonder how someone with her past would end up working anywhere near kids.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I haven't seen anywhere that she was there under an assumed name or identity. It doesn't seem like there could be any possibility that her identity was unknown to the school officials.

This private school has the right to accept volunteers as it sees fit and that was the basis for the question. I think that Mulcair's answer was okay. It was far better than if he had knee jerked into calling for regulations in the very tricky area of private organizations' right to use volunteers of their choice. 

Mighty Middle

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I haven't seen anywhere that she was there under an assumed name or identity.

She uses the name Leanne Teale

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

no if you are volunteering and require a criminal record and a child abuse check, which all volunteers do who work with children or have contact with them, it's a free service at your local RCMP station. if it's for work it costs you 25/per.

Just for the record, the last time I had to get a Canadian criminal record check done, in 2011 I believe, I was told it was no longer available through the RCMP, and I had to go through the Edmonton city police. When I had gotten it done via the Mounties a few years prior, it took a couple of days, but via the local cops, it was a six-week affair.

voice of the damned

Magoo wrote Churchy types LOVE to have someone really unforgiveable to forgive.

Lord Longford in England spent a good number of years trying to get the child sex-killer Myra Hindley relseased from jail, on the grounds that she had become a good Christian who had changed her ways. The hilarious thing about this was that his other big campaign was villifying homosexuals. When he died, Private Eye magazine ran a list of his hateful comments about homosexuals, side by side with his loving comments about Hindley.

That said, there is also the example of Martin Hattersley, a lawyer, politician, and Anglican priest in Edmonton, who, some time subsequent to the murder of his daughter in a downtown train station, became an activist in regards to both violence against woman and prison reform, and spent time tutoring convicts in prison, and criticizing the right-wing law-and-order agenda of certain politicians. I guess I rate him a little higher than Longford, since he had actually experienced a horrifying criminal bereavement himself, and despite being a conservative political leader, didn't distinguish himself with the villiification of gays and lesbians.

http://tinyurl.com/y8oa8h4o

 

quizzical

voice of the damned wrote:
quizzical wrote:
no if you are volunteering and require a criminal record and a child abuse check, which all volunteers do who work with children or have contact with them, it's a free service at your local RCMP station. if it's for work it costs you 25/per.

Just for the record, the last time I had to get a Canadian criminal record check done, in 2011 I believe, I was told it was no longer available through the RCMP, and I had to go through the Edmonton city police. When I had gotten it done via the Mounties a few years prior, it took a couple of days, but via the local cops, it was a six-week affair.

ya well it still is available through the RCMP here in BC and the cost  or no cost was 2 months ago. so my info is current.

voice of the damned

quizzical wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
quizzical wrote:
no if you are volunteering and require a criminal record and a child abuse check, which all volunteers do who work with children or have contact with them, it's a free service at your local RCMP station. if it's for work it costs you 25/per.

Just for the record, the last time I had to get a Canadian criminal record check done, in 2011 I believe, I was told it was no longer available through the RCMP, and I had to go through the Edmonton city police. When I had gotten it done via the Mounties a few years prior, it took a couple of days, but via the local cops, it was a six-week affair.

ya well it still is available through the RCMP here in BC and the cost  or no cost was 2 months ago. so my info is current.

Hm, well, maybe they've changed the policy since the last time I applied.

Either that, or the federal police force is offering a service to some provinces but not others. Which I think would be a good issue for politicians in the left-out provinces to complain about.

brookmere

6079_Smith_W wrote:
"no, when a person has served his or her time it is no one's business other than a parole officer"

Homolka isn't on parole. She completed her full sentence. For those who haven't, someone on parole is still under sentence, so they haven't "served his or her time".

I thought Mulcair was being thoughtful and reasoned, which unfortunately made it likely that the press would make out of context or outright false citations. There's a reason why politicians speak in soundbites. But I guess he doesn't feel the need to censor himself these days.

6079_Smith_W

No, I know she isn't. But it would have been appropriate thing to mention in response to the reporter's general question, which was about whether regulations should be changed to further restrict ex-prisoners. It might have been good to point out that there are appropriate checks, like the parole system, and criminal record checks.

If the whole point is privacy, and dealing with ex-prisoners by the book, then why perpetuate the problem by continuing to make it all about Karla Homolka, and whether she deserve forgiveness or not? That is not what this should be about, and Mulcair missed that.

And regarding criminal record checks, part of the difference is now that if you share a birthdate with someone who is in their database you have to go through a further process to make sure you aren't someone with a criminal record who has changed their name.

 

voice of the damned

Smith wrote:

And regarding criminal record checks, part of the difference is now that if you share a birthdate with someone who is in their database you have to go through a further process to make sure you aren't someone with a criminal record who has changed their name.

 

Could be, but just for the record, that wasn't why the RCMP referred me to the local cops. When I asked them to do it, they said straight out that they don't do that anymore, and that I had to go through the EPS. Again, this was in 2011, probably right about the same time of year as now.

6079_Smith_W

I'm sure there are other reasons. The change around birthdates is a big one though, which makes what used to be a simple process a sometimes long and complicated one.

Aristotleded24

voice of the damned wrote:

quizzical wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
quizzical wrote:
no if you are volunteering and require a criminal record and a child abuse check, which all volunteers do who work with children or have contact with them, it's a free service at your local RCMP station. if it's for work it costs you 25/per.

Just for the record, the last time I had to get a Canadian criminal record check done, in 2011 I believe, I was told it was no longer available through the RCMP, and I had to go through the Edmonton city police. When I had gotten it done via the Mounties a few years prior, it took a couple of days, but via the local cops, it was a six-week affair.

ya well it still is available through the RCMP here in BC and the cost  or no cost was 2 months ago. so my info is current.

Hm, well, maybe they've changed the policy since the last time I applied.

I think the rule is that it's your local police service that's responsible for doing the criminal record check, however if your community doesn't have a local police service, then it's done through your local detachment of the RCMP, Surete du Quebec, or OPP, whichever one serves your community.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
She uses the name Leanne Teale

Wasn't that the name she used when she was still with Paul, who went by "Paul Teale"?

I think she uses a different name now, which was made public a few years ago, but I don't remember it and it's not important enough to Google.   But for sure if you need at least three totally different names in your life, you've probably made some mistakes.

voice of the damned

Aristotleded wrote:

I think the rule is that it's your local police service that's responsible for doing the criminal record check, however if your community doesn't have a local police service, then it's done through your local detachment of the RCMP, Surete du Quebec, or OPP, whichever one serves your community.

That makes sense. Thanks.

lagatta4

There are plenty of legitimate reasons people might have changed their names, including migration, or a relative doing something nefarious. It doesn't necessarily mean one has done something wrong. 

Misfit

I think that Karla Homolka does not fit into that category.

Pondering

"You can’t get beyond that. No one is going to understate the horror of the crimes of Karla Homolka. It’s not a question of what the federal government does or doesn’t do or what the Parliament does or doesn’t do after that. It’s a question of whether or not the people in that community, a Christian community apparently from what we’ve read, find it in their hearts to ensure first and foremost the safety of their kids and the degree of atonement when somebody has paid their debt to society. I think those are tough ethical and moral questions."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/01/thomas-mulcair-karla-homolka-com...

Overall I think his statement was excellent except for the fact that Homolka didn't pay her debt to society. That is what people object to. By rights she should be sitting with Paul Bernardo. Her children should have been taken from her at birth and given to parents who are not sociopaths or whatever it is she is. Unfortunately the law doesn't allow for that but any institution that is legally responsible for children have a responsibility to warn parents if they are planning on exposing children to a person like KH.

In my view the media were living up to their responsibility to inform the public that KH was being permitted in the vicinity of children whose parents were unaware of her presence. As a parent I would not have wanted my daughter anywhere near her. Children trust the parents of their friends. I would not have wanted my daughter to trust her. Nor would I want to have to explain to my daughter that she should fear KH because she is a sick serial killer.

I feel badly for KH's children. I wish I could protect them from her. I don't think other children should be sacrificed on their behalf.