BC NDP gets tough on crime
"Gordon Campbell closed 24 courthouses and 10 jails, and cut prosecutors," says the ad, which ran on several TV stations.
"Carole James is committed to hiring more police, more prosecutors, and tougher bail conditions and sentences."
NDP campaign co-manager Gerry Scott said "this is an issue that is seizing many, many British Columbians.
"It's right up there with the concerns about jobs, and the concerns about health care."
The ads have been produced in English, Punjabi, Cantonese and Mandarin versions, which Scott said is standard.
The election campaign is due to start April 14.
The NDP has been running online ads on issues like the "gas tax" and privatization.
Last Sunday night, during the Juno awards broadcast, the B.C. Liberals ran their first election TV ad, highlighting the government's record and urging voters to re-elect Campbell to "help keep B.C. strong."
Liberal spokesman Chad Pederson, who watched the NDP ad yesterday, said: "The NDP is either being dishonest with their crime plan, or they're being incompetent. It's an exact replica of the crime strategy announced by the B.C. Liberals in mid-February."
Norman Ruff, University of Victoria political science expert, said he's surprised the NDP sounds so right wing. "This is a very tough-on-crime approach, without any mention of the causes of crime, which one would expect the NDP to talk about," he said.
http://www.theprovince.com/News/launch+wake+court+ruling/1459269/story.h...
Probably this is a response to recent gang-related murders in B.C. If so, it's pretty hard to pull a sympathetic narrative out of organized crime members executing each other over prostitution and drug turf. Jean Valjean they ain't.
Its a good tactic for the NDP to take this opportunity to remind people of how the BC Liberals savagely cut the justice system to shreds with mass closings of courts and of crown prosecutors etc...and now the system is under-resourced to deal with the current crime wave.
I think so too stock, but I would like it tempered with talk about social justice, and crimes of poverty, as they too can be tied to Gordo's policies.
I agree with you about that - but its hard to make use gangland slayings such as have been grabbing headlines in Vancouver the last few weeks - as examples of "crimes of poverty". Most of the people who get involved in these gangs that revolve around the drug trade are probably snorting cocaine with rolled up $100 bills and ordering Dom Perignon at fancy restaurants.
No I beg to differ, those may be the people at the top, but definitely not at the bottom. You are over simplifying gang membership.
I think the NDP is going down the wrong path with their tough on crime stance in response the the recent spate of gang violence. The gang violence is mostly related to the illegal drug trade, which exists because of the failed policy of the prohibition of drugs. The policy I favour is for the federal government to legalize drugs, regulate them heavily, and then treat it as a medical issue. The other contributing factor to gang violence is homelessness. Homeless people are more likely to use drugs, because when you have to sleep outside when it's two degrees and raining, heroin will provide you with a better nights sleep. This creates increased demand for drugs, which in turn fuels the drug trade, and the gang violence that goes with it.
Don't you think that if you can afford to feed heroin addiction (which I think is a habit that can cost hundreds of dollars a week if not more) - you shoud be able to afford to rent a luxury apartment!
I'm also not so sure that homeless people are the main market for drugs. I think its more likely to be investment bankers and doctors snorting cocaine with $100 bills - plus some disaffected teenagers who want to be "cool".
Your absolute lack of knowlege in respect to addictions, gangs, and drug usage is astounding.
I think the NDP is going down the wrong path with their tough on crime stance in response the the recent spate of gang violence. The gang violence is mostly related to the illegal drug trade, which exists because of the failed policy of the prohibition of drugs. The policy I favour is for the federal government to legalize drugs, regulate them heavily, and then treat it as a medical issue. The other contributing factor to gang violence is homelessness. Homeless people are more likely to use drugs, because when you have to sleep outside when it's two degrees and raining, heroin will provide you with a better nights sleep. This creates increased demand for drugs, which in turn fuels the drug trade, and the gang violence that goes with it.
Exactly. The 'law and order' pronouncements play well in the media but they are in denial of reality. The war on drugs has been an abysmal failure south of the border - can anyone see us spending more money or imposing harsher punishments than them?
If we are serious about wanting to limit the power of gangs, we need to reduce their sources of revenue. The biggest opponents to legalization are the gangs themselves.
I don't think that provincial governments have any jurisdiction at all on whether drugs are decriminalized or not.
What kinds of gangs are we talking about here? Do we mean organized crime gangs, or do we mean laisse faire networks of associates?
Actually the media has largely been supportive of ending prohibition and finding better solutions to the health and social issues around use of psychoactives.
The Globe and Mail and National Post have both endorsed ending prohibition and have been writing editorials on the subject for well over a decade!
Globe and Mail, 1998: http://www.cfdp.ca/citizen.html#ed5 "Prohibition does not work and cannot work, and its costs are higher than those of a policy of properly supervised and regulated access to drugs."
Ending prohibition is supported by the Health Officers Council of British Columbia, the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, The Fraser Institute, The Economist Magazine, the City of Vancouver, The Canadian Senate, and many other mainstream groups from all ends of the political spectrum.
Perhaps even more importantly, ending prohibition is the official policy of the BC NDP, as passed by Provincial Council in Februry 2006.
For the record, the BC NDP drug and marijuana policy is as follows:
========
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the BC NDP formally establish an explicit cannabis policy based upon a non-punitive, regulatory approach, including support for a legal supply of cannabis, elimination of all penalties for personal cultivation and possession, and amnesty for past cannabis possession convictions.
BE IT RESOLVED that the BC NDP support in principle the creation of a Supervised Inhalation Room research pilot project, to be operated under rigorous scientific assessment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the BC NDP support expanding Vancouver's successful Safe Injection Site to 24 hours a day, and support the opening of similar health services in other BC communities struggling to help fellow citizens suffering from drug addiction and at risk of preventable drug related harm and death; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the BC NDP continue to support research and implementation of other harm minimization approaches for stimulants (crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine) including medically supervised replacement and maintenance therapy.
=======
On the contrary, I was at the last two BC NDP Conventions and I am unaware of any resolutions which were passed there or by the Provincial Council which call for more police and more prisons.
So it seems to me that Carole James and Campaign Chair Gerry Scott are essentially ignoring their own party policy and instead making up their own ideas about what our party stands for.
Considering that legal marijuana has majority support in the province, and that it is also our provincial party policy, it might be wise to mention that policy in order to gain electoral support?
I don't really know what happens to these caucus people. Is there some little room near the parlimentary chambers where they do operations and insert control chips in their cerebral cortex?
Additionally, what the NDP needs to realise is that the demographic for whom getting tough on crime is important will never, ever, ever consider voting NDP, no matter what kind of platform the NDP comes out with.
No joke.
"Additionally, what the NDP needs to realise is that the demographic for whom getting tough on crime is important will never, ever, ever consider voting NDP, no matter what kind of platform the NDP comes out with."
Oh yes they will and they do! More than you would ever believe!!
There are vast numbers of people who are either solid NDP supporters or swing voters who are very concerned about the recent crime surge in the Lower Mainland. There are also lots of people in the NDP universe who are against Campbell cutting funding for the whole justice system and shutting down courthouses and getting rid of prosecutors and legal aid etc... I suppose that if you spend your life in some wildly unrepresentative little sub-culture of lecturers in social work at UBC etc...you might think that the only people who care about crime are philistines and rednecks. But in the real world there are a helluva lot of low and middle income people who live in places like Surrey and Burnaby etc... who don't like all the corruption that Campbell represents, who have maybe lost their jobs, seen health care and social services cut to ribbons, oppose privatization etc.... and on top of all that, they would like to see some sort of a plan to deal with the crime wave. If you ever got out of your academic chair and talked to some real people you might be crestfallen to discover that there are lot of NDP voters with very populist leftwing views on the economy etc... who also are very concerned about crime.
You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether you personally think that the NDP ought to have anything to say about crime - but I don't think that there is any denying that it is a political winner. I suspect that about 95% of the population wants some sort of a plan to deal with crime and that at least pays lip service to "getting tough on crime" (of course the devil is in the details) - so there are clearly a lot of NDP voters who care about the issue.
This isn't an Ontario election where the NDP is fighting to get from 15% to 20% of the vote and can afford to concentrate on an ideological bookend of the population. This is BC, where winning the election means getting about 43% of the vote and to get that high, you have to win over the swing voters. Right now the BC Liberals are stuck wearing the crime isue because they are the incumbent government and so anyone who is really pissed off over crime is likely to consider voting for the official opposition - but the official opposition is not going to get any of those votes by saying "we don't think crime is a problem at all - the BC Liberals have been doing a good job and if you elect us we will make no changes".
People reall have to take a hard look and see how the discourse they are having in forums like babble have no connection whatsoever to what 99.99999% of the electorate cares about. If you just read postings in babble and thought it was the last word on what was going on in the BC election - you would delude yourself into thinking that crime was a total non-issue and that the whole election was to hinge of whether or not Mabel Elmore should have uttered the word "zionist".
I would like to hear Carole James go after Wali Oppal to clarify exactly what he meant - in the past month's media blitz he's been on, - by "expanded surveillance"
what it means, of course - but of course wali wouldn't say it - is "warrantless wiretaps"
that's what they're up to - legalized "fishing", "... in these troubled times..." Yeah, right!
Bush secretly began tapping whomever, however, for whatever - it will likely never be known - immediately after taking office - 9 months before 9/11 happened - but, their "warrantless wiretap" program has largely been accepted, since it was revealed (after the 2004 elections) by Americans, as "necessary in the war on terror" - even though it preceded 9/11!
but what leverage has all that secret spying awarded them, under the ol' radar? hmmmm?
B.C. Liberal cabinet sure as hell must be aware of all the implications of that - of the Bush White House use of it pre 9/11, AND American "acceptance" of it, after the fact ... and the RCMP want a piece of the "post 9/11" action (as if they don't have it - but it ain't on the books!)
they don't dare use "terrorism" as "justification", though
but hey! in the middle of a drug-law induced Gang War, use ThAT!
But how 'come Carole James isn't fully aware of that, or, if she is, why not nail them on that point?
(Is that why Dawn Black's coming aboard? to help facilitate that? wouldn't surprise me. I'll bet she's running for leadership after the next electton)
"You say it's because of Blackberries and the onslaught of "new technology", but you mean 'warrantless wiretaps', don't you, mr Attorney General?"
something like that will induce sweat too
I beg your pardon?
I beg your pardon?
why doesn't carole james have wally oppal clarify what "expanded surveillance" will look like? What it translates to is "warrantless wiretap" - "fishing" for evidence in likely ponds
I'm sure he - the attorney general - and police - have been on a media blitz requesting same of late - they went to Ottawa a week ago to try to get permission for that "expanded surveillance", but haven't really explained what it is, and exactly why they need it!
They've said that it's because of "text messaging technology, and it's rapid development". Is that any impediment even with a judge's perusal of "probable grounds" evidence?
why wouldn't carole james - and the public - be interested to find out if that is reason enough to slip the bonds of judicial oversight?
announce the need FOR such "expanded surveillance" in the middle of a Drug-Law-induced Gang War... as justification? get it?
beautiful...
Unless it behooves Ms. James to launch into "more policing", and keep the notion of "expanded surveillance" quiet, and, should she win the election, launch her own secret spying to achieve "spectacular" results
of course, besides solidifying public opinion, re the newly-elected NDP's keen law-enforcement abilities - could also provide immeasurable assistance in other ways - like listening in - again, secretly - to the text or telephone conversations of her political foe - to destroy her (then) Opposition Libs
nothing like a good family scandal or three to do that!
There are vast numbers of people who are either solid NDP supporters or swing voters who are very concerned about the recent crime surge in the Lower Mainland. There are also lots of people in the NDP universe who are against Campbell cutting funding for the whole justice system and shutting down courthouses and getting rid of prosecutors and legal aid etc... I suppose that if you spend your life in some wildly unrepresentative little sub-culture of lecturers in social work at UBC etc...you might think that the only people who care about crime are philistines and rednecks. But in the real world there are a helluva lot of low and middle income people who live in places like Surrey and Burnaby etc... who don't like all the corruption that Campbell represents, who have maybe lost their jobs, seen health care and social services cut to ribbons, oppose privatization etc.... and on top of all that, they would like to see some sort of a plan to deal with the crime wave. If you ever got out of your academic chair and talked to some real people you might be crestfallen to discover that there are lot of NDP voters with very populist leftwing views on the economy etc... who also are very concerned about crime.
You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether you personally think that the NDP ought to have anything to say about crime - but I don't think that there is any denying that it is a political winner
Its obvious that you don't spend a lot of time in BC talking to real people if you think there isn't a huge segment of the population that fully realizes the stupidity of marijuana prohibition. As Dana pointed out, this is one of those Twilight Zone situations where the mainstream media is a few steps more progressive than the NDP on this issue(not the party's membership but the 'make it up as they go' executive).
And your suggestion that the criminalization of addiction and drug use primarily affects the affluent is really a new height in ignorance as far as I am concerned.
You have to admit it wasn't a bad effort at "make it up as you go" blogging punditry in support of the "make it up as you go" executive.
People join gangs because they want to get rich without doing honest work. The people at the top do, the others don't. That's no reason to have sympathy for any of them. They are all victimising society at large. We're not talking about stealing food here.
That said, I don't think longer prison sentences are a deterrent. What is a deterrent is certainty of punishment, which means better policing and procecution, which is a provincial responsibility. What is an even better detterent is removing the financial incentive, which means either drug legalization or seizure of assets, both of which would have to be implemented at the federal level, and neither of which the federal NDP has had much to say about.
Again:
What kinds of gangs are we talking about here? Do we mean organized crime gangs, or do we mean laisse faire networks of associates?
BS brookemere. there are assorted reasons why people join gangs and identifying factors as to why they join gangs is not sympathetic to them. It is understanding the mechanisms, which needs to be done in order to curtail it in the demographics it can be curtailed in. Seizure of assets has been happening for over a decade has it curtailed it? No! People just get smarter with putting their assets in others names.
This war between gangs started long ago somewhere back in 1991-1993 in Nanaimo, when the former head of the HA's was murdered, and then a Triad leader was murdered in response, and it has now shifted to Vancouver as the primary focus and further esculated.
Two points:
1. There are gangs and there are gangs - some gangs are relatively innocuous and just wear some insignia and get together for drinks etc... others are extremely violent and they will find ways of making money - if all drugs were legalized tomorrow - they would branch out into pimping, illicit gambling, extortion, swarmings, home invasions, human trafficking, credit card fraud etc...
2. I'm all for decriminalizing marijuana - but only the federal government can do that - and it clearly isn't going to happen in the near future - meanwhile crime and gangs are a growing problem and there is a provincial election in a months time. The NDP can't just throw up their hands and say "we propose doing NOTHING about crime because we need to wait a generation for the federal government to sometime, maybe decriminalize marijuana and take the chance that just maybe it might have an impact on the crime rate". Drug laws are 100% federal jurisdiction and this is a provincial election and any party running in the provincial election has to take a position on crime and the justice system.
um stoccholm if you think drug use and addiction is a rich ppl problem you really REALLY need to learn something and get out more. On top of that that stuff about ppl joining gangs because they want to get money without "honest" work is the biggest BS i ever heard. A lot of places the gang is just the ppl in the neighbourhood looking out for each other with increased policing and racist cops you get people who now have charges and their only way to make money and feed their kids is to turn to the drug trade. All these conditions exist as a result of the capitalist system we live in.
And stoccholm you really dont know how it is ppl will sell anything when they addicted to shit. A lot of prostitues are addiceted I seen cracc heads trying to sell VCRs and shit for like 5 or 10 to get their next fix you need to realize that if it was a problem of the rich there would be almost NO laws affecting the drugs. Any drug that becomes associated with class (esp lower) gets made illegal. Powder coke vs Cracc? 500gram 3yr min vs 5gram 3yrmin. In england Gin was banned before whiskey was not. Poor ppl get thrown in jail and criminalized the rich do not. If you think otherwise you don't know how the world works
"A lot of places the gang is just the ppl in the neighbourhood looking out for each other with increased policing and racist cops"
The biker gang members that seem to be getting implicated in a lot of this crap look to be 6th generation Canadian WASPs - so what does racist cops have to do with their story?
"A lot of places the gang is just the ppl in the neighbourhood looking out for each other with increased policing and racist cops"
The biker gang members that seem to be getting implicated in a lot of this crap look to be 6th generation Canadian WASPs - so what does racist cops have to do with their story?
nvr meant those kind
I guess that's your problem.
No its not. The problem is the in the general use of the word in both the cases of nieghborhood "gangs" and organized crime gangs. That is why I asked the question, about definition.
Its even regional. In Toronto, usually people are talking about local gangs, while in Vancouver/BC we are usually talking about the HA.
No its not. The problem is the in the general use of the word in both the cases of nieghborhood "gangs" and organized crime gangs. That is why I asked the question, about definition.
Its even regional. In Toronto, usually people are talking about local gangs, while in Vancouver/BC we are usually talking about the HA.
yee in TO they usually mean bangaz Vancouer idk ill go w/ what Cue said TO is dif HA on a higher lvl on the streets no more
. . . the ndp can start attacking the crime problem by getting tough on corrupt judges and corrupt crown attorneys. until they address the rampant corruption permeating the ministry of attorney general their stance is mere lip service . . .
THE CANADIAN CONNECTION and more . . .
the NDP can I think do itself a big favor by offerning some resistence to the notion of extraordinary expansion of police powers
wally oppal wants "expanded surveillance" to be made available - he just went to Ottawa, with his western prov. equivs,, to request that. He was disappointed there, though, apparently. But what he means of course - by "expanded surveillance" - is "unwarranted spying"
It's currently against the Law in Canada to "Go Fish" for evidence
But GWBush set a precedent , didn't he? by just doing that, secretly, for years and years - spying on who-knows-who? No one will ever know the answer to that, but you have to realize that Bush was wildly successful at having everything his way, throughout his wildly unpopular administration
no correlation there at all, I suppose... yeah, just let Wally do what he wants, with no judicial oversight whatsoever, and believe it's all to nail the "bad guys"... What, the NDP is unaware of any aspects of that ? YIKES!
I wouldn't be surprised if Wally Oppal's desire for "expanded surveillance" -- ie. "unwarranted wiretapping/spying" is Olympics related. If unwarranted wiretapping were put in place prior to the Olympics, I expect it would be used against members of the Olympics Resistance Network. And with US troops being sent to Canada to help out with the security for 2010, it would be likely that Homeland Security would be in on it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Homeland Security is lobbying the Canadian government to let the Patriot Act be applied in BC during the Olympics.
delete faulty
I wouldn't be surprised if Wally Oppal's desire for "expanded surveillance" -- ie. "unwarranted wiretapping/spying" is Olympics related.
yeah, sure, (Drug-Law induced) Gang Wars! AND the "Olympics" - please - don't be so naive!
And you've never arrogantly commented on happenings in other provinces?
Social workers? You mean people who have an actual first-hand understanding of the crime problem, and not what the media presents it as?
The NDP has been in power in Manitoba for almost 10 years, and is just as tough on crime as anyone else. That hasn't stopped either the PCs or certain media outlets from criticising the "hug-a-thug approach of the NDP." The NDP will never get favourable coverage on the crime issue.
Certainly the crime surge is concerning, but perhaps in a couple of weeks the media will forget the crime problem and latch onto something else? The media creates its own reality, especially so around crime. They love to sell papers when something horrific happens, but you hear comparatively little when crime goes down, for example when Winnipeg had a car-theft free day last month. In terms of the picture of crime? Did you know that the vast majority of crimes happen between people who know each other, close family members and friends? Did you know that a domestic dispute is probably one of (if not) the most dangerous situations a cop can walk into?
Many of whom are NDP members and attend NDP conventions, unless you're going to argue that rank-and-file NDP members are somehow not regular people. Still, the NDP membership voted for resolutions that run completely contrary to the tough-on-crime position that the executive has taken. Do you not think that some of the people who supported those resolutions were not victims of crime themselves? Which leads me to:
This isn't an ideological matter. On the crime question, the different ideologies had their debates, and the party as a whole decided on the driection they wished to go. The executive unilaterally changed it. That goes to the core of democracy, and only goes to feed the cynicism that people have about politics, that it's a waste of time because the guys at the top will do whatever they want regardless of what the people think.
People join gangs because they want to get rich without doing honest work.
Or they join a gang because they got sent to prison for a minor offence, and in order to survive in prison they are forced to join one of the gangs for protection.
It is prohibition that creates gangs and the drug war. Prohibition of alcohol created Al Capone, while prohibition of drugs has created the Bacon Brothers.
"what about the risk of sending swing voters the other way, to the Greens?"
I'll believe it when I see it. All last year there was a chorus of naysayers claiming that the NDP was making a big mistake by rejecting Campbell's carbon tax and that supposedly all these NDP supporters who love the carbon tax would be up in arms and cast protest votes for the so-called green party. Then we had two provincial byelections in the two most stereotypically "green" ridings in the whole province - Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver-Fairview - and the so-called greens got humiliatingly low percentages of the vote. If their leader could only get 7% of the vote in a low stakes byelection where people can vote however they want - it speaks volumes.
And of several billionaire families in Canada, most of them made their first millions with illegal booze.
If we want cheap and freely available drugs of all kinds, illicit as well as the other kinds, we'd have to eliminate capitalism, or reform it by quite a lot. There are powerful and influential people involved in the global drug trade, weapons dealing, and trafficking in people.
Again. That really depends. Gangs, by which I mean urban street gangs are also a defence against an unjust society. Certainly, this is not a pretty picture, but just lumping all gangs together is a mistake, as is defining the persons in them as victims only. Especially in the states, where there is basically no law in many of the ghettos, the gangs act as a way of ordering society.
Furthermore, much of the "gang" talk that we see in the media these days, is not about the organized crime gangs but the laisse faire gangs of disenfranchised youth, who certainaly use their networks for illegal activity, but it is hard to pinpoint exactly where friendship ends and business begins. The "gang" terminology is used here most often as coded language meaning more than three people of colour gathered in one place all wearing the same or similar clothes, and we should be really wary of how this language is being used to criminalize not white youth far beyond whatever criminality may actually be going on, by giving it special signifigance as "gang" activity, when actually we are talking about much more casual networks common in all criminal activity.
By calling these groups and networks gangs, we are associating street gangs with organized crime gangs, and giving it a legal form as a joint criminal enterprise as a conspiracy, when in fact we are talking about petty criminals, and applying special laws and programs hyped in the media in a way that has heavily racialized overtones.
No one ever tried to sell the public on the idea that groups of white hippie kids involved in the low level drug trade were part of some underground organized gang culture, they were misguided and troubled youth, not ruthless arch criminals.
What are you talking about?
There have been a lot of media profiles of gang members in the Vancouver media. Admittedly the only ones who get profiled are the ones charged with serious crimes or the ones who have been murdered, so this may not be representative of all gang members. But the fact is that most of them come from families of normal socio-economic status. That goes for the Hells Angels and the Indo-Canadian gang members, in particular.
The "gang talk" in the Vancouver media is most certainly not about "disenfranchised youth". It is about professional criminals of the sort I noted above.
Quit projecting US models of gang participation to Vancouver. They are irrlelevant.
I live in Toronto, where things are different. And I have lived in Vancouver and known HA members. I am explaining the difference. For example the HA used to run the door at the Commodore ballroom, before the Calgary cowboy outfit took over.
If you look above you will see the Rexdale Punjabi thinks when you are talking "gangs" you are talking about urban street gangs, not your fat 50 year old biker types. And so, I think this definition is important. Its not an American model, its a Jane Finch "model", a Chalk Farm "model", its not a model, actually its a way of life for some people.
You really are pretty naive if you don't think that this "model" or a version of it exists here, in Canada: Chalk Farm
I live in Toronto, where things are different. And I have lived in Vancouver and known HA members. I am explaining the difference. For example the HA used to run the door at the Commodore ballroom, before the Calgary cowboy outfit took over.
If you look above you will see the Rexdale Punjabi thinks when you are talking "gangs" you are talking about urban street gangs, not your fat 50 year old biker types. And so, I think this definition is important. Its not an American model, its a Jane Finch "model", a Chalk Farm "model", its not a model, actually its a way of life for some people.
You really are pretty naive if you don't think that this "model" or a version of it exists here, in Canada: Chalk Farm
Yo dont link Real Toronto those dudes are heat they puttin themselves up for gettin raided n alot of em did. They givin the racist ass media more ammo why you think rex wasn't on dat? Cuz Rapsheet got us raided couple months before. Im dont even gonna bring beef on here but if you ask ppl from the hood they'll tell you str8 up JnF aint the hardest blocc they get the most attention cuz they take the most shots. That about it there bloccs ppl aint ever heard of in for example Scartown. Like what Blocc 13, Galloway, Malvern, O.P, V.P, MnL, EGnL, Parma that just one small part of east n remember I dont even go east that much. Like der bare bloccs that poor, got drugs, got hookers, but they dont kill as much. West End ways what im noticing is a lot more bloccs are sprining up where it 3-4 buildings of hell surrounded by rich white kids. Rex n Jnf n Regent get respect cuz they the 1st hoods and the biggest. Doomztown was built bacc in like the 50z n 60z and brought blu n cracc over in the early 80z lol. N Only hood ppl will know that history don't even matter if coppaz know that because that shit longgg done.
Like remember that for proly every body there atleast 6-7 shootings that happen n cops will proly tell you that too Idk look up stats or some shit. n most shootings will go unreported you think if ppl in the hood hear shotguns n pistols at night we call the cops? Na we just turn around n go bacc to sleep if it close enuff you go outside n see wa gwanin on the blocc shit. Ppl on here really don't know
Like yo more about the media wtf does known to police mean nigga it means you live in the hood shit. Cops used to roll around with a book now they got a computer they'll know every person standing somewhere n come up be like yo how you doing and all this shit just fucc with you n be assholes. What can you do nothing son. if they see someone they don't know it a problem n they gotta go see. N as for ooo you only have to give ur name n adress? Hope you like that cracc they'll plant on you if you don't give the info they want they fill out these long ass cards w/ shit like ur moms name, adress, school, grade they wanna know exactly everything that a police state. n Fucc the asshole ass mps who wanna give police more power shit they can already kill me and get away with it aint much more you can give them besides not having to make shit up to raid someone.
That's old, anyway.
That's old, anyway.
I know but most of the ppl on here wont have seen it still
edit- I didn't mean no media stereotype if we went on tv w/ overalls n suspenders we would still be considered criminals. I mean they giving footage of the hood to the media which easily used to scare ppl into allowing a higher police presence and powers. Most of the ppl who live in all the areas are just poor ppl who trying to pay their bills and survive and wanna be left alone. The youth are the ones who get the most trouble from cops cuz we the next generation it basically like the older one is trapped cuz they have to work min wage to feed their kids
edit- Yupp trust that they think there was no bangin b4 blood n crip there was tingz like MNM in doomz b4 crip. Mother Nature's Mistakes cuzz. And see ppl in america know about shit goin on in canada more then canada cuz ppl in the hood are connected thru famz and other means
edit- It all relative tho proly based on how much of the % of each country is POC. US is 40% canada is 20%. And esp in canada it very concentrated so the media can still easily only show the whitest parts which is easy. Ppl from Europe n shit for example can't beleive their eyes seeing hoods in america cuz they thought it was paved w/ gold and europe esp london n paris got bare hoods too. Opression and poverty are everywhere and US only stands out for more guns cuz they easer to get then agen 1 border .... Like remember that for immigrants the only way they know US or canada aint all white is they have their little community where ppl they know went. To the outside world we really don't exist. Think about where hoods are placed esp in TO. They the areas no-one would go. A tourist comes they stay near the CN tower n shit like that they won't ever even see the downtown hoods let alone the ones in other areas. Esp now with gentrification
edit- And even America ask the avg white person both sides to name hoods they might say Bronx, Harlem and South Central that about it all the other ones are ignored and not known. For TO ask em they'll say Jane n Finch, mayb rex mayb scarborough and just cuz of media attention not how much shit happens.
No, That's why they think its a US "model". Certain amount of disconnect even with well meaning people.
That's old, anyway.
And that is my point. When I was a kid, I was in a gang. Just no one called it gang. We all wore the same clothes, went looking for drugs, sold drugs committed petty crime. Thought we were tough. More or less the same thing. Nothing really serious, but we knew people who were serious, like the people from the Satan's Choice. But, because we were white, their was no gang mythology in the media.
That's old, anyway.
And that is my point. When I was a kid, I was in a gang. Just no one called it gang. We all wore the same clothes, went looking for drugs, sold drugs committed petty crime. Thought we were tough. More or less the same thing. Nothing really serious, but we knew people who were serious, like the people from the Satan's Choice. But, because we were white, their was no gang mythology in the media.
there is a dif tho not being from the hood yall proly wouldnt be strapped, and get all the other shit but a lot of that would have to do with being white anyway lol at a white ass school a white kid can go around flagged and nothing ill wear blue and get sent to the principal real talks
edit- Ye I mean the hood they mean HA n shit there a difference
edit- The way I seen it from ppl talking and just shit is that HA in TO n these other biker ones accepted as long as they dont started big ass shootings a lot of ppl seem to say they "our" canadian things while we seen as foreign and can't be allowed to live or die peacefully
edit- Exactly I thought ppl on the left atleast were smarter then that guess not all are
edit- The thing about the organized one is that it linked to the streets hard, has many politicians n shit as part of it so legalization proly aint gonna happen, if it does and doesn't come w/ a pardon for any charges related to the drug (this could be open cuz murder can be related) then all you doing is keeping ppl in the hood in the hood and just making it ok for the white kids to not get charged which already they rarely do. One reason legalization doesn't get pushed through is becasue in US n Canada you have a entire prison industrail complex built around it, Bill C-15 shows that, and there too much money involved all the way to the top for there to be a reason in a capitalistic society to legalize and regulate them. And agen if they legalize but not pardon the gov having to tax it, and regulate will have higher costs then the street and it'll just push the street more underground so ull have ppl from the suburbs who now buy from the hood proly buy from the gov while the hood stays in the hood. And I think it was you or sum1 else who said legalizing would take real reforms or even an end to capitalism because even if they do it proly will be more profitable to sell it then to work min wage which lets face it the system is designed to keep most of the population at.
edit- And more the media they'll always have a house nigga come on n say how im ashamed n we wonder how white ppl dont like us n shit they were filming that shit one time my boi comes n says this son. "you say that cuz you a house nigga ashamed of ur skin, white ppl piss on ur head n tell u it raining n u beleive em". Str8 up fucc sellouts n puttin them on the media to try and make racism seem more valid.
Right.
And this is what gets sold in the media, and to the schoolboard: gangs. No wearing "colours" and what have you. So now they have cops in schools. Someone will get killed for sure now.
That is why I am raising this question of what we are talking about when we talk about gangs.
Maybe left people shouldn't be talking about tough on gang crime and gangs in schools and so on and so forth. But make it really clear we are talking about organized criminal gangs like the HA.
I keep editing to your edits, and you, mine. Lol. Sorry.
Everyone in BC is perfectly clear on what we are talking about. And this thread is about BC, not Toronto or the US.
Are they really? Because the federal branch of your party uses this term interchangably. Layton wants to institute special laws to do with car theft and "drive bys" to deal with the "gang" problem. I really wouldnt be suprised if you just are not aware of this kind of thing going on in Vancouver. You seemed to be convinced that I was talking about an "American model", so what do you actually know? Not much.
And let me suggest somthing to you. Maybe the reason these terms are not conflated like they are here, is because Vancouver is so white bred, and doesn't have a lot of African or caribean Canadians that seem to fit the "American model." I remember there were are lot of skinhead gangs out there, maybe they don't get talked up in the media therefore.
But police and Indo-Canadian community groups are also evolving in their response to the Indo-Canadian violence. Ten months ago, the B.C. government committed tens of millions of dollars to the new B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force, which is targeting the violence among young Indo-Canadian gangsters that has led to dozens of murders in the last decade.
Stepping Up the Ranks -- Vancouver SunMaybe the reason these terms are not conflated like they are here, is because Vancouver is so white bred, and doesn't have a lot of African or caribean Canadians that seem to fit the "American model."
Well of course that's the reason. Isn't that self-evident? That's exactly why Toronto- and US-centric perspectives on gang crime are off the mark with respect to Vancouver.
My point, as I have already said, is that the people of BC know very well who the gangs are who are involved in the current violence, and they know they are not a bunch of teenagers with time on their hands, but well-off adults carrying on a lucrative business.
If you'd like an example, take a look at these people, who happen to be white.
Bacon brothers
Whether the BC NDP's position on how to deal with these people fits in with the outlook of someone from Toronto or elsewhere is beside the point. And what opinon anyone in Toronto has on what Jack Layton says is also beside the point.
Although when we hear the words "organized crime" we think of ruthless gangsters, the legal definition is something along the lines of "three of more people working together to break the law."
These so-called "anti-gang" laws often end up being used against regular people who are not part of "gangs" as we normally understand them.
For example, I run a Medicinal Marijuana Dispensary. We have more than three employees there, and we're all working together to break the law by selling marijuana to sick people. Therefore I am running an "organized crime" group under the law.
There are plenty of mainstream groups that recognize that prohibition leads to gang violence and political instability.
Journalists like Gwynne Dyer, Dan Gardner and Ian Mulgrew are among many of the journalists who openly promote an end to prohibition and drug war.
If we continue down the drug-war path in Canada, we will end up like Mexico is now.
Mexico where the drug lords run the country? They pay lip service to anti-drug n stoppin ppl from comin to America but actually help em? Sounds like canada already just add prison and military industrial complex to it. Tru say tho Im cool w/ the takin bacc Aztland thing just some of em takin gang tingz too far n wanna take out all the blacc ppl in those areas most of em recognize that they part of the nubian family too from their aztec/mayan/olmec side.
Maybe the reason these terms are not conflated like they are here, is because Vancouver is so white bred, and doesn't have a lot of African or caribean Canadians that seem to fit the "American model."
Well of course that's the reason. Isn't that self-evident? That's exactly why Toronto- and US-centric perspectives on gang crime are off the mark with respect to Vancouver.
My point, as I have already said, is that the people of BC know very well who the gangs are who are involved in the current violence, and they know they are not a bunch of teenagers with time on their hands, but well-off adults carrying on a lucrative business.
If you'd like an example, take a look at these people, who happen to be white.
Bacon brothers
Whether the BC NDP's position on how to deal with these people fits in with the outlook of someone from Toronto or elsewhere is beside the point. And what opinon anyone in Toronto has on what Jack Layton says is also beside the point.
Don't be a prat. All my family but me lives in BC, I was brought up in Vancouver, and lived there on and off throughout my life. Wether or not you like it the fact is that precedent in law, media constructs and indeed police procedures trancend the liminal regional boundaries set out by this board. For example, its not as if the Picton killings haven't had a spillover effect, or that the HA are only a problem localized in B.C.
I don't really see what your point is? B.C. is somehow immune to racially prejudiced stereotypes? Hardly.