James Moore's comments on child poverty exemplifies what's wrong with right-wing governments

it's what's wrong with conservative evangelical thought and what happens when they get into government and the proof is at least 150 years old.

Quote:

Between 1845-52 Ireland suffered a period of starvation, disease and emigration that became known as the Great Famine.

...Initially, the government’s policies met with some success. In 1846 Peel moved to repeal the Corn Laws, tariffs on grain that kept the price of bread artificially high, although this did little to ease the situation in Ireland as the famine worsened.

The repeal of the Corn Laws also split the Conservative Party and when, on 25 June, Peel was defeated on the second reading of an Irish Coercion Bill (designed to combat famine-fuelled violence), he resigned as Prime Minister four days later.

A new government led by Lord John Russell did not handle the famine effectively.

...Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the relief effort, limited government aid on the basis of laissez-faire principles and an evangelical belief that “the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson”.

and here we are again in history subjected to whacked out evangelical thinking and "free market" bs.

nope......

it's already gone there...long ago.....where've you all been?

i think he just started the back swing against the crappy attitude of the evangelical anti-robin hood crowd. better known as the 'Harper Government'.

Catchfire wrote:

I think he is testing to see if there is fertile ground in Canada for U.S.-style poor-bashing rhetoric. Is he right?

Re-read babble threads that touch on poverty and you'll see that that even self-identified progressive Canadians aren't averse to poor-bashing. It might not always take the same form as U.S.-style bashing, but whether it's concern trolling, playing devil's advocate, or something else, the message is clear: on both sides of the border, across the political spectrum, poor people are resented, loathed, scapegoated, and feared.

.

On Dec. 16 Minister Mackay , minister of justice, was asked to respond to the report that Judges in Ontario were finding ways around applying the victim fine surcharge to cases when the convicted person is homeless he said "If an offender shows they are unable to pay, in the vast majority of provinces there is a fine option program where they can work off that debt, and if not, if they need an extended period of time or they need to sell a small amount of property in order to pay that debt to society, that debt specifically to the victim, they should be afforded the opportunity to do so." Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Let offenders sell belongings to pay victim fine surcharge, MacKay says Justice Minister

Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested Monday that offenders who can’t afford the government’s controversial mandatory victim fine surcharge should consider selling their belongings to pay off the debt.

The new surcharge came into effect in October and has been a flashpoint for rebellion by judges who have either refused to apply it or found creative methods to minimize it, such as handing out $1 fines that reduced the surcharge to pennies, or allowing offenders upwards of 50 years to pay it back.

In an interview with the Citizen, MacKay lashed out at critics who said the mandatory victim fine — usually $100 or $200 depending on the severity of the crime — was causing undue hardship for criminals.

“Two or three hundred dollars? Really? Disproportionate, out of step, cruel and unusual punishment? What about the victim that in some cases has to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars as a result of being an innocent in the system who becomes a victim,” said MacKay. “We believe victims deserve more respect, more inclusion and a stronger voice in the justice system.”

MacKay said there are options for offenders who can’t afford the fine to pay back what they owe.

“You pay it back over time. But not a disproportionate and ludicrous period of time as some judges have meted out. There are even within some prisons the ability for prisoners to be paid. And sometimes they might even have to, God forbid, sell a bit of property to pay and make compensation to their victim,” he said. “I don’t really ascribe at all any legitimacy to saying that a fine of two to three hundred dollars that a person could pay back over several years is cruel and unusual punishment, when one considers the suffering of victims.”

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

Sorry, I have restricted hand control and inadequate formatting skills. I cannot figure out how to double space text...sorry The post is made of my note plus a copy of the article from the Ottawa Citizen. Sorry for the ugly presentation.

Are you posting from a mobile device? Babble makes mincemeat of those since its "upgrade".

Try this:

1. Precede your entire post by [ size=12 ] (without the spaces).

2. End the entire post by [ /size ] (no spaces).

3. Click "Disable rich-text" at the bottom of the box.

4. Click "Post Comment".

If it works, you're welcome!

If it doesn't work, blame babble.

I have tried to reformat it and failed again. Thus I have tried to start a new thread on MacKay

MacKay channel his inner Ebenezer Scrooge...literally. Homeless individuals convicted of anything including mischief etc should sell their stuff or work for the money in prison to pay the mandatory victim fine surcharge.

Let offenders sell belongings to pay victim fine surcharge, MacKay

Quote:

BY ANDREW SEYMOUR, OTTAWA CITIZEN DECEMBER 16, 2013

OTTAWA — Federal Justice Minister Peter MacKay suggested Monday that offenders who can’t afford the government’s controversial mandatory victim fine surcharge should consider selling their belongings to pay off the debt.

The new surcharge came into effect in October and has been a flashpoint for rebellion by judges who have either refused to apply it or found creative methods to minimize it, such as handing out $1 fines that reduced the surcharge to pennies, or allowing offenders upwards of 50 years to pay it back.

In an interview with the Citizen, MacKay lashed out at critics who said the mandatory victim fine — usually $100 or $200 depending on the severity of the crime — was causing undue hardship for criminals.

“Two or three hundred dollars? Really? Disproportionate, out of step, cruel and unusual punishment? What about the victim that in some cases has to pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars as a result of being an innocent in the system who becomes a victim,” said MacKay. “We believe victims deserve more respect, more inclusion and a stronger voice in the justice system.”

MacKay said there are options for offenders who can’t afford the fine to pay back what they owe.

“You pay it back over time. But not a disproportionate and ludicrous period of time as some judges have meted out. There are even within some prisons the ability for prisoners to be paid. And sometimes they might even have to, God forbid, sell a bit of property to pay and make compensation to their victim,” he said. “I don’t really ascribe at all any legitimacy to saying that a fine of two to three hundred dollars that a person could pay back over several years is cruel and unusual punishment, when one considers the suffering of victims.”

One of the offenders in Ottawa who had their $100 fine waived was a crack-addicted refugee who fled civil war in Sierra Leone, while another, a homeless teenager who lives in a shelter, was given 60 years to pay.

One judge in Ottawa found the new law was unconstitutional because it constituted a tax.

All three cases are being appealed.

MacKay said he was “a little surprised” by the “pushback” from judges and politicians to the Conservative justice reforms, including the mandatory victim fine surcharge and mandatory minimum jail sentences.

“As minister of justice, I’ve got nothing but respect for our judiciary and I also understand implicitly the importance of not only judicial discretion but judicial independence. Having said that, I also have a high degree of respect for Parliament and the institution of those who are democratically elected to pass laws,” he said.

MacKay said judges need to “apply the law.”

“Respect the law. Respect the democratically elected Parliament of Canada,” said MacKay. “If an offender shows they are unable to pay, in the vast majority of provinces there is a fine option program where they can work off that debt, and if not, if they need an extended period of time or they need to sell a small amount of property in order to pay that debt to society, that debt specifically to the victim, they should be afforded the opportunity to do so,” said MacKay, a former prosecutor.

“Simply waiving it out of hand — I’m telling you, I used to see it routinely, the judge would say, ‘well the person is going off to jail so they have no means to pay and I’m going to waive the victim fine surcharge.’ Those days are over.”

MacKay insisted offenders should have the option to work off the fine. However, Ontario, British Columbia and Newfoundland don’t have fine option programs. MacKay said it is not something he can force the provinces to enact.

MacKay said he is now focused on tabling the Victims’ Bill of Rights, a piece of legislation he hopes will be the “cornerstone” of the Conservative government’s contribution to criminal justice in Canada.

“What we’re going to see is that victims will be placed at the very epicentre, at the heart of our criminal justice system, by virtue of this bill of rights,” said MacKay.

MacKay said his government is also set to propose legislation that will target sexual offences against children, as well as deal with drunk driving and drug-impaired driving.

It is “very likely” that the sex offender legislation will include mandatory minimum sentences, MacKay said.

I wonder if such a moment is required. It is hard to imagine that what is left of CPC support would not be aware of their positions on crime and punishment or their views towards poor people.

There are about 10-12% of Canadians with a strong religious based view in this area. These people applaud their vision of Christian morality that holds the individual wholly responsible for their own fortune as a matter of core belief. Sounds like a small number but when you consider that these people vote heavily they may represent very close to 20% of voters. (It is worth remembering that these loud Christian right wingers are in fact a minority of Christians.)

Add to them social conservatives from other religions with the same view, racists and hateful people of no religion, and economic conservatives for whom their economic theory is rather close to a religion and you get to the roughly one in four of voters which is the current level of support the Conservatives seem to still have. These Conservatives will not leave their party over expressions of ideology that they share.

That is not to say that the Conservatives could not sink lower. There are thee ways that can happen: First more revelations of dishonesty could encourage those who may share the heartlessness expressed above but be unable to support lies (for them being upfront about their heartlessness is less of a problem than the sleaziness of this government); second, more mismanagement of the economy could encourage some to hold their nose and vote for Justin (These are not potential NDP votes and Justin has done nothing to suggest his economic ideology is that much different than the Conservatives) and lastly new right wing alternatives that could draw support from the right – perhaps more right wing than Harper or quicker at imposing it.

The Conservatives seem to have managed to prop up what was a declining vision. Perhaps aided by propaganda they have even grown the extreme of this view even as much of the rest of the population has gone in the other direction. They have also managed to keep this segment of the population voting while for most others suffrage has gone down. This may be due to a sense that their point of view can be advanced at the ballot box whereas many others have show so little success that people don't bother.

So if you want a news story that will mean the end of the Conservatives it must include more tales of mismanagement, dishonesty or alternatives for right wing voters. They won't be moved by expressions of the heartlessness for which they already approve. Those Conservatives who could have been affected by that have left already and there were not that many to begin with. This wolf was never that covered in sheep's clothing anyway. I am guessing that no more than 15% of Harper's vote in the last election could be moved away from the Conservatives due to extreme expressions of ideology.

Here is another possibility: perhaps these statements are coming out on purpose to keep the base involved and voting. They want their people to know that in federal politics there are no others who think like them. These statements might be what the Conservatives need to stop more bleeding to non-voting. These statements are what the “Reformatories” wants to hear, even if they are revolting to everyone else. For this band of people, these are courageous words. The only question is how many of the old Progressive Conservatives are left associated with this party who might object? Their next leadership race may give is an idea. But stories like this won't move the polling numbers by much.

shartal@rogers, I've formatted your post using my iPad. The first thing that goes in the text box, before you type any part of your post, should be < p > < p > (but with no spaces between the brackets and the "p"s). That will give you the proper font size for the whole post. The same double bracketed "p" goes between every paragraph to make a double space/carriage return.

To quote use [ quote ] , without the spaces, at the beginning of what it is you want to quote, and [ / quote ], again without the spaces, to end the quote format.

Does that make sense?

ETA: I actually had to edit this post because I forgot the double < p > that formats the font size.

Are Moore's comments on child poverty, and MacKay's on the property ownership of poor lawbreakers, a sign of the breakdown of Conservative discipline, that they are coming out of the closet of mealy-mouthed hypocrisy?

Or are they sending a  choreographed signal to the base: "Forget your disgust with Harper's lying and weaseling on the Senate scandal; remember that he and we are your guys, and come out to vote."