Here's how some law enforcement officers protect our community:
[url=http://www.therecord.com/home_page_main_story/home_page_main_story_10523... the Kitchener Record[/url]
Why isn't this idiot cop in jail, with no bail, for leaving a LOADED HANDGUN LYING AROUND NEAR A HIGH SCHOOL!
quote:
Why isn't this idiot cop in jail, with no bail, for leaving a LOADED HANDGUN LYING AROUND NEAR A HIGH SCHOOL!
Um, because the cop has not been charged with a criminal offence. I suppose the cop could eventually be charged with reckless endangerment, but until then he - like any citizen - is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The facts are not in dispute. Charges should have been laid at once.
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]Why don't you do some research on what sort of punishment is in store for a 16 year old who commits a gun crime in Cuba? I can assure you it won't be pretty - nor should it be.[/b]
So how many gun-toting Cubans did you see while you were there ?. How many Canadian or German tourists were car-jacked in Havana compared with Miami that year ?. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Do you have any idea how many children are thrown in adult prisons in Guatemala and El Salvador for the crime of vagrancy every year ?.
And quit trying to hijack this thread with your compulsive obsession with socialist Cuba.
Tommy, the only "facts" I have to go on are contained in a single newspaper story.
I'm relieved to live in a country where criminal charges aren't laid based on newspaper stories, but rather after a thorough investigation and assessment of the likelihood of conviction on said charges.
Of course there should be a presumption of innocence. The question is, why hasn't he been charged? The answer is, because in this society, some people are more equal than others before the law.
Instead, he is now on active duty and has been given a new gun!
What do you think would have happened had a teenager (especially if he was marginalized by poverty or the colour of his skin) left a loaded semiautomatic in a knapsack in the middle of the street across from a high school?
I think we all know he would have had compound charges for not only the possession of the gun (which isn't a factor in the police officer's case, as he was entitled to carry the weapon) but also some sort of reckless endangerment thing for leaving it in the street.
The cop? He gets a brand new gun!
This thread has me reminded of one of my favourite Eugene Victor Debs quotes. I take the following from [url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1918/court.htm]here.[/url]
quote:
September 18, 1918Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
I listened to all that was said in this court in support and justification of this prosecution, but my mind remains unchanged. I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions…
Your Honor, I have stated in this court that I am opposed to the social system in which we live; that I believe in a fundamental change—but if possible by peaceable and orderly means…
Standing here this morning, I recall my boyhood. At fourteen I went to work in a railroad shop; at sixteen I was firing a freight engine on a railroad. I remember all the hardships and privations of that earlier day, and from that time until now my heart has been with the working class. I could have been in Congress long ago. I have preferred to go to prison…
I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and the factories; of the men in the mines and on the railroads. I am thinking of the women who for a paltry wage are compelled to work out their barren lives; of the little children who in this system are robbed of their childhood and in their tender years are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the monster machines while they themselves are being starved and stunted, body and soul. I see them dwarfed and diseased and their little lives broken and blasted because in this high noon of Christian civilization money is still so much more important than the flesh and blood of childhood. In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men.
In this country—the most favored beneath the bending skies—we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child—and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity…
I believe, Your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned—that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of a few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all…
I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.
This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but, fortunately, I am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself, have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and cooperative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic and political movement that spreads over the face of all the earth.
There are today upwards of sixty millions of Socialists, loyal, devoted adherents to this cause, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color, or sex. They are all making common cause. They are spreading with tireless energy the propaganda of the new social order. They are waiting, watching, and working hopefully through all the hours of the day and the night. They are still in a minority. But they have learned how to be patient and to bide their time. The feel—they know, indeed—that the time is coming, in spite of all opposition, all persecution, when this emancipating gospel will spread among all the peoples, and when this minority will become the triumphant majority and, sweeping into power, inaugurate the greates social and economic change in history.
In that day we shall have the universal commonwealth—the harmonious cooperation of every nation with every other nation on earth…
Your Honor, I ask no mercy and I plead for no immunity. I realize that finally the right must prevail. I never so clearly comprehended as now the great struggle between the powers of greed and exploitation on the one hand and upon the other the rising hosts of industrial freedom and social justice.
I can see the dawn of the better day for humanity. The people are awakening. In due time they will and must come to their own.
When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the southern cross begins to bend, the whirling worlds change their places, and with starry finger-points the Almighty marks the passage of time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad tidings, the lookout knows that the midnight is passing and that relief and rest are close at hand. Let the people everywhere take heart of hope, for the cross is bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning.
Perhaps the police officer involved should be suspended from active duty pending the outcome of the investigation.
This is an extremely serious situation no doubt. Leaving a loaded weapon lying around in a location where an undercover drug investigation is underway is unbelievably negligent, inadvertent or not.
Getting back to the topic of the thread. It's true that the criminal law is not always equally applied. That's why it's so important that the police reflect the diverse makeup of our communities.
How do the people here who support mandatory minimums feel about three strikes? Should Layton support it if polls show it would help the NDP?
Good lord, no. But at this point, I wouldn't put it past them.
[url=http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/05/law-is-for-rich.html]The law is for the rich.[/url] This is why many of us are against pandering to the law-and-order crowd the way the NDP is.
I agree the law is heavily biased in favour of the wealthy. I think most working class people, deep down anyway, know this.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]Why isn't this idiot cop in jail, with no bail, for leaving a LOADED HANDGUN LYING AROUND NEAR A HIGH SCHOOL![/b]
That just invites comments like John K's.
The better question is: What wasn't he fired?
Workers are disciplined and fired every day for acts of negligence, or fraud, or theft, or altercations, etc., which might never hold up to the onerous burden of criminal charges ("guilt beyond reasonable doubt") - but the civil standard required to discipline or dismiss doesn't require such a heavy standard, nor (as in John K's righteous words) "presumption of innocence" in the criminal sense.
The simple fact is that cops are never fired. In rare cases, they may face criminal charges, when even the blind can see their guilt. But dismissal? When was the last time you ever heard of such a thing?
Back to the topic, the NDP has a choice to make: 1. Reflect the most ignorant and revenge-seeking instincts of what some think are the "people"; or 2. Help to fight for progressive reform, both of the economy and society and, in conjunction with that, the criminal justice system.
The NDP will never trick its way into power by pandering to brutal instincts on crime, and then magically turn around and become humanitarian and progressive. Life doesn't work that way. The hard road is the only road to success.
What do you call this?
quote:
Our Party has long emphasized the need for serious crime prevention. It is effective in stopping crime and it is cost effective.Let me give you an example of how front-end investments are more effective and cheaper than costly back-end measures such as incarceration.
The cost to the federal government to help a young woman from Surrey secure summer employment is as little as a few hundred dollars per year. The cost to the federal government to house that same young woman in a federal prison is $150,000.00 per year.
Unfortunately the Conservative government is going in the wrong direction. In its budget last spring the Conservatives cut over $55 million from youth employment programs at the same time they increased the budget for care and custody of inmates in federal prisons by $72 million dollars.
This is not being “smart on crime.” This is no way to make communities and families safer.
To get serious on prevention, we are calling for a National Youth Initiative with two critical components.
The first is a year-round youth employment program. The federal government must invest in supporting youth job centres that promote skills development and create ways for young people to contribute.
The second component would see permanent federal support for youth gang diversion programs. Stopping youth from joining gangs in the first place must be a top priority.
In Manitoba they have tackled this issue head-on with programs that help young people deal with substance abuse, stay in school or find a job and it is backed up by strong community services. It offers a carrot and a stick approach that combines enforcement and intervention, along with support for youth and their families.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:[b]Workers are disciplined and fired every day for acts of negligence, [/b]
Unless they work for big Governments or Crown Corporations. Then they can't be fired, or if they are, the union threatens to go onstrike to "support the worker", like at BC Ferries. They fired the clowns who sank the ship, and now the union is threATENING TO GO ON STRIKE OVER IT. Makes me laugh at times.
quote:
Originally posted by Rant:
[b]They fired the clowns who sank the ship, and now the union is threATENING TO GO ON STRIKE OVER IT. Makes me laugh at times.[/b]
It's nice to know that life offers you the occasional moment of mirth.
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]What do you call this?[/b]
I call it a between-election-campaign speech on crime.
The NDP's general approach is fine. When the last campaign came along and someone got shot on Bloor, all the parties went more or less insane, and Layton along with them.
I'm just suggesting that progressive people work on the NDP not to lurch to the right on crime the next time some shooting takes place during a campaign. And I also want to know what happened to the "try 'em in adult court" declaration.
It's called keeping them honest.
quote:
Originally posted by Rant:
[b]Unless they work for big Governments or Crown Corporations. Then they can't be fired, or if they are, the union threatens to go onstrike to "support the worker", like at BC Ferries. They fired the clowns who sank the ship, and now the union is threATENING TO GO ON STRIKE OVER IT. Makes me laugh at times.[/b]
Back up that statement it is in fact a slanderous comment. Where is your source that says the union has threatened to go on strike. On this site we demand that you prove such absurd statements give me a link to the press release or press confernece.
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]And I also want to know what happened to the "try 'em in adult court" declaration.[/b]
I think I wished it away [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:The NDP will never trick its way into power by pandering to brutal instincts on crime, and then magically turn around and become humanitarian and progressive. Life doesn't work that way. [b]The hard road is the only road to success.[/b]
The bold part of the above comment must be the dumbest thing I ever read. By that type of thinking it will take the NDP 100 years before they're elected, if ever. (Probably what he wants!)
There will never be 100% perfect ideal conditions in politics. You need to be pragmatic and practical. A pragmatic and practical elected NDP is still a million times better than any conservative or Liberal government.
I don't believe the NDP needs to mimic nor ape the baser instincts of the conservatives "Law and Order" policies. However I agree with what Tommy Paine said:
quote:
"What is needed is recognition that there are, few though they may be, some people who need to be separated from society, if not forever, then for such a long time that age sufficiently reduces the chances for recitivism."
sadly for some people in our society there is no rehabiliation possible. And we have a right to be protected from them.
The Conservatives now want to crack down on an exploding problem, widely described as the crime of the 21st century: identity theft. Banks can do alot to prevent this crime. But they are not currently required by law to do all they can to protect us as in cases for mortgage fraud.
Another example: The growing numbers of boiler room telemarketing companies (*particularly in Montreal) defrauding people, especially the elderly here in Canada and in the United States.
(* according to SYLVAIN L'HEUREUX of the RCMP:
Montreal is the North American capital of telemarketing and for a while also Montreal was known as the world's capital.)
[url=http://cfcf.ca/cfcf/news/oys&id=1166]http://cfcf.ca/cfcf/news/oys&id=116...
These are just a few of the violent and white collar crime examples that the NDP can create policies and then spread the good word to all.
The NDP is smart and talented enough surely they can come up with smart crime policies that protect Canadians and successfully communicate these policies to Canadians.
Also wouldn't it be funny to see the NDP label high bank fees as white collar crime - see the NDP IS cracking down on these white collar bank criminals. LOL
[ 26 May 2007: Message edited by: mary123 ]
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Good lord, no. But at this point, I wouldn't put it past them.[url=http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/05/law-is-for-rich.html]The law is for the rich.[/url] This is why many of us are against pandering to the law-and-order crowd the way the NDP is.[/b]
The law is for the rich, and the NDP is for the law. So therefore, the NDP must be for the rich???
White collar crime is worth a gazillion-trillion times more than blue collar crime in both the U.S. and Canada. One of these classes of crime is costing us more than the other. But I think the NDP is pointing out to us that neither of the two ([i]"in the pockets of big business and banking elite"[/i]) political old line parties have handled crime and punishment very well in the past. Afterall, what were Canadians expecting with Brian Baloney and the the Libranos after that ?. I think Canadians are starved for justice on political and judiciary levels both. [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The simple fact is that cops are never fired....
The NDP will never trick its way into power by pandering to brutal instincts on crime, and then magically turn around and become humanitarian and progressive. Life doesn't work that way. The hard road is the only road to success.[/b]
Police officers can be fired and they are, as you well know. It's hardly an every day occurence, but it does happen.
It's not always a good thing. In a case this week the Supreme Court effectively ruled against an RCMP officer appealing his firing in a whistleblowing incident. The Federal Court had upheld the RCMP's decision to fire this person and the Supreme Court would not hear an appeal.
Your final paragraph has an all-too-familiar ring to it. If the NDP genuinely want's to remain true to its principles, it must engage in an endless twilight struggle, forever and ever, ... etc., etc. This is the usual head-into-the-nearest-brick-wall type of "advice" that the NDP always gets from a certain group of Marxists who are operating under strict Liberal discipline and who are making the guidance of the NDP their project.
[ 26 May 2007: Message edited by: FraserValleyMan ]
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Good lord, no. But at this point, I wouldn't put it past them.[url=http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/05/law-is-for-rich.html]The law is for the rich.[/url] This is why many of us are against pandering to the law-and-order crowd the way the NDP is.[/b]
Why should crimes that involve serious injury or even death draw provincial and even non-custodial sentences? While at the same time someone convicted of counterfeiting will get three years in a federal jail? How does this twisted set of priorities show an appropriate sense of values?
I think that people forget or don't realize, for example, that the federal Adscam involved sweetheart contracts handed off to companies which were favoured by both the two crooked old line parties over several years. People were fed up with Mulroney's shenanigans and the RCMP's incompetence in nailing crooks surrounding various government dealings with European gun runners and mafia types in general. It's about economic competitiveness and the reputation of Canadian businesses around the world, not this small-minded penny-anny stuff described above.
quote:
OTTAWA (CP) — [url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/837431.html][b]Federal New Democrats[/b][/url] say big Canadian corporations should be forced by law to hire independent auditors to make sure investors have a true picture of their financial health.The party’s finance critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis says [b]every G-8 country but Canada has introduced sweeping corporate accountability rules[/b] following the WorldCON, Global CrossUp, and ENRONg scandals in the United States. [and Canada]
She says trumped-up financial results and misleading statements by too-good-to-be-true corporations have hurt both investors and workers in this country.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
What has to be recognized is the the great uneveness in the law is corruption, plain and simple.
Mandatory minimums, spending money up front are a few ways to combat this and protect the community.
But it's not entirely smart. And while it is certainly more proactive an approach than what the other two right wing parties present, the NDP would do better, be smarter to bring law enforcement, the judicial system, and our corrections system out of the days of 18th century autocracy, and into a more modern and democratic setting. And that should positively square with fundamental principles of the NDP.
Whatever reforms implemented, if the law has no credibility, nothing will succeed.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
quote:
Originally posted by FraserValleyMan:
[b]Police officers can be fired and they are, as you well know. [...] In a case this week the Supreme Court effectively ruled against an RCMP officer appealing his firing in a whistleblowing incident.[/b]
I meant police are never fired for attacking, beating, stealing from, or killing people - unless it's so flagrant that criminal charges are actually laid, which too is impossibly rare. Workers are regularly fired in every other sector of the economy for far less grievous offences. And a Mountie fired for whistleblowing proves my point (which you obviously don't get), that a cop can only be fired for attacking the police, not for attacking the people s/he is supposed to protect!
quote:
[b]This is the usual head-into-the-nearest-brick-wall type of "advice" that the NDP always gets from a certain group of Marxists who are operating under strict Liberal discipline and who are making the guidance of the NDP their project.[/b]
Summary: [i]Only Marxists working for Liberals demand adherence to NDP policies.[/i] I'd call that McCarthyite, but the McCarthyites were much more "honest" than that - they didn't pretend their enemies were liberals. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Well, there are exceptions, Unionist. Kenneth Deane was convicted for killing Dudley George, in quick order considering the usual speed our courts work or don't work, depending on one's perspective.
I should say the Late Kenneth Deane, who of course died in a traffic accident before he could testify at the inquiry. Something about testifying at the Ipperwash Inquiry seems to have a negative effect on professionally trained, experienced drivers.
Sorry, thread drift. This has nothing to do with corruption in law enforcement or the courts.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]Well, there are exceptions, Unionist. Kenneth Deane was convicted for killing Dudley George, in quick order considering the usual speed our courts work or don't work, depending on one's perspective.[/b]
I'll try it again, Tommy. [i]I'm not talking about the courts.[/i] The judicial system is more or less functional, assuming the Crown actually lays charges. I'm talking about the police (employer) disciplining and dismissing police (employees). It never happens - unless, as I mentioned, they can't cover it up any more because there have been criminal charges laid and proven.
My fault, Unionist. I do tend to get offended when people read too much into what I write, or put words in my mouth.
So I shouldn't be surprised when I make a post that is intended to be read into, and have words put in my mouth, that it gets missed.
Read it again with your internal narator using a sardonic tone.
Maybe I was agreeing with you.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
quote:
'm just suggesting that progressive people work on the NDP not to lurch to the right on crime the next time some shooting takes place during a campaign.
How can it be a "lurch to the right" when some of the strictest most unforgiving policies on crime are (or were) to found in places like Cuba, North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union etc...
Someone on babble keeps trying to put forth Singapore as an example of a social democratic country - Singapore - where you can get the death penalty for drug trafficking and get lashed in public for dropping a cigarette butt on the side-walk. Other people think Sweden is the be-all and end-all of social democracy - and yet there people get an automatic six month jail sentence for drinking and driving - no exceptions.
Why not compare justice in democratic capitalist India or Turkey with our own, Stockholm?. Ever see the old American movie, Midnight Express ?. "Oh Bil-ly."
And in Singapore, crooks like Mulroney and the Libranos would be lined up against a cement wall at dawn instead of allowed to slither out the back door of an election call or slapped on the wrists. That's not so terrible, is it ?. That's Asian culture, and there's nothing you preaching western-style law and order can say or do to persuade them to go soft on government corruption and corporate crime. Same with China next door. One of the most popular films in Chinese theaters was about dealing with corruption at the highest levels of government. It's a very old culture, and they don't pretend to ne naive about corruption like we're conditioned to ignore here in favour of crackdowns on the poor and "squeegee kids" in Toronto and Ottawa, fcs. I suppose if they didn't crackdown on teenagers practicing free enterprise, our fearless leaders might appear to be totally ineffective on crime and punishment issues.
Singapore actually rates in the top ten for most [url=http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Rep... economies[/b][/url]. Canada has never made the top ten, and we've dropped from 13th to 16th place in recent years.
And there's no need to even look across the ocean for extreme justice. Conservatives are fascinated with crime and punishment. Look to the U.S.A., they lay claim to the dubious honour of having the [b]largest gulag population in the world,[/b] whether at home in their own country or gracing the island of Cuba with military prison complex for torture. That country warehouses more poor people in what amount to Dickensian workhouses than any other in the world, and it artificially lowers Orwellian unemployment statistics at the same time. And they're our largest trading partner.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
How can it be a "lurch to the right" when some of the strictest most unforgiving policies on crime are (or were) to found in places like Cuba, North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union etc...
I think I know the answer to this one!
Is it because a lot of what goes on/went on in those countries was actually right-wing authoritiarianism?
But, but...if that were true, then the True Believer Gang are actually spending their time justifying right-wing policies!
Like lack of elections, no freedom of speech, the Leader Is Always Right, etc, etc, ETC?
Cuba's prison population is insignificant compared with the torture gulags at Gitmo Bay, or CIA prisons for torture in Eastern Europe and Abu Graihb, and infinitesimally smaller in comparison with the largest gulag population in the world in the U.S. of A., Canada's largest trade partner.
In fact, Amerika incarerates black people at six times the rate of the most openly racist nation of the last century, South Afreeka.
Prison industrial complex was named a theme stock on Wall Street in the 1990's. They've built far more uber-prisons than new universities in the last 25 years.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
Cuba's prison population is insignificant compared with the torture gulags at Gitmo Bay
Yes, but that's not the relevant comparison, since we all agree that Gitmo Bay is indefensible.
But that doesn't make Cuba's prison policy defensible, only better than Gitmo.
quote:
Cuba's prison population is insignificant compared with the torture gulags at Gitmo Bay
I am really glad that you are now using the word "gulag" Fidel!
But your thinking here is not up to snuff, since comparing Cuba to Gitmo is like saying "I support George Bush because he's better than Stalin".
See, the relevant comparison isn't Gitmo. Or Auschwitz. Of course Cuban prison policy is better than those places.
By the way, though, how many people are in this "insignificant" number of Cuban prisoners that you refer to?
So why are we ignoring the forest for the trees here. The U.S. is our largest trade partner not Cuba. The last time I looked, our Washington lap dogs have been trying to emulate U.S. economic and social policies a lot more than Cuba.
Jeff, the Yanks boast what amounts to two-thirds of Cuba's entire population warehoused in super-prisons or embroiled in the legal system as parolees or on probation. And they can't vote in American elections or be counted as unemployment statistics. And their capital penalties are a lot stiffer than ours with Texas and Florida and several more conveyer belts of death.
Voting is considered a basic human right in dozens of nations except the USSA, Canada's largest trade partner in crime.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
THREAD DRIFT!!!
(I should make a macro key. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] )
So was the thread drift when I asked Fidel how many Cuban prisoners he thought was insignificant?
Or was it when he failed to answer?
I was simply trying to steer the international comparisons of crime and punishment above toward a more likely influence on Canada situated south of the border.
Those guys always end up in Cuba and confusing one end of it with the other. Maybe an atlas and compass are in order?.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
The whole thing is thread drift! I thought we were talking about the NDP's position on crime. You know, in CANADA.
Well, either way you slice it I suspect if we were more aquainted with the intimacies of Chinese and Singaporian politics, we'd find systemic corruption, there, too.
I remember back to when Chretien was being questioned about his role in the golf course thing. His nonchallance was telling. What most of us would see as corruption he saw as politics. And, within the sphere of Canadian poltics and governance, he was entirely correct.
The shocking thing about ad scam was just how crass it got. Actual bills stuffed in manila envelopes. And getting caught doing something illegal when the laws allowed what should have been enough lattitude in the first place.
And that's the tiresome theme I will continue to return to.
Corruption in Canada is so systemic conspiracies are only needed by the clumsy and greedy.
It's as if career bank robbers got elected and made bank robbery legal. The only difference is that we wouldn't be so pre-disposed to put the blinders on.
A "smart" policy on crime would include starting at the Charter in some cases, and reforming parliament, and the burocracy.
With so many examples lately of corruption and malefeasance that has largely gone without consequence, starting a law reform at the bottom doesn't have much credibility.
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
We were debating whether "mandatory minimum sentences" are ever justifiable. The NDP says they are in relatively rare and symbolic crimes.
If Singapore or China have mandatory minimum sentences for corruption - is that OK, or does that also represent a "lurch to the right"?
Hear-hear! I think the NDP is pointing us in the correct direction on law and order. It's about creating confidence for foreign investors and maintaining a higher reputation for businesses treading the straight and narrow in this country.
Any country would have no problems with attracting investment and foreign-ownership of natural gas and oil reserves like Canada has. That's not the issue. It's about transforming a hewer and drawer economy into something sustainable for the future. Nurturing a reputation for corporate malfeance and government corruption is not helping the situation in this country.
Oh ya, and remember to belt up before drinking and driving. Because international capital have their eyes peeled for changes in that law. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 27 May 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
quote:
We were debating whether "mandatory minimum sentences" are ever justifiable.
I think the fuss is over the terminology. When someone is found guilty of something, Judges can't just invent a sentence out of thin air. There are prescribed minimums and maximums. Mandatory minimum sounds repugnant to many because it's source, not it's intent.
And the intent is to reduce the lattitude in sentencing. Are we going to object if the criminal code is changed, and the "not less than" part of the sentence is bumped up a few years?
I submit it would pass without the raise of an eyebrow here because it doesn't employ the language of right wing media pundits.
The bored with me can skip this next part as usual, but I will insist on pointing out that the real danger of mandatory minimums is malefeasance by the Crown. We are concerned with criminals because their actions deprive us, singularly or collectively, of our enjoyment of liberty.
So do Crown attourney's that hide exculpatory evidence, and when caught face no consequences. Mandatory minimums are to be met with trepidation because we have not yet tackled the issue of the criminal element living in the system.
And then to deal with that effectively, we'll probably have to amend the charter so we have more freedom of information.
It's easier to stop from the top down though, instead of trying to put out one fire only to find another has errupted somewhere else....
When Blair talked of his third way in the early days of Labour, much like the NDP is trying to now, he was publicly acclaimed as a new leader for the left. Well look what Labour is proposing now.
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CPHIMUFHEXVSTQFIQM... Law and Order[/url]
Any journey begins with one step. We must ask ourselves if this is a journey we want to take.
Agreed leftyboy. I am truly disturbed that the NDP is adopting a law and order agenda that includes minimum sentencing and trying juveniles as adults for certain crimes. This is not at all progressive and even with the qualifiers, it still is a very slippery slope. What is happening in the UK today is close to living under martial law.
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Voting is considered a basic human right in dozens of nations except the USSA, Canada's largest trade partner in crime.
[/b]
God help me, Fidel, but I'm going to bite. Who does the US prevent from voting?
Can you name any leftwing government anywhere in the world that was opposed to "law and order"?
Tough on crime AND tough on the causes of crime makes perfect sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]God help me, Fidel, but I'm going to bite. Who does the US prevent from voting?[/b]
About [url=http://www.aclunc.org/news/opinions/restoring_democracy.shtml]five million American citizens[/url] were barred from voting in 2004 elections.
quote:
The majority of the people prohibited from voting are not even incarcerated. Three million of the disenfranchised are people living in their home communities, either on probation or parole or having completed their sentences. Many were convicted of a nonviolent crime, such as simple drug possession, shoplifting or writing a bad check.
I truly wasn't aware that a criminal record prevented somebody from voting. Is the same true in Canada? Anyway, it seems to me that those disenfranchised voters eliminated themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]Anyway, it seems to me that those disenfranchised voters eliminated themselves.[/b]
They committed suicide? Oh my God, that's horrible.
