New Democrats push to stop Homolka pardon

115 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:06

Webgear

New Democrats are pushing the Conservative government to urgently adopt legislation that would ensure criminals like Karla Homolka never receive a pardon.

New Democrat MP Malcolm Allen (Welland) has proposed a bill allowing the National Parole Board to deny pardons that would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute." This bill is Allen's second attempt this week to block Karla Homolka from receiving a pardon.

Feds strike deal to prevent Homolka pardon

Federal political parties have joined forces to ensure notorious sex killer Karla Homolka won't be pardoned for her gruesome crimes.

Sources say the four parties have struck an 11th-hour deal to hive off measures in a pardon-reform bill that would effectively ban Homolka from receiving a pardon.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:23

BillBC

Webgear, unless I'm mistaken, it's a pardon they are talking about--wipe the record clean--not a parole. She's been out of prison for some time.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:25

BillBC

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:25

Webgear

This is horrible, she and others like her have paid for their crimes, there is no reason she and others should be denied a pardon after they have served their sentences.

The NDP and their tough on crime stance is getting out of hand.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:26

Webgear

BilBC

Yes, you are correct, bad typing on my part. Thanks.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:32

Fidel

Yes, she's been out for a while. And I believe pardons are granted in order to clear someone's name of wrong doing for the legal record. I think it might even be up to our unelected and non-accountable Senators in Ottawa to grant her a pardon. They are the one's with the power to grant pardons not any of us or our elected politicians.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:33

bagkitty

Webgear. I think you have, in your second post, confused parole and pardon. I have linked to a general wiki article on pardons, the sections on Canada lead off the country by country discussion of the concept. Homolka did serve the mandatory portion of the sentence issued to her and I agree that she has the same right to liberty that anyone else who has completed their sentence. Receiving a pardon, though, goes beyond restoring her liberty and I do not think Allen has succumbed to some "tough on crime" stance for his position. Homolka was not convicted of some victimless crime like a drug offence nor does it seem that her actions were coerced, excusable or the result of some "youthful indescretion". I find myself in agreement with Allen that the harm in pardoning her (bringing the administration of justice into disrepute) would exceed the harm to Homolka by denying her the pardon. Any harm caused to her by denying a pardon is essentially self-inflicted.

[ETA: I see Webgear has changed his second post to replace the word parole (which he originally had there) with pardon.]

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:43

ottawaobserver

Allen represents the family of Kristen French, who live in his riding, or in the riding next door anyway. I completely understood how they would be offended by Karla Homolka receiving a pardon.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:45

Stockholm

I have no problem with the idea that instead of pardons being automatically granted, the National Parole Board should have the discretion to deny a pardon cases - like Homolka - that are particularly heinous.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:46

#10

Webgear

Sorry for the initial confusion bagKitty, bad way to start a thread.

I believe it is wrong to stop her pardon, in my view this is a public relation stunt by all political parties. Why are we only focusing on her?

Will this become a case by case example or will actual pardon denial definitions be drawn up and made into law?

Fidel, I am not connecting what the unelected senate has to do with elected officials denying Homolka and others pardons. Can you explain yourself again?

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:48

#11

Stargazer

FFS, sensationalize much? (Speaking to myself here). Homolka is NOT applying for a pardon. She will never apply for a pardon and even if she did, she would not get a pardon. This is the silliest thing that started from someone's facebook group "Stop Karla from getting a Pardon". Seriously people? She is NOT applying for a pardon. This was started by some right wing fools who played on people's fears. The Cons started the job and now the NDP wants to appear "tougher" than the Cons?

Ridicules posturing for a few people who will never vote NDP anyways.

This is not just about Homolka but certainly I'd have to ask - would you trust the Cons and their puppets to make decisions on who gets pardoned or not? This bill will extend to anyone who is deemed to bring "the administration of justice in dispute" Please, and here some people are cheering this on. I have been the victim of violent crime and FFS this is a horrible stance for the NDP to take. Might as well vote Cons.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:52

#12

Webgear

Ottawaobserver and Stockholm

I can understand the families being upset, however why are we attempting to change the law now? There most be hundreds, likely thousands of families that have lost loved ones to people that have been granted pardons in the past.

Why have we not changed this system years ago, we knew in the 1990s that this day was coming, and we (all political parties) have not change the pardon system.

Wed, 2010-06-16 19:56

#13

Stargazer

Once again - Homolka di NOT apply for a pardon. This is silly fear mongering. By the way, it is extremely rare for anyone convicted of murder to get a pardon. Extremely rare. So why now?

Webgear, thank you for your level headed responses. I think I must be on FreakDumbinion.

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:07

#14

bagkitty

Webgear: I have to agree with you about the "stunt" comment, the entire case was a media circus from the very beginning (Bernardo and Homolka). From my understanding of what is going on, this motion (Allen's) was an attempt to address the particular case... prompted because the general legislation that would have also dealt with the matter was another "everything including the kitchen sink" omnibus crime bill from the HarperCons. This 11th hour result is, in my estimation, preferable to caving in and accepting the omnibus bill.

The issue itself requires a more expansive public debate than would have been possible had the omnibus been rushed through in order to address the particular concerns of this very high profile case. But the realities of a media-driven body public (and the media has been riding the Homulka/Bernardo case for what, 20 years now?) made addressing the particular case absolutely necessary.

There is a lot to be taken into account, there are compounding factors to some crimes (and not just if they are "heinous" as Stockholm has put forward, but also, and just for example, cases where the original offences involved a Hate Crime factor) that would seriously bring the administration of justice into disrepute. For those convicted on criminal charges for what are to my mind primarily regulatory offences (like drug laws), I really don't have a problem with an almost rote pardon... when the offence has harmed individuals or groups (serial rape, disappearances like along the Highway of Tears, killings like those committed by Picton or Olson) I think there are justifiable grounds for denying any pardon and they should be spelled out and the debate about the nature and extent of those grounds should take place in the open, and not with specter of negative publicity regarding any particular case hanging over them.

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:11

#15

Stargazer

And that's the thing bagkitty - the Pictons, Homolkas and Olson would never get a pardon now, as things stand. So why bother with this? iIt is clearly just to get votes.

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:27

#16

bagkitty

Stargazer, I don't disagree with you, I also don't think that the NDP has control of the agenda in this matter... it is media driven. Frankly, I think they made an excellent strategic choice... address the concern that the fear-mongering media are peddling (and very much for the benefit of their fear-mongering Con friends) and prevent the Cons from ramming the omnibus bill through by adopting part of it that is not going to have any real world consequences. Lots of fronts to this battle. It is obvious that the Cons blinked, and given their refusal to blink on so many other issues, it is kind of clear that they were worried about "wearing" the blame for even allowing the possiblibility of her being able to apply for a pardon. Allen's motion was a reaction to a Con initiative, not something he himself initiated out of the blue. While not as idealistic as some of us would like, it shows some pretty good realpolitik savvy.

As to whether or not Homolka would ever apply, damned if I know, it comes back down to impressions formed by the media (and like I said earlier, they have been riding this story for more than 2 decades) - and the impressions the media has formed would suggest she has a sufficiently large sense of entitlement to do so.

At the end of the day, I prefer to chalk this up as an NDP success in blunting the Cons.

[ETA: too bad they couldn't have blunted that other omnibus bill the same way]

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:44

#17

Stargazer

I guess that could be it. I hadn't really thought of the motive (aside from votes).

I know how the media paints Homolka, as the one who essentially forced poor Paul Bernardo to kill women. They had conveniently forgotten that Bernardo was a peeping tom, who then graduated to sexual assaults and finally murder. From everything I have read about Homolka (and I have read a lot), she has absolutely no desire to get a pardon. She could have applied for parole but she turned that down.

I am just so damned tried of how the media made this whole story into "Bernardo as the victim of a devious killer female".

Strategically though yes, I'd go with your assessment.

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:49

#18

BillBC

Well...you guys are right...I did a quick search of "Homolka Pardon," that turned up all sorts of items saying that she would soon be eligible to apply for a pardon, and people didn't want her to get a pardon, blah blah. But none that said that she had actually applied for a pardon. So it was all just speculation and media crap. Huh...

Having said that, I think she was just as guilty as Bernardo, and should be serving the same sentence....

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:58

#19

Polunatic2

Quote:
Homolka is NOT applying for a pardon. She will never apply for a pardon and even if she did, she would not get a pardon.

That was my gut reaction too. While most people are granted pardons (when they apply), the Parole Board already has the power to deny the application. I think it's a very slippery slope when laws are passed to deal with one particular situation - no matter how heinous. Once the door is open to political interference in the process, there's no end to who can be added to the list of deny-ees. Just look south of the border where some states ban felons from voting for life - or their "three strikes and you're out" laws applied to people for stealing a slice of pizza or getting caught with a joint.

Wed, 2010-06-16 20:59

#20

George Victor

I believe the Cons held on to the legislation until the last minute so that an NDP attempt to sort it out would result in the legislation not being passed leaving the Cons to say the NDP let Homolka get away with it... I refuse to believe that in anything Steve does there is not exhaustive political forethought.

Wed, 2010-06-16 22:19

#21

thorin_bane

I had started the thead about splitting the c23 bill because I don't think the married murderers need any more advertisements. I thought it was a good move by the NDP/ John Ivison(sp) said it was pretty much Allens bill. Which the libs and cons didn't want us getting credit for. You know sensible policy(at least more so than c23 kitchen sink approach) nice watching Toews squirm on what was left out of c23.

DO you know what got passed since prorogation. 0 legislature no bills got passed. I havent checked if its true, but there wasn't much done regardless. To whit the cons immediately say the libs are holding everything up, not that they wait till the last minute using brinksmanship. Or they have killed their own bills. Nope its everyone else at fault. ...accountable.

Wed, 2010-06-16 22:28

#22

RP.

Stargazer wrote:

Homolka is NOT applying for a pardon.

(interested in knowing if you have a link for this)

Wed, 2010-06-16 22:53

#23

INP

This is just another example of the media making up its own story. There is a pattern: Look at the possibilities, choose the one that will generate the most response/interest and make up a scenario to complement the outcome. Here's another one: "Is John Tory planning to run for mayor". See, it's easy. Anyone can be an editor these days.You don't even have to find a real story and write about it. Just make something up based on the probabilities. No wonder many people are turming away from the MSM and looking to the net.

Wed, 2010-06-16 22:56

#24

Boom Boom

I'm curious. How the heck would anyone know whether or not she intends to apply for a pardon? Why on earth would she make her intentions known to anyone beforehand?

Wed, 2010-06-16 23:03

#25

Michelle

I completely agree with Webgear and Stargazer on this one. This is pure pandering, worthy of the Conservatwerps, but not the NDP.

Wed, 2010-06-16 23:37

#26

Stockholm

" I think it's a very slippery slope when laws are passed to deal with one particular situation - no matter how heinous."

YOu mean like how the long gun registry was brought in just because after the Montreal massacre - the government felt it had to be able to say "look people, we're doing something about guns!"

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:05

#27

Fidel

Boom Boom wrote:
I'm curious. How the heck would anyone know whether or not she intends to apply for a pardon? Why on earth would she make her intentions known to anyone beforehand?

Who knew that child abuser Graham James would apply for and receive a pardon in 2007?

I think the victim's families might possibly be aware of Homolka's approaching eligibility since she and her former husband entered their lives. I imagine some of them are still angry.

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:05

#28

No Yards

Stockholm wrote:

" I think it's a very slippery slope when laws are passed to deal with one particular situation - no matter how heinous."

YOu mean like how the long gun registry was brought in just because after the Montreal massacre - the government felt it had to be able to say "look people, we're doing something about guns!"

Yes, there was only ever one case of people killed by a firearm

There IS a difference between restricting firearms and restricting people ... granted, maybe it's more effective to put restrictions on people that it is to put restrictions on things (dictatorships would concure I am sure,) but it is more "democratic" and conducive to freedom to allow people their rights and to put restrictions on "things" as the situation dictates.

Progressive democracies don't create laws based on individual cases ... unless of course they have politicians that don't know their elbows from their asses ... or do, and don't give a fuck about democracy because capitalizing on ignorance and fear can get them votes.

Once again the NDP choose to move one more step to the right.

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:07

#29

Webgear

That would be a good example in my view. If you look at Jack Layton's Facebook page, there is a articles going back to 17 May.

This is more knee-jerk reactions to a situation.

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:12

#30

Unionist

No Yards wrote:

Progressive democracies don't create laws based on individual cases ...

Right. That's the key. This whole campaign is a media circus and a trap set by Harper. Only the stupidest politicians will walk in. But that doesn't leave many out.

ETA: Sorry, I should have credited Pol2 for stating that well-known principle first:

Polunatic2 wrote:
I think it's a very slippery slope when laws are passed to deal with one particular situation - no matter how heinous.

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:18

#31

No Yards

Fidel wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:
I'm curious. How the heck would anyone know whether or not she intends to apply for a pardon? Why on earth would she make her intentions known to anyone beforehand?

Who knew that child abuser Graham James would apply for and receive a pardon in 2007?

I think the victim's families might possibly be aware of Homolka's approaching eligibility since she and her former husband entered their lives. I imagine some of them are still angry.

I don't get your point.

Are we going to turn our justice system into a system where those who can afford the best PR campaign get to punish their "pet criminal" the most severely?

If some millionaire decides that Paul Latimer is even more heinous than Homolka can he wage a media campaign to brand him as "notorious" and keep him from ever receiving a pardon? Is that "Democracy"?

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:56

#32

Unionist

[deleted]

Thu, 2010-06-17 00:58

#33

Fidel

No Yards wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:
I'm curious. How the heck would anyone know whether or not she intends to apply for a pardon? Why on earth would she make her intentions known to anyone beforehand?

Who knew that child abuser Graham James would apply for and receive a pardon in 2007?

I think the victim's families might possibly be aware of Homolka's approaching eligibility since she and her former husband entered their lives. I imagine some of them are still angry.

I don't get your point.

Are we going to turn our justice system into a system where those who can afford the best PR campaign get to punish their "pet criminal" the most severely?

We've had two laws for elites and poor for a while. Look at Michael Bryant. You have to be politically connected to get away with what he has. Not even a slap on the wrist. But that's something else altogether.

We're not talking about extending someone's sentence or punishment. This is about preventing a possible pardon for someone who was an accomplice to an especially cruel serial murderer and rapist.

Thu, 2010-06-17 01:05

#34

Webgear

Fidel, why are we attempting to correct the justice system 10 to 15 years after the crime?

I am sure that there are other equally bad people released from prison and allowed to be pardon for their crimes.

Thu, 2010-06-17 01:18

#35

Fidel

Because the recycled Reform Party-Liberal coalition have proven to be slow and ineffective. C-23 likely wouldn't be passed in time to prevent Homolka from possibly receiving a pardon. The NDP has given the slow and prodding Tories a chance to get it done. And after that there is nothing stopping our Reform Party Retreads-Liberal coalition from modernizing Canada's inadequate justice system, and especially in the area of white collar crime and corporate crime that pays and costs our economy somewhere around $30 billion a year. But don't expect our two lacklustre old line parties to be too concerned about white collar crime that pays enough to achieve any meaningful change without the NDP pushing and prodding them every step of the way.

Thu, 2010-06-17 01:35

#36

ottawaobserver

My understanding is that the NDP was trying to save C-23 for the fall when it could get more robust attention. Don Davies says that there are some positive aspects in it, in terms of better administration of the pardon system, but that the Conservatives were trying to sneak in a "three strikes" provision into another part. He said that, as with most of their criminal legislative changes, they try to "mow down everything in sight" with a single bill, and that's why it should not be allowed to proceed in all stages now, but be further studied and then amended in the fall.

The single provision of that bill, which Malcolm Allen cleverly pulled out into its own bill so it could be dealt with quickly, was to give the Parole Board the right not grant a pardon, if it would bring disrepute onto our justice system (or words to that effect). Up to this point, as we saw with Graham James, if they apply, they get it, and the board has no disretion. This single provision gives them the discretion not to grant it, if doing so would basically make the justice system a laughing stock.

People, Homolka raped tortured and murdered three young women, and manipulated her way into a plea bargain that considerably downplayed her role in originating those crimes, at the expense of her husband. That deal was made and has to be lived with, and she's servied her time, but we as a society should not have to pardon that behaviour. I would not want her working with children, which is what most of this is all about.

If the definition of "progressive" in the justice system is not to hold people responsible for what they've done, then I don't get it. Yes, we take circumstances into account, yes we want to rehabilitate, yes we want to understand how crime is socially constructed in some cases and make sure we extend our definitions of crime so as not to be class-based. But we still find people guilty, and show our disapproval as a society.

Those crimes are unpardonable in my book. Aren't they in yours?

Thu, 2010-06-17 01:41

#37

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

Those crimes are unpardonable in my book. Aren't they in yours?

I'll bet you could find a whole lot more Canadians who would agree with capital punishment for Paul Bernardo than with capital punishment as a general proposition.

That's why we don't base legislation on our revulsion at a particularly heinous crime.

And no, OO, I sincerely doubt that those here (like me) who are saying that this whole thing is bad law, a circus, a trap - are more indifferent to Homolka's crime than you are. I don't think we need reminding of how many young women Homolka raped and tortured and murdered. Nor do we really need to be accused of wishing to "pardon that behaviour", which is about as specious a characterization of legal pardons as any I have ever heard.

The NDP should learn how to make its own way in life. If it spends its time responding to provocations by Conservatives and Liberals, it won't be seen for the leadership role it can certainly play.

Thu, 2010-06-17 01:48

#38

Fidel

Who's talking about capital punishment besides Unionist?

Unionist, do you ever post anything that isn't just rabid anti-NDP rhetoric? Jayzus!

Thu, 2010-06-17 03:37

#39

Doug

Webgear wrote:

This is horrible, she and others like her have paid for their crimes, there is no reason she and others should be denied a pardon after they have served their sentences.

The NDP and their tough on crime stance is getting out of hand.

If there's going to be things we don't pardon, the crimes she assisted in are right at the top of the list. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Thu, 2010-06-17 04:10

#40

Cueball

The whole idea of "criminal record" seems questionable to me.

Thu, 2010-06-17 06:29

#41

Maysie

Fidel wrote:
Unionist, do you ever post anything that isn't just rabid anti-NDP rhetoric? Jayzus!

Fidel, this is a personal attack. Knock it off.

Thu, 2010-06-17 08:50

#42

Polunatic2

Quote:
YOu mean like how the long gun registry was brought in just because after the Montreal massacre - the government felt it had to be able to say "look people, we're doing something about guns!"

Long gun controls were long overdue. Montreal was probably the tipping point. What's the tipping point here? I don't have much knowledge about pardons and was going on "gut feelings" with my initial comments. Having done a bit of reading, I can see what the issue is - Homolka has kept her nose clean for give years and therefore it might be difficult for the pardon board to deny her a pardon should she apply.

But just looking at some of the provisions that Harper and Toews included in the bill like ditching the term "pardons", extending waiting times, barring people from ever applying if they have more than 3 convictions, etc., it's clear what their agenda really is - punishing people for life (highly racialized) to garner votes. Not very good public policy. I can see the NDP's "concern" but something doesn't sit well with me about basing policy on notoriety alone.

Quote:
Who's talking about capital punishment besides Unionist?

If Harper gets a phony baloney "majority" government, a lot of people will be talking about it. And it will likely be called the Paul Bernardo law.

Thu, 2010-06-17 20:52

#43

Stargazer

Yes, I agree completely with Unionist and Polunatic.

Thu, 2010-06-17 23:01

#44

Webgear

Doug wrote:

Webgear wrote:

This is horrible, she and others like her have paid for their crimes, there is no reason she and others should be denied a pardon after they have served their sentences.

The NDP and their tough on crime stance is getting out of hand.

If there's going to be things we don't pardon, the crimes she assisted in are right at the top of the list. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Well, I suppose the new law did not have a list of crimes that would not be pardonable.

More knee jerk reactions.

Fri, 2010-06-18 02:16

#45

Pogo

Maysie wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Unionist, do you ever post anything that isn't just rabid anti-NDP rhetoric? Jayzus!

Fidel, this is a personal attack. Knock it off.

A poster habitually comes into a thread that mentions the NDP to post about how the NDP failed in this particular situation. Someone notes that pattern and calls him or her on it and soon after the moderator steps in and tells this person to stop it. The lesson is learn the rules and you can circumvent the spirit of the rules and the arbitrators will protect you.

Fri, 2010-06-18 02:53

#46

Cueball

It's crap. Unionist was very vocal about campaigning for Muclair in the last election. Everyone knows this. Fidel's comment was just a hyperbolic smear job. It's me that who can't say anything nice about the NDP.

As Stargazer points out, Homolka is not even asking for a pardon. This is all just a lot of NDP populist law and order muckraking. Creating an issue for the sake of scoring cheap political points. Sensationalist yucky crap.

Fri, 2010-06-18 02:54

#47

Pogo

Yes he did temporaily and with severe reservations hold his nose and support the NDP for a very short period of time. Since then he has made a point of walking away from the NDP more times than the Liberals have promised universal childcare. In this thread there were excellent point about how the NDP were able to derail the main bill while pouring water on the Conservatives gunpowder. That is totally glossed ignored when he posted. In the Libby Davies thread he hectors everyone to throw their support behind Davies a long time NDP MP, but has no problem crapping on the party at the same time. How many times has he made the claim that Layton is going to force Davies to quit (even though those closer to the scene have repeatedly refuted it)

I personally have no problem with your criticism of the NDP and us as NDP members. In part is because you don't jump on every opportunity to smear the NDP. I can't same about Unionist.

I am a card carrying NDP member but I am not very active right now. There is lots about party politics that I question. Still I don't think it is either progressive or constructive for a poster to focus their attention on urging people to abandon the party (or repeately providing analysis that leads to this). I don't like it when people do it to the NDP and I don't like it when people do it to progressive Greens either.

Fri, 2010-06-18 03:17

#48

Cueball

Pogo wrote:

I personally have no problem with your criticism of the NDP and us as NDP members. In part is because you don't jump on every opportunity to smear the NDP. I can't same about Unionist.

Hurrumph. Well maybe that is because he has more time on his hands. But believe you me, I am not very happy about being upstaged by Unionist in this very important posting charachteristic. What will people think? I have a reputation to protect. Nor do I think its a fair assessement of my posting habits, in comparison to his.

But there you go, his support for Davies, in an of itself shows that his objection to the NDP is not unequivocal, or simply a manifestation of prejudice. It is obviously a position based on political principle, not partisan associations.

Fri, 2010-06-18 03:17

#49

bagkitty

Well, if not unequivocal, would it be going out on a limb to describe it as habitual?

Fri, 2010-06-18 04:17

#50

Cueball

Not really. The critique is obviously not spurious in the sense that it amounts to trolling.

Fri, 2010-06-18 05:30

#51

skdadl

[URL=http://stageleft.blogspot.com/2010/06/we-cannot-allow-karla-homolka-to-p... at Stageleft: "We cannot allow Karla Homolka to play Santa!"

Quote:
There is a very real possibility that Karla Homolka, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, may be hired to play Santa Claus between November 15th and December 24th at the Bayshore Shopping Centre in Ottawa this year.

Now, murderess Homolka herself has not explicitly confirmed her intention of applying for the job of Bayshore Santa. Nor has the Bayshore Shopping Centre indicated in any concrete way that they intend hire her, should she submit an application for the position.

But can Canadians afford to wait? Are we willing to leave the ball in her court?

Pages

Topic locked