Fighting back against Harper's omnibus crime bill

Thanks, Spector - yeah sorry I forgot the link, Bacchus.

Now let me say as clearly as I can that I'm not very offended if someone says, "I wish those murderers and rapists and child molestors would kill themselves". Suicide is lawful, and if counselling suicide is illegal, then that's a questionable law.

It's quite different when someone says, "we should carefully screen people from certain countries who don't share our U.S.-France-Canada style values". That's contrary to the spirit (at least) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination on the basis of national origin in matters of employment, public services, etc.

So did the foul-mouthed Pat Martin call him an "asshole" for his remarks about Canadian values and immigration? I'm asking because I didn't see the comments. And did anyone from the NDP condemn this scumbag Boisvenu for his racist remarks yet?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/23/pol-omnibus-crime-bill.... bill won't benefit victims, says former ombudsman[/url]

Quote:

A former MP, retired judges and the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime were on Parliament Hill Thursday to list off a number of complaints about the government's omnibus crime bill. [...]

"I think fear is at the basis of much of the government's work here. And what it's going to do, unfortunately, is make Canadians, I think, more fearful and less safe," said David Daubney, a former Progressive Conservative MP in the 1980s. [...]

Daubney said a number of the bill's measures, including more mandatory minimum sentences and fewer conditional ones, and making it harder for offenders to get parole, will lead to a "burgeoning" prison population, a concern that has been expressed often during debate on the bill. [...]

Steve Sullivan, the first federal ombudsman for victims, joined Daubney and retired judges from Ontario and Yukon at the press conference.

He said the bill is being sold as one that will benefit victims when in fact there are concerns it will do the opposite. Sullivan said Crown attorneys are warning that increased caseloads due to the bill could mean more plea bargains and dropped charges.

"That's not an agenda that benefits victims of crimes who turn to the system for justice," he said.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews have a "narrow view" of what victims need, Sullivan said, adding that the Conservative government is ignoring evidence and is acting on ideology.

"I think everything this government does is political," he said.

Well, I agree in general terms, Spector, but surely, if you or one close to you were the victim of sexual abuse or assault or murder, and the perpetrator was apprehended, and the court system was clogged because of marijuana plant aficionadi (or whatever the plural is), and the perp went free on an Askov ruling - you might feel that the system had rendered you the opposite of a "benefit", no? I think in that sense most people can appreciate and sympathize with victims' feelings that they would not want (any more than anyone else would want) to see the guilty walk free. And it doesn't have to be defined in terms of revenge or schadenfreude to be legitimate.

Well, Spector, I agree entirely, but it would be nice to get the focus back on opposition to C-10.

Here's what I find ironic:

In a Conservative minority government, the "opposition" parties teamed up to support Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 1), and the NDP disciplined its lone dissenter. They could have teamed up instead to defeat it. They have now been put to shame by a provincial court judge who ruled their team effort unconstitutional.

In a Conservative majority government, the "opposition" parties will of course vote against Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 2) - unless, of course, there are a few punishment lovers who will stand up and vote yes with Harper. There's no danger of defeating anything now. I don't even see any support by the NDP to the grassroots movement opposing the bill - because, of course, the Manitoba government is on record as saying the bill doesn't go far enough!

Perhaps the courts will save their asses once again?

Unionist, on Feb. 24, 2012 wrote:

Here's what I find ironic:

In a Conservative minority government, the "opposition" parties teamed up to support Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 1), and the NDP disciplined its lone dissenter. They could have teamed up instead to defeat it. They have now been put to shame by a provincial court judge who ruled their team effort unconstitutional.

In a Conservative majority government, the "opposition" parties will of course vote against Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill (part 2) - unless, of course, there are a few punishment lovers who will stand up and vote yes with Harper. There's no danger of defeating anything now. I don't even see any support by the NDP to the grassroots movement opposing the bill - because, of course, the Manitoba government is on record as saying the bill doesn't go far enough!

Perhaps the courts will save their asses once again?

Yup!

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/judge-declares-plank-of-2008-tory-omnibus... declares plank of 2008 Tory omnibus crime bill unconstitutional[/url]

Quote:

An Ontario court has declared another plank of the Conservative government's tough-on-crime agenda unconstitutional.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Alan Bryant struck down a section of the Criminal Code introduced in 2008 dealing with dangerous offenders in a decision published Tuesday.

The ruling comes in a year during which judges in Ontario have already struck down two mandatory minimum firearm penalties from the same "Tackling Violent Crime" omnibus law.

Another blow to the attempt by Jack Layton's NDP to prove they could be as tough on crime as the next neocon. Perhaps a further apology to Bill Siksay might be in order?

Breaking news, from CBC Montréal:

Quote:

Quebec Justice Minister asks crown prosecutors to ignore certain provisions of new federal crime bill dealing with young offenders, which comes into effect today.

Waiting for more details.

Lucky we don't have an NDP government, like Manitoba, which criticized Harper's crime bill for not going far enough.

ETA: Here was a background story yesterday:

[url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+says+philosophy+change+face+t... says its philosophy won’t change in face of tougher federal laws [/url]

Quote:

Despite losing a battle with Ottawa over its plan to get tough on young offenders, Quebec’s youth centres are vowing to maintain the province’s policy of rehabilitation and reintegration, which has led to the some of the lowest recidivism rates in Canada.

Changes to the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, which come into effect Tuesday, could result in more custodial sentences and more young offenders being sentenced as adults.

“Research has shown that just being punitive doesn’t bring about the results we need — you have to look at the whole rehabilitation and reintegration aspect,” said Cathy Di Stefano, assistant provincial director with Batshaw Youth and Family Centres, who deals with young offenders.

[url=http://www.680news.com/2013/10/02/manitoba-judge-calls-mandatory-minimum... judge calls mandatory minimum penalty for shooter “excessive and harsh”[/url]

Quote:

A Manitoba judge has slammed the federal government, ruling a mandatory four-year prison sentence for a bullying victim who lashed out against his abusers with a gun is “excessive” and “harsh.”

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Menzies ruled Wednesday the mandatory minimum sentence for gun crimes shouldn’t apply in the case of Bryce McMillan of Carberry, Man.

The 21-year-old man pleaded guilty to reckless use of a firearm when he admitted to shooting six rounds from a .22-calibre rifle into the home of a person he claims had been tormenting him.

Nobody was hurt in the September 2011 shooting, although two people were inside the residence at the time.

Sentencing McMillan to the mandatory four years on top of the 18 months of house arrest he has already served would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a “cruel and unusual punishment,” Menzies said.

“A four-year term would clearly place the accused in the heart of the federal penitentiary system normally reserved for hardened criminals. To say that the conditions of a federal penitentiary would be harsh for someone of the accused’s background is an understatement,” Menzies said.

“In considering the facts of this case and the background of this accused, I have little hesitation in coming to the conclusion that a four-year sentence would be excessive and harsh.”

Instead, he sentenced McMillan to one year in jail and two years of supervised probation.

Hmmm, too bad that some of my old posts have been deleted, again. But at least some babblers had the foresight to quote them.

Unionist wrote:

Quote:

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

So - time to deport this asshole. Any ideas whether any country would accept him?

laine lowe wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Quote:

Mr. Boisvenu said that instead of using the death penalty against the Afghan-born Shafias, “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.” He added that the Canadian immigration system should ensure that newcomers agree with Canadian justice after a more “thorough analysis” of their values and beliefs.

“The first filter is whether there are particular communities that have anti-Canadian attitudes?” Mr. Boisvenu said. “Shouldn’t these cases be treated parsimoniously, with a much more thorough investigation, than people coming from France or the United States where there is much more respect for women.”

The creep should be deported to Texas, IMHO, where they will treat him with much more respect.

See, the scumbag "apologized" for his comments about counselling suicide. But it's just a Harperite bait and switch. The real message is above.

So - time to deport this asshole. Any ideas whether any country would accept him?

 

 

This decision, even thought it wasn't unanimous, still made my day. Keep these decisions coming SCC Justices.

Unionist wrote:

Ok - the minimum sentence provision that the judge struck down - was that part of Harper's first omnibus crime bill - the one that all MPs (of all 4 parties) supported, except Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for going against a whipped vote?

If so, shouldn't all 4 parties either: 1) be embarrassed; or 2) join forces and appeal this one to death?

I may be wrong, but my memory says that increased minimum sentences was one of the offensive provisions of that bill, which also increased the age of consent and discriminated against anal sex.

And 4 years later:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-to-repeal-section-of... to repeal section of Criminal Code on anal intercourse[/url]

The NDP of Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair owe Bill Siksay an apology. Sadly, the word "sorry" isn't in their vocabulary.