Blue Like You

Archive for October 23rd, 2007

I usually don’t bother allowing my eyes to even glance at a James Travers column, but this cannot go unanswered - On crime issue, facts don’t matter.

Contrast this:

“…wasting time on violence in a safe and growing safer country is at least a misdemeanour and maybe even a crime.”

With this:

(Sun’s Joe Warmington - With 10 weeks left in 2007, Toronto could be headed for a record year in the number of murders committed on our mean streets):

Just look at the numbers. It’s shocking if you consider the city has already eclipsed last year’s count of 69 murders.

“Lets hope the record isn’t broken, but there are still 10 weeks left in the year,” AM 640 crime expert and former cop Craig Bromell said yesterday. “We pray it doesn’t happen, but it could because today’s criminals have absolutely no fear of the system.”

Combine that with easy access to bail, guns, an increase in stabbings and that the gangsters have a “no snitch” edge, it makes it difficult for the overworked cops.

“These guys are out on bail or parole before the poor cops can get their paperwork done properly to prevent some liberal judge from throwing out their whole case and then order compensation for the criminals for their inconvenience,” said an angry Bromell.

“No matter the number, there better not be dancing in the streets come Dec. 31st from the leftists that crime is down. It would be a slap in the face to all of these victims and their families.”

But don’t let that stop you, James Travers.

We all know that in your column, facts don’t matter.

There’s so much political spin these days about just who’s tougher on crime, that it leaves my poor head spinning.

On one hand we have Lorrie Goldstein (Tories get tough on crime- Sun) telling us this morning that the Tories are the only national party to take this seriously:

From time to time, the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and the old Progressive Conservative party, when the public outcry became so deafening that even they couldn’t ignore it, might grudgingly agree to do something, although never much.

Their default position, however, was to ignore this outcry and even on those rare occasions when they deigned to hear it, make a great show of saying they could not respond to the cries of the uniformed mob, even though there was no mob and it wasn’t uninformed.

There was just a lot of Canadians frustrated at never being heard.

Lorrie, you can count me among those ‘frustrated Canadians’.

The Omnibus bill includes the following measures:

…(1) longer mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes (2) placing a “reverse onus” on people seeking bail after being accused of gun crimes, to prove to a judge they are not a threat (3) sanctions against drug-impaired driving (4) raising the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14 (5) putting a reverse onus on a criminal after he has been convicted of three serious, violent offences, to prove to a judge he should not be declared a dangerous offender and jailed indefinitely….

Lorrie calls them ‘baby steps’, adding that if we want a more serious approach, we may have to elect a majority Conservative government.

By contrast, today’s National Post includes an op-ed by Ralph Goodale on the same subject - Harper’s Crime of Deceit.

Ralph tries to convince us that the Liberals are tough on crime, and he goes about it by using words like ‘Conservative fiction’, ‘disinformation campaign’, ‘ruse‘ and ‘falsehood’ (which is really, really close to the word “lie” - why not just say it?).

Goodale says that the Liberals offered to fast track 70% of the justice bills, but that it was actually the Conservatives who were playing games:

All five of them were already passed through second reading in the House of Commons. Four of them were actually completely done in the House and had gone on to the Senate for final approval there. Three of them were included in the Liberal fast track offer stretching back at least eight months. They could be the law by now, if the Conservatives had not stalled their own agenda.

So, let’s assume he’s right; that the Liberals are all for being tough on crime, and that the government is playing some little game. Why didn’t any of the previous Liberal governments ever bother to introduce these measures if they thought it was such a great idea?

Anyway, Gayle and I are having an ongoing discussion in a previous thread. Feel free to join us.

Personally, I’d really like to know the truth. Why didn’t the Conservatives accept the Liberal offer to fast track those bills? Was it simply a big game?

Update: Sandy’s not buying it - Goodale’s Arrogance.

And here’s a jaded view - Political power is the name of the game.

Christian Conservative - Goodale doesn’t get it:

Did you hear that? “As much as 70%”. Ralph, Ralph, Ralph… you keep talking about the 70% you agreed to fast-track, but you keep ducking and dodging whenever anyone asks you about the other 30%. It’s the other 30% that’s the issue… WE WANT IT PASSED, IMMEDIATELY.

Bravo!