Saturday, April 9, 2011

Conservatives would bungle crime bills



Stephen Harper said a Conservative majority government would bundle unpassed crime legislation into one bill and push it through Parliament within 100 days. And after that, he'll cram the HST through. He'll bungle the crime bills alright. In fact he already did. It's a bungle in the jungle and that's not alright by me.

There is no question that Stephen Harper intentionally screwed BC with the tough on crime bills. The bill as it stands is over reaching. The Liberals tried to amend the bill in the Senate to fix it but because Harper broke his promise to create an elected senate and exploited every opportunity to stack the Senate, they refused to accept the amendment to the bill fixing it.

So now he tells us he's still refusing to fix the bill and insists he will railroad it through without thinking through the necessary amendments. Which isn't surprising since Stephen Harper refuses to listen. He exploited our misfortune for his own personal gain. He doesn't care about us or our problem. If he did he would have fixed it but he didn't. He purposely didn't take the amendment because he wanted the public to get angry at the Liberals for voting down his over reaching crime bills and give him a majority so he can govern.

Stephen Harper does have a hidden agenda. It's not about abortion or same sex marriage, he won't touch those time bombs with a ten foot pole. He wants to privatize everything under the sun and completely remove public accountability from every possible social program from pensions to medical. His first target on his list is doing away with medical and the Canada Health Act.

So, I've said it before, Stephen Harper has lost my vote on the crime bills. Jack Layton on the other hand, like Penny Priddy, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston, is putting forth his own suggestions to deal with crime and gangs. Throwing everyone in jail for minor offenses is counter productive and too costly. Mandatory minimum sentences for prolific offenders who commit an insane number of property crimes. They should spend three months in jail. Period. That is not excessive. Not doing so is irresponsible.

Larger sentences for violent crime and for hard drugs would be helpful. But it's all counter productive when Stephen Harper turns around and appoints a lawyer for the Hells Angels to be a judge in the Quebec Supreme Court.

12 comments:

  1. How on earth can you possibly think that Harper " intentionally screwed BC with the tough on crime bills ". First, its foolish to think that the crime bill was a response only to BC's problems with gangs and drugs (talk about narcisism). Second, how did he crew BC? He wants to provide minimum sentences for ppl that traffic pot. If you don't think pot is part of the organized crime machine (at ANY level of trafficing) , you're a fool. As for your referenc to "rail roadign it through", thats exactly what the NDP, or the Liberals, or any other party would do if they came to power. We've seen it with the libs and the tory's time and time again. That's the way a majority government works. The big difference between those two parties and the NDP is that the others actually have to make campaign promises they can keep, since they actually have a chance of getting elected.

    Harper is doing away with Canada health act? Really? you must have some special insider source, or some magical crystal ball. It is clearly stated in the Tory platform that,"Stephen Harper’s Government is committed to a universal public health care system and the Canada Health Act, and the right of provinces to deliver health care within their jurisdictions". But hey, if telling lies is your game, then yes: harper is going to do away with public heath care, and most likely eat your first born.

    Throwing "everyone in jail for minor offences": if you think that selling marijuana for profit is a "minor offence", then you should shut down your blog. Marijuana is one of the main sources of income for organized crime, and is used as currency with regards to the importation of drugs like coke. if you haven't figured this out yet, you are (again) a fool.

    You're last comment is HILARIOUS! "appoints a lawyer for the hells angels". he's a lawyer. People that get charged get lawyers. thats the way the justice system works. If a lawyer representing powerful criminals like the hells, one could argue that the lawyer is particularily talented, and know the law well. OBVIOUSLY someone that is inteligent and knows the law well enough to represent some of the most powerful criminals in canada has NO place in the supreme court. We need prosecutors in there that lose cases. We need lawyers that deal with petty crime, and break and enters in there! I agree with you K: talented and skilled lawyers should not be a part of Canada'a justice system!

    Now, I know you probably won't post my comment, as it is rational and presents real facts, not speculation and conspiracy theories, but the LEAST you could do is stop lying to your readers and maybe, just maybe, produce something that is balanced and truthful. Dignity is a pretty rare commodity, you should try getting some. You are no different than a politician. You lie and misinterpret the words of others to push your agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stephen Harper used Eileen Mohan as a human shield when he introduced his tough on crime bills. He exploited our problem in BC and refused to take the amendment so he could forward his cause not ours. The people killed in the Surrey Six murder were selling crack not pot. I’m saying there is a difference between smoking pot and smoking crack or meth and the laws need to reflect that. IMO 6 pot plants is not worthy of a minimum sentence when we have been crying out for minimum sentences for violent crime and hard drugs like cocaine.

    Our prisons are overcrowded and underfunded as is. Campbell even came out with his stupid prison tents idea. Eliminating the two for one pre trial credit was good but will cost even more money. So will increasing the penalty for violent crime and hard drugs. Look at how many grow ops the police bust every month in Langley, Surrey or anywhere else in BC. Putting everyone in jail for 6 pot plants would cost way too much money. The City of Vancouver is debating which schools to close to balance their budget. I’m not prepared to close schools or hospitals to send people to jail for pot.

    Harper refused to submit an estimate at how much his over reaching crime bill would cost. He was found in contempt of parliament for asking the House to approve a budget without listing how much it would cost. He was asking for a blank cheque. Harper’s claim to get rid of the Canada Health act is no inside information, it’s public knowledge. He said it himself.

    Yes I think selling marijuana for profit is a minor offense that does not nearly impact society as much as selling crack or meth does. The problem arises when the Hells Angels use violence to take over all the grow ops and trade all the BC bud for cocaine in the States and bring it back here to be sold as crack.

    If the Hells Angels just sold pot not crack or meth I wouldn’t have a problem with it other than the fact that they say no one else is allowed to sell pot other than them. That would not fly if they tried that in Sturgis. Yes Jacques Leger was just a lawyer. He did represent the Hells Angels. Putting him on the Quebec Supreme court is a conflict of interest. Nothing I have said it untrue. I don’t get paid for this site and am not running for any political position. My only agenda is to make Canada a better place to live.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Putting Jacques Leger on is not a conflict of interest at all. Your logic suggests that any lawyer being appointed as a judge should not be so appointed. If Leger's appointment gives rise to a conflict of interest, so does the appointment of any crown prosecutor.

    As for your health care reference: Harper said that the health act should be scrapped in 1997 when he represented the national citizens coalition (NCC). Thats 14 years ago bud. The NCC is not the Conservative Party. That reference is out of context at best. 14 years ago, when harper was working for a different organization, doing away with the health act may have been part of that organization's mandate, but it is certainly not the mandate of the the conservative party of Canada as one can clearly observe in their platform. Check it out. Different organizations, different agendas.

    Bill C-10 does crack down on violent crime and hard drugs. It just so happens that the conservative government realizes the impact of pot in organized crime, and has introduced minimum sentences for growing it for the purpose of trafficing. Did you ever think that grow ops wouldn't be around (or would at least decline in numbers) if there were more strict penalties for the production of weed??

    If you think that pot is ok, then i've got to wonder about you. Drugs boil down to cash. Cash is king. The hells angels, or big cirle boys, or IS or UN are just as willing to kill for million dollars worth of pot as they are for a million dollars worth of crack. Pot feeds the crack and coke and meth producers budgets. Bill C-10 met all the desires BC, Alberta, Sask, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, NS, NB, NFL, Yukon, Nunavut, and NWT put forward. The only reason the bill didn't pass was politics. The people producing Marijuana for the purpose of trafficing are the same people that sell crack, coke, extacy and meth. I agree that the gov shouldn't have hidden the cost of proposed bill, thats not in dispute. Saying that BC got screwed, etc is a wee bit dramatic though. Adding penalties for selling and producing pot isn't a reason to kill a bill. It was simply an excuse. The whole contemp of parliament thing has nothing to do with the crime bill. It has to do with the f-35.

    So, to recap, saying that the Conservatives want to do away with the Canada Health act is untrue. Saying that harper has a hidden agenda is untrue. Saying that harper exploited BC's misfortune for "his own personal gain" is untrue. Saying that introducing larger penalties for violent crimes and hard drugs (which C-10 does) is counter productive because a skilled lawyer gets appointed to the supreme court is untrue. Oh ya, and saying that "we wanted bigger penalties for hard drugs and violence" suggests that bill C-10 didn't provide tougher penalties, which is also untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is true that all judges were at one time lawyers. Every lawyer in their career represents someone. Any judge would therefore be in a conflict of interest sitting on cases where they had represented one of the parties. However there are two issues on the table.

    If Jacques Leger was to sit on a case involving the Hells Angels, that would be a conflict of interest. Saying he’s not in a conflict of interest judging other cases is party true. However, that leaves us with the problematic nature of what is the president of the Conservative party doing representing a criminal organization? Yes it was just in a trade mark dispute but they are a criminal organization who not only sells drugs but uses violence to take over the drug trade in Canada.

    So the second problem is what is the president of the Conservative party doing business with a criminal organization? Why is he helping a criminal organization increase their trademark control to promote their trade? How can we trust a defense lawyer who represented a criminal organization to be an honest judge? At a Justice Rally in Surrey a man asked me at what point does a crooked lawyer become an honest judge? Is there some epiphany that’s supposed to take place when a crooked lawyer becomes a judge because I’m not seeing it.

    I genuinely believe my Heath Care reference for Harper has merit. David Cameron is another neocon in England. He recently went on an absurd rampage that gave rise to the largest public demonstrations in England for decades. He wanted to “liberate” all publically accountable programs from “State” control. He fed the insane drive with a balancing the budget lie. Harper does not like public medical and would jump at the opportunity to privatize it if he could.

    So to recap I firmly believe that the Conservatives want to do away with Health Care. Look at how deathly opposed to forming health care the Republicans are in the States. We can argue it until the cows come home but I firmly believe that to be true.

    Harper did exploit BC’s misfortune for his own personal gain. He refused to take the amendment on the bill. He could have taken the amendment on the bill proven how we could afford all the extra prisons and submitted a genuine cost for it instead of being in contempt of parliament hiding it. He could have split the bill into two and taken the less controversial part out but he didn’t. He used Eileen Mohan for publicity and wanted the public to get mad at the opposition for voting down HIS version of the crime bill so HE could get a majority government and do whatever he wanted.

    Bill C-10 was fine if he took the amendment but he didn’t. I don’t support mandatory minimum sentences for pot. Period. That’s just my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unfortunatly, you've based your opinions on whats happening with regards to healthcare on what's happening in different countries. England's conservatives are no more of an indicator of what Canada's conservatives will do than the conservative party of Germany, or new zealand, or anyother nation. Similarily, the US republican's are far more right wing that our right wing party. In fact, the democratic party is even more right wing that our right wing. Opinions and suspicions of what our "would be" governing party would do that are based on foreign politics are, for lack of a better term, meritless. The National Conservative party has never claimed they would do away with the Canada Health act, and there is no indication that they will. Gut-feelings are meaningless.

    As per your reference to Jaques Leger being a "crooked" lawyer: thats a fairly rediculous accusation. When was he charged? Did he bride anybody? Did he break the law? Just because a lawyer defends people / organizations that are criminal(s), doesn't make him or her a crooked "lawyer". It makes that person a lawyer. Saying Leger is "crooked" is baseless and slanderous.

    Its a shame that this election is so mired with suspicions and "gut-feelings" about what the Conservatives would do/ wouldn't do. As I said in my earlier post, I don't dissagree that the government did not release how it came up with its costing for the F-35, nor do I dispute the fact that they were not straight forward with their cost estimate for the crime bill. Thats as far as it goes though. There is no risk or, nor is there any basis for fear of the Conservatives doing away with the Canada Health act. There has been no indication that they will.

    Crime bill: The conservatives met the demands of BC, and all of those that wanted a new crime bill with teeth, and added a minimum sentence for growing pot for the purpose of trafficing. To say that he screwed BC is absurd. Those that didn't vote for the bill to pass certainly share in the blame. They refused to bend on their lack of approval of the pot growth for trafficing section of the bill, and the Conservatives didn't bend on wanting the part about the minimum sentences for dealing drugs (pot). How is one side more to blame than the other??

    Personal gain? Was harper going to PERSONALLY get rich from this bill? The only gain would be that his party put through a new crime bill, that would have benefited law abiding people. If the liberals pushed a crime bill, would that have been for personal gain? If the NDP pushed a crime bill, would that have been for personal gain? Really I see no difference between the above two scenarios. Just because you don't like one aspect of a crime bill doesn't mean "harper screwed BC", and certainly doesn't mean that "harper personally benefited."

    The contemp of parliament ruling was based on the F-35's, not the crime bill. Furthermore, a panel that is stacked with opposition (liberal and NDP) politicians made the ruling. The liberals have wanted an election for the past year, of course they found the conservatives in contemp.

    As far as the conservative party using Eileen Mohan for publicity, every political party does that. Layton uses families, and children as photo props, as does Ignatief. Thats the way politics work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every news report on the contempt of parliament charges claims that the Harper Government was hiding the costs of the Jets (that his candidate lobbied for the company that builds) as well as the costs of the overreaching crime bill. The contempt of parliament charges was for hiding both costs and asking the house for a blank cheque. David Cameron and George Bush are the two models Harper idolizes. Harper claims that everyone who doesn’t vote for him or Iggy are left wing socialists.

    Personal gain means he put his political agenda above the needs of the people in BC. He turned the hard on crime drive into a campaign slogan to promote his agenda so he could get a majority instead of taking the amendment and putting the people of BC first which would have got the job done. That’s how he would benefit. His aides are the ones that have benefitted financially from lobbying for government contracts.

    Harper has refused to say how he intends on paying for the prisons and the jets. The city of Vancouver is debating what schools to close to meet their budget. I’m not prepared to close any more schools or hospitals to implement mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent crime like selling pot. I don’t trust Stephen Harper. I will not vote for him or support his government. It’s that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Personal gain-- sure Harper gains. Where do you think Harper gets his funding from?

    Who donates to the Conservative Party of Canada's coffers, so that Harper can pay for his personal groomer (Michelle Muntean) that he takes everywhere, because apparently harper can't put on his own make-up, clothe himself and comb his own hair-- the taxpayer no longer pays for this, but they do pay for her travel expenses and harper takes her everywhere he goes). Who pays for the private plane the conservatives ride about in?

    National Citizens Coalition (who oppose Universal Health Care-- and former lead, was a big time Insurance Company executive-- there's kickbacks to be made); Alliance Church (who oppose marijuana, planned parenthood and science-- Stockwell Day's belief that humans have only existed for 5000 years, and they co-existed with dinosaurs-- nutbar!)

    What do we know about the Prisons that Harper intends on building with 9 billion of Canadian tax dollars, a contract awared to an American company, and how do we know that Harper doesn't intend on privatizing those prisons-for-profit. Look to the states and see how well that went (judges on the payroll, incriminate innocent people, over prosecute for benign crimes, throwing apples. . .). The Marijuana criminalization will certainly help boost that, prisons-for-profit agenda.

    There are many things that are inherently corrupt about this Harper Government-- and for one, it's suppose to be the Government of Canada, re-branding as the Harper Government is extremely offensive, and contemptuous attitude for the 60% Canadians who did not vote CP-- it just further exemplifies Harpers contempt for Canadian Democracy. "Harper Government" is symbolic of Harper's Canada, one where he doesn't have to play by the Rules of Parliament or collaborate and work with the 60% of elected members of Parliament, the Canadians who did not vote CP -- he's thinks he's above the law. And he'll do want he can to subvert the law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Contempt of Parliament
    Refusal disclose budgetary issues, when the Parliament does have a right to know:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/02/harper-government-cost-control-fact-or.html

    How can we know that practices of good fiscal management are applied, when he hides his spending from Parliament, invoking in this situation a bogus “Cabinet confidence” card?

    The ADSCAM scandal set the 'stage" for a Harper rise to power. ADSCAM was truly horrendous abuse of tax dollars and public trust. Harper assured the public that he would bring in greater Accountability and Transparency

    Yet here we are again in the midst of further scandals, perpetrated by insiders of the Harper fold.

    According to Democracy Watch, Harper "left 100 undemocratic and accountability loopholes in the federal government."
    (Source: http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsApr1811.html)

    This brings me to question the quality of advicing Harper received under Bruce Carson, a Senior Advisor to Harper, a disbarred lawyer, and convicted fraudster-- the loopholes deliberately and intentionally left in.

    And wouldn't Carson know best how to take advantage of those loopholes. . . see the SCAM off of the 75 000 First Nations residents who are without clean drinking water (and his 22 year old girlfriend, ex-escort's 20% profit take on that).

    Corruption.

    Our democracy is broken-- Harper Government has taken it down to new levels of low

    ReplyDelete
  9. Harper violated his own Fixed-Elections rule; 4 CP members have been criminally charged with Elections Fraud (de-frauding the Canadian Taxpayer)-- and Harper promises that if elected, he will eliminate the per capita funding to all parties for elections.

    While the Canadian Taxpayers Federation applaud this move, Democracy watch does not.

    This puts us at risk for more American-style corrupt government when parties have to rely on Corporate donorship-- this interferes with democracy, as more an more they serve corporations over the democratic will of the people. It means environmental standards on Industry are ignored (which Harper has been doing already)

    He's fully committed to making the North American Union a reality-- this is a serious issue, re: Canadian sovereignty over our rights of self-rule over our resources, our trade, conditions of workers, our laws, our education, our health care.

    F35 Jets are offensive-- meant to fight war abroad. If they were meant to protect Arctic Sovereignty, they would have had a double engine, because the risks are higher for engine blow-out in Arctic conditions. I wouldn't want to be a pilot having to fly these crap planes. The costs would be high, lose a very expensive piece of military equipment. And the way these Jets are designed, engine blow out will mean they drop from the sky. Risks of enemy getting to them before us, big security risk, re: breaking into computer systems (which has happened already in the R&D phase, foreign hackers, hacked the files).

    ReplyDelete
  10. They're purely ideological. They abolished the Long-form census, so that policy making is not required to be based on solid research.

    They fire anyone who doesn't tow their line. Linda Keen re: Chalk River Nuclear plant-- think Fushushima Daiichi can't happen here. . ./\ NOT.

    The treatment of retired Col. Pat Stogran, Harper government would not renew his position as Ombudsman for Veteran Affairs.

    Military is all good for photo-ops for the CPs, but not good enough to support them when they return home, broken, injured, or aging. The harper government initiated clawbacks to their pensions and disabilities, and tried to pull a scam of lump sum payment.
    Notice, we're not hearing the Harper Government on the "Support our Troops" mantra.

    In fact, the CPs kicked out two Veterans Advocates from their rallies out east, just to make sure they are unseen and unheard.

    Viley offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As seen from the Leaders debates and the Peter Mansbridge interviews, Harper is completely evasive, avoidant of answering questions directly, deliberately trying to mislead Canadians on what happened in parliament and how he was found in contempt.

    Truth is, he wanted this election, because a whole whack of controversy and scandal is awaiting.

    We don't get to hear the Auditor General's report, until members return to Parliament.

    Harper doesn't explain what programs he intends on cutting to help pay down the enormous structural deficit his party racked up. What's it going to be, will it be our Health and Social transfer payments? Where is he going to cut?

    The Paul Martin Liberals left the CPs with a 9 billion dollar surplus, the CPs managed to blow that and turn it into a 40 billion dollar deficit, in only two short years.

    And he wants to proceed with further Corporate Tax Rate reductions? WTF? And they lie and say it will send foreign investers away and that these taxes equate to more jobs for Canadians-- /\NOT SO. Not proven. What we have seen is astronomical wealth going to the top 1% Canadian wealthy Elite, owning 2/3rds of all of Canada's wealth. And we see businesses set up hear, take corporate welfare subsidies, and run off to take jobs to India, China anyway-- wave good-bye to your jobs and your taxdollars-- double-dip.

    Layton's supporting small businesses, they account for about 50% of all Canadian jobs, by giving incentives to employ Canadians-- that makes sense. Nothing of this sort of condition exists for the larger corporations.

    It makes no sense to not reduce corporate income tax, no when we're running the biggest deficit ever, and when our health, education, social programs are at risk.

    I don't trust Harper at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow, say what you mean : )

    Thanks for the links. Good point about the National Citizens Coalition. Harper made that quote a long time ago when he was with that group but he was the actual president of that organization from 1998 to 2002 which was not long ago. If they contribute to his campaign then privatizing heath care is clearly on the table and their denial about it is a bold faced lie.

    I’ll have to check the numbers on Paul Martin’s surplus. Any links for that?

    ReplyDelete