The Shotgun Blog
« Book of the week | Main | Sixteen years of socialist fog clears from Saskatchewan's skies »
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
The Vancouver Emergency
So far there year there have been at least nineteen gang-related murders in metropolitan Vancouver. There have been four in the last week. Fifteen people have been killed – in what police characterize as four or possibly five simultaneous gang wars – in the last two months. Events are escalating. A major leader of a criminal syndicate was assassinated outside of his home a few days ago. About a week before that, six people – including two civilians – were brutally slain inside of a Surrey apartment. This is a crisis.
Just the other day, the members of two gangs went tearing down the highway shooting at eachother just a little ways down the road from where I live. This wasn’t Compton or downtown Detroit. They were a more or less adjacent to a Stapes, an Office Depot, a Wendys, a theatre super-complex, a massive grocery store, a Toys-R-Us, a McDonalds, an Ikea, a Chevy dealership, and a park.
This is suburban Vancouver, folks. It isn’t supposed to be this way.
For all of the wrong that he did, Pierre Elliot Trudeau did one singular service to the people of Canada. When the threat of an extended urban terrorist insurgency emerged in the form of the FLQ, he stomped upon it with a level of force which even I approve of. Had the movement been allowed to fester, it is entirely possible that Quebec and Canada might well have suffered the extended horror of an Ulster. Quick and decisive action – marked by the overwhelming use of force against an emerging threat – allowed for Canada to escape from evil. Now, I believe, that the time has come for such force to be used again.
“The supreme function of statesmanship,” said Enoch Powell, “is to provide against preventable evils.” Ladies and Gentlemen – what we are faced with today is just such an evil.
The natural reaction of many Canadians, when faced with evil, is to wring our hands and cry that this is simply not the way things ought to be – and then to more or less leave it at that. The modern Canadian is, by nature, passive and submissively accepting of wrongs of all sizes, shapes, and colours. We cry out that this is unacceptable and then we respond by blaming the guns, or by promising research, or by holding community meetings. The police organize some new task force and the media jumps to some new topic and soon we read in the newspapers or hear on the TV that a tenth of our economy is in the illicit drug trade and that there have been twenty murders and fifty shootings as if that was the way things are supposed to be.
This is Vancouver. This isn’t Detroit or Washington, DC. That means a lot of things to a lot of people. But, most significantly, it means that we lack the geography, the methods, and the systems with which to cope with violence on a mass scale. This violence isn’t – and won’t be – largely restricted to ghettos and other places which might be safely written off. It crosses countless ethnic and cultural lines. When gun battles and assassinations are taking place in front of my grocery store and in our richest neighbourhoods, it becomes impossible for us to adopt the attitude of Apartheid-era white South Africans and brush the whole matter off as simply one of the others merely fouling their own nests. As good as they may be, our police have not the staffing, the equipment, the training, or the experience to deal with a problem on this scale. And, even if they did, the court system is – as we all know – entirely either unwilling or unable to deal sternly with offenders of all sorts. At least in American urban cesspools no one is ever operating with a full bench. The police and the courts here already know who at least half of these thugs are – many of them are awaiting trial on one charge or another. It won’t make any difference. We can hardly expect our judicial overlords to be moved to reconsider their leniency by something as petty as blood soaking the streets.
So, the question remains: what is to be done?
The province and the municipalities are nearly powerless in this regard. Their well-meaning and totally ineffectual proposals for all of this can, I believe, be safely ignored. No life was ever saved by a town hall meeting. But, then again, none – so far as I can recall –was ever taken by one either. The power to act here peculiarly rests upon the Federal Government in Ottawa. It is strange indeed that it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to deal with anarchy in Vancouver and its environs – that would seem to be the proper function of the Mayor of Vancouver and the Premier of British Columbia – but our nation’s unusual constitutional arrangements make that odd state a reality.
Ottawa says, correctly, that its new anti-crime measures will do some good in combating the crime spree. They’re probably right. It will benefit us some to have some criminals in jail rather than practically none. But, I would add, while we could debate for ages whether these measures go far enough none of them offer any prospect of immediate relief. Implementing these laws will take months – and effecting the change in judicial culture and composition in this country which will make these laws actually useful is the work of many years.
And, of course, the foreign origins and ties of these gangs – most of which appear to be ethnic or national in danger – must be addressed. An expedited effort to detain and deport foreign criminals – and then to keep them out of this country – is vital. But, again, that is an extended project. Moreover, the subject is so uncomfortable and taboo that it seems unlikely that any politician who seriously aspires to national office will dare to speak to the issue directly.
So, the narrower question looms: what can be done today?
The spiralling violence is seemingly beyond the ordinary powers of the police – and certainly beyond the imaginations of our courts. Allowed to escalate, the violence will surely result in more deaths – including the deaths of more civilians. We have no idea how far it will go. It is possible that the criminals who are assaulting our city will tire themselves out, slow down, and that that will be that. But it is equally possible – and far more likely – that these criminals, who are fighting for control of the drug trade in a city which is the gateway from Asia to North America, will wage an escalating battle for supremacy in this land of lax laws and laxer enforcement.
We have a choice here. We can either sit and pray for the best – or we can stand up and fight.
The Prime Minister has the legal right to invoke the updated version of the law that Pierre Trudeau used against the FLQ. It’s now called the Emergencies Act.
As a result of a judicial system which sets criminals free and an immigration system which has stocked our fair city with criminals from all over the Earth, a situation has been created that the ordinary legal and criminal processes is clearly incapable of resolving in a rapid and orderly fashion. The police know who many of these gang members are – they know who the leaders are. But they are forced to stand aside and watch as bullets fly and the innocent fall. That can be changed, if we will it.
The Emergencies Act gives the government the power to “designate and secure protected places.” I propose that the Prime Minister avail himself of the powers granted to him under the act and, using those powers, to order all gang members – and again, the police have a fairly good idea as to who many of these people are, where they live, and what gang they are affiliated with – to remove themselves from the protected area. Indeed, my proposal is that the Prime Minister designate the whole of the Province of British Columbia – save for a small and well-guarded camp – as a protected place. Once this legal formality has taken place, all known gang members who do not voluntarily remove themselves from the designated area could then be detained by the authorities and held for as long as possible. Further, once they are detained, the government could look into deporting many of these people as rapidly as possible.
Some will doubtlessly denounce this proposal as a violation of the rights of criminals. And so, perhaps, it is. It has always been my belief that the protection of the public is an immeasurably higher priority than the rights of bloody murderers and, while I recognize that that opinion is not universally shared, I will not apologize for it. As Trudeau said, “it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people.”
(Crossposted at adamyoshida.com)
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on November 7, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f90c67b8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Vancouver Emergency:
Comments
No.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-07 6:36:44 PM
Emergency? This was planned by the federal government years ago, the immigration department could have told you all about it back then. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part - Vancouver has gotten what it wanted. Deal with it.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-07 7:26:26 PM
We're going to have to witness a few dozen innocent bystanders killed before there is an outcry to act. So far, "only" two innocents have been murdered - that's not enough to get much more than a ripple of moans & groans out of the meek sheep of the city.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 7:30:48 PM
Forrest Gump could run things better than our politicians, police and courts.
Here's why ... Guys like Forrest Gump see a problem and solve. He doesn't bother to deep think the situation and how it will affect the sensibilities of others. He doesn't bother to consider what some people might think is fair or proper. He just solves the problem.
Our leaders are far too sophisticated to actually solve a problem. As stated in you fine piece, they will study it to death and rationalized their reasons for inaction.
This is going to get an awful lost worse and my not ever get better. In Canada change ... any change is nearly impossible. The result is that some things will change, but we won't change or adapt to them.
We are frozen in time in Canada. We have a view of ourselves that isn't conducive to the way crime is conducted in modern times. We are stuck with the good cop/good cop view of enforcement and our courts as social service institutions.
As a civil society we are doomed to claim it on name only. The reality is that the barbarians who were at the gate have now come over the walls and we are inside with them.
Posted by: Jerri | 2007-11-07 8:04:19 PM
. . . by invitation, no less!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-07 8:06:55 PM
Yoshi~
you crazy kidder. heh heh... i know you're joking about invoking the Emergencies act. you kinda had me goin' there for a bit. heh heh... uhh, you are joking... right?
if not, may i suggest another solution?
get a handle on our f:)cked up immigration policy and stop importing people from countries who have proven track records of bad behavior.
immediately deport non citizens who are charged criminally in ANY way.
build large prison complexes in the north of each province, and send our parasites to them for long stays.
this isn't pie in the sky, unattainable philosophizing. these are cheap, possible ways which would go a long way toward delousing urban areas. you should be pushing THESE policies, instead of proposing bandaid solutions.
anyone with sense is a foreign policy neocon hawk. but the only person as pernicious to liberty as a social liberal, is a domestic policy neocon. sorry, but this idea is whacked.
Posted by: shel | 2007-11-07 8:49:16 PM
I'm not joking. If these clowns think they can drive down the street in front of my damned grocery store shooting at eachother, or walk into restaraunts shooting people, and so forth - all across the whole city - then we're at a point where stronger corrective action than a "joint task force" is needed to hold the sitation together.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-11-07 9:38:49 PM
So much for that gun registry law!
Other cities dealt with problems like this by electing better leaders. If memory serves, Vancouver's mayor makes Toronto's mayor look competent. Get rid of him, and any city counsellor who supports him, and bring in people willing to act decisively. I know this is a stretch for Vancouver - look at Toronto as an example of a cowardly people so unwilling to act that they are considering racial segregation - but it has to be done.
If only we could clone Rudy Giuliani to serve in every city. He turned NYC from the one city people wanted to avoid into the city people most wanted to live in.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-07 9:43:25 PM
Almost 3000 dead at one go south of the border didn't shut American leftoids up nor sober their lax courts into treating even the worst kinds of criminals (aspiring ideologic mass murderers) as dangers to public safety rather than victims of racist phobias, whose human rights must be jealously guarded. Allowing for differences in population, that would be 300 dead in Canada in a couple of hours.
Since we are starting out much farther left than the United States, a "mere" double digit deaths in two major cities, Vancouver and Toronto, with the majority gang members and a few unfortunate innocents mixed in are not going to galvanize anybody much.
Oh sure, after every shooting the nanny brigade including the Mayor of Toronto pretends banning handguns will make a positive difference instead of making his city a shooting gallery of unarmed civilians, fish in a barrel. But inconveniently, many of the recent gang slayings have been stabbings. Even the nannies feel like fools demanding a ban on knives...then rope, then buckets of water, rocks...etc.
And forget about brisk deportation of landed or illegal immigrants and failed refugee claimants who commit crimes. Multicult worship and false accusations of bigotry will put paid to that idea. Is it bigotry to be against criminals, whatever their color or ethnicity?
As for blocking immigration from areas that export problems, be prepared to be called racist. Toronto could cut down its murders by as much as a half by decreasing Jamaican immigration numbers to Canada and Vancouver's murders also cluster in a couple of immigrant cultures. Sure the majority of Jamaicans are nice people but the world is full of nice people wanting to emigrate to Canada, and few other countries have such a record of exporting gang and gun violence to every host country. We are required to tolerate it and not speak about it to prove we are not racist.
Posted by: tarkus | 2007-11-07 9:46:27 PM
tarkus~
about a week ago on this blog i suggested we look at barring entry into Canada, people from Jamaica and other countries, because of the obvious negative impact in T.O. and, to a lesser extent, Vancouver. i qualified my statement by saying Bajans, Trinidadians, etc., and others from the area pose no criminal threat to Canadians and should be welcomed with open arms.
despite my qualifier, i was pretty much trounced as a racist. social liberals and assorted leftists simply can't see past their own "picket fence" guilt. they become kneejerk reactionists.
btw, Tarkus is a great album. it's in my top 10 favourite prog list.
Posted by: shel | 2007-11-07 10:08:56 PM
Shel,
When you're censored by political correctness from discussing facts, (not prejudices), then there's no way a problem can be properly defined and solved.
To me this borders on suicidal (men of Jamaican origin are after all disproportionately the victims as well as the perpetrators) and is personally frightening as one of the innocent bystander shooting victims (exchange of gunfire in a crowd) was the lovely daughter of an acquaintance and my own kids were walking half a block north of the shooting when it happened, meaning they had just passed the site.
Posted by: tarkus | 2007-11-07 11:07:08 PM
I just wonder how long it will take before the lefties trot out their worn out and unproved mantra - more gun control along with citizens must all be disarmed.
As already mentioned all it takes is some common sense and the courage to do that which is required. Immigration policy must be revised (it used to be one had to have a clean criminal record to be accepted and landed immigrants caught breaking the law deported), invoke the NWC when our judicial activists claim the charter protects and gives the same rights to non citizens, ensure that the justice system is changed so that those convicted actually serve their sentence, remove all the special privileges for inmates, etc. The point is to allow this rubbish in the name of leftist policies and PC is insane.
That being said I must admit it hard to muster much sympathy for Vancouver with their crazy politics and policies.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-07 11:58:07 PM
You know what? Downtown Vancouver is a dump! It's a sespool with prostitutes, drug dealers and condos based on flipping. What a third world joker downtown/downtown-eastside.
Posted by: Steve Vessle | 2007-11-08 12:49:25 AM
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Hundreds of Leftoid students in Seattle who were protesting the US government were shot at by those who opposed their views and tactics!
8 people are wounded and in hospital.
WOW! Who woulda thunk it could happen?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 5:13:23 AM
The CBC is now in the hands of Communist China for all intents & purposes:
"China rumbles, CBC quakes, doc done in"
Hours before it was scheduled to air Tuesday night, CBC Newsworld cancelled a documentary that was bound to incur the wrath of the Chinese regime in Beijing.
Beyond the Red Wall was the brainchild of filmmaker Peter Rowe, about the Falun Gong movement in China, which has been declared illegal by the communist government there, and its members persecuted worldwide.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2007/11/08/4639637.php
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 5:37:50 AM
"BREAKING NEWS!!!
Hundreds of Leftoid students in Seattle who were protesting the US government were shot at by those who opposed their views and tactics!
8 people are wounded and in hospital."
Actually, this is a test story I concocted based on this EXACT event elsewhere. This actually took place in Venezuela yesterday when students protesting against HUGO CHAVEZ were attacked by 2 masked armed men, guns a'blazing.
Funny how so little coverage of this was reported by the Enemedia - but Pakistan's martial law was all over. Chavez makes HIMSELF dictator for life - no biggie, because he is of the Left. Musharaff?
Well, he is supported by W. - so he is castigated on the front pages of Leftoid papers everywhere.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 5:58:39 AM
obc - Actually, this is a test story I concocted
Admitting that you concoct stories is hardly news.
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-08 7:36:17 AM
Yoshi - About a week before that, six people – including two civilians – were brutally slain inside of a Surrey apartment.
If they weren't civilians what were the other four people?
Posted by: O’REILLY | 2007-11-08 7:42:45 AM
I wouldn't expect someone like O'Really to see the point of sarcasm. One post went up - with a quick "correction" to point out the duplicity of the Leftoid media - but that went way over your arrogant head, didn't it? SHEEEESH!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 7:54:40 AM
Geez, who does the CBC work for? Now they're covering up Chinese communist atrocities? Well I shouldn't be surprised - they tried to conceal Nazi atrocities, like the Holocaust, while making the Allies out to be war criminals instead of fearless heroes.
No rational argument exists that can justify the continued existence of the CBC. Disband it now.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-08 8:13:09 AM
Disband the Communist Broadcasting Corporation? Are pigs flying? Is Hell freezing over? Is O'Really in a nurturing relationship with another human being?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 8:21:50 AM
Zebulon Pike - Geez, who does the CBC work for? Now they're covering up Chinese communist atrocities? Well I shouldn't be surprised - they tried to conceal Nazi atrocities, like the Holocaust,
Could you cite any examples of where the CBC tried to conceal the Holocaust?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-08 8:24:22 AM
Valor and the Horror
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-08 8:31:04 AM
obc - Disband the Communist Broadcasting Corporation? Are pigs flying? Is Hell freezing over? Is O'Really in a nurturing relationship with another human being?
While you're trying to answer those questions here's one you might want to take a stab at. Is obc a miserable old sourpuss with no sense of humour?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-08 8:32:14 AM
Zebulon Pike - Valor and the Horror
Where in the Valor and the Horror was there an attempt to conceal the holocaust?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-08 8:36:21 AM
That the best you can do, O'Really? No wonder you are alone.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 8:39:29 AM
http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Script.php
01:27:1:10 In Germany today, big military reunions are not that common. Many army and SS units get together only in secrecy. The German fighter squadrons however have never been reticent. They believe they have nothing to be ashamed of. 01:27:32:29
[NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF? They were defending Nazi Germany, which not only waged the costliest war in human history but committed some of its worst atrocities.]
CU FACE
01:27:40:08 In the closing stages of the war, the fighters earned the admiration, even of some their enemies, like scientist Freeman Dyson. 01:27:47:28
DYSON (drama)
01:27:48:06 The night fighters and their supporting organization put up an astonishing performance, continuing to fight and cause us serious losses until their last airfield was overrun and Hitler's Germany ceased to exist. They ended the war morally undefeated. They had the advantage of knowing what they were fighting for, not in those last weeks of the war, for Hitler, but for the preservation of what was left of their homes and families, their cities and their people. We had given them, at the end of the war, the one thing they lacked at the beginning, a clean cause to fight for. 01:28:25:15
[A clean cause to fight for? What's this guy on?]
By saying things like "a clean cause to fight for" and "nothing to feel ashamed of", the CBC has attempted to white-wash the Nazis. This is not only extremely insulting to the Allied war effort, but Holocaust denial by extension.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-08 8:43:12 AM
Hey Yoshi,
What the Mayor needs to do is request localized Marshal law--and while he is at it--the police can round up all the druggies and ship them all off--with their cursed gangs--to some remote place--where flights in and out are limited.
PET declared Marshal Law to go after the FLQ and it worked. I see no reason why it should not be declared in these circumstances.
Well, except for the Darwinian principle--they are culling eachother. Oh, and that is not a typo.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-08 8:49:15 AM
Zebulon Pike - 01:27:1:10 In Germany today, big military reunions are not that common..........................
You still haven't shown a shred of evidence that the CBC tried to conceal the Holocaust. To conceal something is to try to hid it or deny it occurred. Can you cite anywhere that the CBC did either.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-08 8:57:05 AM
Don't bother, Zeb. If you had every proof in the world, O'Really would deny that too.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 8:59:32 AM
The FLQ "Crisis" was wholly invented by the Trudeau Regime. The kidnapping of Laporte and Cross was an act of desperation by a small fringe group. On the one hand, this act sent shockwaves throught Canada - Laporte was a personal friend of Trudeau; the British government was concerned for its diplomat Cross, the Quebec government wanted to put down what they considered to be a grassroots uprising, and the Ontario capitalists feared for their money.
On the other hand, the Trudeau regime vastly overreacted to the alleged FLQ menace. Almost all of the FLQ members, who were labor activists for the most part, were already in jail. The remainder were badly organized, poorly led and above all desperate. The authorities in Quebec were more than capable of bringing the rest under control. But the provincial leaders in Quebec became scared, and overreacted to the true extent of the kidnapping affair. Trudeau should have given them a few extra cops, but instead committed one of the worst violations of human rights in Canadian history - the suspension of civil liberties and the invasion of Quebec.
In the end the invasion achieved none of its goals. The FLQ escaped only to return a few years later to receive a slap on the wrist. Trudeau deserves his reputation as the worst Canadian PM of all time, and by a considerable margin even before the other atrocity of his regime: the NEP.
Sending in the troops and suspending human rights to go after gangs in Vancouver would achieve nothing. While the military would as always conduct itself with dignity and responsibility, the gangs would merely go underground for a while and let the crisis abate. Meanwhile, the political consequences would be severe for leaders at all levels. Harper must not give in to the incompetence of Vancouver's civic government. It's your problem, deal with it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-08 9:08:19 AM
"It's your problem, deal with it."
But they won't. That's how Leftists act & react. They'll spout about gun control - and how it's the fault of the US where (supposedly) these guns came from.
Then they'll continue legislating socialism in the hope that these attacks will spontaneously vanish.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 9:14:24 AM
obc,
The number one solution to the world's problems, as demonstrated by the socialists IS:
BAN IT
Which is probably why they get along so well with terrorist organizations--they too like banning everything.
Of course, in the process--the socialists end up also being banned--like what happenned during the Iranian revolution--socialists alligned themselves with all of the revolutionaries. They were conned into working for the revolution--along with the B'hai and the women's movement--so that they could set up a Republic of Iran--and after the fact they discovered that the whom they had partnered with never had the thought of following through with what they had agreed to--as there was the caveat that the regime would be islamic and not a republic after all.
And that's when more heads rolled than ever before.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-08 9:19:24 AM
Zeb,
So you are saying that the Liberals like to pretend they are leaders?
OK, I'll agree to that.
And the NDP are Liberal copycats who pretend with the pretenders.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-08 9:21:10 AM
Today's Vancouver.
Shoot up in a facility paid for by every hard-working, law-abiding citizen of Canada and get shot the same day.
Yeah. Drugs are soooooo coool!
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-08 9:22:44 AM
set ~
Aha! You have unveiled what is going on in Vancouver.
Legal shoot-up sites spawning illegal shoot ups. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-08 9:25:34 AM
O'Reilly,
The other four people were criminals.
And when you read words such as "freedom fighter" or "insurgents", "militants",etc... what they are really avoiding is a word that says what they are--that they are terrorists--as if the terrorists political motivation has nothing to do with their violent means.
Just because someone or some people have a political end in mind--does not mean they have the right to use whatever means they can think of, to attain those ends. And that--dear Bubba, is what the terrorists have indeed done--and that IS what Yassir Arafat said he would do.
When asked whether he would lie for his cause, Yassir Arafat said he had killed for his cause, so of course, he would lie.
Media these days are complete fools when it comes to describing what is and what is not. So, you really expect media to get the terms right, when most cannot fight their way through a wet paper bag when their lives depend on it?
You recall when the reporter was kidnapped in the disputed terriroties? Media were dumb founded that that occurred--that the terrorists would actually kidnap a journalist--why? Because media have lead themselves to believe that they are above all that occurs--when in fact--according to the terrorists, whose political ideology demands that everyone who is not one of them is a kuffar-infidel-unbeliever, that they are fair game to be put down. Oh, you don't like the euphemism?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-08 9:32:29 AM
They--whoever 'they' are (if the shoe fits--wear it, and they know who they are) wanted drugs to be out in the open--and they got more than they bargained for.
It was wrong to be liberal on drugs.
The idea was an extremely soft version of the real McCoy--which was not soft on drugs at all.
People who use drugs and buy drugs are encourageing crime. There are MANY victims of the illegal drug industry. It is not an innocent high.
The real McCoy was to bust people for drugs and then offer them a program--with places they could not go and people they could not see or be with, and work they had to do, and keeping the peace at all times, and working full time--while on a controlled drug program. If they broke with the tough program, and were caught hanging around the areas and with people, and the drug culture, they went to jail and did their entire jail sentence--without chance of getting out on good behaviour, and without any time off the time for good behaviour while on the drug program--and more time could also be placed onto the original sentence after the fact. The law on drugs MUST be tough!
And another thing, our prison systems are a complete failure. Why on earth should illegal drugs make it inside prisons? There are enough legal drugs that could be proscribed to prisoners--illegal drugs inside prisons is a total shame on the system!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-08 9:42:17 AM
Yet another predictable result of moral equivalence.
According to the theory, there is no difference between right and wrong ... and each individual's choice is all right.
So, the absence of a moral compass predicably could also say, it's OK to kill somebody because that's what I have to do.
Many examples abound about how an absence of moral compass will eventually lead to anarchy ... which would also be OK with marxists because they believe that once their system is imposed on the populace, there would be no need for governments and anarchy will evolve.
Should anybody who actually thinks about these things be surprised? No.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-08 10:59:14 AM
Yoshi, I'm in favour of anything that attacks the problem of scumbags turning our cities into stabbing and shooting galleries. The problem with your suggestion is the left-wing/bleeding heart attitude and misplaced sympathies prevalent among politicians, judges and lawyers. It is this group that refuses to punish crime properly, preferring to throw money by the millions into useless criminal rehabilitation programs and "Club Fed" prisons. A perfect example is the whining and hand wringing over the suggestion of mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. The usual suspects turned out en masse to complain about the rights of the criminals, not the public's right to safety.
We have the same problem when discussing immigration and deportation policies. There is an army of lawyers out there who are doing just fine, thank you, while putting the rights of criminals ahead of the general public's. Plus the army of PC types that fling the word racist around like monkeys fling poo.
All of the crime problems we have can be traced back to the day when our political and judicial masters decided that rehabilitation should always take precedence over punishment. We can make no progress until we make our voices louder that the defenders of the scum.
The best way right now to protect yourself and your family is to stay the hell out of big cities.
Maybe there's a chance IF the Conservatives can win a majority and enough pressure is applied. Maybe pigs will learn to fly; I just don't know.
Posted by: Larry | 2007-11-08 12:34:03 PM
We will soon end up like the UK if nothing is done NOW:
"Official: Police leave 2 million crimes uninvestigated"
Police are refusing to investigate more than two million reported crimes every year, including huge numbers of burglaries and thefts, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose. Almost four out of 10 offences are "screened out" as unsolvable within hours of being reported to police, and the cases are closed. No officer visits the scene of the crime and no attempt is made to catch the culprit. As many as two-thirds of burglaries are not investigated in some areas, according to police figures. Even robberies and violent crimes can be screened out.
TRY A LITTLE self-help some time and see how fast they jump on THAT "crime".
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-11 1:58:53 PM
I once saw a sign on a house that said:
Forget the dog--beware of owner.
You know, someone stole an amputee's wheelchair a few months ago. Druggies are stooping lower and lower than ever before. We must clean up Canada. There is absolutely no need for us to live with permitting young people to destroy their lives!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-11 4:23:36 PM
Lady: agreed, but suspending human rights and sending in the army is not the way to do it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-11 5:52:39 PM
Where in, "There is absolutely no need for us to live with permitting young people to destroy their lives!" did you read "suspending human rights and sending in the army".
What would you do if one of those strung out freaks was your baby? Well, they are somebodys' babies--out there, doing the wrong thing for what only seems to them, at the moment, to be the right thing--their right to ruin their life--the only one they have.
Good grief, you have died inside ZEB and you don't even know it yet.
I would say, does anyone really care? Oh, but they have their rights--oh yay! (sarcasm) And, forgetabout the damage done! Forgetabout the fact that each and every single time they string themselves along on drugs--they spit on the lives of other dear brothers and sisters, who lost theirs--oh but wait, according to Zebulon Pike, so they could have the right to destroy their lives too--what the heck. Dead is dead--now is that NOT the truth?
If they need drugs to ameliorate psychological pain--give them legal ones--and get them off the streets and out of harms way--they have THAT right too Zeb--unless you are one of the drug dealers, in which case you might feel it was a threat to your rights to earn an income--oh but wait--that would have otherwise been a descent one, and not one that sheds the blood of innocent babies, at the total and utter destruction of others.
Sure, the freedom to stick a needle in their arms--that's a right--BS Zeb--bring in the people to fix that mess--and if it takes ten people at a time, then so-BE-IT!
The drug money--at least a large portion--has been connected to terrorism--to financing terrorism, so it is not something to sneer at and say "it is their right", because it is NOT!
And let us speak next about the spread of AIDS and hepatitus, and whatever other disgusting disease that is spread needlessly--yes, 100% preventable--oh but, shhhh, it's their right, it's their right, it's their right.
Is anyone sick of hearing that yet? Besides me?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-12 12:26:25 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.