The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The predictable drumbeat has begun against the government's pledge to crack down on crime. Naturally, the Liberals have already started one of their instant issue-based Facebook groups over the issue. Typically, they're trying to prove that crime is practically unknown in the Trudeaupian wonderland usiing statistics about “
Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police” a phrase which make these statistics are worthless for determining anything about the real state of the country.
Indeed, while we’re at quoting things from Statistics Canada, here’s this, courtesy of the Hon. Maxime Bernier:
“88 per cent of sexual assaults, 69 per cent of household thefts, 60 per cent of physical assaults were not reported to police.”
- Criminal Victimization in Canada, Statistics Canada (2004)
Now, I’m not saying that the Tory policy is a panacea – but at least it’s something. They’re not talking about an American-style system here: they’re talking about, at the very least, ensuring that career criminals aren’t let free time and time again, that people who commit serious acts of violence with guns aren’t released the next day to shoot at someone else, and that serial pedophiles won’t be set free to harm children, accompanied by a warning from the police that the criminal they have just released into the community will almost certainly offend again.
Seriously, the best thing that the Liberal Party has had going for it over the years is that it’s usually fairly tactically clever. Attempting to convince people that crime is all in their heads as a result of Evil Corporate Media Propaganda™ is just plain dumb. One need only to drive through some parts of Vancouverto see that anarchy has overtaken some of our streets.
This is a particularly cruel on your part as, most of the time, the unreported crime and constant disorder doesn’t victimize people like me – and probably like most Liberal activists – I live on the third floor behind a heavy deadbolt and I walk down to an electrically immobilized car in the morning. Sure, there’s a chance that I’ll be randomly caught in the crossfire of a gang war, or perhaps killed in a robbery-gone-wrong at work, but the chances of anything happening to me on any given day are slim-to-none.
On the other hand – who do you think is most likely to be victimized by serial criminal offenders let loose upon the streets to shoot, rape, rob, and murder practically at whim? Why, it’s the very poor and dispossessed about whom they care so deeply and from which Liberals derive their deep sense of moral superiority over the rest of us.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mandatory Sense:
Let these mindless utopians take their theories gown to Jane and Finch and talk the ethnic gamgsta culture ouit of "capping" fools.
Or throw them over the fense at DCE in Caledonia and let them watch the OPP sit idley by as they are raped and murdered.
We have gangsters and terrorists in primarily Liberal justice jurisdictions which can go head to head with any inner city crime in the US.
Crime and justice are not areas for untopians...utopian dylexia is why we have duck hunters criminalized for owning a duck gun and gangsta wars are being supplied with the best unregistered illegally traded firearms crack money can buy... and stying out of jail to murder again is possible by multicult judges and the best liberal lawyers crack money can buy.
Posted by: bill | 2007-10-18 7:54:59 AM
The Liberals and liberals in general will never get serious about punishing criminals. That would reduce incomes for one of their biggest support groups— the army of lefty lawyers, judges, social workers, etc who make a living in our legal system. They all pretend to deal with crime and the criminals all pretend to be rehabilitated.
Posted by: Larry | 2007-10-18 8:44:38 AM
>"“88 per cent of sexual assaults, 69 per cent of household thefts, 60 per cent of physical assaults were not reported to police.”
- Criminal Victimization in Canada, Statistics Canada (2004)
If they weren't reported to the police where do get these statistics?
StatsCan should be canned for propaganda.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-18 9:36:37 AM
Scrap the Young Offenders Act.
There's a good start.
Sanctions for the young while there is still time to make solid citizens of them.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-18 10:12:21 AM
Marlene Jennings was just on cbc saying most of the crime bill being introduced is based on Liberal amendments and ideas and could be supported. Mandatory sentences could be a problem.
And, she had a straight face while spouting this.
If these were liberal ideas, how come they didn't tell the senate to pass them.
Posted by: MaryT | 2007-10-18 10:37:52 AM
>"Why, it’s the very poor and dispossessed about whom they care so deeply and from which Liberals derive their deep sense of moral superiority over the rest of us."
Liberals literally farm the poor.
They create policy that either make more poor people or keep them poor, all the while touting themselves as the Champions of the Poor.
If there weren't enough poor people in Canada the Liberals would shape immigration policy to import them.....oh, wait.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-18 10:47:07 AM
considering that my hard working 20 something daughter just had her car broken into and her steering column damaged while parked at work, and the thieves unable to make it go leaving her with expensive repairs--
I think we need to do something more to stop the little so and so's.
The RCMP constable who attended the scene said the following:
--because the door was left unlocked, even if there are prints, they can't use them because all the defense lawyers will argue that their client merely opened the door to check if everything was ok, found it damaged and left the scene.
--the same few young criminals are doing most of the crime, but when they DO finally manage to make the criminal charge stick,
--the same judges are letting them out on bail, or putting them in for a couple of months (free meals, rest, kind of a spa month)
--yes drugs are involved but instead of giving these kids some serious time and some serious mandatory drug treatment combined with re education, they are simply in a revolving door till they die or kill someone or get so fried on the drugs that they aren't even able to function.
HMMM lined up with what I already thought.
And then on the news here in BC global TV newshour interviewed a cop who said that the more crimes a person commits, the LESS TIME HE OR SHE GETS EACH TIME THEY ARE CAUGHT!!!
So they are free to hone their skills with brief time outs for R+R and good meals at the tax payers expense, and the costs of crime continue to soar.
No consequences that matter to encourage the criminal to change his or her ways! In fact tacit encouragement by a laissez faire attitude of "oh well, jail won't change them..."
All of which adds up to an expensive way of treating the problem.
I say Harper is attacking the problem at the source, and I am glad Stephane Dion didn't get in his way.
I am sick and tired of "experts" on the news hour telling all of us how jail time doesn't solve anything because it doesn't change the criminal.
Who CARES IF IT CHANGES THE CRIMINAL OR NOT? That isn't the main point.
A good stiff sentence STOPS THEM FROM DOING MORE CRIME therefore IT REDUCES THE COSTS TO ALL OF US!!!!
If it helps turn their life around, well bonus!
But at some point we need to toss the repeaters into a deep hole where they can't get out again and call it a day.
The cost to house them for life is WAY LESS THAN WE PAY ALREADY FOR THE CONSTANT FLOOD OF CRIME!
Which might also mean some of the idiot kids would get serious and be deterred from taking up a life of crime.
Right now the young offenders act is an apprenticeship program for teaching criminal behaviour.
it teaches that
there are no conseqquences of any real importance
that other criminals are doing it and getting away with it too.
CRIME DOES PAY!
Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 2007-10-18 11:05:02 AM
MaryT I almost fell off my chair at reading your post on M. Jennings - from laughing I might add. So mandatory sentences could be a problem - really?
These people must live in a different country, for I have yet to come across a working Canadian or Canadian family who is not fed up with our so-called criminal justice system. They are fed up with criminals being given preference over the victims, they are fed up with lack of police action and protection, they are fed up with criminals being afforded all kinds of rights while they, the victims are ignored, they are fed up with the same criminals being turned loose over and over again.
Of course the Left has never cared for true victims and this simply confirms it.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-18 11:05:57 AM
Read Mary T again, Alain.
She is quoting Marlene Jennings on the CBC.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-10-18 11:13:14 AM
I see I was not clear. Speller that is what I understand and what I meant. The laugh was at M. Jennings not MaryT. Sorry if that was not clear.
I do not watch nor listen to CBC for news, so it is only through the internet that I occasionally get the odd titbit of what the CBC is up to nowadays.
It is a hoot to state that mandatory sentencing could be a problem, that criminals might have to actually serve their sentence.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-18 12:48:16 PM
Marlene Jennings is so full of **it, the mistress of bombast and blabbering windbag. Should we be paying her carbon tax?
Perfect example of a joke that ain't funny.
Fo the Liberals and Dippers, mandatory sentencing would be against their ideology of hug a thug, forget the victim.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-18 1:58:52 PM
your last point is so glaringly obvious. why the hell didn't i see that angle before?
...and another intellectual spike in the coffin of social liberalism.
Posted by: shel | 2007-10-18 8:38:31 PM
In Canada, this criminal would be filing suit in a court today:
MONTGOMERY, Alabama — A burglar in Montgomery chose the wrong family to mess with, literally.
Adrian and Tiffany McKinnon returned to their Centennial Hill home Tuesday after a week away to find that thieves had emptied almost everything the family of five owned, Tiffany McKinnon said through tears.
"Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home," she said.
Adrian McKinnon sent his wife to see her sister while he inspected the piles left behind. As he walked back into the sunroom, a man walked through the back door straight into him, Tiffany McKinnon told the Montgomery Advertiser in a story Thursday.
"My husband Adrian caught the thief red-handed in our home," she said. "And what is even crazier, the man even had my husband's hat sitting right on his head."
Adrian McKinnon held the suspect, 33-year-old Tajuan Bullock, at gunpoint and told him to sit on the floor until he decided what to do.
"We made this man clean up all the mess he made, piles of stuff, he had thrown out of my drawers and cabinets onto the floor," Tiffany McKinnon said.
When police arrived, Bullock complained about being forced to clean the home at gunpoint.
"This man had the nerve to raise sand about us making him clean up the mess he made in my house," she said. "The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead."
Dead would have been much better. He'll be out and about one day and acting this way again. And he COMPLAINED about having to clean up his mess? He'll never amount to anything, no matter how much "counseling" any Leftoid gives him.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-19 8:42:56 AM
When is an elected politician, provincial or federal, going to propose electing judges?
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-19 8:49:08 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.