Moderate Centrist

Mr. Farrius Mr. FarriusTry this, JesusAnyway I have no interest in debating religion as it's a waste of time. I think you can now see Elder how such fragmantation and intollerance occurs. Mr. Farrius' comments are extremely offensive to practicing Catholics and many of them would say the exact same about the Protestant faith which they would maintain broke away from the True Church. Don't forget the Catholic Church came first. In any case Mr. Farrius has painted Catholics in a negative light. Many Catholics paint Protestants in a negative light. On and on it goes. I say you worship your God and I'll worship mine.

Below is what showed up on my computer. Your name appears by the post and the word conspiracy is first used here. If this is Alliance Fanatic then somehow it is showing as your name on my computer. If it was not you I appologize and perhaps Greg could look into it. This post has become extremely hard to follow on my computer due to formatting. Again, I responded to what I thought was your post as your name was on it. If I am in error I appologize but you can see for yourself below: Morgan Posted: Nov 24 2003, 12:12 AM Full Member Group: Members Posts: 123 Member No.: 216 Joined: 1-July 03 Moderate Centrist said: QUOTE The methods of organized crime are largely hidden from the public. In any case I don't walk around in constant fear from criminals - that is paranoia. I'm happy with the way things are... for the most part. QUOTE But as I've stated before criminal policy in this country can not be dictated by newspaper stories...Finally I believe police power should be kept at a minimum so as not to interfer with the general pubic.We have the laws in place now to deal with crime. First of all, you are naive if you think you are somehow insulated or removed from the effects of organized crime. Here's a report on the RCMP website to remind you of " how no one in Canada can say they're not affected somehow:" Organized crime gets us where we live As well, your bias against law enforcement but support for the legal judicial branch is misguided IMHO. Why would you believe that increased police presence/powers would "interfere" with the public good when it's police officers who are physically the last and most potent barrier between criminals and the ordinary citizen? That's interference, but good interference which I, for one, wouldn't want to live without. So more "interference" betters the odds that I will not be a victim of crime. IMHO, it's police officers who deter crime, sometimes sacrificing their lives in the process, not "laws" or criminal attorneys or judges. Were there no police, simply having laws on the books would not prevent crime. That's why criminals engage in what's known as "unlawful" activities...it's not their nature to automatically respect/observe the laws on the books. As for your dismissal of newspapers stories as not giving an accurate picture of crime because they're isolated events, whereas the opposite is true with Stats Can...guess you haven't read the classic book entitled "Statistics Lie." Stats Can is run by government bureaucrats, need I say more? I don't think there is a left wing"conspiracy" per say, but on the otherhand, I don't think Stats Can will necessarily put itself out to pursue statistical studies that might prove to be embaressing to the PMO. For example, recidivism rates...those statistics would be helpful for the taxpayer to know as an evaluation tool of our judicial/correctional system... is the current "rehabilitative" approach to criminals working or not? But Stats Can decided it did not have the "resources" to pursue that rather important issue. Why no ones knows what the recidivism rate is, Ottawa Citizen, March 23/02 Statistics can also promote a false picture just by omission of facts. Though you distrust comments made by police officers because they are "too close" to the subject of crime, I'd suggest that you should apply the same skepticism to bureaucrats who might have a hidden agenda. Here's an example where the Justice Dept. used statistics to promote a "false picture" because they wanted to sell the public on a touchy feely idea. Looking at the revised Young Offenders Act. QUOTE On April 1,2003, the Young Offenders Act will be replaced with the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Justice Canada says the new legislation encourages rehabilitation over incarceration but will deal more harshly with violent offences. But critics say the new Act offers too many "soft" options, like Restorative Justice, and makes society the jail cell. A widely touted statistic (it's on the Justice Canada website) is that Canada currently has the highest rate of youth incarceration in the western world. After questioning the statistic, the Docket learned that Justice Canada defines "incarceration" as any custodial sentence, including "open custody". Open custody is a sentence served in the community, not in jail or a correctional facility.

MorganOh really? Did you or did you not say the following: MorganPerhaps someone else typed that in under your name? The judicial system is not soft. Again, on the corrections Canada website it stated Canada had a slightly higher incarceration rate than other developed nations. MorganI see no evidence that it's bad for society. I'll have to get back to you on your other questions as I haven't had time to review the information you supplied. My position is quite simple - claims that the crime rate is rising are not true. Furthermore I feel no personal danger to myself. Finally the laws we have now are adequate to deal with crime as it stands.

MorganI don't recall saying it doesn't effect me rather it doesn't concern me. I highly doubt I'm on the hit list of any organized crime gangs that I know of. I take organized crime very seriously but it is not organized crime that really scares the public. Also, I don't require police protection. The streets are not filled with violent thugs bent on the overthrow of the civilized world. Where is this violence and mayhem? I've worked outside the home all my life. I've never been attacked, robbed or assaulted in broad daylight before and have never witnessed such activity and am not aware that any of my friends have either and they also work outside the home. I'm not saying you are wrong to be concerned about crime - I'm saying for me personally it's not an issue that keeps me up at night. I expect and want the police to enforce the law and protect citizens. Beyond that I want very little from them and need very little. The chances of me becoming a victim of violent crime are slim to none. MorganFirst - no I have not read Statistics Lie Second - I am well aware of that fact Third - I did not say Statistics Canada was infallible. Fourth - newspapers are also in the entertainment business. They lie, report facts inaccurately and try to stir public emotion. Their primary goal is to sell sell sell. They may be a great way to find out WHAT happened but a very poor way to find out WHY it happened. Fifth - I will be basing any claims I make statistically on the information provided by Statistics Canada. If you or anyone else has a problem with how they opperate or their methods it is your responsibility to write them and make your voice heard. You can use your expertise in statistical analysis and public policy to tell them what they're doing wrong. It is interesting to see the conspiratorial mind at work here: Morgan MorganSorry but that in my opinion is ridiculous. The very fact that you mention the word "conspiracy" makes me wonder. We have another post on conspiracy if you'd care to check it out and promote your theories there.

I don’t really oppose more police but rather more police power. Most of the arguments I hear re: crime prevention, involve things like lowering civil rights, bringing back the death penalty, creating gun registries, placing video cameras all over town and reducing a defendants ability to get proper council. The police are the strong arm of the state - more police power equal more state power. Crime prevention goes way beyond just having more police officers who are primarily a reactionary tool in the fight against crime. We have the laws in place to deal with crime now. If those laws aren't being applied in an appropriate manner then we have a legitimate complaint but I don't see the issue that way. I must also object to how you present information which is inaccurate. You are throwing around "get - off" pretty loosely. You were in error in the following: The Strongquill case - nobody is getting off. You stated, AllianceThis is wrong. Here is the correct version, Source: http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vi...entence20030630So either you didn’t read the story correctly in the first place or you deliberately gave us an incorrect version of the sentence to make it sound worse than it is. Also on Strongquill, Source: http://winnipeg.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vi...entence20030630Perhaps you could explain to us how this fits into your theory of judges handing out “soft sentences” seeing as this is a specific case you cited to back up your claim. If I may be so bold I think this casts into doubt much of what you claim. If you expect to be taken seriously you may want to start with doing some serious research to back up your position. That includes providing correct information.

AllianceWell that's the first thing you've said I agree with. Firstly, police officers are too close to the action to give an accurate picture of crime rates. This is because they deal with it everyday and it is all they ever see. So in their eyes crime and the crime rate will always appear worse than it really is. Police departments have also been known to suggest the crime rate is rising around budget time to get more money. Second, are you seriously suggesting that Statistics Canada and Corrections Canada are part of a left wing conspiracy? If you dispute their stats you should write to them and have them make the appropriate corrections. FanaticFirst - how did you arrive at this number. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your extensive experience in criminal law and public policy. Second - this sounds like a police state to me and a pretty good way for the public to be harrassed by police with nothing to do. Fanatic.I would agree with this statement if you had said a minority of criminals get soft sentences. This is a blanket statement and means nothing. The stories you related also mean nothing. Certainly they are regretable. But as I've stated before criminal policy in this country can not be dictated by newspaper stories. These stories are not a reflection of the criminal justice system as a whole. Furthermore you consistently post information with no source to back it up. I have no idea of the context of these stories and therefore usually have very little confidence in their value. However I did some research. The rape story is this one I assume:http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/04/saskrape030904 You neglected to mention that there was suspicion by the judge that the girl had been a victim of abuse within the home by family members. Certainly no justification for what happened but the story is certainly not black and white. With regard to Karl Toft you neglected to mention that he had served 2/3 of a 13 year sentence and is now residing in a halfway house. Concerns about his behavior and release in the community are certainly valid. But he certianly hasn't gotten away with anything. story here. I couldn't find a source on the RCMP officer you say was killed. I may try again later or perhaps you could get us a source. Finally I believe police power should be kept at a minimum so as not to interfer with the general pubic. We have the laws in place now to deal with crime. Our system is not perfect but is certainly one of the best in the world. FanaticVery troubling especially since most of these women will experience this from someone they know - family member or aquaintance. And how exactly do you propose to deal with this? We have laws in place now to deal with sex offenders. Are you suggesting more laws? What is your solution?

Hello Again Elder, And now you can see a perfect example of the fracturing you speak of and where it can lead to trouble. Mr. FarriusElder, let's see if can start a fight: In fact let me pose this question to you Mr. Farrius - isn't it possible that you are wrong. Isn't it possible that Protestanism is a corrupt perversion of the Christian faith? You see I hold the absolute truth and I declare this to be so.

Morgan,Criminals by and large are not getting soft sentences and are not getting out in short time. I'm basing this on the information provided by statistics Canada and Corrections Canada. If anyone thinks this is false they should write these departments and have the information corrected. Reforming the justice system can mean many things. If by this you mean increased police powers that will in anyway infringe on our basic rights I'm against it. In my experience many people are afraid of violent crime yet extremely few have ever experienced it. It is a rarity. Organized crime is definetly a serious problem in Canada, the USA and in most democratic countries in the world. However it is a problem in which there is very little public outcry. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the Hell's Angels referred to as "good fellas" or the Mob as people who deserve respect. This is largely due to the services organized criminals provide - money laundering, prostitution, gambling and infiltrating unions. There is not a direct affect on the average citizen enough to call for action. The methods of organized crime are largely hidden from the public. In any case I don't walk around in constant fear from criminals - that is paranoia. I'm happy with the way things are... for the most part.

Well I would oppose any such move as a waste of time. There is no way to regulate the internet expect by the user him/herself. If I may be so bold I think the story of the internet is hardly all positive. Much like Television before it the internet is a medium without substance. On the positive side it has made communication easier and access to information faster. On the negative side (and my own personal experience) the information floating around on the net is largely fluff, of little substance and in many cases innaccurate. In my opinion I'd much rather do research at the local library than on the net. The information is of higher quality and verifiable. Also, the internet has given every screwball with an ax to grind a forum to promote the wildest ideas imaginable. Hate propaganda is rampant and a case can be made that the internet is a key factor in the mainstreaming of pornography which if I'm not mistaken is the most abundant and profitable material on the net.

I agree the funding for crime fighting should go where it will do the most good. However part of the problem with the gun registry is that it arose out of an irrational and for the most part baseless fear of gun crime. And as such we've now been provided with a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist. This is why I stress extreme caution in addressing issues of crime which most often involved judgements based on passion rather than reason.

Well let me ask this then: The stats I posted from Canadian Statistics site are false then? Yes or no. Has anyone on this site ever been the victim of violent crime? Yes or no? Crime like the war on terror has been blown out of all proportion. I am prepared to live with both because to a certain degree neither will ever be eliminated. We have the laws in place now to deal with both crime and terrorism. We don't need anymore laws and we don't need to give the police anymore power. This is what I mean by accepting the status quo. I am not suggesting we don't fight crime. I'm saying we have the tools to do it now. And I'm also saying we should not give in to hysteria. CraigThis is being addressed now is it not? As for property rights, and scams there is not the same level of public outcry as there is for violent crime which affects a minority of Canadians but is a major concern for them. Russia, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan are not relevent in post. The issues they face are not even remotely connected to criminal issues in Canada. I'll ask specifically what you would like to see changed about police forces, the law and/or what you feel is currently lacking.

Hi Morgan, Interesting rebutle. Your #2 point would seem to contradict some of the information I have from the same site. The article you sited does indeed challenge my information. I guess it comes down to who you believe. The article did not provide valid statistics or sources. And "record highs" is a reletive term at best. All of this really doesn't matter to me as violent crime high or low affects a very small percentage of the population. Even if the crime rate was climbing it really doesn't affect me anyway. The best defense against criminals is common sense.

Hello All, Thanks for your responses. I'll add another quote which is important to remember, Source: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pub-ed_e.shtml The above comes from Corrections Canada and I suggest having a look at it. Crime is one of those topics everyone gets worked up about yet few people truly understand. It is also one of those issues in which people call for changing the laws - ex: bringing back the death penalty, tougher laws, using torture on prisoners, trying children as adults. My position has been stated many times but is essentially very simple - law and response to crime must be based on reason, not passion. We cannot advocate changing the laws based on sensationalized newspaper stories which consistently report crime out of proportion to its occurance. Crime is also an issue in which the statement, "people have too many rights nowadays" is uttered. I do not agree with this at all. It leads to the perception that criminals are treated lightly and are constantly getting away with their misdeads and this is not true. Instead of posting more quotes this link will take you to a "Myth and Reality" page at Corrections Canada where you can gain some additional information on crime in Canada: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pubed/mr_e.shtml I'd like to hear more opinions and I still challenge anyone to prove the claim Canada's crime rate is rising or reaching proportions requiring a change in the status quo.

Yes, but the point is it's not even worth mentioning or changing laws for. Criminals are still being caught and punished and nobody is getting away with murder. Granted crime is always a serious issue but nowhere near out of control. In the United States the danger from Crime is actually quite low despite what people think. However the money to be made from the paranoia business ( newspapers, T.V. shows, home security companies and gun salesmen) is high. Scaring people is good business and that is largely what crime is all about. As such there is rarely the same outrage expressed for white collar crime/non-violent crime which affects a lot more people.

Before I start let me say crime by its very nature is an issue to be taken seriously. However, it is not an issue that should be dealt with through the lense of paranoia and fear mongering. Crime and public perception of it interest me very much for the simple reason that the public often cries for the laws to be changed for no apparent reason. Many people I know base their knowledge of crime in television dramas and sensationalized news reports. Crime, and it is is violent crime that really upsets the public, affects only a minority of Canadians and rates have been dropping for the past 20 years now. Yet many contributers to this site often make the claim that - crime in Canada is on the rise and out of control. From the right we have calls for "tougher laws", the death penalty and I seem to recall one writer on this site suggesting police/prison guard torture was acceptable. From the left we have calls for huge databases for guns and people and increased government survellience. I've challenged several people here to provide statistics to back up their claims that crime is increasing and none have so far come forward. Here are some quotes from Statistics Canada followed by a link to the page. They refer to violent crime: Source: http://142.206.72.67/04/04b/04b_002b_e.htm Hugo also made the claim that Canada, This statement is reactionary at best. I did manage to find the following info on incarceration rates: Source:http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pubed/skit/skit5_e.shtmlHere is another site with some additional statistics: http://www.crime-prevention-intl.org/engli...tm#anchor557075 The point of all this is that the status quo is OK. Crime will always be with us. The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate free will and abandon civil rights. Fighting crime also takes a variety of stategies of which imprisonment, more police and proper enforcement are essential but not solitary contributers. If anyone wants to challenge me on this I'm listening.

HugoWhich crime rates are you speaking about? Violent crime has been declining in Canada for the past 20 years. Canada is hardly in the grips of a crime wave - this is completely untrue. Can you back this up with some stats. Also, since this takes us of the topic of this post perhaps you can respond under a new thread I started in Canadian Politics on Crime Rates and Public Perception.

Well if you look at the history of Christianity you'll find plenty of examples of Christians behaving in non-Christian behavior. The reasons are far too complex to get into here but it all boils down to people believing they are custodians of the "one true faith" and wanting to harm those that aren't . Fanaticism is another reason - religious belief when taken too far can be pretty scary. I think Edward Gibbons, who famously wrote about Rome said, Christians have killed far more of each other than were ever persecuted by the Romans.

Once again we see more “fanatic” than “alliance” shining through. First, you did not provide a source for the Mexican quote you provided. Can you back this up? Alliance FanaticHow so? I’m white and have never been treated like a second class citizen and am not aware of any that have unless they deserve it. Alliance FanaticIf you’re talking about the Liberal party – have a look at them. How many immigrants, people of color or women do you see in positions of power? Almost none. Racial preferences – I challenge you to name the ones you are referring to. The Christmas tree incident I assume was Toronto last year. This was not officially called for by any immigrant group but rather was decided on by ( I may be wrong on this) city council who have taken political correctness too far. Alliance Fanatic Religion in either stabilized or in decline in every western and modernizing country in the world. Any religion that needs state sponsorship isn’t worth practicing anyway. Alliance FanaticAgain, give us a date and source for this quote. Alliance FanaticAnd where exactly is the debate on this? Alliance FANATICI think this is asking a bit much. I may be willing to fight for Canada if we were attacked but I don’t believe this should be equated with weather or not you are Canadian. There were plenty of conscientious objectors during both wars and a sizable part of the population that didn’t want any part. We also had a Prime Minister who wanted to keep us out all together. You seem to put a premium on military participation by citizens. Firstly WW1 started as follows for Canada – Britain is at war therefore Canada is at war. We should hold in highest regard the men who fought and died but the War itself had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with an arms race between Britain and Germany. Most of the soldiers who signed up had no idea what they were in for and the war itself accomplished absolutely nothing except to lay the groundwork for WW2. Second - 42,000 died fighting Facism Third - 500 Canadians died fighting Communism (Korean War) ”Build a successful economy out of a harsh landscape, and become an independant country which was able to function on its own.” ”… Pierre Trudeau, who said that Canada was just as bad as the "nazis",…” “Canadian's seem very arrogant of their own history, many cannot name a single PM before Trudeau.” "However we should lower immigration to 100,000 a year.” “Or else their will be an even larger influx in crime, and poverty.”

Also, there are some people, and I presently am one of them that would favor a more isolationist policy for Foreign Affairs. Would I fight for Canada. If our homeland was attacked I'd probably do it. However to expect Canadians to run around the world fighting in wars that have nothing to do with us is asking too much.

I don't think someone's willing ness to fight for Canada is a valid indication of their status as a Canadian. Define fight first of all.

NuclearI can't believe you just made that statment. You can't seriously suggest that this is intelligent or reasonable foreign policy? It must be remembered that the United States invaded Iraq ( I believe with no just cause) and has established itself as an occupying force. The type of retribution you suggest would further blacken the United States image in the world and make a successful transition to an Iraqi government all but impossible. The US must do everything it can to ensure the security of its troops but this suggestion is going too far. We need only look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation to see that strong arm tactics lead to more violence. Finally, these are the exact same tactics used by Saddam Hussein for which the United States claimed to be "liberating" the Iraqi people. Should they now turn around and employ them? On what grounds and how could this even be remotely justified?

Hello All, I found this quote which I couldn't resist placing here: Source: http://www.acts17-11.com/conspire.htmlI included this on this topic because it's very important to remember that conspiracy theory is a flawed view of events. We must not give creedence to wild theories with absolutely no proof. There can be little doubt as to who the attackers were or what motivated them. There can also be little doubt that there is absolutely no advantage to the Bush administration in taking part or condoning any such attack.

LostWell I sure as hell hope so! Although this is often not the case we must hold human life as sacred in principle if nothing else. Do deny this we're heading down the wrong path. Mr. Farrius, I think your arguements are based on presumtion. Many, if not most women, would disagree with you I believe. Your comments seem somewhat condescending towards the opposite sex. Bottom line is that abortion is available to women who have been raped. However the amount of abortions performed in the United States and Canada go way beyond what the law intended: Abortion in the case of rape or if the life of the mother was in danger. Anti-Abortion as an issue is politically unwinable in my view - at least as arguements are currently put forward. However abortion is best viewed as a nessessary evil - let's not try to paint it as progressive social policy.

I think we're going to have to get into numbers here. Also define "few" and "reality". To do this you'll have to get some demographic data on children of young mothers and single parents and link it to crime statistics. Further, those statistics will have to be broken down into violent/non-violent, serious/non serious crimes etc... From there you'll have to build a case that abortion would have prevented these crimes. You may also want to make a case regarding quality of life, how it is judged and who judges it. Abortion has been available for rape victims for a long time. However this is clearly a minority of abortions. Since you brought it up can you provide statistics on abortions as a result of rape and a % of total abortions performed in say the US or Canada?

Mr. Farrius Hi Farrius, I think these are rather blanket statements and a bit cold if you don't mind me saying so. I am familiar with a few people who've had children out of wedlock or at an early age. Certainly there are difficulties but I don't think it's fair to say they'll all grow up hell raisers and anarchists.