myata

I most certainly agree that better communities would provide less ground for crime. The problem is that we don't really know exactly how to create them. For example at one point in time we invested x-billion dollars into building huge social housing enclaves. I have two of those withing walking distance to my place, and both are permanent fixtures in the police reports. Good intentions not always translate into positive change. And as kids realize that power and fear can get one material benefits, crime will be with us for a long time. Then again, I'm not interested in the "get tough" approach any more than "hugs and kisses". It's just another way of wasting resources without achieving anything. The real challenge is to find something that's working. Anyways, this question was about the "stick" part. The current system of youth justice is designed by experts and approved by MP's often in their 60 and 70s. Do they have a clue, about what's going to an efficient, meaningful deterrent for a youth of 14-18? Is house arrest / probation a deterrent? Let's see. "If I do it again, and get caught at it, and won't twist out on yet another probation, I may get sent to jail." What does it mean, to be in a jail? What's the clear consequences of that for me? I've no idea. Such an obvious booga strategy. Everybody's supposed to fear it, even though we've never really seen it. We have to distinguish between the moralistic and the rational approaches to justice. Moralistic is about retribution, redemption and saving the soul. Rational is about measurable reduction in the numbers and severity of crime. Which means 1) attempting to create conditions in which crime would be less welcome; and 2) sending a clear, inambiguous message to those who'd still think of getting involved with crime, that it won't be tolerated. Speaking for the second part now, yes, carrot and stick strategy will also be with us until better days, the current penal system simply has very, very few sanctions that have real, clear, inambiguously prohibitive meaning to the young people. In my view, if we want to see real progress, in the realistic, rather than moralistic perspective, such instruments should be added. Not as a replacement for better communities, but as an addition to and strengthening of those. P.S. let me clarify that we're talking about adding new sanctions that can be used in conjunction, or instead of existing ones. E.g. instead of a probation for assault, 10K fine. Instead of house arrest for illegal possession of guns or drug trafficking, 20K. Would that be a better deterrent in some cases (still to be determined by a judge)?

There's a story in today's news that made me rethink possible novel approaches to youth justice (Yahoo: puck shot at $44,000). On one hand, there appears to be more than desirable number of crimes committed by young offenders in a thoughtless, dangerous to innocent bystanders manner. On the other hand, Harper Tories simple and fast solution of sending more kids to more jails (and thus training more career criminals), doesn't exactly appeal to me (and as appears, to majority of Canadian public) as a working solution either. So, where's the golden balance between the need to make kids realize that some actions simply can't and won't be tolerated by the society, and the expensive, inefficient policy of "send them all to jail"? Well, may worth taking a creative look, now. Maybe the issue, per se is not in the toughness of the punishment, but the perceived efficiency of it? How's a 14-15 year old going to be deterred by a threat of a jail they know nothing, zero, nada about? Like that booga? Even more so, that nobody really wants to put them there, for an obvious reason that it'd greatly increase their chances of becoming career criminals, and costing us all, in the end run, more and much more. So how about showing some creativity, and coming up with sanctions which are actually understood, and feared by potential offenders before they think of gettting involved in a crime? First idea: community publicity. Yes in total contrast to the current provisions of the youth offenders act, the names of all offenders involved in serious crime are published, unless overruled by a judge. Benefit: a clear and obvious deterrent for the offender (pre and post crime). An incentive ot improve, or get out of the community. Safer community. Second idea: heavy escalating fines with expropriation of property and shared family responsibility. E.g.: assault minimum 10 K. Assault with bodily harm or illegal possession of gun: 20 K. Second offense fines double. Can't pay, get stripped of property. Including family property, to the extent of shared responsibility (e.g. under 14 - 100%, 14-16 - 75%, 16-18 and up (if living together) - 50%). No expiration date, but an interest at least at the level of inflation. Benefit: moneys are the very thing that forces many to get involved in gangs and crime. It's very simple to understand (ask any 12 year old; or even 10 year old). Of course these are solutions for youth justice. Career criminals and organizers of crime still should get the max terms they're eligible for. This is one small part where I may agree with Harper that tougher sentences wouldn't hurt.

Rephrasing the eternal wisdom proclaimed by one of this country's public servants, "everybody's entitled to their entitlements". I.e. in plain words, one's entitled (morally justified, etc) to whatever they can grab (and hold on to). Works always, 100% solid, as a clock: 1) Grab; 2) Hold on to; 3) Find (make) moral justification.

Of course, "justified". My wanting your $ million is also very well justified. By me.

C'mon people, don't be naive now! All this high level rattle about some "law" is only for the weak of mind (Jabba). Aka somebody wants something from you and they're telling you why they're right and you're wrong. Doesn't (necessarily.. or ever?) work the other way around. And yes, if in doubt they'll get stronger (highly explosive) arguments. When was the last time that "law" stopped us from doing something we wanted (really bad)? WMD anybody? Ballistic missiles?

Social conservatives with a Liberal budget, and Liberals supporting concervative policies (torture/no torture, Iraq/no Irag, war crime / no crime, self defense / indiscriminate killing of civilians. Right, Michael?) and voting for conservative government. Conservative, Liberal, who cares? All look so much the same, one needs a microscope to figure them out. Just like those Senators/Penguins, etc. Sigh. Welcome to the old age of democracy. No change is the best change.

Yeigh, yeigh. And in the meanwhile country's economy may go in the same direction. But who cares, right? It's getting up there, that matters above all. Why am I not surprised, one little bit?

One thing that wasn't mentioned in this equation is people. People who'd want to see a system more reflective of their views of the world, rather than that stuck in the 18 century. I tired of basically the same guys (with maybe rare exceptions in between, like Trudeau or Harper) painting themselves in different hues and pretending to lead the alternative ways of government. A real true democracy should be able to represent the views of population more precisely than 40% of vote = 90% of representation, period. So, in another country another time, somewhere where people would be interested and involved in a democratic change (no matter which part of the spectrum their particular political preference would fall), the incentive to go along with the change would be strong. If that's not us, then leaders like Chretien and Harper would be our best hope for many years. I mean what would a strong visionary leader have to do in an atmosphere where "do nothing and stick to the power at all cost" is the slogan of the day? To P.-C.: sure, but we have yet to see his leadership talents. They haven't come out strong in the recent years at the top of the Liberal pyramid, while inconsistencies and gaffes did. I'm still waiting to hear why exactly he needs to be up where, other than, of course, to become PM and get the Liberals to govern again (which makes him vaguely reminiscent of another politician I know). I mean, sure, but what would it have to do with me? or the country?

One thing I was hoping the coalition to move forward towards was a more fair system of representation. No, not proportional per se, but at least something to start the ball rolling. As a matter of fact, two (the environment agenda), and, now three (a meaningful counter recession action plan, without driving country down into massive deficits, or at least, massive permanent deficits). With Ignatief at the Liberal helm, I'm just not sure anymore. I mean I want to hope. But he's just too handsome and too smart (looking) to not stick to the old Liberal adage, and to attempt something fresh and new, for a change. I hope I'm wrong.

I voted for the coalition, in the full and clear knowledge that it may just be wishful thinking. It's not that PM Harper cannot say the right thing, when he has to. It's that he can absolutely be trusted to not do the right thing, even if he himself said it, if it goes against his concervative beliefs (and he can get away with it, or at least he thinks so). There should not be any doubt about that after: 1) Kyoto and the Environment; 2) Fixed election dates; 3) Games around Coalition; and more; and still more. But of course, on the other side of the spectrum is now Mr Ignatieff, who I fear, may just be thinking that it's all back to the business as usual, with a behemoth Liberal machine facing mammoth Concervative one, and to screw everybody else. He may enjoy his spotlight as the leader of the Opposition, hoping that Consevatives would stumble and bleed on the economy and thus deliver him a majority on a golden plate without him having to move a finger about it. I seriously fear that that's what's going to happen tomorrow, and if so I'm prepared to kiss a sad goodbye to voting Liberals for a while (maybe a long while - as long as the difference between them, and their arch-oppenent has to be searched with an electronic microscope). Won't be much of a loss for them anyways, as that swing center of the center progressive-conservative group (not to be confused with the former PC party), would more than make up for that vote.

OK, same British who screwed up a lot of other places, also have "decided" something here. That's what was being said all along - our interference messes up lives of others, which they eventually realize and turn back on us - possibly, generations later. But what is your point? Quite possibly it "flies". What I said here though, was that "most minorities do have incidents in their history". The question is not whether minorities have the right to survive, but whether anything they do (claiming survival justification) is really justified. I could ask the same question, except with more factual foundation. Does this incident, along with possibly many other ones, on either side, somehow justify far greater injustices that have been set in motion in the years following the establishment of Israel? Was there really no way to achieve the same goal without inflicting them? And that is your problem. You whitewash or simply refuse to see the injustices your side has committed, dehumanise the other people as plunderes, murderers and barbarians, and then try to claim moral superiority where it simply does not exist. Sure a way to start looking for peace. BTW what "evidence"? Perhaps 70% expansion of settlements, while "trading land for peace"? No I think we are talking more about something else here, "land and peace, because we can". It's an illusion of course, but sadly it'll take time and much suffering to understand this.

You must be serious here, right? So, if I buy land somewhere in Russia today, I'll be fully and moraly justified to proclaim independent state there couple decades on? Be careful of the level of arguments you use to support your position, lest it makes it absolutely clear that there're none. Any loss of life is regrettable. But putting things into perspective, from your own link: "The Hebron Massacre refers to the mass murder of sixty-seven Jews on 23 and 24 August 1929 in Hebron" (Wikipedia). Death toll from street crime in Toronto last year was close to 100. Or take for example, that recent operation in Gaza; or the previous one, in Lebanon? Not to forget that mass foreign immigration into already populated areas is bound to create ethnic tensions, for which the farthers of the project should shoulder at least some of the blame, wouldn't somebody think so? No, eh? Being cut, rounded up and squeezed out of their own land does not qualify? While coming from abroad, kicking somebody out of your way, does? No surprise really: we all know that anything we do can be justified (by ourselves), and we'll be extremely creative about it (because above all, it's a matter of SURVIVAL). And as you know, I'm fine with that. As long as we say it honestly and clearly, without pretending to be, somehow, better than those we chose to harass and disposess. You know that saying, do you: "if hammer is all you've got, everything looks like a nail"? Wow. Assuming that as of this moment, they're still "better" (less "barbaric" that is). I wonder in what way would it (that inherent moral superiority) manifest itself though?

How do you know that? Because it's your view of the "circumstances"? Historic records show (please refer to the archives of the forum) dramatic increase in Jewish population of the lands in the decades preceding proclamation of the state. No records (to the best of my knowledge) of any major crimes against humanity as we call them now. Are you sure there's enough "historic injustice" there, to justify what has been done by Israel's leadership of the time? Or is more because they saw that they could (get away with it). In the circumstances. But here's the thing, a logical paradox from which there's no escape. If my survival, in the way me, and me only see it, justifies anything I do, then anything I do is by definition justified, moral, and appropriate. Because me and me only set the terms of my survival. And because this is common logic, it has to be universal, i.e. applies to everybody regardless of any factor of their life. So Israel's doing something to survive, and Hamaz is doing something else - guess why? - to the same glorious end. Everybody's doing what they have to, i.e. surviving over somebody else's backs. You simply have to accept this nice and very clear moral picture of the world. Unless of course, you start asking questions like, e.g. does my survival have to mean suffering of somebody else? and e.g. is there really no way I could survive now without hurting somebody else?

You're right of course. Other than in those times the right of the might was the established, respected moral principle. Peoples of the world counted their moral superiority by how many a... they have kicked. Now we pretend to be different. Better. Terms like peace, humanity and justice fly around (particularly from some of our leaders) all the time. Yet somehow, we still manage to look not so very much different after all, from those good old times. Paradoxes!

Do you mean that it's Egypt that's bombing and shelling Gaza as we (speak) write here? I offered some common knowledge, established facts. That exactly is that what you "offered"? So you support the right of any minority to unilaterally proclaim and forcefully establish independent state, if they have some justification (e.g. ethinic frictions, conflicts, etc), as most minorities do? Yes or no? Does it apply everythere in a universal manner, or only to certain specific minorities? Who decides which ones? How? The history question has been addressed in detail, including mass immigration of non native population into the area. I have no wish to reiterate, please feel free to search in the old threads. You're also free to challenge any of the four basic facts listed earlier, with sufficient evidence. A much easier solution would be of course, for Israel to come to terms with the fact that they created a historic injustice to the local people and offer a fair and reasonable peace that would allow both sides to live in their own lands and at least co-exists. Why is it harder than kill and ethnic cleanse, or depart for search of other, "less contentious" lands, I can't quite figure out. Fortunately, I don't have to.

What does it have to do with Israel's slaughter in Gaza? A distraction? I guess.. There's any number of any ethnicities in almost any country. Does it give them the right to start an uprising, expel the locals and declare independent state? Maybe in your view... I hope it's consistent then, i.e. also applies to other situations. Which hasn't made life of population any better. It's a tiny unclave isolated thanks to Israel's occupation from West bank, with no viable economic prospects because of blocade. Is it any wonder that the population is desperate and many involve themselves in fight with the occupation, however desperate it may be. That phrase can justify pretty much anything. Depending on one's evaluation of "present circumstances". As it did so many times in the past. And who would have shown the example? Opened the way? But wait, how do you know? Have Israel actually tried to present a fair and viable peace deal already? Not to mention, an apology for the injustices of the past?

Does it change any of the facts as listed previously?

First off, I'm not an apologist of Hamas or anybody, specifically, not of some of their methods. Thought I'd state it right from the start, to avoid any potential confusion. But here's the facts: #1 To this day there's no peace agreement between Israel and the indigenous people who lived in the lands before its creation ("Palestinians"). The state of Israel was created in a violent and unilateral manner. #2 The land is being occupied and illegally settled by the state of Israel. #3 The boundaries and landscapes of population settlements are defined solely by the state of Israel. #4 Which makes everyday life of ordinary Palestinian life, in the West bank and particularly Gaza, an ongoing hardship. Neither West bank, with it's network of settlements and blocks, nor Gaza, shut between the sea, and Israel proper, are viable territorial arrangements for survival and prosperity of the indigenous population. Many have noticed, that if anything, it should remind us of the practiced used in the apartheid South Africa. People of Palestine have normal human right to live in their own lands, in dignity, where they would be the sole masters of their survival and prosperity. Until that condition is achieved, people of Palestine have a case to struggle against the occupation. While I cannot support some methods some of them use in this struggle (such as use of violence against civilian population), or may not find other methods adequate or efficient, it in no way diminshes the fact that the struggle itself is the result of inhuman conditions of their life. The only long term solution to this problem is a fair settlement that would result in a viable state where Palestinians could live in dignity and be the sole masters of their life. Given the facts (1-4, above), in essentuality the responsibility for initiating such settlement (I repeat: it has to be fair above all) stands with the occupying power (and those powers which support it). The longer it takes to realize, the longer the confilict will continue, and more life will be lost.

Thought so (btw I can't stop being amazed at that very special sort of individuals in whom severe lack of basic comprehension only serves as a strong amplifier of their wish to communicate... no matter what).

Wait a minute, exactly what "rights"? To conquer separatist regions by force and blood? Would them be the same "rights" for which Milosevic ended up in the Haag tribunal, and Saddam - in the noose? How exactly does this "justice" work? I'm not sure what more can be added about the conflict itself, which was created by unilateral violent settlement and taking of lands already populated by other people, settlement and taking, encouraged and condoned by the West (this much at least is well established). But our branding of Russia's role in the Georgia's aventure as grossly "disproportionate", while Israel's in Lebanon and Gaza, as ostensibly, perfectly legitimate and proportionate (not to mention our own little adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which uncounted thousands have perished) indeed speaks volumes - no, not about Russia, Israel, or even Hamas - but our own rationality and sanity.

They did the same in Georgia conflict last year. This is because there are bad wars, but also the good ones. Perfectly legitimate and even necessary. Of course, we (they) will decide which is which. Welcome to 21 century.

Of course, the way in which "democracy" has chosen to "defend itself" doesn't really come into question. At all. Astounding. But we should already know about Ignatieff's creative exploration of things moral and legitimate, like Bush's war in Iraq, or using torture to ensure security. Why this should be a surprise? Go ahead, Mr. Ignatieff. I'll stand by and watch.

And that was concluded by what super-lateral leap of logic? The right of anybody for anything can be achieved in one of the two chief strategies: 1) peaceful negotitiations with others who own/want the same thing; or 2) force. It's quite obvious which of the two is being used. Does it give somebody automatic "right" for something? I don't know. Does it really matter? If force is the (only) "rightful" tool, then anybody has the right for anything they can grab (and hold), that answers all questions once and for all time.

Somebody out there seems to be a great fan of Mark Twain: - first "give" them their own gas; - then trade them (some of) their own land; Wonder what could be next in this progression of neverending generosity?

Right. Our "solutions" always sound like directives for somebody else (to do this, not to do that). We ourselves are only extremely peaceful democratic lambs with best interests of everybodys on our minds 25/8/366, and no hand whatsoever in any of these disastrous conflicts!