Jerry J. Fortin

The Charter, yeah you have to love that one! Some discrimination is okay, but some isn't. Another bogus document created by foolish politicians. You understand that if you are a white english speaking male that you cannot use the charter? It is very specific, it literally denies rights and freedoms to a vast numbers of citizens, it is a document designed to protect minority rights, not majority rights. A white male cannot claim discrimination, that word is only valid for women and minorities. Protection under the charter is limited to minorities.

I don't have to look for the problems they are thrown in my face. In the last five years I have paid more than 100K in income taxes. My family and myself are healthy and law abiding citizens who have not seen a return on that investment at all. I live in the country, so I do not benefit from almost 90% of the public spending on infrastructure and the like. At 50 years of age I have seen many governments promise many things but they all seem to cost me more taxes. Taxes NEVER go down, when one government reduces another adds and the total always trends upward. We are lucky to live here, and for the most part the nation does work well especially when you compare it to others. Yet we can do so much more. I know nothing about your background, but it seems to me that you don't pay a lot of taxes and don't have many responsibilities because you suggest that system works well. That indicates that you have little contact or use with the system. If you did you would likely have a viewpoint similiar to mine, one grown out of frustration dealing with bureaucrats and fools.

In theory we can challenge the law based on conflict, but that can only happen in The Supreme Court of Canada. If you know anything at all about the law of this land you will know how difficult and rare it is to have a case heard before this court. To return to the point, legislation can be formulated that targets violent offenders in a manner that will serve as a means to prevent crimes. Such legislative effort is unlike to see very much in the way of opposition from any partisan group. Who in their right mind would oppose eliminating a risk to the public?

Even Jesus Christ said that there would always be poor people. In addition I am not advocating that we simple stop assiting other nations with foreign aid, I am saying that we need to rethink what we are really doing with our government.

Tax law has been corrupted by the affluent in society. At the beginning income was 80% corporate and 20% individual. Now with 10 times the population and 20 times as much business it has flipped to 20% business and 80% individual. Tax law is so complicated because it takes advantage of those least able to pay it, the vast majority of citizens.

Ontario is turning red, bad news for Steve. Quebec is moving red, bad news for Gilles. It sounds like good news for Iggy everywhere. Another couple of weeks like this and the Liberal machine will start taking in money from those fearing the loss of power from Harper. If the current trend continues, Iggy will pop the question in the hOuse and we will have a summer election.

Safe? Well let me say this. Removal of a risk to the people is the best available option. Knowing there is a risk to public safety the government is responsible to take corrective actions. The risk of harm to citizens by wards of the state warrants attention in my view.

In Canada the courts do not make laws, they are unable to do so by the constitution. As a point of fact all legislation is vetted before the system prior to being enabled to avoid conflict.

Both the GST and income taxes need to be abolished and incorporated into a functional non-refundable transaction tax, period. Tax us on what we spend , not what we earn. That is how taxes are applied to business when you take a real good look at the system. What I suggest is to level the playing field for all concerned, business and individual, rich or poor. The more you spend the more you pay, no exceptions. Think of how much money the individual would save by taking this road to revenue stream creation. Look how much business would save! If properly designed it would save everyone money including the government. It costs billions of dollars a year just to run Revenue Canada, and billions more are spent on tax lawyers and accountants. Lets clean up the system and make it fair to everyone.

I have never been a large or small advocate of wealth transfer in the first place. I do understand the need for a revenue stream to fund government operations it is just that I believe income taxes to be regressive and unfair. Aside from that I would dispute that wealth transfer is part of the idea of this nation.

No I do not say that at all. Discretion is very relevant, and we need to keep it. However I am saying that the process of "catch and release" for violent criminals is flawed and fundamentally responsible for the victimization of citizens due to the incompetence of the system in the case of convicted felons who are repeat offenders. I am not suggesting that we change the entire system, I am saying that we MUST change the rules for "VIOLENT OFFENDERS'.

You did not understand the statement made. I said the will of the people expressed in the form of government, not merely the will of the people as in having a little meeting and deciding to string somebody up. The KKK might act like that but a nation cannot. The will of the people chooses a government that has the ability to create or modify legislation that serves the judiciary. That service provided, namely formulating laws, is then applied in the dispensation of justice. The Courts pass judgments based upon the laws of the land. In this nation the courts cannot "legislate from the bench" and write their own laws or interpret them in such a manner as to alter the the meaning and intent of the law, unless they find the law to conflict with any other law as outlined in the constitution. I do not suggest that the will of the people administer the laws, I do suggest that the law is an expression of the will of the people. There is a difference there. My point being that justice is determined by law, period.

The GST is a transaction tax, income taxes are a payroll tax. The difference being one is collected before you get paid and the only when you pay somebody. There is a huge difference there.

97% of their equalization formula is monies collected from their version of GST. I will suggest that it is therefore somewhat, no let me rephrase that, COMPLETLY different than our own system!

I find the twists and turns of this discussion to be amazing! Prove that this is and prove that this is not, but the entire concept of justice is ignored! The law determines right and wrong, these things must be proven in courts of law. Upon conviction, criminals face incarceration within the penal system. The true question is whether or not justice is being served? That justice is the expressed will of the people in the form of government, applying punishment determined to be appropriate to the crime. It is my view that violent offenders represent a clear and present danger to society in the form of an unacceptable risk to the citizens. Now, after having said that, I will pose this question to all; Is the government of the people responsible to protect its citizens from known and unacceptable risks to their persons?

I fully expect that if I ever break the law my invitation would be forthcoming. My intent is to stay on the correct side of the law and not break the social covenant that as a citizen I am responsible to keep.

You owe society nothing, the same as it owes you! You have civic responsibility which is something entirely different in my view. I agree that people are the only important consideration in society. The rights and freedoms of citizens are simply the paramount consideration of society. I understand the concept behind equalization, I just disagree with it. A more functional system can be found in Australia, even according to our own government;http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...60-e.htm#howtxt

Power is being concentrated in the same place wealth is. Into fewer and fewer hands and those are becoming less accessible all the time.

Yet it is relevant to this discussion isn't it? The numbers of convicts in the system surely must speak of something don't you think? I mean if crime is going down but the prison population is getting higher then does that not account for at least some of the re-offenders? Another thing to consider is the nature of crimes committed, how many criminals are violent offenders? I think if you look into it a little deeper you will find that the vast majority of prisoners are drug offenders and other petty crimes offenders. These people need to be taught a lesson, but the punishment does not fit the crime. In addition the cost associated with putting hookers and pot smokers in jails is to say the least awfully damned expensive. Please keep in mind I was speaking about VIOLENT offenders, those that cause harm to citizens. This is a class of crime unto its own and deserves very careful attention.

You realize that those numbers do not include those convicted in provincial courts don't you. That is what I was talking about! The feds only track re-offenders into "their" system not that of the provinces. A recent article in a Vancouver publication outlines this very carefully and suggested the feds numbers were out by 400%!!!

You are off your rocker. The truth is that the more money you make, the greater the availability of DEDUCTIONS from gross income. You have to have money to take advantage of the tax credits and deductions that are in fact available to ALL citizens. So the reality is that only some citizens are able to take advantage of these breaks, and the ones most able to afford to pay are also the ones that are able to pay less. The concept that this society allowed me to do anything is reprehensible to me. The thought that I owe this society anything at all is even more so. Your entire focus has a fiscal tag line to it, as if society and life itself was nothing more than dollars and cents. Humans have responsibilities within societies, that I can agree to. What I cannot agree to is being indebted to society or having society indebted to me. Unless of course I break the law, which is my covenant with society, then, and only then would I submit to the judgment of society.

Not unreal, unrealistic. You see the problem is that people do not want to face reality in the first place. The reality is that society has the responsibility to protect its citizens to the best of its ability. There is of course a price tag associated with this concept in as much as society is judged by the level of justice it can afford. It is obvious that the cheapest form of justice is crude and swift, the most expensive is complicated and time consuming. What is not obvious is the degree of success associated with the justice system within a society. Process errors resulting in inappropriate judgments or sentencing detract from the functional dispensation of justice. These errors abound within all systems and result in a lack of justice. We are not perfect. To error is human, yet error that results in harm to another human is criminal. This is the basis of our judicial system, and that is the reality people choose not to accept. To release a violent offender from incarceration and allowing them to return to society is a risk to society. That risk has been calculated to be as many 4 of 10 inmates will re-offend within two years. All the numbers are very subjective because the government desires that citizens believe that the system works, but it does not. Keeping in mind that these are violent offenders we are talking about, does the average citizen, do you, believe that the 40% of recently released convicted felons living next door to you and your family poses an acceptable risk? I am willing to suggest that any reasonable human would say that the risk is in fact unacceptable. The question then becomes what should be done about the risk to society that is represented with the release of convicted violent offenders? The prisons in Canada are a vacation spot for criminals. Three square meals a day, exercise equipment, access to free education, television, movies, swimming pools, and god only knows what else. The availability of drugs is even greater in prison than on the street, and now we allow conjugal visits to boot. They don't have to work, they don't have to worry about bills or money. Their food is cooked for them and their dishes are washed for them. They don't buy clothes or wash the ones they use. Life isn't too tough inside the joint. It should be, but it isn't. They do their time, and then we let them out for as long as it takes for them to figure out that life on the inside is easier than life on the outside and some poor citizen becomes the scapegoat of society and becomes a victim of the now repeating offender. The next victim will be marked for life by a criminal that society let out to cause them harm. So much for justice to that individual, for them the state is a least partially responsible for letting the criminal do what they did in the first place because that individual should have been behind bars where they belong. What is "unreal" about desiring that the government do its job and protect society from known threats to its citizens?

For a little concept known as justice. Violent offenders should be locked up in solitary confinement until the natural death they will experience occurs. No life extending assistance on the public dime, no forgiveness, not a damn thing is deserved by those who would perpetrate a violent crime against a fellow citizen.

The poor? Who are you talking about? There is no reason for poverty in Canada. There is work for those that are willing. There are opportunities for those who would rather work for themselves. There is EI and welfare for those in need of temporary or permanent assistance. The only poor I know are those who choose to live off of the system instead of working for a living.

Mainstream media makes its own news. It is all about sensationalism. Its about what sells, or grabs the attention of the reader or viewer. The news people decide for us what is newsworthy.