Harper reloads with crime ultimatum

[Topaz]

Did any of you watch the debate on this topic yesterday? Jennings from Quebec, explained point bt point that it wasn't the oppositions that were holding up this, it was the Cons. She had the dates from start to finish and she said that the Cons kept shelving their own bill. The Libs and other parties were willing to "fast track" the bill but the Cons wouldn't agree to it.

[Fortunata]

But making it look like it was the Libs that were holding it up thereby giving Steve an excuse to stand up and make his "principled" ultimatum. Sounds good on paper but stinks whence examined.

[CLRV]

I didn't forget anything, least not your failed comparisons to such "imports" not being embraced.

How's about a new prison just for WOT perps?

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n20ma06a.htm

Yeah yeah. I can find articles about Harper implementing the other things I mentioned too (drug war, mandatory sentencing, etc). I remind you that none of those things were on the platform when Canadians mistakenly elected this minority govt. It was boondoggle this and boondoggle that. Bring down the power-mad Liberals. It finally worked, but now the Liberals aren't in power anymore so lightning won't strike the same place twice.

We'll just wait and see whether these foolish policies you're so proud of are indeed "embraced" in the next election. I see a repeat of recent history, with the Cons being rejected once again, as I've been at pains to drum through your cranium. I may be wrong in my prognostication, but at least I'm right that nobody but a minority of con cheerleaders like yourself have even come close to "embracing" these police-state policies. Canadians are, by and large, too decent and civilized.

[bush_cheney2004]

We'll just wait and see whether these foolish policies you're so proud of are indeed "embraced" in the next election. I see a repeat of recent history, with the Cons being rejected once again, as I've been at pains to drum through your cranium. I may be wrong in my prognostication, but at least I'm right that nobody but a minority of con cheerleaders like yourself have even come close to "embracing" these police-state policies. Canadians are, by and large, too decent and civilized.

Oh sure....Canadians never embraced Japanese internment camps either...LOL!

I don't care how the politics fall either way in Canada, but nothing is more lame than putting one's political fortune or circumstance in the hands of another nation's government or policies. If that's the case, then you deserve whatever happens.

Edited October 19, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Yeah yeah. I can find articles about Harper implementing the other things I mentioned too (drug war, mandatory sentencing, etc). I remind you that none of those things were on the platform when Canadians mistakenly elected this minority govt. It was boondoggle this and boondoggle that. Bring down the power-mad Liberals. It finally worked, but now the Liberals aren't in power anymore so lightning won't strike the same place twice.

We'll just wait and see whether these foolish policies you're so proud of are indeed "embraced" in the next election. I see a repeat of recent history, with the Cons being rejected once again, as I've been at pains to drum through your cranium. I may be wrong in my prognostication, but at least I'm right that nobody but a minority of con cheerleaders like yourself have even come close to "embracing" these police-state policies. Canadians are, by and large, too decent and civilized.

Ya, the minority was a mistake, it should have been a majority. The possibility people have figured that out is what has you so frantic. Now every country that puts bad people in jail so they can't harm innocent people is a police state. Ya right.

[jennie]

Can anyone tell me whether the bill contains reference to providing funding for the additional people who will be incarcerated until they make bail, or incarcerated longer? ... or for rehab programs? How about crime prevention in the form of community action and activities?

Edited October 20, 2007 by jennie

[jefferiah]

any attack on "gun crime" that doesn't address the guns themselves.

Yep, cuz everyone knows its the guns committing the crimes. Those guns deserve to be tarred and feathered.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited October 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[old_bold&cold]

Can anyone tell me whether the bill contains reference to providing funding for the additional people who will be incarcerated until they make bail, or incarcerated longer? ... or for rehab programs? How about crime prevention in the form of community action and activities?

Naw, we will just put all the pedophiles and wife beaters in to regular prison population, that way it will free up spaces

[M.Dancer]

Yep, cuz everyone knows its the guns committing the crimes. Those guns deserve to be tarred and feathered.

True enough we already have one of the strictest firearms ownership programmes in the world...while it could be even tighter....going after the other sideof the equation is well past due. Time for hard time for criminals who use firearms to committ crimes.

[maldon_road]

True enough we already have one of the strictest firearms ownership programmes in the world...while it could be even tighter....going after the other sideof the equation is well past due. Time for hard time for criminals who use firearms to committ crimes.

And we all suffer from the side effects of the Bureaucrat's Syndrome - that's where when anything goes wrong there is an automatic assumption that it's because there is too little regulation. The people in Ottawa still haven't figured out yet that bad guys don't register guns.

[Wilber]

Can anyone tell me whether the bill contains reference to providing funding for the additional people who will be incarcerated until they make bail, or incarcerated longer? ... or for rehab programs? How about crime prevention in the form of community action and activities?

Guess there will have to be if more people are going to be in the slammer longer. It's only part of the solution but it has to happen. Whatever else we do, accountability has to be a cornerstone of the system. I like the community court idea that New York and others use. The judiciary and social services under one roof to come up with a program for each individual whether it is jail, treatment, housing or some combination. No options, the individual either does what is required to get straightened out or is removed from the system. Expensive up front but cheap in the long run.

One other thing we have to get rid of is non returnable warrants which are the modern equivalent of the old west, don't show your face in town/province again.

[CLRV]

True enough we already have one of the strictest firearms ownership programmes in the world

And yet these kids don't seem to be having any trouble getting their handguns, do they?

Time for hard time for criminals who use firearms to committ crimes.

That's right. The only sensible thing to do is wait for them to actually commit the crime. Wait until somebody has actually been killed. Then, assuming somebody co-operates with the investigation and they actually arrest someone, we can spend a ton of money locking them up forever and forever amen. That way we can feel all tough without actually doing a damned thing about preventing a crime.

Typical reactionary nonsense from the right. Close the barn door AFTER the horse has been shot.

[jefferiah]

Typical reactionary nonsense from the right. Close the barn door AFTER the horse has been shot.

Typical nonsense from the "wrong".

You keep making it sound as if the gun were the criminal.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[Rue]

More sabre rattling. I'm sure that Harper doesn't want to be defeated on an issue where the country is split (gun registry, Afghanistan, global warming) but who's opposed to law 'n order? But you can outsmart yourself. The opposition could easily agree to the bill in principle but then try to get amendments in Committee - which could pass because of the Opposition majority. But which could also result in some of the rancor we saw last spring at committee hearings.

If the Tories just look unreasonable in point-blank refusing to entertain amendments and threatening an election it could backfire on them.

Its all bullshit. Any politician can get easy brownie points sounding like he's all for law and order. Its a cheap cheap way to get a vote but its pure bull shit. Why? Because the same politicians, i.e., as is the case with Harper this time, love to puff and huff over arresting bad h=guys and putting them in jail but listen closely, do you hear Harper saying he will spend money to build more prisons? Of course not...and that is why he is so full of shit. Its easy to say jail people, its not easy to say, oh by the way I will have to raise taxes to build the prisons for these people we will now keep in jail.

Until Harper acknowledges let alone indicates how he will build more prisons, his huff and puff is simply bullshit because what you don't see is the laws will not be changed because when push comnes to shove he will be told, if you want the laws you claim you want Mr. Harper, you have to give us more money for more prisons, then he as is always the case with all politicians wiill shut up, abandon his huff and puff and move on to some other populist sound bite.

Another example of this bullshit. The way Harper huffs and puffs about Senate reform. He deliberate calls for it knowing the amending formula to allow any reform will prevent it from ever happening-so he can huff and puff and make it sound like Ontario and Quebec are evil and don't want to share power in the Senate when the real issue is why the fuck do we need when if all it does is serve as an expensive patronage chamber and does the kind of work parliamentary committees already do.

If its such a prized institution why were 5 provinces able to get rid of them with no side effects.

Again it serves as a way to be a populist and make nice farting noises to attract the population's attention but its just smelly gas being spewed about and like people who fart I try stay up wind from them.

[old_bold&cold]

Its all bullshit. Any politician can get easy brownie points sounding like he's all for law and order. Its a cheap cheap way to get a vote but its pure bull shit. Why? Because the same politicians, i.e., as is the case with Harper this time, love to puff and huff over arresting bad h=guys and putting them in jail but listen closely, do you hear Harper saying he will spend money to build more prisons? Of course not...and that is why he is so full of shit. Its easy to say jail people, its not easy to say, oh by the way I will have to raise taxes to build the prisons for these people we will now keep in jail.

Just what do you think we should do with repeat offenders? Show them the love they never got? If people can not stop their urges to commit crimes, then they deserve to be put in jails. That is why we have these places, and yes we may have to build more of these, but that is just a fact of reality.

Until Harper acknowledges let alone indicates how he will build more prisons, his huff and puff is simply bullshit because what you don't see is the laws will not be changed because when push comnes to shove he will be told, if you want the laws you claim you want Mr. Harper, you have to give us more money for more prisons, then he as is always the case with all politicians wiill shut up, abandon his huff and puff and move on to some other populist sound bite.

You spout off and yet you do not even know just what Harpper has in mind when it comes to more prisons. He may well decide that the country needs a large super jail to be put in some remote area of the country, and he may well have it staffed winth in the present prison budgets. Have you seen or heard what he will say on this? Or are you just spouting off because Harpers plan is not what you would like?

Another example of this bullshit. The way Harper huffs and puffs about Senate reform. He deliberate calls for it knowing the amending formula to allow any reform will prevent it from ever happening-so he can huff and puff and make it sound like Ontario and Quebec are evil and don't want to share power in the Senate when the real issue is why the fuck do we need when if all it does is serve as an expensive patronage chamber and does the kind of work parliamentary committees already do.

Again, where do you get your facts? Harper can easily put a referendum in any election call for a reformed and elected senate, and if it does go as most think, that would be a yes to reform and elected. That then gives huge power to have this done. I may be wrong but you I think are a Liberal, and like most Liberals you can not see any view but your own. Harper has been quite vocal about senate reform and the big difference is he will probably consult the people before making it a action, where liberal would just act on there own thoughts as being the will of the people, with never any consultations at all. Could the people simply want to chuck it completely? Maybe, but most polls say no, they say most would want senate reform, but there has been not enough to say just what reform is the choice of the people. Harper is at least trying to get a consensus for this.

If its such a prized institution why were 5 provinces able to get rid of them with no side effects.

It is not that they require the senates, but rather the senates are there for a sober second thought on issues that could be rammed thru by majority governments, and they may wll be flawed in many ways. It is the job of the senate to eliminate this. Some provinces will look at this as an added expense and not go with having a senate. But if they pass a law that is in some way against the Charter of Rights, it may well take yeras for that to go thru all the courts and then come back on them. They could easily be ordered to pay the costs of these challenges as well. So yes, it is a gamble for those provinces who have gone without the second thought process. Is it better? Only time will tell.

Again it serves as a way to be a populist and make nice farting noises to attract the population's attention but its just smelly gas being spewed about and like people who fart I try stay up wind from them.

This just goes to show your own contempt for anything that is not in your view, as being mindless and not worthy of thought. Kind of makes for the same as those who say why do we need sober second thought, as we are right all the time.

Edited October 20, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[Rue]

Can anyone tell me whether the bill contains reference to providing funding for the additional people who will be incarcerated until they make bail, or incarcerated longer? ... or for rehab programs? How about crime prevention in the form of community action and activities?

Of course not. Absolutely no mention or reference to it.

[Rue]

Responses to bold&cold';

"Just what do you think we should do with repeat offenders....they deserve to be put in jails."

The issue is simple as this. If you want to make moral judgements and believe people belong in jail then the reality is you have to build jails for them and then pay a minimum of $60,000 per prisoner a year just to feed and clothe them. Willing to do that? That is the point. You might also want to ask yourself does repeatedly placing drug addicts in jail do anything beneficial for society. I would suggest to you it does nothing but cause more crime and to find that out you need to check out the stats and try understand cycles of criminal behaviour and what feeds them and what can contain or reduce them. To genuinely, contain, reduce, and get to the underlying cause of drug addiction would require we spend money on treatment intervention programs. Politicians don't want to do that. They have whipped people like you up into seeing drug addicts as worthless scum that need to be punished. What they don't tell you is in the long run, your need to punish them costs society more money then in the short term if money was spent to treat them as being ill not criminals. Drug addiction is a health matter in need of health regulation in my opinion. You are confusing a health issue with organized drug trade. Take a look. The people who end up in jail are the low end petty addicts, not the organized criminals. What Harper's proposals do is to focus on drug addicts not the organized drug syndicates. You think you are doing the police a favour focusing in on petty drug addicts? Talk to them. What they need support with is organized drug syndicates and getting at the people at the top not some pathetic junkie.

The point I am making is the same politicians who ignite your moral indignity and feelings of moral righteousness towards junkies and get you all riled up wanting to imprison junkies do NOT allocate any money to more prisons or police enforcement of organized drug syndicates.

To do that they would need to increase taxes. So what they do is get people like you all whipped in a frenxy hating junkies and petty criminals so they look like they are doing something while they do sweet fuck all about organized crime. They get you all hot to trot, focus your attention away from the fact they are doing diddle swat about organized crime get you to vogte them back in office by getting you to feel good about yourself by thinking you are better then junkies, then once elected, their proposals to amend the bills they get you all hot about never make it to the third reading because when they are told to pass the bill they will need to raise taxes to build more prisons to house them, they let the issue fade. By then you have been manipulated and they got what they wanted another 4 years in office. Meanwhile the real problem, the organized crime syndicate operations, once again are not dealt with and do not have to be dealt with. Why bother? They have you Mr. Voter all primed on junkies.

"You spout off and yet you do not even know just what Harpper has in mind when it comes to more prisons."

No actually I am studying it carefully right now along with many other lawyers and I "spout off" precisely because I actually made a point to research what Harper said and what he did not say. Perhaps you should try the same. Do your own research and come back on this post and tell me where in any of his comments or proposed amendments he has earmarked funding for more prisons and where in his proposals he says anything about organized crime and providing more funding to police for intelligence operations as to organized crime syndicates. You won't find any.

" He may well decide that the country needs a large super jail to be put in some remote area of the country, and he may well have it staffed winth in the present prison budgets."

Now you are being silly. No there are no plans for a super jail and no the present prison budgets can't even afford to maintain the crumbling prison system we have.

More to the point there is no such thing as a "super jail". "Super jails" as you refer to them would cost a fortune to run and that is why prison systems have in fact stayed away from them. So this is not junk food you super size. No you can't create super dumps for your refuse. Doesn't work that way. See if you create to large a site for your decay, it can't be controlled. There are limits to how many prisoners you can dump in one place.

Its time you do research on the state of federal and provincial penitentiaries, understand the over-crowding, the lack of funding, and the decay of the buildings and what it requires to manage one.

You might want to start by visiting a prison and speaking with its guards and the people who work there and are faced with danger every day precisely because of what I am saying.

"Have you seen or heard what he will say on this? "

Yes. And like most people who have analyzed what he said, we realize he is just blowing hot air for a quick sound bite thinking he was headed for an election.

"Again, where do you get your facts?"

The same place you can. You can go to Statistics Canada and look at the crime statistics they keep in Juristat. Or you can simply type into Google or Yahoo, "funding for prisons" and take it from there,

"Harper can easily put a referendum in any election call for a reformed and elected senate,"

Uh no he can't. There is an amending formula in s.'s 38, and 41-44 of the Constitution Act, not to mention a Veto Act, and many judicial decisions that have made it clear, the federal government can not unilaterally change the Senate's composition or for that matter term without provincial consent. There is a specific formula that must be followed requiring the approval of at least Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. So no there will be no referendum. You can't hold referendums on whether people want to commit unconstitutional acts and Harper is well aware of that fact.

"Harper has been quite vocal about senate reform and the big difference is he will probably consult the people before making it a action, where liberal would just act on there own thoughts..."

Harper can be as vocal as he wants-he knows the provinces will never agree on what he says. Its easy to spout off at the mouth when you know it will never be taken seriously. Your notion that Harper consults the people is kind of silly don't you think? Have you seen anything in the way he runs government that suggests this is a man that consults with his own Ministers let alone "the people". You are funny.

By the way, the very same polls you refer to inr egards to senate reform and you should read them, show that the average Canadian hasn't got a clue what the Senate does or why it was created and what should replace it or how it should be reformed. For that matter there is no consensus on how it should be reformed or whether it should be abolished. The popular perception it must be changed stops at the concept something is wrong with the Senate, after that people do not know why there is something wrong. I think before you rely on the masses you should realize they haven't a clue what it is they want other then they want or don't want something.

In regards to your comment that Harper was seeking a consensus come now read what he says. if you read what Harper has said, you would know it was deliberately provocative and designed to alienate Ontario and Quebec not get them on board. You don't make deliberately provocative comments that alienate the majority of the country's population if you are seeking consensus. No he was show boating for the West.

"he senates are there for a sober second thought"

From what I hear trying to keep them sober is wishful thinking. On a more serious note, there is no doubt Senate committees over the years have done some interesting work questioning and discussing bills but the fact is they do not do anything House of Commons parliamentary committees don't already do. Its true they do such work in a less blatantly partisan way, but none the less they don't do anything a parliamentary committee does not do or a legal counsel in the civil service can't do. So they are a costly exercise in providing the kind of advise that is already done. Senators can't deny bills back to foil the will of the people. At best they can delay passing of bills and the constitution limits what they can delay and why. They have no role in any money bills.

You really should try understand why 5 provinces abolished their Senates. There was a reason for that.

"But if they pass a law that is in some way against the Charter of Rights,"

The Charter of Rights was passed precisely because of the amending formula I have told you about. When you read it, please go to s.38, 41-44 of the Constitutin Act and check out the Veto Act, you will see one thing the Charter did was alienate Quebec precisely because it set a new stage in constitutional law. It basically said the judiciary can now overrule federal and provincial legislation based on individual rights notions superceding group right notions. This places the federal system in a direct conflict with Quebec or say the aboriginal collective when they try to pass legislation to protect or recognize group rights.

English Canada sees the Charter as the protector of individual rights but if you are aboriginal or a French Quebecer you see it as a device that can threatens your very existence.

Also keep in mind there are nuemrous unwritten rules and conventions that are technically NOT law, that form part of this equation and you have not mentioned or considered and have a strong role in what the feds and provs do and do not do.

Myself I personally believe the senate is an outmoded chamber no longer needed and should be abolished.

I also repeat again I think Harper deliebrately blows hot air to make himself sound tough. Its all huff and puff and bluff and he knows it and its designed for your benefit and I am glad it gets a rise out of you. Vote for the guy if rocks you.

To me he is just another politician saying what he thinks will get him a vote.

Me I don't like politicians. Find them all smelly. Too much gas. It causes global warming.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Rue

[Wilber]

Speaking of windbags and I thought some of my posts were long.

[Fortunata]

Speaking of windbags and I thought some of my posts were long.

Did you not want to tackle some of the substance in the post instead of tackling the poster? Or is it that you can't attack the substance that you choose instead the poster?

Thank you Rue for a well-thought out, researched substantive post. It will not go down well with the herd who would rather close their ears to reality than believe their hero would try pulling the wool over their eyes.

I'm waiting to hear... "but the Liberals...."

[Wilber]

Why, half of his posts consist of calling other people gasbags.

If he could express himself without running off at the mouth so much, I would read them.

[old_bold&cold]

The issue is simple as this. If you want to make moral judgements and believe people belong in jail then the reality is you have to build jails for them and then pay a minimum of $60,000 per prisoner a year just to feed and clothe them. Willing to do that? That is the point. You might also want to ask yourself does repeatedly placing drug addicts in jail do anything beneficial for society. I would suggest to you it does nothing but cause more crime and to find that out you need to check out the stats and try understand cycles of criminal behaviour and what feeds them and what can contain or reduce them. To genuinely, contain, reduce, and get to the underlying cause of drug addiction would require we spend money on treatment intervention programs. Politicians don't want to do that. They have whipped people like you up into seeing drug addicts as worthless scum that need to be punished. What they don't tell you is in the long run, your need to punish them costs society more money then in the short term if money was spent to treat them as being ill not criminals. Drug addiction is a health matter in need of health regulation in my opinion. You are confusing a health issue with organized drug trade. Take a look. The people who end up in jail are the low end petty addicts, not the organized criminals. What Harper's proposals do is to focus on drug addicts not the organized drug syndicates. You think you are doing the police a favour focusing in on petty drug addicts? Talk to them. What they need support with is organized drug syndicates and getting at the people at the top not some pathetic junkie.

Well as you asked if I am willing to build more jails etc., the answer is yes, without a doubt. I would like the jails though to be in the north hopfully where Polar bears roam out side of these places. It has been said that the polar bears food chain has be dying out, and maybe some of thse prisoners would like to take a chance on out running them. Actually most people in society are more then willing to build more jails for drug deallers and repeat violent offenders. So you are way out of step with that. You make conclusions that are just not true. We will gladly build onto existing jails and even build new ones if need be. Drug addiction is not an illness, that is only lawyer crap from stupid lawyers who do not have the ability to fight for their clients. They need to go back and learn the law and then maybe they will be able to folow it to defend people. If they can not do this in the law, it is then because they broke the law. People do that you know. Lock up any and all those who are caught dealling and 5-7 year minimum sentences for all crime that have guns used, even toy guns. Incase you have not looked that is what the people want, and we do not care anything for what lawyers have to say about this. That is why lawyers are hated so much. Also it is not the local police that go after the syndicates but the RCMP and Provincial police to some degree. There are huge numbers working on these cases 24/7.

The point I am making is the same politicians who ignite your moral indignity and feelings of moral righteousness towards junkies and get you all riled up wanting to imprison junkies do NOT allocate any money to more prisons or police enforcement of organized drug syndicates.

If we need more jails then we will have them built. We should not use the lack of space as an excuse to let people out in the public, who should not be there. It is really that simple. Why would we take your view and just let them back on the streets, to cause more trouble. The voters would rather the jails be built, but yes most will not want it near them, so build them away from people and build them big.

To do that they would need to increase taxes. So what they do is get people like you all whipped in a frenxy hating junkies and petty criminals so they look like they are doing something while they do sweet fuck all about organized crime. They get you all hot to trot, focus your attention away from the fact they are doing diddle swat about organized crime get you to vogte them back in office by getting you to feel good about yourself by thinking you are better then junkies, then once elected, their proposals to amend the bills they get you all hot about never make it to the third reading because when they are told to pass the bill they will need to raise taxes to build more prisons to house them, they let the issue fade. By then you have been manipulated and they got what they wanted another 4 years in office. Meanwhile the real problem, the organized crime syndicate operations, once again are not dealt with and do not have to be dealt with. Why bother? They have you Mr. Voter all primed on junkies.

We have a surplus when it comes to government money and if part of that surplus has to go to building jails that is fine. That being the case, it need not rasie taxes, now does it. As I said earlier, the local police do not investigate organised crime, so they will never be assigned to do it, other then in a support arrestting role. Are you sure you are a lawyer? The only person here getting whipped up it seems is you.

No actually I am studying it carefully right now along with many other lawyers and I "spout off" precisely because I actually made a point to research what Harper said and what he did not say. Perhaps you should try the same. Do your own research and come back on this post and tell me where in any of his comments or proposed amendments he has earmarked funding for more prisons and where in his proposals he says anything about organized crime and providing more funding to police for intelligence operations as to organized crime syndicates. You won't find any.

You do not have to say every little thing when he explains his position. But as II have said many times, people will not mind having to build new jails, if it means that we can make our society a safer place. Drug deallers and violent offenders belong in jail and not for just a small period of time but many years of time. It is only your side (lawyers & crooks ) who can not see this. People will do what is necessary to do.

Now you are being silly. No there are no plans for a super jail and no the present prison budgets can't even afford to maintain the crumbling prison system we have.

More to the point there is no such thing as a "super jail". "Super jails" as you refer to them would cost a fortune to run and that is why prison systems have in fact stayed away from them. So this is not junk food you super size. No you can't create super dumps for your refuse. Doesn't work that way. See if you create to large a site for your decay, it can't be controlled. There are limits to how many prisoners you can dump in one place.

Silly? No that is not silly, it is a reality, and yes we will have to come to that eventually. It will be far cheaper to run a jail of 30,000 then a smaller one. I would even say 50,000 would be a nice round number. It would be cheaper to run then the present system, and if placed away from any civilization, it will be secure. With the new technology we have today, it would be easier to control this place then most other jails. Survielence equipment can and should be used and even internal implants if necessary can keep the population controlled in such a way that it all can be done in a much cheaper way.

Its time you do research on the state of federal and provincial penitentiaries, understand the over-crowding, the lack of funding, and the decay of the buildings and what it requires to manage one.

You might want to start by visiting a prison and speaking with its guards and the people who work there and are faced with danger every day precisely because of what I am saying.

"Have you seen or heard what he will say on this? "

Yes. And like most people who have analyzed what he said, we realize he is just blowing hot air for a quick sound bite thinking he was headed for an election.

I have been to prisons and yes I do know something about them and how they are secured. Right now overcrowding is an issue, but why do we think that each cell should be one man per cell or in provincial two man per cell. Hell this is jail man and the cells are really only for sleeping and resting. Big deal of there is only one toilet per cell, eveer live in a house with one bathroom and four women, now that is harsh. The people do not want to have this like a nice place to go holiday. It is suposed to he harsh, and if they start trouble there then solitary confinement.

Uh no he can't. There is an amending formula in s.'s 38, and 41-44 of the Constitution Act, not to mention a Veto Act, and many judicial decisions that have made it clear, the federal government can not unilaterally change the Senate's composition or for that matter term without provincial consent. There is a specific formula that must be followed requiring the approval of at least Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. So no there will be no referendum. You can't hold referendums on whether people want to commit unconstitutional acts and Harper is well aware of that fact.

"Harper has been quite vocal about senate reform and the big difference is he will probably consult the people before making it a action, where liberal would just act on there own thoughts..."

Harper can be as vocal as he wants-he knows the provinces will never agree on what he says. Its easy to spout off at the mouth when you know it will never be taken seriously. Your notion that Harper consults the people is kind of silly don't you think? Have you seen anything in the way he runs government that suggests this is a man that consults with his own Ministers let alone "the people". You are funny.

By the way, the very same polls you refer to inr egards to senate reform and you should read them, show that the average Canadian hasn't got a clue what the Senate does or why it was created and what should replace it or how it should be reformed. For that matter there is no consensus on how it should be reformed or whether it should be abolished. The popular perception it must be changed stops at the concept something is wrong with the Senate, after that people do not know why there is something wrong. I think before you rely on the masses you should realize they haven't a clue what it is they want other then they want or don't want something.

In regards to your comment that Harper was seeking a consensus come now read what he says. if you read what Harper has said, you would know it was deliberately provocative and designed to alienate Ontario and Quebec not get them on board. You don't make deliberately provocative comments that alienate the majority of the country's population if you are seeking consensus. No he was show boating for the West.

"he senates are there for a sober second thought"

From what I hear trying to keep them sober is wishful thinking. On a more serious note, there is no doubt Senate committees over the years have done some interesting work questioning and discussing bills but the fact is they do not do anything House of Commons parliamentary committees don't already do. Its true they do such work in a less blatantly partisan way, but none the less they don't do anything a parliamentary committee does not do or a legal counsel in the civil service can't do. So they are a costly exercise in providing the kind of advise that is already done. Senators can't deny bills back to foil the will of the people. At best they can delay passing of bills and the constitution limits what they can delay and why. They have no role in any money bills.

You really should try understand why 5 provinces abolished their Senates. There was a reason for that.

"But if they pass a law that is in some way against the Charter of Rights,"

The Charter of Rights was passed precisely because of the amending formula I have told you about. When you read it, please go to s.38, 41-44 of the Constitutin Act and check out the Veto Act, you will see one thing the Charter did was alienate Quebec precisely because it set a new stage in constitutional law. It basically said the judiciary can now overrule federal and provincial legislation based on individual rights notions superceding group right notions. This places the federal system in a direct conflict with Quebec or say the aboriginal collective when they try to pass legislation to protect or recognize group rights.

English Canada sees the Charter as the protector of individual rights but if you are aboriginal or a French Quebecer you see it as a device that can threatens your very existence.

Also keep in mind there are nuemrous unwritten rules and conventions that are technically NOT law, that form part of this equation and you have not mentioned or considered and have a strong role in what the feds and provs do and do not do.

Myself I personally believe the senate is an outmoded chamber no longer needed and should be abolished.

I also repeat again I think Harper deliebrately blows hot air to make himself sound tough. Its all huff and puff and bluff and he knows it and its designed for your benefit and I am glad it gets a rise out of you. Vote for the guy if rocks you.

To me he is just another politician saying what he thinks will get him a vote.

Me I don't like politicians. Find them all smelly. Too much gas. It causes global warming.

As I said Harper can hold a referendum on elected senate and once he gets his mandate from that he has the right and duty to proceed with it. Most provinces will agree readily to this. Those who will try to stop it will eventually have to give in. The trouble is that if this really took too long the people will be more apt to say abolish the senate completely. Either way it will be a long fight but as I said it is one Harper can start tomorrow if he wanted. The people in Canada have been polled and most have said they would play with the idea of senate reform. So that is a good driving force right there.

PS

to use the quote feature just copy the header line "

" from the post you want and add a "

" less quotesat the end of each section you want to post about . Start the new one with the pasting of the copied header line and repeat as necessary.

[jbg]

That is what this piece of legislation is about, are the liberals more concerned with the supposed gun toting criminals than their innocent victims?

I would make any amendment a confidence vote as well as the bill itself. If the Liberals don't enjoy this, and don't take the election plunge, they're not doing their job (link).

[jbg]

For the most part, the recent past has been filled with Tory defeats snatched from the jaws of opinion poll victory. Reform. Alliance. Tory Lite. Canadians said yes on opinion polls but hell no on electoral polls. Each time, as in Ontario, the response was to blame the leader, fire his ass and get a new one for the next try. The only time in decades this has even come close to working was the last federal election, where they squeaked their present minority stance out of YEARS of perpetual bombardment of the public mind with overblown Liberal "boondoggles" and cries that they were drunk with power.

Ontario provincially often goes exactly the opposite way as it goes federally. As far as "Reform. Alliance. Tory Lite" those were all vote split situations.

Just ask Paul Martin what happened as a result of a united right.

[Rue]

In further response to bold&cold':

"Well as you asked if I am willing to build more jails etc., the answer is yes, without a doubt."

Yes I know that. who is paying for it is the question.

"Actually most people in society are more then willing to build more jails for drug deallers and repeat violent offenders."

The problem is if you read Stevie's huff and puff all it will do is arrest more junkies not repeat violent offenders or drug dealers.

" So you are way out of step with that."

I never suggested in my responses we should not jail drug pushers or repeat violent offeders so your assumption I do not want to is out of step with that.

"You make conclusions that are just not true."

Lol. Which ones I am full of many! Hah. In all seriousness, my conclusions are boring and unoriginal they come directly from Juristat.

"We will gladly build onto existing jails and even build new ones if need be."

Will "we" be willing to pay for them is the question. " We " will need to pay more taxes.

"Drug addiction is not an illness, that is only lawyer crap from stupid lawyers who do not have the ability to fight for their clients."

Say now that's new level in dialogue. By the way, it has nothing to do with stupid lawyers. Its a medical concept which the medical and legal communities understand.

"They need to go back and learn the law and then maybe they will be able to folow it to defend people."

Sit down. This may upset you. The law recognizes drug addiction as an illness and law and medical schools teach their students this.

"If they can not do this in the law, it is then because they broke the law."

The issue of whether a drug addict commits a crime or not does not define whether their addiction is an illness or not. They are two seperate issues. Of course drug addicts commit crimes. They commit crimes because they have an illness that needs to be treated. Treat the illness and oopsy you might just find, the drug addict does not rob someone to feed his addiction. Its called cause and effect.

"Lock up any and all those who are caught dealling and 5-7 year minimum sentences for all crime that have guns used, even toy guns."

I share your sentiments in regards to the above. My concern is for druf addicts and helping them break their cycle of addiction so they don't commit crimes to feed their habit. Here's the problem. Drug pushers come at many levels. Low level drug pushers being arrested won't stop the problem. In fact focusing attention on them often wastes valuable resources that would be otherwise spent on higher level drug pushers. If you speak with a Narcotics officer they would explain that to you. They have to be veru subjective somedays in not arresting low level drug pushers so they can get to higher level ones. If you were to simply arrest all the low level ones you would have no way to infiltrate to higher levels of arrest. So what I am saying its a bit more complicated than you think and simply thinking all drug pushers are the same is a misnomer.

"Incase you have not looked that is what the people want, and we do not care anything for what lawyers have to say about this."

No until they get arrested right?

"That is why lawyers are hated so much."

I thought it was our bad breath.

" Also it is not the local police that go after the syndicates but the RCMP and Provincial police to some degree."

The RCMP and OPP do not have exclusive jurisdictions on investigating organized drug trade. Don't be silly. Every major city police force has officers dedicated to this task and sometimes they work with the OPP and RCMP, sometimes they do not.

"There are huge numbers working on these cases 24/7. "

No there are not. due to budget restraints and limited manpower the above is absolutely not true.

"If we need more jails then we will have them built. We should not use the lack of space as an excuse to let people out in the public, who should not be there. It is really that simple. "

Uh no its not. If you have no where to place your prisoners, you can't. It is that simple. So you need to build the prisons before you talk about jailing them, otherwise they do walk, precisely because there is no where to keep them. You seem to be blissfully unaware that the reason people are walking is not because the laws are not strict enough, its because they are being released because there is no place for them. The reason a conicted felon gets an automatic day reduced from his sentence for everyday he serves isn't because the law isn't strict, its because they created this scheme because they need to find room for other prisoners. So no its not that simple.

"Why would we take your view and just let them back on the streets, to cause more trouble."

Actually its you who are putting them right back out on the street if you flood the prison system with prisoners but have nowhere to put them. That is precisely why they are ending up back on the street.

What I am saying to you, is that the revolving door is arising, because we have no room. You are confusing that with me saying I think convicted felons shoulld be released. All I am saying is they will continue to be released if there are no prisons to house them and all your flapping does is to exasberate the problem and if we did it your way we would in fact flood the streets with convicted felons.

"The voters would rather the jails be built, but yes most will not want it near them, so build them away from people and build them big."

Lol. I live down the road from one in Mississauga, Ontario.

As I told you before super-prisons are no longer a concept being embraced because they become impossible to control. In fact its easier to have more prisons then few in terms of management. If you do build super ones, they end up in fact quite segmented because you can't put too many prisoners on the floor at any one time.

Now as for your comments that you will build these prisons up North away from people and have Polar Bears eat the prisoners, let me try explain this. Yes Russia has expertise in building gulags in Siberia and I am sure you would use that model.

Here's the reality. The reality is you need prison guards to manage this prisons. Where you going to get them if you place a prison in the middle of nowhere? Now see if you expect prison guards to work in the middle of nowhere, you going to pay them isolation pay? You going to pay to fly them in and out like they do guys working on oil rigs? Its gonna cost you Mr. Gulag. This aint Russia where we simply conscript everyone and order them.

"We have a surplus when it comes to government money and if part of that surplus has to go to building jails that is fine."

So when you calling Mr. Flaherty and advising him of the above? Let me know how it goes. From what I hear he's quite the tight wad.

"That being the case, it need not raise taxes, now does it."

O.k. come back down to earth would yah? See in the real world. if you want to spend the surplus you line up with hundreds of other competing interest groups also wanting to spend the surplus. Then we get into an arguement of how much of this surplus is going to be dished out and keep in mind your buddy Jimmy Flaherty has already said he won't spend the surplus because he needs it to pay down the debt. Good luck.

"As I said earlier, the local police do not investigate organised crime, so they will never be assigned to do it, other then in a support arrestting role."

You are absolutely dead wrong. I will make sure to tell some of my buddies in intelligence what you have said. I am sure they will be glad to know they aren't doing what they are doing. Lol.

"Are you sure you are a lawyer? The only person here getting whipped up it seems is you."

Lol.

"You do not have to say every little thing when he explains his position."

O.k.

"It will be far cheaper to run a jail of 30,000 then a smaller one."

Not necessarily. Your financial management assumption is inaccurate.

"I would even say 50,000 would be a nice round number."

I would say you are simply making up the number unaware of the financial and management implications involved with such a number.

"It would be cheaper to run then the present system,"

No you are simply making this assumption without any basis.

" With the new technology we have today, it would be easier to control this place then most other jails."

With the new technology we have today we no longer actually have to imprison people. But then you knew that right?

"Survielence equipment can and should be used"

O.k. let's try this slowly, surveillance equipment is easily avoided or manipulated in prison. But then you knew that.

" and even internal implants if necessary can keep the population controlled"

Yes indeed.

"I have been to prisons and yes I do know something about them and how they are secured."

Lol. As a visitor or prisoner. Either way with due respect I have problems conceiving how you make some of the comments you do if you have been inside.

"Right now overcrowding is an issue, but why do we think that each cell should be one man per cell or in provincial two man per cell."

Oh its a silly notion called space. Crowd people and they tend to rape and kill each other and turn on their guards.

" Hell this is jail man and the cells are really only for sleeping and resting. "

Please tell me again how you have been to prison and are an expert. No they are not just used for sleeping and resting.

"Big deal of there is only one toilet per cell,"

Its a big deal if the shit overflows and you have 3 guys about 6 inches from you as you crap. It causes a lot of tension.

"eveer live in a house with one bathroom and four women, now that is harsh."

Lol. Did it with 3 and 2 cats who had a litter there. Yer right.

"The people do not want to have this like a nice place to go holiday."

Do not confuse what I am saying. My concern is that you do not exceed the design specifications because that endangers prison guards and leads to violence and murder. That is a seperate issue from determining what should be the acceptable conditions. I am inclined to lean your way in thinking that in some minimum security prisons they are too nice. Then again I have also been in Dorchester and Archambeault (spelled wrong sorry) and believe me you don't want to end up there.

"It is suposed to he harsh,"

Determining what the standards are is a more complicated then your subjective impression of what harsh should be.

"As I said Harper can hold a referendum on elected senate and once he gets his mandate from that he has the right and duty to proceed with it."

And as I said he can't and has no intention of doing something unconstitutional.

"Most provinces will agree readily to this."

Quebec and Ontario have already said no. In case you can't add that is more then 50% of Canada's population and 2 provinces both that are needed to make any amendment.

Look forward to your next whipping.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Rue