Conservative attack ads

[ironstone]

That the judge may give a higher sentence?

If you know anything about law and order in Canada,you must be aware that judges(most very left wing)are more often than not inclined to give the most lenient sentence possible under the law.....regardless of the crime.

[ironstone]

Still gutter, I'm afraid, despite your bloviating.

Nobody,but nobody,can compare to the master of sleaze,LIBERAL Warren Kinsella.Remember him?No doubt you are a huge fan of his.

[jdobbin]

Nobody,but nobody,can compare to the master of sleaze,LIBERAL Warren Kinsella.Remember him?No doubt you are a huge fan of his.

And the Tories want to mimic him now? I don't know there is evidence to suggest it is helping the Tory cause, do you?

[jdobbin]

If you know anything about law and order in Canada,you must be aware that judges(most very left wing)are more often than not inclined to give the most lenient sentence possible under the law.....regardless of the crime.

Any independent analysis of that?

[capricorn]

Politicians are usually in charge of spinning an issue this way or that to suit their needs, nothing new there. Yet the optics of this little stunt will not bode well for Harper at all. I guess the next poll will tell, but I don't think it will swing the way Steve wants it to.

Right from the outset, the Tories promised Canadians that if elected they would get tough on crime. There has been a lot printed about the Tories abandoning their principles, some fair and some unfair. Well it looks like they are not willing to abandon their justice agenda and are jogging Canadians to join with them or vote them out. Ultimately, it is the Canadian voter who will decide whether the Tories are going too far in painting their opponents as soft on crime and, the law and order policies they propose.

[ToadBrother]

Right from the outset, the Tories promised Canadians that if elected they would get tough on crime. There has been a lot printed about the Tories abandoning their principles, some fair and some unfair. Well it looks like they are not willing to abandon their justice agenda and are jogging Canadians to join with them or vote them out. Ultimately, it is the Canadian voter who will decide whether the Tories are going too far in painting their opponents as soft on crime and, the law and order policies they propose.

That's all very true, but they do have to accept that Quebec, on the issue of crime control, is somewhat more liberal. And I think governing in a minority from the position that every time one or more opposition parties doesn't swing your way, you'll threaten an election, is pretty irresponsible. But what's much worse, much more inherently dishonest and showing a basic lack of ethics, is basically inventing positions for your opponents. It demonstrates to me that Harper is, fundamentally, an immoral man.

[ToadBrother]

If you know anything about law and order in Canada,you must be aware that judges(most very left wing)are more often than not inclined to give the most lenient sentence possible under the law.....regardless of the crime.

First of all, what evidence is there that the majority of judges are left wing? Can you provide some data that shows this? I don't defend every decision, but I've seen guys get some pretty harsh sentences. The real problem is that we simply do not have enough jails to hold everyone the Tories would want to toss in there. Judging by crime in the States, it also doesn't appear building lots of jails and throwing as many people you can get into them actually solves the problem.

Judges are given pretty wide discretion on sentencing in many cases. Maybe the central question shouldn't be how many gang members and prostitutes should be thrown in jail, but on how much discretion we give judges.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

First of all, what evidence is there that the majority of judges are left wing? Can you provide some data that shows this? I don't defend every decision, but I've seen guys get some pretty harsh sentences. The real problem is that we simply do not have enough jails to hold everyone the Tories would want to toss in there. Judging by crime in the States, it also doesn't appear building lots of jails and throwing as many people you can get into them actually solves the problem.

Judges are given pretty wide discretion on sentencing in many cases. Maybe the central question shouldn't be how many gang members and prostitutes should be thrown in jail, but on how much discretion we give judges.

Judges have unlimited discretion at their finger tips. They have little more than guidelines.

[capricorn]

That's all very true, but they do have to accept that Quebec, on the issue of crime control, is somewhat more liberal.

Toad, I disagree. They don't have to accept what appears to be a widespread distaste in Quebec for tougher sentencing of violent criminals. If the Tories dilute their justice policies to please Quebecers essentially they would be abandoning their stated principles on law and order, which could only be described as pandering to win votes in Quebec. If they soften their position on minimum sentencing to please the Bloc they would in fact appear to be buying the Bloc's support to remain in power.

And I think governing in a minority from the position that every time one or more opposition parties doesn't swing your way, you'll threaten an election, is pretty irresponsible.

A minority government is always vulnerable and has just so many available options to remain the government. One such option is to goad the opposition on matters the government is willing to stand or fall.

But what's much worse, much more inherently dishonest and showing a basic lack of ethics, is basically inventing positions for your opponents. It demonstrates to me that Harper is, fundamentally, an immoral man.

Whether the position you ascribe to your opponent is manufactured, dishonest or true it is filtered through many lenses before it is reaches and is evaluated by the ordinary recipient of the message. The exception are staunch partisans who will always side with their party of choice which, in their eyes, can do no wrong.

I don't think Harper is immoral. Simply, he's a politician doing what politicians do. A politician who wants to stay on top or who wants to assure the supremacy of his/her party, be it at the riding, regional or federal level, must find ways to disadvantage the competition. It's a messy business.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Toad, I disagree. They don't have to accept what appears to be a widespread distaste in Quebec for tougher sentencing of violent criminals. If the Tories dilute their justice policies to please Quebecers essentially they would be abandoning their stated principles on law and order, which could only be described as pandering to win votes in Quebec. If they soften their position on minimum sentencing to please the Bloc they would in fact appear to be buying the Bloc's support to remain in power.

A minority government is always vulnerable and has just so many available options to remain the government. One such option is to goad the opposition on matters the government is willing to stand or fall.

Whether the position you ascribe to your opponent is manufactured, dishonest or true it is filtered through many lenses before it is reaches and is evaluated by the ordinary recipient of the message. The exception are staunch partisans who will always side with their party of choice which, in their eyes, can do no wrong.

I don't think Harper is immoral. Simply, he's a politician doing what politicians do. A politician who wants to stay on top or who wants to assure the supremacy of his/her party, be it at the riding, regional or federal level, must find ways to disadvantage the competition. It's a messy business.

Harper wants power and will do and has done anything he believes to be necessary to achieve and retain that power which he desires. That is his track record, never having worked a real job for any length of time, he has instead no real concept of what it is to be the average working class kinda guy.

[ToadBrother]

Whether the position you ascribe to your opponent is manufactured, dishonest or true it is filtered through many lenses before it is reaches and is evaluated by the ordinary recipient of the message. The exception are staunch partisans who will always side with their party of choice which, in their eyes, can do no wrong.

I don't think Harper is immoral. Simply, he's a politician doing what politicians do. A politician who wants to stay on top or who wants to assure the supremacy of his/her party, be it at the riding, regional or federal level, must find ways to disadvantage the competition. It's a messy business.

I exist in a world where a lie is a lie. Harper (or more to the point his spindoctors) are lying. It's a dishonest, immoral tactic, and a sign of deep moral depravity.

[capricorn]

I exist in a world where a lie is a lie.

That's laudable Toad. I don't like liars either. But IMO the average Joe and Jane instinctively think all politicians are liars. Ultimately, what Joe and Jane want are politicians who will deliver the goods they think will best serve Joe and Jane. They'll overlook the lying if there are benefits for them at the end of the line.

Harper (or more to the point his spindoctors) are lying. It's a dishonest, immoral tactic, and a sign of deep moral depravity.

No more so than politicians who have gone before them.

"Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil." That is, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[gc1765]

Taxpayers are paying for this crap?

What a joke :angry:

[Molly]

But IMO the average Joe and Jane instinctively think all politicians are liars.

...............

No more so than politicians who have gone before them.

I honestly disagree with both of those statements. Well, Joe and Jane might so think, but I do not. I've known too many who were sincere in their intentions, and who did their best to be honorable in their actions.

And my greatest fight with Harper is that I DO percieve it as much more than any who have (successfuly) gone before. Harper feels like we are living 'Animal Farm'. He lost my optimistic withholding of judgement the day he swore in his first cabinet, and my opinion of him and his followers has gone downhill from that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I honestly disagree with both of those statements. Well, Joe and Jane might so think, but I do not. I've known too many who were sincere in their intentions, and who did their best to be honorable in their actions.

And my greatest fight with Harper is that I DO percieve it as much more than any who have (successfuly) gone before. Harper feels like we are living 'Animal Farm'. He lost my optimistic withholding of judgement the day he swore in his first cabinet, and my opinion of him and his followers has gone downhill from that.

That goes for a lot of citizens.

[jbg]

Harper wants power and will do and has done anything he believes to be necessary to achieve and retain that power which he desires. That is his track record, never having worked a real job for any length of time, he has instead no real concept of what it is to be the average working class kinda guy.

Did Paul Martin? Stephane Dion? The touristMichael Ignatieff?

[Smallc]

Yes, yes, and yes.

[normanchateau]

Yeah, I don't think they really want to go there given Ignatieff and Layton have NEVER held a job other than on a college campus, and that both epitomize the term "ivory tower intellectual" with no real-world experience.

The rest of your post is just inane babbling.

You don't think that Ignatieff's work as a radio and television broadcaster counts as a job? You don't think that Ignatieff publishing hundreds of articles and numerous books is work yet apparently accept that being a lifetime professional politician like Harper is a real job?

You might perceive the rest of my post as inane but can you describe which part of it below is untrue?

"Harper is nothing more than a professional politician who jumped from the Liberals to the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform Party, who suddenly underwent a religious conversion to become a member of Preston Manning's evangelical church, then joined the extremist Northern Foundation then quit the foundation when he claimed it had extremist members, then had a falling out with Preston Manning and quit the Reform Party and jumped to the National Citizens Coalition, then joined the Alliance Party, then had a falling out with Tom Flanagan, his longtime mentor. How many Canadians remember that Manning fired Harper as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a financial conservative with a PhD in Economics?"

Can you imagine the CPC attack ads if Ignatieff had been nothing more than a professional politician all his life like Harper?

[madmax]

Did Paul Martin? Stephane Dion? The touristMichael Ignatieff?

Too bad your a Democrat...

This site is a laugh.

http://www.republicansforignatieff.com/

I think some CPC staff have too much time on their hands.

[Argus]

One extremely high profile case of the application of a mandatory minimum was Robert Latimer. In spite of horror from the jury, and an attempt by the judge to apply a more realistic sentence, the mandatory minimum was upheld by the Supreme Court, because, in spite of flying in the face of ' the beliefs of most Candians regarding fundamental justice', it was _the law_.

The problem with Latimer was not that the law for second degree murder was wrong. It was that what he did shouldn't have been termed second degree murder. We ought to have a specific law on ending the suffering of loved ones who are terminally ill, but no one has had the guts to bring one out.

Mandatory minimums are thoughtless, knee-jerk, anonymous vengeance- an expression of the worst that humanity has to offer. They express a shockingly cavalier attitude to justice. They do not uphold it.

Mandatory minimums are the response of a public fed up with judges and their bleeding heart sentences. The support for them is based upon the public perception that judges are so distanced and so unaware of the problems of the everyday public, and have so little concern for their safety, that were it not for minimum sentences they'd basically let everyone go free. Mandatory minimums, at their core, are a total denunciation of the ability of judges to render justice in the courts, a repudiation by the public of the lax, slack, limp-wristed sentencing given to violent offenders in Canada. It is an indictment of the lack of moral courage displayed by our judges, most of whom are political hacks given their jobs by the Liberals for service to the party.

[Argus]

The Tories always play the tough on crime angle even when crime is going down nationally. They have no regards to the cost. Mo regards for whether there are alternatives.

They want to criminalize behaviour on a wider scale and don't trust judges, juries or the police in many cases.

They use anecdotal evidence to support their case and use fear as a means of driving the debate.

And then they accuse their opposition of being in league with child molesters.

I notice that nowhere in your blather above was there any attempt to deny that you are, in fact, soft on crime. Or that you have any interest in fundamental justice. In fact, while I've been pointing out the need for fundamental justice, your repeated refrain has been "That costs too much!"

You can keep sniveling about how the Conservatives are exploiting the issue, but if you people hadn't had a near total disregard for public safety over the past few decades there wouldn't be an issue.

[Argus]

As I said, it is accurate that adult prison is where they would be headed

So when they're twenty you want them in kids prison with the fourteen year olds - raping them?

Does this extend to people who commit acts of murder when they're eighteen, nineteen or twenty. Do they get to go to a special junior prison, as well?

[Argus]

Still gutter, I'm afraid, despite your bloviating.

If you wish, but come election time I have a feeling you guys, as usual, will need a mighty high ladder to bring your campaign up from the sewers to the level the Tories will be occupying.

[Argus]

And the Tories want to mimic him now?

You guys must have felt that was the way to go or Ignatieff would not have brought him out of retirement.

[jdobbin]

I notice that nowhere in your blather above was there any attempt to deny that you are, in fact, soft on crime. Or that you have any interest in fundamental justice. In fact, while I've been pointing out the need for fundamental justice, your repeated refrain has been "That costs too much!"

I've also said that crime is going down and it is not justice when one size fits all punishments are put in place.

You can keep sniveling about how the Conservatives are exploiting the issue, but if you people hadn't had a near total disregard for public safety over the past few decades there wouldn't be an issue.

If Tories had any regard for public safety, they would have been paying for prisons and staffing rather than letting dangerous inmates escape. That has been on their watch.