WWWTT Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 And turmel said canadians do not want the death penalty, last poll-62% want it back in some form. Human rights are never up for election! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Crime rate statistics such as the ones you brought up to substantiate your point don't make a distinction between petty crime and violent crime. That's the problem with using statistics to try and give the picture of what's really happening. You've never actually looked at StatsCan's crime reports, have you? Quote
guyser Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 Not everyone believes that crime rates have gone down. Or that they have gone down equally in all areas. Or that there are problems with how reliably crimes have been reported. Or with who and how the data has been collected and "crunched". This is entirely subjective, of course. Nevertheless, that doesn't make such beliefs untrue! Just not easily unprovable. The situation has become so tainted that it is difficult if not impossible to change the minds of many with pronouncements from StatsCan. Not everyone does is correct, but only the obstinate ones think that way. Stats Can collects info , as much and the same way as they have before, but now people key on the 'reported ' aspect as if that means obviously there is a large well of untapped crime just begging to go forward. The crime rate used in the past and used now is the same. If it wasnt reported in 1970, and isnt reported today, what diff in the rate happens? None ! If I make homemade measuring spoons to bake a cake , and I goof on how much a tablespoon is,then every single thing I bake will be measured the same by that same spoon. Nothing has changed in the past 30 yrs whereby one who was victimized by a severe crime does not report it. Violent crime is still reported and nothing I can think of has changed between 1970 and now, why someone would not report it today or not like they did back then.(save for gang bangers against snitches but thats a demo of what half a percent or so?) And lets not forget that the justice system et al, courts, police, lawyers and judges have made it easier for victims of rape and other sexual crimes to come forward since the system is less harsh on them and certain actions in the past of a victimized person are off limits. (Think rape victims and their past indeiscretions) We probably agree with the stats that suggest rape is ahugely underreportd crime. But we also probably agree that the reporting of same has gone up since the courts and the ways and means of cross examining such a victim has limits that were not there in the past. Yet violent crime is down according to reported stats. So, less rapes by stat, but more reports of rape when it occurs. And lastly, if anyone thinks this is going to change, recall that this Govt wants to handcuff StatCan and the long census whereby question such as this are gone. We will increasingly rely on the govt to tell us the truth but we know they will BS on this to obfuscate the facts to fit their agenda. The crime bill is the first of many to come. Crime down , but we need more criminalizing of our people. Police agencies across the country have recently been admonished for fudging or deleting the races of people they arrest. The main reason anyone can surmise , while most think its to protect a PC environment,it is because the police themselves dont want to be caught out being either racist, bigotted or seen to be focusing on minorities. Quote
guyser Posted February 2, 2012 Report Posted February 2, 2012 You've never actually looked at StatsCan's crime reports, have you? Im thinking spiderfish has a twin denier of crime stats around here. Quote
jbg Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Over the remarks by the com senator who said they should leave a rope in certain cells for certain evil people could hang themselves. Well, it may be a little over the top, but the fact that 10 yrs ago his daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered, they could have said very little about it, but instead tried to score political points by going after him. IMO In this case they stepped over the line, and that will come back to haunt them. It seems the left still hates the victims. I guess I wonder why the solicitude for creeps who contribute nothing. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 He's in pain.and the extent and 10 year duration of that pain should exclude the Conservative Senator from sitting on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee... should exclude the Conservative Senator from being a spokesman for the Conservative party in the Senate on justice issues.So does that mean anyone who is unduly sympathetic to criminals or who wants lower sentences and extend more forgiveness should likewise be prevented from representing those views in any sort of official capacity? anyone... who unduly and overtly projects an impartiality should not be in a position to recommend and/or set legislative content/policy/direction... should not be seen to be in a position of impartiality... should not be in a position to act as a formal government/party spokesperson on legal/crime related issues. Quote
waldo Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Wild Bill, your position presumes that the legal system, and/or society, discriminates against victims of crime. Even if one were to accept this premise, on whatever levels or to varying degrees, it doesn't separate the fact that one of the Conservative Senate members overtly projects an influence that calls into question his impartiality.I'm confused. Is his role to be impartial or to represent the views of many Canadians? Is this a process to arrive at something better to serve the people or some kind of trial? his role is to be seen as being impartial; to not be seen as unduly projecting his personal tragedy so as to be subject to questions and/or suspicions of undo bias; to not be in a position to cast doubt on the procedural works and integrity of his committee; to not be in a position that might call into question related legislative content/policy; to not be in a position to subject his party affiliate to undo criticism; to not be in a position to subject the Senate to undo scrutiny..... Quote
PIK Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/f-bomb-dropping-mp-defends-his-verbal-attack-on-tory-senator-boisvenu/article2324074/ Pat Martin once again has shown what a a-hole he is. This man must has some issue problems that need to be dealt with, and he should step down untill they are resolved. Edited February 3, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Pat Martin once again has shown what a a-hole he is. interesting... so you have more concern for an Opposition NDP MP calling a Conservative Senator an a-hole, than for that same Conservative Senator to say serial murderers should be given a rope to hang themselves in prison? Notwithstanding the influencing positions that Conservative Senator holds in terms of select committee attachment and as an official Conservative spokesperson. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 I quite agree, Waldo. People who have lost family to murderers should be totally shut out of the judicial process! They have no right to any expectation of redress or closure! They should trust in the State to look after the matter. After all, the State has an outstanding sterling record of such responsibility! Besides, they are all too focused on their own pain. Murder is a crime against society and families of victims have no right to believe that their feelings are any more important than those of anyone else in society. Relatives and friends of victims all have their minds clouded with base emotionalism and should simply not be allowed any involvement beyond a short victim's statement which can then be filed and forgotten. Sic um! Quote
Guest Peeves Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 interesting... so you have more concern for an Opposition NDP MP calling a Conservative Senator an a-hole, than for that same Conservative Senator to say serial murderers should be given a rope to hang themselves in prison? Notwithstanding the influencing positions that Conservative Senator holds in terms of select committee attachment and as an official Conservative spokesperson. I think the rope was simply to be offered that a choice might be made, years of prison or a speedy (apropos) death by choice. Quote
PIK Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 interesting... so you have more concern for an Opposition NDP MP calling a Conservative Senator an a-hole, than for that same Conservative Senator to say serial murderers should be given a rope to hang themselves in prison? Notwithstanding the influencing positions that Conservative Senator holds in terms of select committee attachment and as an official Conservative spokesperson. Being on the right side of things, yes I have no concern for the feeling of murderers, but as you have proved ,the left is again on the side of the criminal. why do you hate victims so much? Really when you look at it ,the left killed his daughter, by alowing a repeat offender back out on the streets, again I ask, why do you hate the victims? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
guyser Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Being on the right side of things, yes I have no concern for the feeling of murderers, but as you have proved ,the left is again on the side of the criminal. why do you hate victims so much? Really when you look at it ,the left killed his daughter, by alowing a repeat offender back out on the streets, again I ask, why do you hate the victims? The left killed his daughter? Ok...why are you on the side of the stupid? Quote
Guest Peeves Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 The left killed his daughter? Ok...why are you on the side of the stupid? Surely you have grounds to suggest that is a reasonable statement and conclusion from what was said? For I see no such evidence. Quote
guyser Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Surely you have grounds to suggest that is a reasonable statement and conclusion from what was said? For I see no such evidence. Huh? PIK likes to parade ignorance any chance he gets. By poster PIK suggesting the left killed his daughter is ignorant...ok incredibly stupid and juvenile (apropos BTW) Peeves...try this on for size , lets see if you wouldnt mock the stupidity herein.... The right killed my daddy because they reveresed the gun registry ! Quote
PIK Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 Huh? PIK likes to parade ignorance any chance he gets. By poster PIK suggesting the left killed his daughter is ignorant...ok incredibly stupid and juvenile (apropos BTW) Peeves...try this on for size , lets see if you wouldnt mock the stupidity herein.... The right killed my daddy because they reveresed the gun registry ! The lefts restorative justice was a failure and alot of people have been killed and assaulted by people that should have never been released, yes the left does have blood on it's hands. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
guyser Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) The lefts restorative justice was a failure and alot of people have been killed and assaulted by people that should have never been released, yes the left does have blood on it's hands. No it doesn't. Nothing like another little gem to back up what I said and you quoted. Why...thanks ! Edited February 3, 2012 by guyser Quote
PIK Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Posted February 3, 2012 No it doesn't. Nothing like another little gem to back up what I said and you quoted. Why...thanks ! One thing the left does quite well is never take credit for it's failures over the years in this country, starting with the justice system. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Tilter Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 Rae and turmel gone to far No, they are still both in Ottawa Quote
guyser Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) One thing the left does quite well is never take credit for it's failures over the years in this country, starting with the justice system. Are you writing for comedy central? The failures of the justice system are few and far between. Not to mention that , if true, the left should be gloating since they have been primarily in power since the mid 80's which , facts will show, crime has dropped ! Bet ya didnt think that part through? Really, if the left is forced to assume its non-existent systemic failure (it hasnt been) then rightly the left can gloat because Canadians are safer (which facts show to be true) One thing is becoming pretty clear...the right has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the justice system. They merely pull one case out of their backside that is egregious and apply it as the gold standard of the entire system. You probably want to drain all of Lake Ontario because someone P'd in it at Cherry Beach. Edited February 3, 2012 by guyser Quote
Wild Bill Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) his role is to be seen as being impartial; to not be seen as unduly projecting his personal tragedy so as to be subject to questions and/or suspicions of undo bias; to not be in a position to cast doubt on the procedural works and integrity of his committee; to not be in a position that might call into question related legislative content/policy; to not be in a position to subject his party affiliate to undo criticism; to not be in a position to subject the Senate to undo scrutiny..... I'm still confused! Where do the wishes of the majority of citizens fit in? Where is their representation? I don't recall any of us ordinary joes voting for this or any Senator. Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to be describing the senator's role as being part of a process where a group determines what's best for Canadians and then will proceed to impose THEIR view on us! This doesn't strike me as an issue like a common law tort or dispute, where some impartial judge is supposed to determine what is right or wrong, as far as breaking or not breaking a law or decided what is fair compensation or an equitable division of assets. No, I thought the Senator was involved in a process that will MAKE law! Should not laws reflect the will and values of the citizenry at large? If that is not true, then how is what the good Senator is doing different from elitism? Is having populist input always to be discarded as partiality? Isn't elitism wrong not just when you may agree with a particular principle imposed by an elite but rather as an universal, undemocratic action? Waldo...you're making me despair even more for our society! Edited February 3, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
guyser Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 No, I thought the Senator was involved in a process that will MAKE law! Should not laws reflect the will and values of the citizenry at large? The Senate is a place for sober second thought before going through parliament to enact law. This Senator, due to horrific family consequences absconded with sober second thought and went for the jugular. I dont think anyone begrudges him his personal viewpoint as respects rapists, but many feel there is no place for that sentiment as a Senator. Afterall, one cannot let the Fox set rules for the Henhouse. Quote
Scotty Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 So we go from talking about violent crimes, victims' rights, and criminal punishment, but when I say that those crime rates have been falling, the goalposts get moved to say "yeah, but people aren't reporting when their bicycles or lawnchairs are stolen." So are we concerned with petty B&Es, where a "victim" finds someone has stolen the change out of the cupholder in their car, or are we talking about murderers and rapists still? The majority of rapes are not reported. And the percentage which is reported is not going up, but down. If you bothered to read the stats can survey you'd find that the crimes not reported range from burglary to assault, arson, sexual assault, robbery, etc. It's not change from cupholders. As for moving goalposts, you're the one who introduced the topic, though for the life of me I don't understand why you believe it was relevant. When a crime is committed, it deserves a just punishment. How much of that particular crime is committed, and whether the rate is rising or falling, is entirely irrelevant. The punishment ought to be in keeping with the severity of the damage done by the offender. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) anyone... who unduly and overtly projects an impartiality should not be in a position to recommend and/or set legislative content/policy/direction... should not be seen to be in a position of impartiality... should not be in a position to act as a formal government/party spokesperson on legal/crime related issues. Perhaps you can inform us which politicians have demonstrated or at least, attempted to suggest they are impartial in terms of crime. Edited February 3, 2012 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 3, 2012 Report Posted February 3, 2012 interesting... so you have more concern for an Opposition NDP MP calling a Conservative Senator an a-hole, than for that same Conservative Senator to say serial murderers should be given a rope to hang themselves in prison? Absolutely. Who cares if scum wants to hang itself? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.