Canadians fed up with government's soft on crime and drugs approach

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

Are crime rates decreasing in Canada?

 

 

Violent crime rates and property crimes certainly are.  You didn't really use the crime rates in your link, you used a crime severity index which is quite different.

Here's a little more of an accurate picture -it breaks out violent crime which does include some types of theft even if no violence was done, property crime and non violent crimes.
 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210727/cg-a002-eng.htm

As you can see  - violent crimes are going down till 2015 - then they go up somewhat alarmingly until 2020 when covid hits and everyone has to stay home.  They have gone up in 2022 and looks like they will be again for 2023.

So without a doubt  crime is going up.

[Guest]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:00 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Iran is not known for its soft on drugs approach and yet has a bigger problem than we do.

Its also Iran.

A country where you likely could be exchanged for a goat if you're a woman. Literally.

I don't blame one for doing drugs, drinking or setting themselves on fire. Laws won't matter, because the conditions justify the drug use. 

Sorry, but you can't compare, when situations are so dire,  people seek to set themselves on fire, as relief.

Its a different level of human suffering.

Capital punishment doesn't work here, because death to many, would feel like a vacation.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

From 2011 to 2021, the rate for all Criminal Code and other federal statute offences decreased by 13% in urban areas and by 3% in rural areas.

Rates you say? Don't forget that rates are affected by the total, so if you have a population that is increasing (urban), it makes the rates go down. Also if you have a very low population, it only takes a few crimes to make the rate go way up.

Certainly anyone reading the news from Toronto can see that murders and random attacks have gone way up in the past 2-3 years. But if the population also goes up, it lowers the rate.

Numbers are funny.

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

More allowances than excuses - allowances based on a better scientific understanding of these things.

Are crime rates decreasing in Canada?

 

There are two aspects to those cites you ignore. The first is that violent crime has been increasing. The second is that when it says 'police reported crime' it means just that. It's what crime is reported to police. And greater and greater percentages of crime are NOT being reported to the police (as per the government's victims of crime social survey) because people have less and less faith in the police or courts to do anything about it.

[I am Groot]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

In a manner that apparently only makes things worse. I think if the courts wanted harsher more vengeance based judgements they'd be finding more people more guilty of things and filling prisons up with them and giving them longer sentences.

That's one take on things. The other would be if the courts wanted to protect the community from violent offenders they'd put them in prison for much longer periods of time. The primary focus of the courts should be the protection of the community, and not the well-being and happiness of rapists, murderers and other scum.

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

How do you imagine Poilievre will turn this sentiment into official government policy?

Poiievre doesn't strike me as someone who's going to engage in bold policy moves. If he was, though, he'd pass all new legislation under the notwithstanding clause as a sign of his disrespect and contempt for our heavily politicized judicial system.

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its also Iran.

A country where you likely could be exchanged for a goat if you're a woman. Literally.

I don't blame one for doing drugs, drinking or setting themselves on fire. Laws won't matter, because the conditions justify the drug use. 

Sorry, but you can't compare, when situations are so dire,  people seek to set themselves on fire, as relief.

Its a different level of human suffering.

Capital punishment doesn't work here, because death to many, would feel like a vacation.

For all its difficulties Iran is not a failed state. Most people have something to live for that drugs can destroy. But there are many other examples of what I’m talking about. Russia has a terrible problem with both alcohol and drugs. America takes a tougher line than we do. How is it working out for these countries? 

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So without a doubt  crime is going up.

So to have many underlying socioeconomic inequalities.

Something that crackin' down and gettin' tough on won't touch with a 10 foot pole. 

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So to have many underlying socioeconomic inequalities.

Something that crackin' down and gettin' tough on won't touch with a 10 foot pole. 

Which socioeconomic inequalities went up during the liberals?

And which were going down under the conservatives such that the numbers were diving then?

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The primary focus of the courts should be the protection of the community, and not the well-being and happiness of rapists, murderers and other scum.

Sure, and their secondary focus, like everyone's primary focus, should be trying to make the world a better place...for everyone.

Unfortunately many people seem to believe the focus on criminals should be more vengeful.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Sure, and their secondary focus, like everyone's primary focus, should be trying to make the world a better place...for everyone.

No, that is the job of politicians as far as our pillars of state go.  It is NOT the job of the judiciary. At all.  There is no 'court of personal feelings".  It is a court of law.

And it IS absolutely part of the mandate of a court that those who have been wronged by a criminal see that the criminal receives punishment.  That's important. If people feel that the criminal walked away after harming them without suffering a negative effect proportional to the suffering inflicted then they don't feel justice has been done and the system breaks down.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Poiievre doesn't strike me as someone who's going to engage in bold policy moves. If he was, though, he'd pass all new legislation under the notwithstanding clause as a sign of his disrespect and contempt for our heavily politicized judicial system.

I hope he does. Nothing will demonstrate the uselessness of cracking down and getting tough better.

Unfortunately between this and correcting gender bending,  and all the other social issues that trigger his base other far more important things like climate action will continue to take a distant back seat.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which socioeconomic inequalities went up during the liberals?

And which were going down under the conservatives such that the numbers were diving then?

Under the Liberals? Most of them I think. The income and wealth gap continued to grow under Trudeau after all.

I'm not aware of any inequalities disappearing under Conservatives.

Edited June 19, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, that is the job of politicians as far as our pillars of state go.  It is NOT the job of the judiciary. At all.  There is no 'court of personal feelings".  It is a court of law.

Sure, except when politicians fail to do this particular job the courts become more activist.

[I am Groot]

7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

For all its difficulties Iran is not a failed state. Most people have something to live for that drugs can destroy. But there are many other examples of what I’m talking about. Russia has a terrible problem with both alcohol and drugs. America takes a tougher line than we do. How is it working out for these countries? 

America's problems lie in their inner cities with a culture and values system among urban blacks they cannot bring themselves to even address, much less face up to and try to improve. This is largely the same problem we have on native reserves in Canada. 

[I am Groot]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, and their secondary focus, like everyone's primary focus, should be trying to make the world a better place...for everyone.

Unfortunately many people seem to believe the focus on criminals should be more vengeful.

With people like Bernardo and Legebokoff that's perfectly understandable. Their brutality and cruelty are beyond forgiveness. With others the desire to keep them locked up is more about the protection of society than vengefulness. I'm perfectly happy to see them given months of drug addiction treatment and then their sentences shortened if they have kicked their habits. For others, who have been criminals their entire lives, like certain gang members, I see no purpose in releasing them. They have demonstrated through decades of crime they have no interest in desisting.

[I am Groot]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I hope he does. Nothing will demonstrate the uselessness of cracking down and getting tough better.

Unfortunately between this and correcting gender bending,  and all the other social issues that trigger his base other far more important things like climate action will continue to take a distant back seat.

There's nothing we can do about climate change, anyway, other than start putting in place measures to lessen its impact.

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Under the Liberals? Most of them I think. The income and wealth gap continued to grow under Trudeau after all.

I'm not aware of any inequalities disappearing under Conservatives.

Income inequality stopped growing in 2006 when Harper was elected, and began to diminish thereafter due to largely progressive tax measures he put in place. This from a PBO report in 2013. 

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, except when politicians fail to do this particular job the courts become more activist.

Being activist is NOT their job.  And it is NOT their job to decide when the politicians are  doing things right.

The MOMENT they become activist they lose their moral standing and people lose faith - and they start to become a political tool and not a force for law and order in society.

ANd whats to stop conservatives from deciding they should start appointing their OWN activists? Harper came up wiht a very well received plan to depoliticize the whole thing - with a committee of citizens politicians judges and police all involved in choosing new supreme court justices.  Very non partisan.

Justin threw that away day one and just appointed judges he likes

So - is the judiciary going to be an 'activist' center now? Should conservatives make sure that ONLY hard right conservative lawyers and judges get appointed to the courts or supreme courts?  Be just like america " I'll appoint  you provided you promise to rule the way i like if it ever comes up"?

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

With people like Bernardo and Legebokoff that's perfectly understandable. Their brutality and cruelty are beyond forgiveness. With others the desire to keep them locked up is more about the protection of society than vengefulness. I'm perfectly happy to see them given months of drug addiction treatment and then their sentences shortened if they have kicked their habits. For others, who have been criminals their entire lives, like certain gang members, I see no purpose in releasing them. They have demonstrated through decades of crime they have no interest in desisting.

Notwithstanding any assumptions all addicts are criminals, I can't really disagree with this. At the same time if we insist on doing little to address the several socioeconomic reasons crime is such an easy choice, like a profitable drug trade, then filling prisons up to the point of dangerously overcrowding them will make it easy to see why cruel and unusual become justifiable reasons for not keeping and throwing even more people into prison.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by eyeball

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Being activist is NOT their job.  And it is NOT their job to decide when the politicians are  doing things right.

The MOMENT they become activist they lose their moral standing and people lose faith - and they start to become a political tool and not a force for law and order in society.

Sure it's not their job, but after decades of watching politicians continually fail and lose their moral standing and people's faith...thankfully there's still something to fall back on. I don't agree that judges are the tool of politicians.  That's kind of up there with the malarky that says the msm is the tool of the government.

It's us the public that isn't doing its job. 

Quote

 

ANd whats to stop conservatives from deciding they should start appointing their OWN activists? Harper came up wiht a very well received plan to depoliticize the whole thing - with a committee of citizens politicians judges and police all involved in choosing new supreme court justices.  Very non partisan.

Justin threw that away day one and just appointed judges he likes.

 

Well don't look at me, I've never voted for him.  

Quote

So - is the judiciary going to be an 'activist' center now? Should conservatives make sure that ONLY hard right conservative lawyers and judges get appointed to the courts or supreme courts?  Be just like america " I'll appoint  you provided you promise to rule the way i like if it ever comes up"?

I hope not, I'd rather we make meetings between lobbyists and politicians public so it's harder for them to make promises like that.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Quote

Sure it's not their job, but after decades of watching politicians continually fail and lose their moral standing and people's faith...thankfully there's still something to fall back on. I don't agree that judges are the tool of politicians.  That's kind of up there with the malarky that says the msm is the tool of the government.

I

What you agree on is irrelevant. As the saying goes "its' not enough to be pure, one must be SEEN to be pure".

You yourself  claimed they behave as 'activists' - and that's notably true. And that creates the problem right there.  If they are not seen as behaving impartially then they become tools for politicians.  As we've seen in the states.

Quote

it's us the public that isn't doing its job. 

That changes nothing in this regard.  Their job doesn't change either way.

 

Quote

Well don't look at me, I've never voted for him.  

See this ten foot poll?  Yeah - i won't be touching it  

Quote

I hope not, I'd rather we make meetings between lobbyists and politicians public so it's harder for them to make promises like that.

Well there wouldn't be a lobbyist involved. Just a few drinks with a staffer and a quiet understanding that if they get posted they'll "See" things the way the party wants them to. That's "activism" in the judiciary.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You yourself  claimed they behave as 'activists' - and that's notably true. And that creates the problem right there.  If they are not seen as behaving impartially then they become tools for politicians.  As we've seen in the states.

I see it more of a case where the courts are taking certain matters into their own hands as opposed to simply doing what the politicians want.

 

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well there wouldn't be a lobbyist involved. Just a few drinks with a staffer and a quiet understanding that if they get posted they'll "See" things the way the party wants them to. That's "activism" in the judiciary.

Yes well, the public needs to get more activist about what it's prepared to tolerate in it's governance.

As I've said before we need to make changes to the Lobbying Act and borrow a principle from Robert's Rules of Order where a meeting that isn't recorded didn't happen and if the meeting didn't happen no business, decisions, appointment's etc came out of the meeting.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I see it more of a case where the courts are taking certain matters into their own hands as opposed to simply doing what the politicians want.

 

Which turns them into political animals. The whole point of an independent judiciary is that they are SUPPOSED to follow the law and not try to 'correct' politicians they disagree with or 'please' politicians they do - or pursue personal agendas.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes well, the public needs to get more activist about what it's prepared to tolerate in it's governance.

I would agree.  And i think that we should be intolerant of corruption and such that we see there (in contrast to simply bad policy).  But in any case - if the judiciary becomes a 'third house of parliament' then our system falls apart.  They need to start to do their jobs.  With great power comes great responsibility  

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Which turns them into political animals. The whole point of an independent judiciary is that they are SUPPOSED to follow the law and not try to 'correct' politicians they disagree with or 'please' politicians they do - or pursue personal agendas.

Sure but given the shitshow so many politicians are putting on again I say thankfully someone is at least trying.

Quote

I would agree.  And i think that we should be intolerant of corruption and such that we see there (in contrast to simply bad policy).  But in any case - if the judiciary becomes a 'third house of parliament' then our system falls apart.  They need to start to do their jobs.  With great power comes great responsibility  

I'm pretty sure there's more incompetence than corruption making a shambles of our governance but here too it probably stems from a similar lack of transparency and accountability to the public.

The public's incompetence and the corruption of our responsibility to be better observers of our governance stems from how easily politicized and reactionary so many people allow themselves to be.

Edited June 20, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure but given the shitshow so many politicians are putting on again I say thankfully someone is at least trying.

Honestly - do you even listen to what you say?  "I know it's a terrible thing and ruins the country but i'm sure glad it's happening".

Do you understand that the moment people like me give up on trying to convince people like you their politiicans figure it out and they realize they can get away with doing it - and they do.

You're literally begging for pollitics to come into our judiciary MORE than it already is - and i'm getting fed up trying to explain why that's bad. And that means that if the Conservative leader gets in and starts playing political games with them, i'm not going to care.  I mean - you don't for YOUR guys so why should i?

This is why Canada is spiraling to the bottom. The left won't hold it's politicians to account and the right is getting sick of being the only ones who try.

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm pretty sure there's more incompetence than corruption making a shambles of our governance but here too it probably stems from a similar lack of transparency and accountability to the public.

Nope. It's mostly corruption. And the public is aware of a lot of it and turns a blind eye, especially in the east.  Westerners have a long tradition of freaking out about corruption but it's far more tolerated in quebec and ontario and the atlantics. I honestly dont' know why that is but it's always been that way. Maybe just because of the larger population in the two bigger provinces.

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The left won't hold it's politicians to account and the right is getting sick of being the only ones who try.

Don't forget you're the one bleating 'it can't be done' in another thread where we're also discussing the topic of accountability.

I know I know, there's 380 of them and only ⁴⁰ million of us. It's so unfair.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're literally begging for pollitics to come into our judiciary MORE than it already is - and i'm getting fed up trying to explain why that's bad.

I know it's bad but I'm also suggesting the public get into their governance MORE than is allowed to help prevent the corruption that makes things bad.

I'm fed up with the excuses people come up with for why the public can't get in and worse why it should be kept out.

Edited June 21, 2023 by eyeball