The BC NDP continues its soft-on-crime approach with a thin veneer of action

[blackbird]

The BC NDP just announced they are opening a facility for involuntary care for the addicted, mentally ill patients.

The problem is there are over 2,500 people in the province that fit into that category.  

These are the kinds of people that randomly attack other people on the streets.  Many of them are addicted.  They have mental problems and are dangerous.

Forty years ago, the court and government of Canada decided to close the mental institutions and released all the mental patients out onto the streets.  The thinking was that they would be taken care of in other ways by the communities.  It never happened and many people became drug addicts and many committed crimes.

Today the system is run by liberals and left who think it is criminals right to be released on the street immediately or ASAP even  if they commit serious offences and try to kill other people.

So the BC NDP solution is to open a tiny clinic with ten beds in Surrey BC.  This will do nothing.  This is a massive problem and causing great harm to businesses and people around the province.  It is far past the time to act and government to do their primary duty to protect the citizens and maintain law and order.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Forty years ago, the court and government of Canada decided to close the mental institutions…

This has always been provincial jurisdiction. You’re either ignorant or are lying. 
 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The BC NDP just announced they are opening a facility for involuntary care for the addicted, mentally ill patients.

 

Isn’t this exactly what you’ve been asking for?  Or do you just prefer throwing them all in jails?

 

 

[blackbird]

The BC NDP is deceptive just like their followers.  They claim they opened a involuntary treatment centre, but there is only TEN beds in it and there are over 2,500 mentally ill addicts and offenders on the streets.   This is why it is a deception.

Edited Friday at 06:41 PM by blackbird

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

This has always been provincial jurisdiction. You’re either ignorant or are lying. 
 

This is a threat about the province and the provincial NDP. So at least we know that there's no question here you're just ignorant

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Forty years ago, the court and government of Canada decided to close the mental institutions…

This has always been provincial jurisdiction. You’re either ignorant or are lying. 

The closing of mental health institutions was a national occurrence.

quote

Mental institutions were closed in Canada due to a shifting approach to mental health¹²³⁴⁵. The approach to mental health was changing, and institutions like Riverview were no longer considered ideal¹. The major shift in mental health practices started in the 1950s and 60s, and shuttering people away in large institutions was no longer seen as the best approach³. Instead, mental health services were redirected to be delivered in the community⁵.   unquote

"The general demise of provincial psychiatric hospitals in Canada (until 2006)"

The general demise of provincial psychiatric hospitals in Canada (until 2006) - MedCrave online

The general belief that developed in the 20th century was that the mentally ill would be better off being taken care of in their communities rather than in institutions.   However, after they were released and the institutions shut down, the communities did not and were not equipped to deal with the mentally ill.  Communities can not take the place of mental institutions.

Neither will "social housing" solve the problem.  Many of these people are addicts, dangerous offenders and generally mentally ill.  Putting them in some sort of "social housing" is not going to make them better and will not stop the crime.

Edited Friday at 06:50 PM by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

I agree that it is too few beds.  But it’s a step in the right direction and exactly what people like @blackbird have been calling for.  

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The closing of mental health institutions was a national occurrence.

BC closed Riverview. 
 

I will chalk it up to your ignorance and not deception.  But you really should try and learn about it more before you post nonsense. 

 

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2020/12/01/closing-riverview-coquitlam-psychiatric-hospital/

After decades of housing and treating those considered mentally ill, in the 1980s, the province of B.C. developed a plan to shutter the hospital.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The BC NDP

The BC NDP has instructed Crown prosecutors to do exactly what you and the rest of us want over and over. Unfortunately the Court decides whether you like that or not, and the media likes to make sensational headlines that confuse people like you who don't know or don't like  how the system works.

In the case that triggered you, the guy who's 'out on bail' is undergoing psych assessment and other restrictive conditions, not waiting outside your door to cut you into little pieces. He is not 'let go', bail only means you don't have to sit in a cell waiting for your court appearance. Everyone has the right to apply for bail and the Judge - who knows the details of the case - not you, gets to decide to grant it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

BC closed Riverview. 
 

I will chalk it up to your ignorance and not deception.  But you really should try and learn about it more before you post nonsense. 

You are being deceptive again.  You don't want to admit this is a national problem.  You should really try and learn about it more before you post nonsense.

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

In the case that triggered you, the guy who's 'out on bail' is undergoing psych assessment and other restrictive conditions, not waiting outside your door to cut you into little pieces.

Yes and you ignore the fact he seriously assaulted a woman on the street and tried to kill her.

If you think this kind of guy should be out on bail on conditions, you are mentally sick.  He tried to kill someone.  That is attempted murder.

"

Supreme Court of Canada says bail the ‘cardinal rule’ after an arrest

Criminal Law / November 29, 2024

By LegalMatters Staff • Many people charged with a criminal offence are often released from custody on bail. The formal name is a “release order” and it may come with certain conditions, such as having a bail surety.

Bail is usually given within 24 hours of an arrest, unless the alleged crime is serious or the person is a repeat offender.

“Before making any bail decision, the Court must take into account whether the accused person is Indigenous or belongs to a vulnerable group that is overrepresented in the criminal justice system and faces disadvantages in obtaining bail due to systemic discrimination,” says Ottawa criminal lawyer Céline Dostaler.

She says when deciding on what conditions to impose on someone being given bail, judges must follow the “ladder principle,” ie, imposing the least restrictive conditions necessary to address risks posed by the accused.

unquote

Supreme Court of Canada says bail the ‘cardinal rule’ after an arrest ⋆ LegalMattersCanada

This proves the Liberal government, the courts, and many lawyers put the rights of criminals and dangerous offenders ahead of the safety of the citizens in Canada.

The system is a farce.

Liberal politicians, many judges, and especially supreme court and defence lawyers sit in their high paid thrones and fight for the rights of dangerous offenders and mentally ill people that should never be out on the streets.

The system is a complete failure.  When it talks about imposing the least restrictive conditions on offenders, and we look at the repeated release of dangerous offenders, we see how that is working.  It is a complete disaster.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I agree that it is too few beds.  But it’s a step in the right direction and exactly what people like @blackbird have been calling for.  

No, it is more like a facade.  Look that up in the dictionary.  It is a smokescreen, a drop in the bucket.  The Premier appears on Global News and thinks he is making a big announcement when in fact it is just a drop in the bucket and will do little to nothing to solve the problem.

[herbie]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes and you ignore the fact he seriously assaulted a woman on the street and tried to kill her.

If you think this kind of guy should be out on bail on conditions, you are mentally sick.  He tried to kill someone.  That is attempted murder.

And you are sick for saying 'he tried to kill her'. The original headline wasn't sensationalized enough, you have to make it worse?
If the assault was serious enough to be considered attempted murder the guy would not have got bail no matter how much you want to lie and claim he would have.
The crime barely differs from a random drunk punching a stranger in a bar fight and you call for insttant Old Testament pillory and lashes.

[TreeBeard]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

government of Canada decided to close the mental institutions

I corrected you on this point. But now you say:

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

You don't want to admit this is a national problem.

You said the Government of Canada closed the institutions.  You’re either now too dumb to know the difference between a provincial government and the federal government or are lying.  🤥 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I corrected you on this point. But now you say:

You said the Government of Canada closed the institutions.  You’re either now too dumb to know the difference between a provincial government and the federal government or are lying.  🤥 

 

The point is the liberals and left including the Supreme Court all agreed to shut down mental institutions.  The liberal left have infiltrated the courts, judges, lawyers, and government.  The Government of Canada is part of it.  They have refused to change the law which allows a revolving door justice system.  That is a simple fact which you deny.  You seem to be denying that these addicts and mental cases are on the streets because of the Government of Canada and all the bleeding heart liberals across the country like yourself.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You said the Government of Canada closed the institutions.

Technically you are correct.  The institutions were likely closed by provincial governments.  But you are being dishonest in trying to divert to the question of who closed them.  That has nothing to do with it.   The closing of the institutions was supported by the federal government and the federal government is responsible for the bail system laws that continue to allow catch and release of dangerous offenders.  The federal government (Liberals) refused to change the laws that allow this in spite of the fact all the police chiefs, premiers and others have protested to the federal government in the past few years.  The liberal government just ignores all the authorities and police chiefs.

Edited Friday at 10:45 PM by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You said the Government of Canada closed the institutions.  You’re either now too dumb to know the difference between a provincial government and the federal government or are lying.  🤥 

You're being dishonest about this.  What difference does it make who closed them?  The fact is the institutions were closed and all the crazies were let loose on the streets to take drugs and assault people.  That is the point.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Technically you are correct. 

You can just say you were wrong.  There’s no technicality here.  You tend to just make things up, or repeat crazy stuff you hear without actually researching it.  Like this:

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

…including the Supreme Court all agreed to shut down mental institutions. 

What case did the SC shut down mental institutions?  I can tell you that, once again, you’re ignorant.  The SC said you can’t keep someone in an institution if they aren’t a danger to themselves or the public, but nowhere did they shut down institutions as a whole.  
 

You take information and turn it into misinformation. 
 

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

And you are sick for saying 'he tried to kill her'.

Nope.  You are sick.   

quote

Man accused of trying to kill Vancouver visitor released from custody

|

Apr 24 2025

 

Man accused of trying to kill Vancouver visitor has been released | News

Edited Friday at 11:14 PM by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

Just now, blackbird said:

You're being dishonest about this.

You just admitted that I was “technically correct”, and now you say I’m being dishonest.  Which is it?

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

What difference does it make who closed them? 

It makes a huge difference to you because you need it to be some sort of liberal scheme.  You’re batshit crazy.  I think you may be one of the ones who need the psychiatric intervention.  

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You just admitted that I was “technically correct”, and now you say I’m being dishonest.  Which is it?

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are trying to divert and use a technicality of who closed the mental institutions.  What difference does it make? There were closed.   Your obsession with my error of saying the federal government closed them when it was the provincial government is irrelevant to the subject. 

The point I made was they were closed and there was nothing to protect society from all the mentally ill people that were released into the streets.  The BC NDP creating ten beds for them when there are over 2,500 mentally ill people on the streets does nothing to solve the problem.  It proves the BC NDP are not serious.

Edited Friday at 11:12 PM by blackbird

[blackbird]

18 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

What case did the SC shut down mental institutions?

Here again you are being stubborn and refuse to accept the facts.

"

Mentally ill man may refuse treatment, court rules

CBC News · Posted: Jun 06, 2003 6:48 PM PDT | Last Updated: June 6, 2003

In a case reminiscent of the Hollywood movie A Beautiful Mind, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a mentally ill physics genius has the right to refuse treatment for his condition."

Mentally ill man may refuse treatment, court rules | CBC News

While the Supreme Court did not shut down the mental institutions per se, they have made rulings that make it impossible or very difficult to commit people to mental institutions.  So in that sense the institutions are being made redundant for involuntary treatment of mental cases.  This is why the Conservatives say they may use the not-withstanding clause to send people to mental institutions.  That may be the only Constitutional provision that could over ride the Supreme Court rulings.  This appears to be the only way a Conservative government could protect society from mentally ill criminals.  The Liberals/NDP refuse to do anything.

Edited Friday at 11:09 PM by blackbird

[herbie]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Man accused of trying to kill Vancouver visitor has been released | News

That website is accusing him of trying to kill her. If the cops accuse that it's attempted murder and you don't just walk away from that as you imply.
As blatantly misleading a Poilievre claiming that guy only got 6 years per person for the 4 he killed when he got LIFE.

And Point B; the BC NDP doesn't make bail, parole or  jailtime decisions, those are federal and Court rulings.
But coming from someone who blamed Trudeau for his omelette not rising for year after year....

sing your 'soft on crime' song to a fellow draconian.
 

[blackbird]

21 minutes ago, herbie said:

That website is accusing him of trying to kill her. If the cops accuse that it's attempted murder and you don't just walk away from that as you imply.
As blatantly misleading a Poilievre claiming that guy only got 6 years per person for the 4 he killed when he got LIFE.

And Point B; the BC NDP doesn't make bail, parole or  jailtime decisions, those are federal and Court rulings.
But coming from someone who blamed Trudeau for his omelette not rising for year after year....

sing your 'soft on crime' song to a fellow draconian.
 

Your conscience is seared.  You are willing to allow the worse offenders to get off and you call people who believe in law and order as draconian.