Conrad Black smacks the Conservatives around some more on crime

Following-up on a previous column where he called the Conservatives dumb on crime and opposed mandatory minimums for marijuana proposed by the Harper Government, Conrad Black is again laying the smack down on Conservative crime policy, putting paid to the "liberal judges" taking-point:

The underlying suspicion of Stephen Harper's government -which is that the bench is infested with softies and that it is right to punish crimes more severely than they have been in the past -is a reactionary and brutish reflex that is presumably aimed at a political constituency unlikely to stray into the arms of this government's opponents anyway. Hand-cuffing the judges merely makes justice more unlikely. And simply raising the sentences for everyone, which is essentially what is recommended, is not justified by the recidivism rates in many categories of offence. It also would legitimize the repugnant concept that criminal penalties should exceed that which is necessary to expiate the past and discourage a return to crime.

Interesting the perspective some time inside the criminal justice system can give someone.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conrad Black thinks the Conservatives are wrong on marijuana, and dumb on crime

Perhaps Conrad Black's time in U.S. prison has mellowed his thinking on criminal justice. But when even the died in the wool conservative who poured millions into launching a national newspaper to cheer-lead for the Canadian Alliance and try to take down a Liberal Prime Minister (ok, and maybe also to gain a publication in the country's largest media market and allow his chain to offer a comprehensive national advertising package) thinks your criminal justice policy is, well, pretty dumb, then you may want to take note.

In a recent column in his old paper, Conrad harshly condemns Conservative policy on a national securities regulator, larger prison construction, blindly harsher sentencing and crime in general. He also offers a fiscally conservative argument for why increasing the prison population with non-violent offenders instead of rehabilitation/treatment is bad policy and speaks out against mandatory minimums; particularly for, believe it or not, marijuana possession.

The most recent leaps backwards have been on mandatory minimum sentences, harsher marijuana laws and extension of almost all sentences -- all bad, unjust and expensive mistakes. Mandatory Minimum Sentences deprive judges of any discretion and pre-sentence convicted people without regard to individual circumstances. It is a politically catchy method of avoiding the perceived problem of soft-hearted judges letting people off lightly. It has been a catastrophic failure in the United States, from which the designers of the Roadmap have cribbed it, and emulating it in Canada would be an outrage. This is especially true when minor marijuana offences are penalized doubly harshly, as is proposed, and addiction treatment is de-emphasized in the prisons. It costs $57,000 in the provincial systems and $88,000 in the federal system to house a prisoner for a year. There is no rationale or excuse for confining those who are not physically dangerous, nor for reducing their access to treatment, which is cheaper, more effective, and more humane than prison, though less likely to appeal to knuckle-dragging deadbeats of the jail 'em, flog 'em, hang 'em school.

He even goes on to echo Liberal talking points on Conservative crime policy, describing as "apt" Michael Ignatieff's characterization of Conservative policy as dumb on crime, and accuses the Conservatives of bad policy and shabby politics.

I've never found myself this much in agreement with something Conrad has written before. It's kind of scary. It should be for Conservatives too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More stupid on crime policy from the Conservatives

I've written regularly on the Conservative government's stupid on crime policies, and the unwillingness of all parties to risk the wrath of public opinion by calling BS on so-called "tough on crime" policies that are expensive, ineffective, and designed only to score headlines.

Well, we saw more dumb on crime policy from the government this morning:

The Harper government wants a four-fold increase in the cost of applying for a pardon in Canada.

Saying it will not subsidize criminals, the government is proposing to charge $631 to study a pardon application, up from the current fee of $150.

Sounds great in theory, right? Who wants to subsidize criminals? And with public outrage over the Graham James pardon, the Conservatives are eager to jump on that bandwagon and been seen to respond toughly.

When you look deeper though, this is just more Conservative dumb on crime policy. So, you hike the fee from $150 to $631. Who will suffer from this? For your corporate fraudster, your retirement fund charlatan, an extra $500 is peanuts. They'll get their name cleared and their slate whipped clean.

But what about the single Mom on the poverty line who shoplifted to feed her family, or passed bad cheques to keep a roof over their head? She won't be able to come up with another $500. So she'll continue to be burdened with a criminal record, making it harder to get a job and support her family, while the wealthy mutual fund shyster gets a second chance.

And it's also worth noting that those eligible for the pardon program have already served their sentences, so unlike the Conservative soundbite, these people have been held accountable.

Look, if you want to reform the pardon program, and make them harder to get, that's a legitimate debate. Tighten regulations about who can qualify, the time periods, what crimes aren't eligible, and so on.

But just raising fees and pretending you're being tough is neither tough nor smart on crime. It's just stupid.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

How about a citizen's arrest of politics trumping rational debate?

So often when it comes to crime policy, politics seems to trump parliament’s role of examining legislation to ensure it will truly be effective and will meet the intended goals without unintended consequences.

We’re about to be hearing a lot in parliament about citizen arrests.

The recent debate was sparked when a shopkeeper in Toronto's Chinatown, David Chen, was charged with assault and forcible confinement after he and two of his employees confronted a man who had stolen plants from the store an hour earlier, tied him up and threw him into the back of a van. Current law allows a citizen to make an arrest only while a crime is in progress.

Chen was ultimately acquitted of the charges, but the fact that he was charged at all upset fellow store owners and politicians.

Chen’s case captured public and media attention, and all the federal parties were quick to rally to the cause and propose legislative changes to make citizen arrests easier. Liberal and NDP MPs introduced private members bills, and the Conservatives are set to introduce government legislation

While I’m sympathetic to Chen’s cause, and I’m pleased with the outcome of the case against him, I think we’re treading on dangerous ground here. Changing criminal law and writing legislation in response to single incidents that garnered lots of media attention may be good politics, but it’s not the best way to design a justice system.

Already, we’re hearing lots of concerns raised about the proposed changed to citizen arrest laws:

"The traditional policy of the law has been to try and leave arrests up to the professionals -- the police -- wherever possible," said Jonathan Dawe, a criminal lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of Toronto.

"There is a concern that untrained citizens might arrest in situations where it isn't really justified, and a further concern about citizens putting themselves in dangerous situations where someone -- themselves, the person they are arresting or innocent bystanders -- might get hurt."

Now, in theory, the role of Parliament is to examine and vet proposed legislation. The Conservative bill would go to committee, where people like Dawe would be invited to testify and be questioned by the committee members, possibly leading to amendments to improve the legislation and raise concerns addressed.

How likely is that to happen here? Not likely; not when all three parties (don’t know about the BQ) want to ride this bandwagon.

This is likely to be a microcosm of everything that’s wrong with how Parliament deals with crime legislation today. It will likely be pushed through quickly and with minimal examination. No one will want to object too strongly, lest they find themselves on the wrong side of a PR disaster.

Everyone is so dammed afraid of being tagged with the dreaded “soft on crime” label that flawed legislation isn’t challenged anymore. And never mind a comprehensive approach to crime, such as harm reduction, prevention, youth programs, and so on. It’s flawed put politically popular “get tough” measures that are usually more show than substance, and almost invariably have been proven ineffective.

Maybe it’s a product of our perpetual minorities. In a four-year mandate, I think everyone would be more willing to take a long-term approach and make politically unpopular but correct decisions. But when you could be heading to the polls at any time, no one wants to be caught offside.

Whatever the reason, it’s an unfortunate trend that, ironically, is only preventing actual, meaningful and effective crime legislation from being passed.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stock and I make census of crime reporting

Stockwell Day says we can't rely on statistics showing a declining crime rate because those figures only measure reported crime. And Stock apparently has unreported figures that show unreported crime is rising (or maybe not):

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says statistics showing crime in Canada is declining may not be accurate.

Day says the crime rate per 1,000 people has dropped, but adds that more people are not reporting crimes.

He says surveys suggest many people don't bother calling the police on some crimes.
The numbers are alarming, he says, although he did not elaborate.

Day says this is why the government plans to hike spending for new prisons.

What Stock failed to mention is that the reason we can't necessarily take those crime statistics at face value is because crime reporting is voluntary, which leads to an array of challenges that can skew the numbers. With the reporting pool self-selecting, some groups may be more likely to report criminal events: the middle-class, for example, or the the family of a murder victim. And those who live in high-crime neighbourhoods, or who are the victim of a minor crime such as j-walking, might not bother to report.

That's why tomorrow I'm told Stock will announce the Conservative Party's new "Get Tough on Unreported Crime" initiative, which will make crime reporting mandatory and threaten stiff fines and/or jail terms for failure to report crime.*

That's why they're really building all those prisons.

*No, not really.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Harper Conservatives: Soft on murder?

In a bold and courageous move yesterday, Conservative minister Rona Ambrose ended years of ambiguity in the government’s position on this key issue by making it clear: the Conservative Party thinks murder is wrong:

"Killing or mutilating anyone, least of all a family member, is utterly unacceptable under all circumstances," Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Status of Women, said Monday.

Ambrose went on to announce bold legislative action would be forthcoming to make murder a crime under the law:

She also said the government is “looking at” adding honour killing as a separate charge to the Criminal Code.

Except Ambrose immediately had the rug pulled out from her by a spokesperson for the justice minister:

But Justice Department spokeswoman Pamela Stephens said that the government has no plans to add honour killings to the Criminal Code.

“An intentional killing is murder, regardless of the motive,” she said late Monday evening.

“The expression ‘honour killing’ is not listed in the Criminal Code nor is ‘domestic violence. Rather, the two are addressed through the existing offences in the code such as assault, criminal harassment, murder, and related aggravating factors.”

Well thank goodness that’s settled: murder is already illegal. Good to know. Let's get the word out.

Meanwhile, in related crime news, the government that with great fanfare made street racing illegal (well, even more illegal than it already was, like Rona wants to do with murder) is spending tax dollars advertising with video games that glorify street racing:

The online description of one of the games reads, “Compete at the highest level of street racing with Need for Speed ProStreet. It’s no longer good enough to simply rule your local neighborhood; you need to dominate on a global stage.”

The government placed ads in a number of video games during February and March of this year. The ads were part of an attempt to encourage young people to complete their apprenticeship training and alert them to grants of up to $4,000.

A spokesperson for the department of whimsy and caprice confirmed that, thankfully, irony is not (yet) a crime.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper Conservatives: Soft on white-collar crime?

Once again, the gap between Conservative rhetoric and Conservative reality is gaping. This time, white-collar and financial crime is in the spotlight.

The Conservative rhetoric:

Today, the Conservative government announced new legislation to crack down on white-collar crime.

Our government understands that those who are defrauded by white-collar criminals have been victimized just as much as a person who has been mugged.
...
The Conservative government will always work for the safety of Canadians, their families, and their savings.

And the Conservative reality:

Canada's financial transactions watchdog says its services are in greater demand than ever, yet the federal government has cut its budget by eight per cent in the last two years.

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FinTRAC) referred 556 cases to domestic or foreign police and other agencies in 2008-09.

In tabling the centre's annual report in Parliament, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty cited the devastating effects of white-collar crime and lauded the centre's role in "strengthening the integrity of Canada's financial sector."

The centre's director, Jeanne Flemming, said FinTRAC is able to produce "more financial intelligence, more quickly" than ever in the face of growing demand.

However, the Conservative government, which has made anti-crime legislation a centrepiece of its agenda, has cut the centre's 2009-2010 budget to $48 million from $54.9 million in 2007-08.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime and the Senate

Reading news coverage this morning leaves me pondering just what role many media and politicians expect the Senate to play in our democracy and whether, all things considered, blowing the thing up may just make more sense.

I’ve read many headlines this morning alleging that Liberal senators are “gutting” the latest Conservative pander/get tough on crime legislation: the bill dealing with ending the 2-for-1 credit for pre-sentencing confinement.

In short (or not), every day served in jail before someone is actually convicted counts as two days off the sentence they’re given, the thinking being they hadn’t been found guilty of anything yet, and it’s the poor that are more likely to be confined pre-conviction because they can’t afford to make bail.

The Conservatives proposed legislation to end the 2-for-1 credit, and make one day count as, well, one day. They say defense attorneys are abusing the system by dragging-out cases to maximize the pre-conviction credit, and, rawrr, the time sentenced should be the time done. It received all-party support and then went to the Senate, where the drama began.

The Senate heard from expert witnesses who said the bill was unconstitutional. The Senate decided to amend the bill to 1.5 days credit for pre-sentencing time, with judicial discretion for 2 days. The bill is expected to the House, where the Senate changes can be over-ruled and the legislation reverted to its original form.

This has triggered much predictable braying from the Conservatives, with the NDP jumping-in with their Conservative friends for good measure. Unelected Senators shouldn’t change House legislation, they complain. The Liberal Senators are soft on crime, they bellow. Oh, and Michael Ignatieff is a weak leader because Liberal Senators don’t do exactly what he says.

I don’t want to debate the merits of the legislation at the moment. Rather, I want to look at what this episode says about the role we expect the Senate to play in our democratic system. Because, like it or not, what the Senate did here is exactly what it is supposed to do: it examined the legislation, heard from learned witnesses, considered their concerns, and made amendments.

The House has the right to over-rule them, and it probably will but the Senate didn’t overstep its bounds at all. It did its job: sober second thought.

Then there’s the attacks on Ignatieff’s leadership here: are we really saying that the party leader should insist on rigid discipline and party-line votes from its Senators on every piece of legislation? That doesn’t make sense, it’s not how the system has worked or is meant to work.

And if the Senate is to be a party-line institution, a do whatever the House says institution that can’t amend legislation, why the heck would we keep it around anyway?

Only the NDP supports abolition, Harper supposedly want to reform the Senate. One wonders, to what end, though? If it was elected Liberal senators amending his legislation, would he find that more legitimate? I find that unlikely. Is he going to expect every elected Conservative Senator to toe his party line, or might they have other ideas about the role of an elected, equal and effective Senate?

And, while I do favour Senate reform and while I don’t want to sidetrack into a debate on the merits of this particular crime legislation, let me just say that this could well be a case-study for why the Senate is here.

You have a house of elected MPs who are so dammed scared of the “soft on crime” label that they often let their better judgment be swayed by political considerations. As a check and balance we have a Senate, the chamber of sober second thought that, not having to fight for election seemingly every year, is free to listen to experts, consider legislation on its merits, and made decisions based on facts, not political positioning.

Unelected as they may be, that freedom at times seems like a pretty good thing. Would six-year terms for Senators help achieve that for elected Senators? Perhaps. But that freedom is certainly something worth preserving somehow, in my view.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are we so dammed afraid to get smart on crime?

As a Liberal who would describe himself as socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm increasingly angry and frustrated with the inability and unwillingness of the centre/left to get smart on crime policy. Increasingly, we’re letting the conservatives define the terms of the debate as we cower in the corner frightened and whimpering, afraid of being tarred with that label of political death: soft on crime.

I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.

Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the U.S. is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences, mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime.

Yet mandatory minimums were back this spring, with the Conservatives proposing them for a range of drug-related crimes including, in some cases, simple possession. And while the NDP stayed offside this time (they were voting against everything at that point) the Liberals, rather than having the courage to call bullshit, rather than having the willingness and the gumption to argue (with the facts on our side, by the way) that this is an expensive and ineffective excuse for crime fighting legislation that will do nothing to address crime, instead took one look at the polls and the election possibility and, afraid of the “soft on crime” canard, supported the legislation.

And now, as I wrote yesterday, we see a trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson about making a mockery of civil rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “randomly” force people to submit to breathalyzer testing.

I was astounded, and I wasn’t, to see NDP leader Jack Layton immediately jump on board with this big-brotherish Conservative proposal, in a seeming abandonment of the core principles I’d have ascribed to the NDP:

The New Democrats would support efforts to craft a new law to curb impaired driving by giving police the power to conduct random breathalyzer tests, says Jack Layton.

"It’s the kind of thing that could save some lives," the NDP leader said Monday outside the House of Commons.

I guess civil liberties don’t mean much to Layton when it comes to appearing to be tough on crime to troll for votes. Sadly, my Liberals may be following down that same road. Don Martin, in a column where he argues in support of this thing, indicates the Liberals are supportive of the proposal although he doesn’t quote sources.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh is quoted by the CBC as raising many of the same concerns I raised yesterday but, to my dismay, he doesn’t dismiss the proposal outright:

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

I can’t believe my party is even considering this legislation which, to me, is diametrically opposed to what the Liberal Party of Canada, the party of the charter, has always stood for. And I’m surprised that I’m finding more alliance with conservatives, particularly I’m guessing libertarian Conservatives, in my opposition to this thing. Even the National Post’s editorial board thinks this is a bad idea. And while they occasionally publish my musings on the Web, the Post’s editors and I rarely, if ever, agree on policy.

So I ask again, why are we so dammed afraid of the crime issue? Why do we let the Conservatives falsely define the terms of debate?

We have the facts on our side, but we’re unwilling to even make the argument. Why aren’t we saying the Conservatives are soft on crime? Why aren’t we saying their crime policy is nothing but politically-motivated posturing designed to stoke public fears to win votes but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime?

Why aren't we pointing-out that, under the previous Liberal governments, most crime rates actually declined steadily, proof that the approach of balancing enforcement and detention with prevention and addressing root causes, being smart on crime, actually works?

Why aren’t we saying the Conservative crime-policy is half-assed? Why aren’t we saying that by ignoring crime prevention, by strangling crime reduction measures that are proven to work such as Insite, by doing nothing to address poverty and root causes, by focusing on detention and sentencing to the exclusion of all other areas of criminal justice, the Conservative crime policy is fatally flawed? That the Conservatives are ignoring measures that could actually reduce crime?

No, we’re not doing that. We’re too afraid we’ll lose and be labeled soft on crime. It’s pathetic.

I will grant that it would be a tough debate to win. It’s far easier to appeal to people’s demons than their better angels, its easier to stoke their fears than encourage their compassion, to sink to the lowest common denominator rather than raise the debate.

It would be difficult to do, but it would be the right thing to do. We have the facts on our side, we have truth on our side.

We might well lose the debate. But it’s not the debates that we lose that bother me. It's the debates we can’t be bothered to suit up for.

If we’re going to fall, we should fall standing-up for something.

Right now, we’re falling standing for nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Random breath tests: A frightening trial-baloon from Rob Nicholson

I'm loathe to fall into tired rhetoric and hyperbole by throwing around terms like police state and big brother run amok, but this trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson is frightening, with a myriad of troubling consequences:

The federal Justice Department is considering a new law to randomly force drivers to take roadside breath tests, regardless of whether police suspect they have been drinking, Canwest News Service has learned.

Random breath testing, if adopted, would replace Canada's 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving, which dictates that police can only administer breathalyzer tests if they have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson publicly raised the prospect of random testing recently at the annual gathering of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"He has his Justice officials putting together the legal parameters," said MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie.

Nicholson, when asked whether he is considering a new law on random testing, said: "We are looking at all options in that regard."

This is a bad idea on almost uncountable levels.

Firstly, I'm curious to see how they'd get around charter provisions against unreasonable search and seizure. The police can't just stop you and compel you to submit to search. They need to have reasonable grounds for suspicion, they need probable cause. That's a fundamental tenet of a free society, and is a key part of personal liberty. It's what separates us from police states.

Secondly, is it really going to be "random" searches? I don't buy that one for a second. I'd bet good money that certain demographics would get "randomly" pulled over for testing a lot more than other demographics. And it probably wouldn't be the same demographic responsible for the bulk of drunk driving offenses.

Thirdly, I'm a decided legal layman, but this would seem to open up a huge can of legal worms. You randomly pull someone over for a random breathalyzer test, someone that under normal circumstances you have no legal probable cause for doing so. And in that process, while they blow clean you discover they have committed another offense: let's say, the possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Normally, that would be inadmissible because you had no probable cause for the search. But does the "random breathalyzer" law get your foot in the door and make an otherwise inadmissible search become admissible? Would the breathalyzer law be used as an end-run around the wider search laws to widen police powers in ways not intended by the law, and that are contrary to the charter?

For many reasons, I think this is a horrible idea. Look, I support strong sentances for drunk drivers. And if the government has sensible ideas, if they have effective proposals for police tools that will actually work, I'm willing to listen. But a shredding of the charter of rights and a curtailing of civil liberties that would have repercussions far beyond those intended is not the answer here.

Of course, such legislation would never pass without a Conservative majority. Which makes this just yet another example of the Harper Conservatives substituting politicking and appealing to fear for actual effective anti-crime legislation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime is down, but rhetoric continues to escalate

Statistics Canada reports today that crime is down across the country, with the exception of those pesky Prince Edward Islanders, where the Anne of Green Gables knockoff merchandise black market continues to expand. Potato theft is also rampant.

But really, declining crime rates aren’t really surprising to most people. Well, except perhaps to Stephen Harper. Those who have been paying attention, though, know that crime has been declining steadily for some time, well pre-dating the current government.

The statistics prevent a communications challenge for the Conservative. Or, rather, they would if the Conservatives were concerned about consistent messaging that actually, you know, makes sense and stuff.

The Conservatives could claim victory and take credit for the numbers, except:

a) Harper has already made his statistics, shmatistics position clear.

b) They consistently blame the Liberals for stalling and not passing their “tough on crime” legislation. Particularly those pesky Senators.

Never mind the fact we offered to fast-track the bulk of it, they always get it to the Senate late in session and expect it to be rubber-stamped, and they’ve killed their own bills many times, like when they called an early election (in violation of their own election law, ironically) or when they prorogued parliament in December to avoid defeat at the hands of the Rebel Alliance.
So if we’re stalling their legislation, how can it be reducing crime?

c) The decline in crime rates predates this government. That could more likely mean the previous Liberal “soft on crime” policies were actually working, that demographic or other factors could be responsible, or some combination of the two.

I’ll be interested to see how the Cons square the circle here. I’m guessing they stick to the fingers in year, stats are for losers, I listen to my gut approach.

To the opposition though, and particularly my Liberals, my plea is this: the facts are on our side.

So don’t take the path of least resistance on CPC crime legislation. Lets fight fictional gut rhetoric with actual facts.

If it’s good legislation, pass it. If it needs changes, move for amendments. Of course tough on crime polls well. But tough vs. soft is a false argument that we should reject. We’ve always advocated a balanced approach to crime: get tough on criminals AND address root causes that lead to crime. And we’ve gotten away from that lately, and that’s wrong.

We should be saying sure, get tough on crime, criminals suck (although mandatory minimums are stupid) but getting tough on crime is only half the answer. The Conservative approach is half-assed, and getting tough on crime along won’t achieve the desired impact. You need to address poverty, you need to invest in diversion programs, and you need to do harm reduction.

And you need to support programs like Insite, which won over a skeptical local community and has led to sharp reductions in property crime, for example, in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

That’s the case we should be making. As I said, we’ve got the facts on our side, that’s been reaffirmed again today.

So let’s start suiting-up for this one, please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Liberal crime policies were working?

Don't you just hate when the truth shows an obvious liberal bias? Dammed inconvenient statistics!

New statistics suggest serious criminal offences were on the decline well before the federal Conservative government launched its anti-crime campaign in Parliament.

(snip)

The Tories under Prime Minister Stephen Harper have campaigned on promises to get tough on crime and have introduced a number of bills in Parliament to address what they characterize as a growing problem.

But Statistics Canada says the seriousness of police-reported crime fell in every year but one during the decade leading up to the election of the Conservative minority government in 2006 through to 2007.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

BC's new pre-trial centre: The very definition of NIMBYism

I've really only been following this story through Twitter updates from CNKW and CBCBC, but it seems to be the very definition of NIMBYism run amok.

The issue: The Lower Mainland needs a new pre-trial detention centre. The justice system and current infrastructure is strained. The priovincial government is trying to invest resources to alleviate that strain. Doing so would benefit the community: less delays before trial and more resources mean less need for plea-bargians and fewer cases thrown-out by judges because it took too long to bring to trial.

Everyone wants this to happen. Everyone wants action on crime, and more resources for the justice system. Part of that is a new pre-trial centre and everyone wants one built, and NOW. The only problem? They want it built in someone else's community.

Apparently they wanted to put it in Burnaby, but the community balked. Fine, said the government. Here's a list of 60 potential sites all over Metro Vancouver, they told the mayors. You guys decide amongst yourselves. Anyone surprised they haven't been able to?

One of the proposed locations is 520 E. Kent Ave., near the Fraser River in south Vancouver.

Members of that community successfully chased a Wal-Mart out of the area in 2005 — and they're vowing to make sure the jail doesn't land there either.

"It just shows that this place has, for so long, been used as a catch-all for everything nobody else wants," said Louise Seto, a member of the group that fought to keep big box stores out the neighbourhood.

"Look at the choices that we've been given. We haven't been given any positive choices for our community at all in terms of the use of our industrial land."

Another possibility is a piece of the Agricultural Land Reserve on Barnston Island in Surrey.

"It certainly shows a disdain for the ability for us to feed ourselves and to maintain agriculture and agricultural land in British Columbia," said Harold Steeves, a Richmond City councillor and the agriculture chair for Metro Vancouver.

"They're building highways through the farmland, they're putting ports on the farmland and now they're talking about putting prisons on the farmland."

The mayors have until Sept. 1 to decide where the 360-bed pretrial centre will end up.

Maybe they should just put it on the moon.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Stéphane Dion asks a question, Peter Kent acts like a tool

Former Liberal leader (and still number one in my heart) Stéphane Dion posed a question in question period today for the first time since he stepped down as leader, using the slot following Michael Ignatieff to ask a question about the recent federal court ruling requiring it to seek clemency for a Canadian citizen facing the death penalty for murder in Montana.

In a rather heated exchange, Conservative junior foreign affairs minister Peter Kent showed what a tool he is. And I love his whole say something inflammatory, and than say we're reviewing the court ruling and it would be inappropriate to comment further in a rather patronizing tone. The pride of the liberal media, former Global anchor Peter Kent.

Anyway, good to see Stéphane again.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime...boy, I don't know (with video)

With, to the chagrin of the BC Tourism people, Peter Van Loan having helpfully labeled Vancouver as “Canada's gang capital” last week (I suggest we stick with 'Supernatural British Columbia' on the license plates), his boss Stephen Harper was in town today to capitalize on public concern about gang violence introduce considered legislation aimed at addressing the problem.

And, almost as importantly, appear tough and decisive on crime while painting the opposition, particularly those lilly-livered Liberals, as soft on crime pansies that want to hug thugs and, I don't know, bake them cookies or something.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper insists tougher sentences included in the anti-gang legislation the Conservatives tabled on Thursday will deter crime but said he expects opposition parties will "parrot" critics of the measures because they believe in "soft-on-crime" policies.

Speaking in the Vancouver area, which has seen 18 shootings in the past month, Harper said the Tories received the Canadian public's backing in the last election to ensure violent criminals face strong penalties.

"The truth of the matter is, those who say that the tougher penalties on perpetrators will not work don’t want them to work because they don’t believe in his kind of approach," he told reporters.

"We know that we’re going to hear these critics, and we know that we’re going to hear the opposition parrot some of these critics because they all believe in soft-on-crime policies."

Yeah, that's right, people that oppose conservative crime policies actually WANT people to get shot and what not so our philosophical beliefs can be proven correct. Ladies and gentleman of Canada, your Prime Minister. Be proud.

But wait, what's this, in the next paragraph in that CBC story:

Shortly after the prime minister spoke, the Liberals and NDP announced they would support the bill in principle, while also criticizing the Tories for not going far enough in terms of crime prevention.

Oh, snap! How do you like them apples, Steve? We'll see your tough on crime, and raise you a you should have done it sooner AND do something about prevention, you old crime softie you.

You know, I may still be surprised but from what I've read so far, I have no problem with what the Conservatives seem to be proposing in this legislation.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would make any gang-related homicide a first-degree murder charge, as well as create a new charge for drive-by shootings that would carry a mandatory four-year minimum sentence upon conviction, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said.

The bill will also seek to increase sentences against those convicted of assaulting police officers with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Sure, why not. That's all fine with me. But if you think this is going to do anything to actually help the gang problem in B.C's Lower Mainland, you're on crack. Longer, tougher sentences. Sure. But are you under the impression gangsters don't know drive-by shootings, assaulting cops and running drugs is illegal? Do you think they're going to look at a longer sentence and decide 'yeah, it's not just worth it?' I really don't think so. They're aware it's wrong. They're aware of the risk. Make the sentences as long as you want. It may make the public feel better, but the impact on gang violence will be negligible.

It's not an either/or, prevention or tougher sentences, like Harper tries to make it. Why can't we do both? If we want to be truly effective, we need to. Ask yourself, would you rather throw the murderer in jail for life at taxpayer expense, or prevent them from turning to a life of crime in the first place. With the latter, not only do you save taxpayers the cost of incarceration but, well, you also save one taxpayer's life.

Frankly, a more effective thing that could be done to deal with BC's gang problem, and this is more something that needs to happen at the local level, would be to have one, single police force for the entire Greater Vancouver area. The mish-mash of different police forces, municipal and RCMP, that cover the area today is part of the problem. A single force would be more effective at dealing with a problem that crosses municipal boundaries.

Here's Liberal MPs Dominic LeBlanc and Ujjal Dosanjh reacting to the Conservative legislation. As a former BC Premier, and particularly as a former BC Attorney General, Dosanjh has some insight here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Decoding Harper Speak: Youth Crime Edition

This may well become an ongoing series, as there's certainly plenty of material. Today's edition of Stephen Harper Speak, Your Guide to Decoding Canada's Once New Government, we focus on youth crime.

In Harper Speak, Unmitigated Failure actually means Clear Success. For example, when Harper says Canada's revamped young offender laws have been an unmitigated failure, what he's actually saying is that they've been doing a fantastic job.

Canada's revamped young offender laws - described by Prime Minister Stephen Harper as an ``unmitigated failure'' -have in fact been a clear success in keeping adolescents out of court and custody without increasing youth crime, concludes a new academic analysis.

The three authors warn against the Harper government pursuing a promise to toughen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing it won't enhance public safety, but it will cost provincial governments significantly more money to punish young people by incarcerating them.

``Despite the rhetorical support of the new Conservative minority government for `toughening' the act, the government and Parliament may still realize that sending more youth into custody would increase the cost of the youth justice services without increasing public safety,'' said the analysis.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that realization, analysis authors. Because for all their numbers and reasoning and facts, they've failed to analyze the undeniable truthiness of Harper's views on youth crime. He don't need no facts that show the Liberal legislation is a success, because he knows in his gut that its an unmitigated failure.

Or make what he's feeling in his gut is just Laureen's taco casserole surprise.

One or the other.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Good, we need more piss and vinegar

Liberal MPs familiar with justice issues have been talking tough lately about not being willing to take a potential draconian Conservative crime agenda laying down:

Three Liberal members of the Commons justice committee are among the most adamant that the party will not stand by as the Conservative measures roll through the House.

Brian Murphy, a Liberal from New Brunswick, said it would be wrong to oppose bills that have not yet been seen by Parliament and they could be crafted in a way that the Liberals support.

But "I would say very clearly that abstaining as we did was not helpful in this election for me," he said. "And I would be very reluctant - given that I ran on the idea of being a fighter, being very strident, and having 16 years of always standing up for people - I would be very reluctant to abstain."

Larry Bagnell, a Liberal MP from the Yukon, said the question for both his party and the Conservative government will be whether these issues are serious enough to fight another election over.

"I can say that we will be making a strong case in our caucus against this bill, for sure," Mr. Bagnell said.

Derek Lee, a Toronto-area Liberal, said "there is no way I am going to sit on my hands. There is no way that these guys are going to get their way."

The Conservative plan is "an ignorant, uninformed vision" of the justice system and how it works, said Mr. Lee, adding that harsher penalties don't work because criminals don't know the precise sentences for the crimes they commit.

"I couldn't allow myself to vote in favour of such ill-advised legislation, whether they call it confidence or not."

It remains to be seen how the dynamic of this parliament will play out. If Harper decides to take a conciliatory approach, and show some willingness to give a little to get a little, then I think all the parties can work together to pass some good legislation on a number of issues. If he decides to be a jerk, and push through draconian crap we can’t support betting we’ll swallow it to avoid an election, then we’ll have some issues.

I think there is a thorough lack of appetite within Liberal circles for more abstention nonsense, no matter what the leadership situation. We should be willing to work with the other parties to improve and pass considered legislation. But if Harper tries to play games again, we should throw them back and his face and make clear we’ll vote no, confidence matter or not.

If it means an election, so be it. Coming so soon after an election though, one wonders if the GG would be so willing to grant a speedy dissolution…

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. More piss and vinegar like this from our caucus would be desirable. Ralph Goodale, I’m looking at you buddy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

This is too funny, and nice strategy too

I’ve been lamenting lately the LPC’s lack of communications acumen. Well, to give them credit, I think they came up with a great way to expose Stephen Harper’s posturing and chest thumping when it comes to that ridiculous and unconstitutional force the Senate to pass the crime bill motion, which came to a vote today:

The Liberals have walked out of the Commons en masse rather than vote on a government motion demanding that the Senate to pass an omnibus crime bill by March 1.

In their absence, the motion passed easily, 172-27.

Stephane Dion led his caucus out of the chamber before the vote began.

The government said it considered the vote a matter of confidence, meaning its defeat would have toppled the government and triggered an election.

The Liberals have dismissed the vote as a political stunt, pointing out that the Commons has no say in how the Senate conducts its business.

If they’d just voted yes it’s a minor story quickly forgotten. If they'd abstained but stayed in their seats, dido. But now all the coverage will centre on the walkout, and the coverage will have to explain why they walked out: because it was a meaningless motion of no force and effect that had nothing to do with fighting crime and everything to do with political posturing by the Harper Conservaitives.

Bravo.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

On crime bill-fought elections, and who's really tough on crime

We're not going to have an election on the Conservatives' written on the back of a napkin pass the crime bill motion. The scenario though makes me wish the LPC had some money for polling. Because I think this would be an interesting question to put to a sample group:

“As you know, the Conservative government is threatening to call an election if the Senate does not quickly pass its anti-crime legislation.

If you knew the Liberal Party offered to immediately pass more than half this legislation in October 2006, and again in March 2007, and was refused by the Conservative government both times, would this make you:

a) more likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
b) less likely to vote Conservative in the next election?
c) not change your voting intention?”

Is it still called push-polling if its true?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Readers, start your spin-cycles

The big story in the Globe this morning is on new crime statistics, reporting the national crime rate is at an all time low.

National crime rate at 25-year low: Statscan
Canadian Press
July 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM EDT

OTTAWA — A new study says the national crime rate hit its lowest point in more than 25 years in 2006, driven by a decline in non-violent crime.

Statistics Canada says the crime rate dropped by three per cent last year, mainly due to declines in break-ins, thefts under $5,000 and counterfeiting.

The national crime rate has decreased by about 30 per cent since peaking in 1991.
(more)

Rather than providing my analysis, I thought for fun I’d turn the issue over to my readers and allow you to flex your spin skills and pull things out, in context or not, to use the data to pump-up your party and trash your opponents.

• Does the decline mean the Conservative tough on crime legislation, most of which isn’t yet law, is unnecessary blustering? Or are criminals so scared of the proposed legislation they’ve stopped committing crimes even before its law?

• Does the increase in assaults with a weapon mean the gun registry is a boondoggle, or did the fact the Conservatives have neutered the registry without canceling it rendering it useless contribute to the increase?

• Does the decrease in the national homicide rate mean Harper is hard on crime and the Liberals soft, or does the increase in many serious violent crimes like attempted murder and aggravated assault mean the Liberals were tougher on crime and Harper is soft?

• Does the rise in crime by youth mean diversion programs and addressing root causes rather than “getting tough” was the right way to go, or does it mean Vic Toews was right, throw the kiddies in prison?

• Does the large drop in crime in PEI mean everyone in the province moved West and there's no one left?

• Or does the fact the data is only until the end of 2006, after less than a year of CPC government and before most, if not all, of the new Conservative crime legislation could be passed and implemented, render any political comparisons and partisan shots based on the data silly and useless?
  

Let the spinning begin!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers