My take on Harper....

[tdwebste]

Support Harper for his support of the Canadian Military and his dedication to following through in Afghanistan, but not for his handling of climate change or for his desire to remove the independence of the Judiciary.

 

[Kirkhill]

td:

I'll stand with you on preparing for change - catastrophic or otherwise - and leave it there.  We know that whether we are "innocent or guilty" change happens, as it has in the past,  and we have to deal with THAT, as we have in the past.

 

[tdwebste]

The other area where I cannot support Harper is his handling of the Judiciary Independence. Loss of the independence of the Judiciary is a serious matter.

It is because the Canadian Judiciary is independent it was able to reject recent laws imposed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that went too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety.
In fact these laws where not even needed, as stated by the RCMP.

For more detail see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/27tue1.html

The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels. Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.

Here is a good technical summary of the changes.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/article.asp?id=3072
The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.
Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I disagree on your take on the judiciary.

I think judges have shown themselves to be complete morons specifically when it comes to things like sentencing and granting parole to violent offenders.

I don't think we want a federal government that bullies our judiciary, but at the same time I truly believe our judiciary has been completely negligent in their duty to protect the public and because of lack of transparency, there is no system to hold them accountable.

My specific legislated changes would include:
1)  Setting higher minimum sentences and parole conditioners for violent offenders.
2)  Annual reviews with police, crown prosecutors and defence attorneys in a public forum.  Opaque ivory towers of invincibility do not serve the public good.



Matthew. 

 

[Reccesoldier]

The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels. Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.

Someones been drinking the kool-aid.  :

Can you explain to me how it is a threat to judicial Independence to have police and crime victims represented at these nominations?  If they were going to go over judicial sentences one by one and change them, sure that would qualify but having a voice in the nomination process can not and does not.

 

[GAP]

The police and victims reps should be on these committee's. That's what representation is all about.

 

[Kirkhill]

And a judiciary appointed by the Government of the day was independent how?  ???

They may have had "jobs for life" once appointed (and still do) but the appointment process was highly politically partisan.

 

[Flip]

tdwebste,

Have you actually met a judge? - I mean socially?

Generally they are artsy people who have spent nearly their
entire adult lives in one academic pursuit after another.

They very seldom see a crime scene - the body
-or any of the icky stuff.

Except for the golf course or bridge club they lead a
cloistered life.  I've heard judges express surprise that
a witness or refugee claimant would lie to them.

Personally, I think something has to change.
The old way has started to fail us badly.

What would you suggest?

 

[Operationblack]

1)  Setting higher minimum sentences and parole conditioners for violent offenders.

Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment. They show that when a system is working to reform them not only does it decrease crime in prison itself but greatly reduced how many will re-offend. We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors.

Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.

 

[vonGarvin]

Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.

OK, "Ricky", suppose the use of marijuana were decriminalised.  Just when society is marginalising the use of tobacco more and more, they would free up the use of marijuana?
Know what else would reduce our prison population?  De-criminalise heroin, rape, murder and any other crime sure would drop the prison populations, no?
Remember, it's not so much to "re-educate" the criminals, but to protect society.  I too favour rehabilitation, but stiffer sentences must be implemented (IMHO) as a deterrent AND to keep the dangerous away from society.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.

How about education, not the reading, writing or Arithmetic kind but good old fashioned civics. 

In our head-over-heels rush toward namby pamby feel good liberalism we have forgotten how to produce responsible citizens. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment.

Stay in your lane, sonny............why do you think we are called "Corrections"?  Besides,I can "reform" my horse all I want but guess what, he will never be a big dog.

We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors.

Yup, because they also have one of the highest populations of 'civilized' countries that inmates don't just dissappear.................but I hear lots of those countries have cut thier organ transplant waiting lists way down.
.......and whomever told you we do not have a revolving door system lied to you.

Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.

Come talk to some of my "hard-hooks" and just about to a man, they will tell you they started out with just a few tokes. Funny how those who have broken the habits are the most vocal about keeping up the fight on drugs..............guess they know somwthing that hopefully you never need to find out.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment. They show that when a system is working to reform them not only does it decrease crime in prison itself but greatly reduced how many will re-offend. We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors.

Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.

How old are you?

I'm sorry, but you cannot have much life experience to state such things.

First, the primary role of jails is to protect the public from criminals, then to punish criminals for commiting crimes, and the last priority is to give criminals an opportunity to reform themselves.  In short, jail shouldn't be a daycare for murderers.  It should be a place where we lock-up those who are a threat to society and not let them until we're certain they no longer pose a threat.  Have a look at most of the recent gun crimes and most of the offenders have been convicted of multiple offences in the past, they were given short sentences, and then allowed back out to commit more crimes.

It's not that I'm against providing education in jails because I'm not, but it has to be put in context. 

Second, regarding repealing our drug laws - I don't think so.  If you want to see how non-addictive marijuana can be, check out Ricky Williams and Quincy Carter from the NFL.  I should add, if you want to try something really interesting, do a poll of people currently in prison and ask how many smoked marijuana before going to jail.  The number you'll get is close to 100%. 

Bottom Line:  I think you're overly optimistic about the nature of man which is causing you draw a series of related false conclusions.


Matthew. 

 

[a_majoor]

Ladies and gentlemen. I often wonder why we take the time to engage people who are obviously not interested in debate (AKA "trolls"). Don't take this as a slur, I am probably the biggest offender since my Occam's rasor is about the size of a Samurai Katana, and I enjoy the ritualistic drawing and swordwork which follows...........

I have come to realize our efforts are actually a good thing (although never apprieciated) and a reflection of the fact that despite the cranky outward behaviour, inside we are actually optomists at heart, something like the man in this story:

Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."

As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try."

Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die.

"And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing."

 

[observor 69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug

http://www.upmc.com/Communications/NewsBureau/Research/Articles/NoSmokingGun.htm

I can only speak for what I know from personal experience.  I live in the GTA and marijuana is in common usage among not only youth but across all ages and economic classes.
While certainly it has lead to hard drug us for some I don't think this is true for the majority of the population.
See cited references also.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sure, and smoking used to be good for you.......

Lets get this back on to the original topic....we have way too many drug threads as it is.

 

[stealthylizard]

Hmmm, my opinion on Harper.....  I don't have much to complain about yet, it has only been a year.  The income trust thing messed a lot of people up.  Something had to be done with it, but the CPC broke their promise of not touching it.  While Harper leads a minority government there is not a lot he can do to force through his "5 Pillars".  The opposition plays politics with everything, and changes positions more times than I change my underwear, depending on which way the rooster's egg will fall provided the wind is blowing in X direction, at y km/h.  I look forward to the day when the Tories have a majority government.  That day will not be soon.  The opposition parties do not have enough campaign funding to mount a vote of non-confidence.

It has been nice to have a Prime Minister in office, that actually gives a fart about the military.  The Governor General seems genuinely interested as well, but not paying attention to her predecessor, I don't know what the last one was like.

Blah, blah, blah, about the marijuana.  The Liberals never intended to do anything about it.  As long as the US government is against it, you will most likely not see it legalized in Canada.  The only reason the Liberals ever brought it up was to attract some of the younger voters, and get them out and active in the election.

I give Harper a B- for his performance.  I am a tough grader.  There are things that must be reformed, and hopefully once he earns a majority mandate, I can increase the grade level.

 

[Operationblack]

OK, "Ricky", suppose the use of marijuana were decriminalised.  Just when society is marginalising the use of tobacco more and more, they would free up the use of marijuana?

What an individual does in the privacy of their own home is no business of the government. Criminalizing something as harmless as marijuana does not help anyone, our government spends hundreds of millions, if not billions on a “war on drugs” which has had no results other than to  create vast criminal empires, cost the taxpayers more money and all this at the expense of personal freedom.
At least de-criminalize it, hopefully that will lead to it eventually being legalized so it can be sold in stores at un-inflated prices, putting profit into the hands of honest business people and creating more revenue for our nation.

De-criminalise heroin, rape, murder and any other crime sure would drop the prison populations, no?

The crimes of Rape and Murder are ones in which you deprive another individual of their rights, you physical harm someone. The act of using drugs is a personal choice, if done in the privacy of ones home it is not our concern.

Remember, it's not so much to "re-educate" the criminals, but to protect society.  I too favour rehabilitation, but stiffer sentences must be implemented (IMHO) as a deterrent AND to keep the dangerous away from society.

Unless Canada is going to adopt absolute life sentences (they never get out) these criminals eventually are going to be re-entered into society. Harsher penalties have been proven to not be an effective deterrent and they will only serve to make these criminals worse when they come out than they were when they went in. Like I said, look at the Scandinavian model, their maximum security prisons on first glance look more like weekend retreats and they have drastically reduced prison violence and the rate at which violent criminals re-offend. That sounds better off to society than giving these people 20 years to become even more hardened criminals.

 

[stealthylizard]

At least decriminalize it, hopefully that will lead to it eventually being legalized so it can be sold in stores at un-inflated prices

Just like alcohol and tobacco :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Goodbye Opera..err, I mean 'French Affair'.  Watch those IP's.....