So I'm reading Hansard -- something I'll do every once in a while. I won't watch Question Period on CPAC, ever, mostly because I'd have to throw a brick through the television and my wife would then pick up the brick and throw it at me. And probably hit me and make me even more "special" than I already am. But in text, the petty panderings, platitudes, and pantomimes of Parliament seem ever so slighly less asinine, somehow. Maybe it's because Hansard omits all the stomping and screaming that goes on in the background all through Question Period. Personally, I'd use duct tape.
There's a real brouhaha brewing over Stephen Harper's proposed method of appointing judges, to wit: he wants police input. For this, Harper has been attacked at every turn, just as he is every time he tries to get tough on crime in any meaningful way. .Harper is right to be suspicious of judges. I'm sure many Canadians share his suspicions. The Liberal Party, though, has suspicions of its own, as shown by this exchange between Harper and Michael Ignatieff on Valentine's Day:
Harper: "We want to make sure we're bringing forward the laws to make sure we crack down on crime, that we make our streets and communities safer. We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives."
Ignatieff: "Mr. Speaker, this has just confirmed our worst suspicions."
Rarely do you see such candour in politics. Ignatieff, and by extension his party, doesn't want a crackdown on crime, doesn't want safer streets, and doesn't want judges who want those things for Canadians. We've long known that, of course, though I don't think it's ever been admitted so succintly. It was Liberals who gave prisoners the right to vote, knowing that only the insane ones would vote anything other than Liberal. It was Liberals who stacked the court with judges disguised as cuddly teddy bear social worker types (it's only partisan when Conservatives do it; when it's done by Liberals it's done according to "Canadian values".) It is Liberals (and their NDP and Bloc colleagues) who are against any bill that might possibly get tough on crime.
What we don't know, what's missing, is why. Why do Liberals care more for the criminal than his victim? Why do they suggest that police officers are not capable of selecting judges--only lawyers (who have a vested interest in seeing the same criminals over and over and over again) can do that? Why do they see no problem with a "justice" system in which house arrest is a perfectly acceptable sentence for murder?
Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff will deign to tell us. I'd really like to understand. This whole soft-on-crime business is the biggest reason I can't bring myself to vote Liberal (well, that and the fact they're not sorry for the whole sponsorship scandal, only sorry they were caught).
But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer from Ignatieff or anyone else. One piece of candour is enough for this year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
As a matter of fact, no, you did not just read that. You took a quote out of context and spun it to make it say what you want it to say. Here's the quote in context:
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has confirmed our worst suspicions on this issue. The government has changed the selection rules for the judicial advisory committees. It has taken away the voice of the judiciary during the candidate evaluation process. Why is the Prime Minister changing the rules? Why is he showing so little respect for the independence and authority of the judiciary?
You're equating the maintenance of judicial independence and authority with being soft on crime. Utter intellectual dishonesty.
And this:
lawyers... have a vested interest in seeing the same criminals over and over and over again
is plainly ludicrous. Do you really think that judges are chosen for the benefit of crown prosecutors and public defenders? Really?
By the way, you do know that crime in Canada continues on a long, long downward slide, right?
I don't know the Canadian government well enough, but if there is a set in stone procedure for appointing "District or Circuit" judges, of which I assume this is referring to, what is the actual chnage From what TO what?
I don't quite follow other than he wants Police input.
This is an example of rupture: the phenomenon where you think you're having a conversation, only to discover that you're just making noises at each other. We're doing that here, M@, and so are Harper and Ignatieff. Ignatieff is concerned about the "independence" of the judiciary, which is silly since our judges are appointed by the Prime Minister and tend to mirror his political views. Harper doesn't see where politics enters into it: he just wants safe streets.
Sure, the crime rate's down. Go tell Jane Creba's family that. Go trumpet it through the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, or Regina on a Friday or Saturday night...see if you can drown out the gunshots.
And as far as the lawyers are concerned, of COURSE they have a vested interest in seeing the same criminals over and over again. Fewer criminals = fewer lawyers to defend them. Simple like that.
Rarely do you see such candour in politics. Ignatieff, and by extension his party, doesn't want a crackdown on crime, doesn't want safer streets, and doesn't want judges who want those things for Canadians.
Is it that, or does he simply believe that tougher sentences etc.. won't bring around less crime?
I had this same conversation with another blogger when Harper said that Dion et al were soft on terrorism. Well no, nobody wants terrorism, we just differ on how to go about eradicating it. Same holds true for crime.
I think the U.S. example is a great one - they have some of the toughest sentences around yet there are more people in jail today than at any other time. If the tough on crime approach worked, wouldn't they be arresting less people each and every year, not more?
The reality, for me anyways, is that crime is a part of our civilization - no law passed will ever stop people from committing crime - it never has. The question is, what do we do instead since passing laws and making tougher sentences doesn't seem to work. The Liberal approach hasn't eradicated crime either. So what do we do?
I'll say what I say every time this argument comes 'round. Tougher sentences may not deter crime--even the death penalty doesn't do much to the crime rate--but tough sentences do wonders for recidivism. Capital punishment's fantastic in that regard: dead men don't re-offend. Ever.
Am I saying we should just kill all the crooks? No, I am not. But the ones who boast of their crime, who show no remorse...at the very least, they should be removed from society.
Apologies, Ken, as I don't want to seem like part of a gang rape here, but my eyebrow did arch when I read this from your reply: Harper doesn't see where politics enters into it: he just wants safe streets.
I think it's rather naive to think that politics doesn't enter into anything a prime minister does, especially one presiding over a minority government and in a possible election year. However, my larger concern is this notion that he wants safe streets. First, and I'm echoing Peter a bit, do you really think that the other parties, particularly the Liberals, want unsafe streets, that they desire more criminals running around committing more and more crime? Really? That just falls into the old political tactic of trumpeting a virtue and making it seem like you hold it exclusively—"Good citizens, I can assure you that I for one don't believe in slicing up children to be put in dog food." It's just a silly suggestion to think that we have only one party that opposes crime.
But more important is the notion of safe streets itself. Like states rights (racism), family values (anti-homosexual rights, anti-feminism), and it's cousin, law and order, safe streets is code for controlling the actions of the citizenry. It's about putting more laws on the books and less restraints on the police and prosecutors. Obviously I'm not in favour of more crime, but I'm also not in favour of curtailing our freedoms, which is what "law and order" and "safe streets" is all about.
Actually, one other question. You suggest that lawyers have an interest in keeping criminals out so that they have repeat business. Do you believe that dentists surreptitiously give us cavities at our check-ups, or doctors secretly pass on viruses so that we need to come back? There are more than enough laws and more than enough people breaking them (or being charged with breaking them) to keep lawyers in business. I'm no fan of lawyers in general, but it's more than a bit of a stretch to think that lawyers have a perverse desire to short-circuit the system. Here's why I don't think it's a good idea for police officers to evaluate potential judges—they have no legal training, they lack the deep knowledge and intricacies of the law and for evaluating whether a jurist is qualified to serve as an impartial evaluator at a trial. Lawyers—for the defence and prosecution—do have that knowledge. The police also have an institutional bias in that, in their opinion, every person they arrest is guilty. A finding of innocence is not always a miscarriage of justice, but to most cops I imagine it would be perceived as such. That's a serious bias problem when it comes to deciding whether someone is capable of being a judge.
This is an example of rupture: the phenomenon where you think you're having a conversation, only to discover that you're just making noises at each other. We're doing that here, M@, and so are Harper and Ignatieff.
Yes, but they are doing so in the context of an equal debate. The context in which you and I are debating is a blog post that accuses Ignatieff, and by (unwarranted) extension the entire Liberal party, of wanting more criminals on the streets. Based on a quote that you took out of context.
But from your equivocating response, it becomes clear that that's not what you're trying to do, right? You're in fact not saying anything at all, really, are you? You're quite willing to hide from the points you tried to make by saying that, hey, we're all just making noise, here. So why did you put together this ramshackle post at all, I wonder?
In fact, I wonder if you are as scared about the prospect of a soft-on-crime government as you are about a book being back-ordered at Chapters. That seemed to really shiver yer timbers a few months ago, after all. It's funny that you're worried about one pathetic writer's rights, but not about the rights of people who are wrongly accused of crimes based on their race.
As for Jane Creba, what is it in Harper's policy directly affects that situation? You can't just drop a situation like that and expect anyone to kowtow to your superior moral ground. Check the name of this blog if you need to know why.
And then there's this:
And as far as the lawyers are concerned, of COURSE they have a vested interest in seeing the same criminals over and over again. Fewer criminals = fewer lawyers to defend them. Simple like that.
What you're proposing is to create more criminals by being tougher on crime. And what you're supposing is that lawyers on both sides of the table, as well as, in general, the judges who preside over criminal cases, are, currently, deliberately being "soft on crime" in order to ensure their ongoing employment.
In a system that is already overtaxed. In a system that is working to reduce the number of cases before the courts through initiatives like ADR.
It is clear that you have absolutely no qualification to comment on the legal system. I'm wondering why you're so willing to embarrass yourself here. Could it be that you're emboldened by the very talking points that this blog purports to reject?
Heav'n forfend, of course.
Cletus: freedom to? or freedom from? I'm much more in favour of freedom from, myself. I have a real problem with freedom to when it inhibits other people's freedom from.
M@--man, I don't know where to start. I'm not hiding from anything. If you really insist, I could start a new blog detailing nothing but the failures of our so-called justice system. One problem: I'm only one person, and there are only twenty four hours in a day. Harper's trying to fix this, and nearly every bill the Tories put forward is either rejected or watered down so much it might as well be. The opposition may well say it doesn't want more criminals on the street, but by golly it's got a funny way of showing it.
And I'd like to know where I endorsed the practice of wrongfully accusing people of crimes based on their race. Before we go any further.
Cletus: freedom to? or freedom from? I'm much more in favour of freedom from, myself. I have a real problem with freedom to when it inhibits other people's freedom from.
Well, that's one of the big nuts we have to crack in a democracy, isn't it? Liberty or order. Hearkening back to that Iraq discussion from last year, I'd say that push comes to shove, most of us are in your camp—we'd prefer order and security over the uncertainty that absolute freedom offers. Historically, tho, campaigns ostensibly to give us freedom from crime tend to overstretch themselves and take away a number of freedom to do perfectly legal things. And once a freedom is curtailed, it's always harder to get it back.
And I'd like to know where I endorsed the practice of wrongfully accusing people of crimes based on their race. Before we go any further.
And I'd like to know where Michael Ignatieff said he "doesn't want a crackdown on crime, doesn't want safer streets, and doesn't want judges who want those things for Canadians."
You took a quote out of context, extrapolated it to meet your own agenda, and became faux-horrified at your conclusion.
Not so funny when someone does it to you, is it?
Post a Comment