Friday, February 12, 2010

The Hypocrisies and Insanities of Rob Nicholson's Crime Bills

There was an interesting article in the Ottawa Citizen today about Rob Nicholson's ridiculous crime bills.

The author, Susan Riley, reminded us that back in the day when Mr. Nicholson was with the Progressive Conservative party he wasn't nuts.

An irritated Nicholson has vowed to reintroduce the bill in March, when Parliament resumes -- but here's another curiosity. The Hill Times reported recently that, in 1988, Nicholson, then a Progressive Conservative MP,was vice-chair of a Commons committee that recommended against mandatory minimums, except for repeat violent sex offenders.

Asked about this apparent change of heart, the minister's spokes-person noted the drug world and values have changed. But the facts haven't. As New Democrat Libby Davies noted: "What they are doing is not based on evidence, whatsoever. It's a political stance."

And there in lies the problem with this party. No decisions they make have anything to do with what's best for Canada or the Canadian people. Everything, but everything, is about the fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada.

In November, John Geddes wrote a piece for MacLeans; 'Are we really soft on crime', revealing that criminal and law enforcement experts claimed that these horrible crime bills are not the way to go:
Ian Brodie, the former university political science professor who served as Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff from 2006 to 2008, explained why in an unusually candid talk on Conservative strategy last spring at McGill University in Montreal. “Every time we proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, sociologists, criminologists, defence lawyers and Liberals attacked us for proposing measures that the evidence apparently showed did not work,” Brodie said. “That was a good thing for us politically, in that sociologists, criminologists and defence lawyers were and are all held in lower repute than Conservative politicians by the voting public. Politically it helped us tremendously to be attacked by this coalition of university types.”

'University types'?

Rob Nicholson himself knows that these bill are the absolute wrong way to go for this country, but will sacrifice his credibility for votes. Why did he get into Canadian politics? Is this really the level that our government has stooped?

And they use this same kind of controlled ignorance when dealing with the safe injection site in Vancouver, as Riley continues:
It doesn't bother providing facts, or even arguments; it appeals, as usual, to resentment, ignorance and frightening headlines that obscure the fact that crime rates have been declining. And, with the brave exception of Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe, most of Harper's political opponents, including those who know better, are afraid to object. If Conservatives were as concerned with victims as they claim to be, the effectiveness of crime-fighting measures would be paramount -- not their political appeal. And they'd be counselling wisdom in this complex issue, not revenge.

Academics are 'elitists' and experts are 'university types'. People are afraid to speak up to this government because they know a smear campaign will immediately follow. From Richard Colvin to the latest victim, TD Bank CEO Ed Clark. Everyone now lives in a culture of fear.


No comments:

Post a Comment