A serial killer is caught when he's 40 years old. The trial comes after 2 years, takes 6 years, and sentencing comes after another year. He's sentenced to the legal maximum of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, but he's already served 9. He appeals, and the appeal takes up 7 years, with the same result. He files for a second appeal, which similarly takes up 7 years, and changes nothing. At this time, 23 years have elapsed. The serial killer serves the remaining 2 years of his sentence, and is then paroled on account of "good behaviour." He is now 65 years old, upon which he begins to collect pension from the government.
What is wrong?
That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.
Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.
The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.
Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?
Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.
Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.
Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
We come out in droves to complain
Because we can.
Because we feel like it.
Because it's part of our modern political activism.
I'm talking about Hong Kong, because as some of you may know (if you follow my other blog), I am currently in Hong Kong.
It's really becoming a rampant problem in this city. Sure, the economy is still firing on all cylinders, unlike most of the rest of the world, but politically this city is rather...well...whiney.
For example, take what happened earlier this week. A water main broke, I think it was in Tuen Mun, and so the government very promptly sent water trucks to provide water to affected households, erstwhile fixing the problem as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree, that is a very appropriate and timely response, right?
Apparently not. When interviewed by the local news station, the people said something along the lines of 'they didn't provide enough water.' Good heavens people! The government has to fix the water main and temporarily supply water to you manually. It's not like it doesn't cost the government money. What more can you want? That the government ensure you personally receive a constant supply of Aquafina?
This has gotten to a level that is beyond belief. And it's not just confined to Hong Kong. It's worldwide. The newest generation, they have been brought up with all the possible amenities. They have come to expect it. And I must admit, I am guilty of it sometimes. However, taking this attitude of expectancy and complacency to such extreme heights, is a never before seen phenomenon.
This is an issue that could really use some reflection: in this age of affluence, have we come to expect too much? Is this sort of behaviour sustainable? And finally, are we harbouring a culture of complaint?
Because we feel like it.
Because it's part of our modern political activism.
I'm talking about Hong Kong, because as some of you may know (if you follow my other blog), I am currently in Hong Kong.
It's really becoming a rampant problem in this city. Sure, the economy is still firing on all cylinders, unlike most of the rest of the world, but politically this city is rather...well...whiney.
For example, take what happened earlier this week. A water main broke, I think it was in Tuen Mun, and so the government very promptly sent water trucks to provide water to affected households, erstwhile fixing the problem as quickly as possible. I think we can all agree, that is a very appropriate and timely response, right?
Apparently not. When interviewed by the local news station, the people said something along the lines of 'they didn't provide enough water.' Good heavens people! The government has to fix the water main and temporarily supply water to you manually. It's not like it doesn't cost the government money. What more can you want? That the government ensure you personally receive a constant supply of Aquafina?
This has gotten to a level that is beyond belief. And it's not just confined to Hong Kong. It's worldwide. The newest generation, they have been brought up with all the possible amenities. They have come to expect it. And I must admit, I am guilty of it sometimes. However, taking this attitude of expectancy and complacency to such extreme heights, is a never before seen phenomenon.
This is an issue that could really use some reflection: in this age of affluence, have we come to expect too much? Is this sort of behaviour sustainable? And finally, are we harbouring a culture of complaint?
Friday, July 9, 2010
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
SPLAT!
The latest EKOS polls can pretty much be summed up like this. It has the press a-flutter, the Tories jumping for joy, and the Liberals...well actually we don't know what the Liberals are doing cause we can't find any.
Why? Because EKOS found that from the week of June 29-July 6, the Liberal Party of Canada polled the support of a whopping...23.9% of the populace. That's a new low. I think. It's really hard to keep track because whenever an EKOS poll comes out the Liberals seem to hit a new low.
So what is Michael Ignatieff doing to fix this? He is going to go on a bus tour across Canada, visiting battleground areas such as...Calgary. All jesting aside, he will be seeing people who: a) will vote for him no matter what, or b) who will not vote for him no matter what. At this rate, perhaps Ignatieff will become a minority Prime Minister in the year...2136?
And so, a parting question: all this really makes me wonder, how low can the Liberal Party go? Below 22? 20? The NDP? In the 2008 general election, the Liberals polled 26.2% of the vote and everybody thought that was their basement level of support. I guess not. The saviour everybody thought Ignatieff was, is no more.
The latest EKOS polls can pretty much be summed up like this. It has the press a-flutter, the Tories jumping for joy, and the Liberals...well actually we don't know what the Liberals are doing cause we can't find any.
Why? Because EKOS found that from the week of June 29-July 6, the Liberal Party of Canada polled the support of a whopping...23.9% of the populace. That's a new low. I think. It's really hard to keep track because whenever an EKOS poll comes out the Liberals seem to hit a new low.
So what is Michael Ignatieff doing to fix this? He is going to go on a bus tour across Canada, visiting battleground areas such as...Calgary. All jesting aside, he will be seeing people who: a) will vote for him no matter what, or b) who will not vote for him no matter what. At this rate, perhaps Ignatieff will become a minority Prime Minister in the year...2136?
And so, a parting question: all this really makes me wonder, how low can the Liberal Party go? Below 22? 20? The NDP? In the 2008 general election, the Liberals polled 26.2% of the vote and everybody thought that was their basement level of support. I guess not. The saviour everybody thought Ignatieff was, is no more.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A stellar display of parliamentary compromise!
Well, with the exception of the NDP, that is.
On Monday, MPs were trying to negotiate a deal on the Afghan detainee fiasco. To measure whether there was any progress, we sent it to a nuclear physics laboratory. The results came back, and measured progress at (1.6 +/- 9.7) x 10^-14 metres. Statistically insignificant.
All kidding aside, there was a bit of progress, but far from an agreement. So the NDP pulls the old "we're gonna quit negotiating if we can't get it done by tomorrow" trick.
Well, it seemed like it worked, because on Tuesday, the government announced a deal with the Liberals about releasing documents. The Bloc signed on too, and it looked like a shining moment for democracy in Canada. Right?
Wrong. In swoops Jack Layton and the NDP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They refused to sign on to the deal, then whined about it. Why? Because it didn't meet all of their demands, just half.
Jack, look up compromise in the dictionary. Your party champions working with others in Parliament. Your party prides itself in making things work for Canadians. Therefore, we naturally have all the other parties working together to make this work, while the NDP stands there like a little girl, crying, crossing her arms, and stomping her feet. Nice.
When people ask me what my favourite joke is, I always reply, "Jack Layton." This would be why.
On Monday, MPs were trying to negotiate a deal on the Afghan detainee fiasco. To measure whether there was any progress, we sent it to a nuclear physics laboratory. The results came back, and measured progress at (1.6 +/- 9.7) x 10^-14 metres. Statistically insignificant.
All kidding aside, there was a bit of progress, but far from an agreement. So the NDP pulls the old "we're gonna quit negotiating if we can't get it done by tomorrow" trick.
Well, it seemed like it worked, because on Tuesday, the government announced a deal with the Liberals about releasing documents. The Bloc signed on too, and it looked like a shining moment for democracy in Canada. Right?
Wrong. In swoops Jack Layton and the NDP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They refused to sign on to the deal, then whined about it. Why? Because it didn't meet all of their demands, just half.
Jack, look up compromise in the dictionary. Your party champions working with others in Parliament. Your party prides itself in making things work for Canadians. Therefore, we naturally have all the other parties working together to make this work, while the NDP stands there like a little girl, crying, crossing her arms, and stomping her feet. Nice.
When people ask me what my favourite joke is, I always reply, "Jack Layton." This would be why.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Don't like Ignatieff's coalition position?
Wait five minutes.
Recall: in November 2008, during the initial (and very much failed) coalition attempt, initiated by Dion, Ignatieff signed onto the coalition deal with the NDP.
Recall: in December 2008, when he took over from Dion, he went from yes to maybe - "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
Recall: in September 2009, he went from maybe to no - "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." - Let me just rephrase that for you: "In January Canadians clearly showed they did not support a coalition therefore we do not support one today or tomorrow."
Recall: in May 2010, it appeared his position hadn't changed (shock and awe!). In party talking points sent out to MPs and members - "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions."
Recall: last week, in an interview with CTV, he now says - "can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition." - Michael, you've taught at Harvard, for crying out loud. You don't actually expect us to believe you've conveniently developed a case of political Alzheimer's, do you?
So there you have it. Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be a man who is either:
Oh, and Michael, you still haven't really told us what you think about a coalition.
Recall: in November 2008, during the initial (and very much failed) coalition attempt, initiated by Dion, Ignatieff signed onto the coalition deal with the NDP.
Recall: in December 2008, when he took over from Dion, he went from yes to maybe - "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
Recall: in September 2009, he went from maybe to no - "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow." - Let me just rephrase that for you: "In January Canadians clearly showed they did not support a coalition therefore we do not support one today or tomorrow."
Recall: in May 2010, it appeared his position hadn't changed (shock and awe!). In party talking points sent out to MPs and members - "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions."
Recall: last week, in an interview with CTV, he now says - "can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition." - Michael, you've taught at Harvard, for crying out loud. You don't actually expect us to believe you've conveniently developed a case of political Alzheimer's, do you?
So there you have it. Michael Ignatieff has shown himself to be a man who is either:
Dishonest;- Indecisive;
- A weather vane, or;
- Completely insane (look right).
Oh, and Michael, you still haven't really told us what you think about a coalition.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Another year, another PM
Naoto Kan was inaugurated as Emperor Akihito of Japan's 14th Prime Minister yesterday. 14 Prime Ministers?! The Emperor must've been on the throne for AGES!
Not so - Emperor Akihito ascended to Japan's throne in 1989, a mere 21 years ago. Evidently, the post "Prime Minister of Japan" does not have any job security at all. In fact, it is pretty much a graveyard. Recent years have been riddled with sudden resignations...often just a year or less into their tenure. This is very different from any other Prime Ministerial nation...heck, in Canada, we have to go back to 1920 to count out 14 Prime Ministers.
The Japanese public is peculiar. Why do I mention them? Well, it's often due to them that these sudden resignations arise. They are HIGHLY intolerant of their politicians. In fact, some of the world's lowest approval ratings come from Japan. Taro Aso served from 2005-07, and bottomed out at 7% approval. Noboru Takeshita's (1987-89) ratings REALLY DID TAK-E-S**T-A when he rocketed down to 4% approval. And the funny thing is, all of these Prime Ministers head into the post with 80% approval ratings. It's kinda like a typical contemporary American marriage. They rush headlong into it head over heels in love (or drunk)...then find out after a few months that they are hopelessly irreconcilable. And then either the Japanese public (via an election) or the Prime Minister (via resignation) will not be long in saying, "I want a divorce."
Not so - Emperor Akihito ascended to Japan's throne in 1989, a mere 21 years ago. Evidently, the post "Prime Minister of Japan" does not have any job security at all. In fact, it is pretty much a graveyard. Recent years have been riddled with sudden resignations...often just a year or less into their tenure. This is very different from any other Prime Ministerial nation...heck, in Canada, we have to go back to 1920 to count out 14 Prime Ministers.
The Japanese public is peculiar. Why do I mention them? Well, it's often due to them that these sudden resignations arise. They are HIGHLY intolerant of their politicians. In fact, some of the world's lowest approval ratings come from Japan. Taro Aso served from 2005-07, and bottomed out at 7% approval. Noboru Takeshita's (1987-89) ratings REALLY DID TAK-E-S**T-A when he rocketed down to 4% approval. And the funny thing is, all of these Prime Ministers head into the post with 80% approval ratings. It's kinda like a typical contemporary American marriage. They rush headlong into it head over heels in love (or drunk)...then find out after a few months that they are hopelessly irreconcilable. And then either the Japanese public (via an election) or the Prime Minister (via resignation) will not be long in saying, "I want a divorce."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The HST isn't a tax increase! Honest!
Okay Mr. Campbell, we get it. The provincial government needs to be economical in these difficult times. The problem is, you're taking it to the step where you're being economical with the truth (read: lying).
The HST isn't a tax increase because we will pay 12% on items which formerly had a 5% tax. It isn't because businesses will pay less tax. GREAT! DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE CONSUMER GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW MUCH TAX BUSINESSES PAY?! IF I HAVE TO PAY MORE, IT'S A FREAKING TAX INCREASE!
You weren't lying to us about the HST because OBVIOUSLY you never promised that you wouldn't implement it if re-elected. That's definitely not why British Columbians elected you to a third term in office.
The province really, really, honestly was only going to have a deficit of $495 million in 2009. And all of a sudden after the election it's officially $2.8 billion. Either it was coincidental dyslexia or an accidentally on purpose LIE.
Seriously, this whole thing puts me in a bit of a pickle. The HST is actually good economic policy. It makes businesses more competitive in the province, and as a consumer tax will get the more affluent who have more to spend, not to mention that simplifying the sales tax collection will save the province oodles of money. The problem for me is not the HST; it's how it was implemented: that is to say, through lying, secrecy, backroom deals, and general disregard for the public.
A secondary problem arises from this - which party can I support in the next provincial election? The NDP will run the province into the poorhouse (as demonstrated the last time they governed), the Liberals can't be trusted with power anymore, and the Greens are my favourite joke (well no not really...that distinction still goes to Jack Layton). Basically, unless the BC Conservatives pull a meteoric rise out of the ashes within the next two and a half years, I will be completely alienated by the provincial political scene. That said, I will probably end up holding my nose and voting Liberal again just to keep the NDP out. Not that there's much hope for that happening now that the Liberals have dug themselves into a 15% hole with the entire HST fiasco.
Well may we say, "God save the Queen," because NOTHING will save this province. Not at this rate, anyways.
The HST isn't a tax increase because we will pay 12% on items which formerly had a 5% tax. It isn't because businesses will pay less tax. GREAT! DOES IT LOOK LIKE THE CONSUMER GIVES A DAMN ABOUT HOW MUCH TAX BUSINESSES PAY?! IF I HAVE TO PAY MORE, IT'S A FREAKING TAX INCREASE!
You weren't lying to us about the HST because OBVIOUSLY you never promised that you wouldn't implement it if re-elected. That's definitely not why British Columbians elected you to a third term in office.
The province really, really, honestly was only going to have a deficit of $495 million in 2009. And all of a sudden after the election it's officially $2.8 billion. Either it was coincidental dyslexia or an accidentally on purpose LIE.
Seriously, this whole thing puts me in a bit of a pickle. The HST is actually good economic policy. It makes businesses more competitive in the province, and as a consumer tax will get the more affluent who have more to spend, not to mention that simplifying the sales tax collection will save the province oodles of money. The problem for me is not the HST; it's how it was implemented: that is to say, through lying, secrecy, backroom deals, and general disregard for the public.
A secondary problem arises from this - which party can I support in the next provincial election? The NDP will run the province into the poorhouse (as demonstrated the last time they governed), the Liberals can't be trusted with power anymore, and the Greens are my favourite joke (well no not really...that distinction still goes to Jack Layton). Basically, unless the BC Conservatives pull a meteoric rise out of the ashes within the next two and a half years, I will be completely alienated by the provincial political scene. That said, I will probably end up holding my nose and voting Liberal again just to keep the NDP out. Not that there's much hope for that happening now that the Liberals have dug themselves into a 15% hole with the entire HST fiasco.
Well may we say, "God save the Queen," because NOTHING will save this province. Not at this rate, anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)