Benjamin Netanyahu decided to appoint Avigdor Lieberman as the new Foreign Affairs Minister despite objections from around the world. Lieberman's first day on the job was perceived as a major policy shift. He promissed to honour all previous agreements with the Palestinians with the exception of the Annapolis process.
He also showed his ability to be diplomatic by speaking nicely about the Egyptians that he would need to work closely with. He had previously been in trouble for being rude about the fact that Egyptian officials never hold meetings in Israel. Egypt has been sending mixed signals if they would boycott him. So far it seems to be business as usual in practical terms.
The Annapolis process is the last agreement between former PM Ehud Olmert and the Palestinian Authority. It has even been endorsed by the UN. The previous government did not want the details to be public because they feared it would hurt them in the election. Tthe agreement was hidden from the Israeli public. The government they elected has every right to say if voters had an oppurtunity to reject it they would have and therefore they would pursue the logical course of action.
This week Palestinian President Abbas reconfirmed his position on negotiations with Israel. Israel was to return to 1967 borders not one centimetre more and not one centimetre less. This solution ignores the events after Israel established it's original borders. There were Jews who left Egypt and Jordan to live in Israel. Arabs left Israel to live in refugee camps and become political pawns to the Arab world. Palestinians wish to ignore the Jewish evictions by establishing a state free of Jews. However they want all Palestinians to be able to choose to live in Israel rather than the Palestinian state they claim to want to help build. Land swap offers to minimize the physical transfer of people and place Jews in Israel and Palestinians under the authority of a Palestinian state have been vigourously turned down.
This week a Palestinian was sentecned to death by hanging by the Palestinian Authority. His crime was selling his property to Jews. While this story has been picked up in Europe I have not been able to find any references to this story in the Canadian media.
Israel always finds themselves on the condemnation end from Human Rights groups. Some how Palestinian violations almost always get a free ride. A look at the overall picture shows that Israel they are being condemned for a sense of self preservation and not an attempt to harm minority groups living within Israel's borders.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Banning cars, one crime at a time
Yesterday, David Miller launched a Youtube/facebook campaign for the federal government to ban handguns. The provincial Liberals have also been long time supporters on a ban on hand guns.
Liberal MPP Mike Colle decided to take action by introducing a private members bill. The bill calls for drivers license suspension as well as impounding cars found with illegal handguns. The focus on banning handguns has been used as an excuse for different levels of government not to deal with issues that result in kids turning to a life of crime. This bill does nothing to make the streets safer.
Cars are impounded if a driver is caught without a valid license. The onus is on the owner of the vehicle to verify that someone using their car has a valid license. The government has recently implemented racing laws where speeding 50 km/h over the speed limit results in a car being automatically being impounded for a week. Despite the risk police are still impounding cars. If a person has no fear in carrying and presumably using an illegal gun, why would they fear the loss of driving privileges. They should be afraid of facing the justice system. The police should be focusing having these offenders put in jail.
A few weeks ago there was a shooting on the TTC. Will the government consider taking away metropasses for criminals who do not commit their crimes in cars? The government will be introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children present. Will the punishment also be to have license suspension and cars impounded?
Punishments must fit the crime. This trend to solve the worlds problems by simply punishing drivers and car owners is short sighted. There are times when such action is appropriate. This does not make it the solution to every problem.
Liberal MPP Mike Colle decided to take action by introducing a private members bill. The bill calls for drivers license suspension as well as impounding cars found with illegal handguns. The focus on banning handguns has been used as an excuse for different levels of government not to deal with issues that result in kids turning to a life of crime. This bill does nothing to make the streets safer.
Cars are impounded if a driver is caught without a valid license. The onus is on the owner of the vehicle to verify that someone using their car has a valid license. The government has recently implemented racing laws where speeding 50 km/h over the speed limit results in a car being automatically being impounded for a week. Despite the risk police are still impounding cars. If a person has no fear in carrying and presumably using an illegal gun, why would they fear the loss of driving privileges. They should be afraid of facing the justice system. The police should be focusing having these offenders put in jail.
A few weeks ago there was a shooting on the TTC. Will the government consider taking away metropasses for criminals who do not commit their crimes in cars? The government will be introducing a ban on smoking in cars with children present. Will the punishment also be to have license suspension and cars impounded?
Punishments must fit the crime. This trend to solve the worlds problems by simply punishing drivers and car owners is short sighted. There are times when such action is appropriate. This does not make it the solution to every problem.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Bill C-484
Private members bill C-484 has passed second reading by a vote of 147-132. This legislation makes it a criminal offence to harm a fetus while committing a crime against the mother. Lawful termination of a pregnancy, attempts to preserve the life of the mother or child and any act by the mother are specifically exempt from this law.
Pro-abortion groups are concerned that this is a backhanded attempt to make abortion illegal. There would also be accusations of the Conservative 'hidden agenda' except for the fact that it was co-sponsored by a Liberal. The other major argument is that the majority of cases where a fetus is harmed is the result of domestic violence. This legislation does not help deal with this very important issue.
In cases of a wanted pregnancy the impending birth of a child is a great joy to the parents as they look forward to the future. In some cases the parents have waited many years and spent thousands of dollars in order to have this opportunity. Under Canadian law the fetus does not achieve recognition as being alive until birth. This legislation in no way changes that definition. It simply acknowledges that the loss of a pregnancy, while being the victim of a crime is not the same as simply being a victim of the same crime. Our legal system has harsher punishments for more severe crimes, it stands to reason that the courts acknowledge ending a potential life is much more difficult than simply being a victim.
If our courts acknowledge that 'potential lives' have more value then just another body part, perhaps society will become more sympathetic to the trauma both physically and emotionally a woman feels when losing a pregnancy.
Pro-abortion groups are concerned that this is a backhanded attempt to make abortion illegal. There would also be accusations of the Conservative 'hidden agenda' except for the fact that it was co-sponsored by a Liberal. The other major argument is that the majority of cases where a fetus is harmed is the result of domestic violence. This legislation does not help deal with this very important issue.
In cases of a wanted pregnancy the impending birth of a child is a great joy to the parents as they look forward to the future. In some cases the parents have waited many years and spent thousands of dollars in order to have this opportunity. Under Canadian law the fetus does not achieve recognition as being alive until birth. This legislation in no way changes that definition. It simply acknowledges that the loss of a pregnancy, while being the victim of a crime is not the same as simply being a victim of the same crime. Our legal system has harsher punishments for more severe crimes, it stands to reason that the courts acknowledge ending a potential life is much more difficult than simply being a victim.
If our courts acknowledge that 'potential lives' have more value then just another body part, perhaps society will become more sympathetic to the trauma both physically and emotionally a woman feels when losing a pregnancy.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Was the Senate bullied?
In the last election the Conservatives championed themselves as being tough on crime and punishment. They originally planned to bring their law and order agenda into effect with five different pieces of legislation, most notably raising the age of consent and minimum sentences for gun crimes. Three of the bills died in the Senate when the government prorogued parliament to kick of the fall session. The five pieces of legislation were repackaged into omnibus bill C-2.
The Liberals are against some of the fine details of the law, however they don't want to be seen as weak on crime. Bill C-2 breezed through parliament when they choose to abstain from the vote. They could take comfort that the Senate could stall the legislation until an election.
The Conservatives wanted to make sure that their legislation made it through the Senate. They brought forth a confidence motion imposing a March 1st deadline to pass the legislation. The Liberals walked out on the vote and the motion passed easily. The demand would have passed without Liberal support because it also had support from the Bloc. The interpretation of the motion that an election could be called if the Senate did not comply was never challenged. At the very least a second confidence motion may have had to be tabled to confirm the Senate's non-compliance constituted a loss of confidence in the house.
Instead the Senate scrambled into action. Extra time was put in to make sure all of the due diligence required by the Senate took place on the relatively short time table. Last week the legislation was passed by a 19-16 vote with 31 abstentions. The yea side were all Conservative Senators. The nays consisted of a mixture of Progressive Conservatives, Independents and Liberals. Thirty Liberals abstained as well as one in-dependant.
The vote shows a very disturbing prescedent for the future of the Senate. The Senate took orders from the House of Commons on how to handle a piece of legislation. The abstention votes indicate the Senate was willing to let legislation pass that they felt needed improvements because it served the best interest interest of their party. The image of a Senate with the role of fine tuning legislation to best serve the country has forever been tarnished. Harper has produced a case to demonstrate the uselessness of the Senate. With very little objection, the argument to abolish or reform the Senate has become stronger.
The Liberals are against some of the fine details of the law, however they don't want to be seen as weak on crime. Bill C-2 breezed through parliament when they choose to abstain from the vote. They could take comfort that the Senate could stall the legislation until an election.
The Conservatives wanted to make sure that their legislation made it through the Senate. They brought forth a confidence motion imposing a March 1st deadline to pass the legislation. The Liberals walked out on the vote and the motion passed easily. The demand would have passed without Liberal support because it also had support from the Bloc. The interpretation of the motion that an election could be called if the Senate did not comply was never challenged. At the very least a second confidence motion may have had to be tabled to confirm the Senate's non-compliance constituted a loss of confidence in the house.
Instead the Senate scrambled into action. Extra time was put in to make sure all of the due diligence required by the Senate took place on the relatively short time table. Last week the legislation was passed by a 19-16 vote with 31 abstentions. The yea side were all Conservative Senators. The nays consisted of a mixture of Progressive Conservatives, Independents and Liberals. Thirty Liberals abstained as well as one in-dependant.
The vote shows a very disturbing prescedent for the future of the Senate. The Senate took orders from the House of Commons on how to handle a piece of legislation. The abstention votes indicate the Senate was willing to let legislation pass that they felt needed improvements because it served the best interest interest of their party. The image of a Senate with the role of fine tuning legislation to best serve the country has forever been tarnished. Harper has produced a case to demonstrate the uselessness of the Senate. With very little objection, the argument to abolish or reform the Senate has become stronger.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Pushing the Senate to fight crime
In 2005, as leader of the opposition Stephen Harper tried a number of different confidence motions in order to try to topple the government. The first one to pass in the house was a call for the finance committee to instruct the Prime Minister to resign. The government immediately declared that the motion could not topple the government. The speaker agreed. Last year the opposition parties pushed through a private members bill declaring that the government had to abide by the Kyoto Protocol. As the legislation had no teeth the government shrugged their shoulders and have basically ignored the bill.
On Thursday the Government introduced a motion directing the Senate to pass the long delayed crime bill by March 1st. Failure to pass the legislation will be a vote of confidence and if the Senate does not comply the Government may try to declare a loss of confidence from the house.
This motion is designed to embarrass the Liberal party. The Liberals took a knee on the crime bill when it was put forth as a confidence motion in the fall, knowing full well it would never make it through the Senate. The motion in itself is relatively meaningless as the house has no authority to put time restrictions on the Senate. Should the motion be passed and the Senate not comply or the motion be defeated the Liberals could argue that this motion does not really do anything so it should have no affect on the Government confidence in the house. Taking that risk and losing the argument would start an election campaign off really badly.
The Conservatives have been trying to be tough on crime since they were elected. They have not been able to get the Senate to agree with their plan, especially on raising the age of sexual consent to 16. This motion is to simply announce that the Liberals do not want to be tough on crime. It will be interesting to see how the public sees through this round of smoke and mirrors.
On Thursday the Government introduced a motion directing the Senate to pass the long delayed crime bill by March 1st. Failure to pass the legislation will be a vote of confidence and if the Senate does not comply the Government may try to declare a loss of confidence from the house.
This motion is designed to embarrass the Liberal party. The Liberals took a knee on the crime bill when it was put forth as a confidence motion in the fall, knowing full well it would never make it through the Senate. The motion in itself is relatively meaningless as the house has no authority to put time restrictions on the Senate. Should the motion be passed and the Senate not comply or the motion be defeated the Liberals could argue that this motion does not really do anything so it should have no affect on the Government confidence in the house. Taking that risk and losing the argument would start an election campaign off really badly.
The Conservatives have been trying to be tough on crime since they were elected. They have not been able to get the Senate to agree with their plan, especially on raising the age of sexual consent to 16. This motion is to simply announce that the Liberals do not want to be tough on crime. It will be interesting to see how the public sees through this round of smoke and mirrors.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Conservatives set-up election triggers
The Conservative Government spent the past week laying out election triggers for the Liberals. They moved ahead with confidence motion designed to embarrass the Liberals, to put pressure on the senate to pass the government crime bill. They put forth a proposal for extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This is a defining issue that the Liberals would rather not be the centre of an election campaign. The budget will also be released at the end of the month. The Liberals have been waiting for this opportunity to topple the government.
Polls are still showing that Canadians would prefer not to have an election. They are also showing lots of electoral volatility without any party having a clear shot at a majority government. There are also (4) by elections in March that could be insightful to how election ready the Liberals really are.
The Conservatives may feel that this is their best shot so they need to go for it despite the risk. They may also feel that their is going to be an election anyway so they might as well set-up Dion with as many stumbling blocks as possible form which to choose to topple the government. There is a very fine line drawn in the sand between the two parties positions in Afghanistan. The Conservatives will probably make the next budget difficult for the Liberals to object to.
The political games of the next few weeks will be desigened to focus an election on Afghanistan, being tough on crime & the goodies offered in the budget. Dion could have a tough time establishing his own set of priorities as the important election issues.
Polls are still showing that Canadians would prefer not to have an election. They are also showing lots of electoral volatility without any party having a clear shot at a majority government. There are also (4) by elections in March that could be insightful to how election ready the Liberals really are.
The Conservatives may feel that this is their best shot so they need to go for it despite the risk. They may also feel that their is going to be an election anyway so they might as well set-up Dion with as many stumbling blocks as possible form which to choose to topple the government. There is a very fine line drawn in the sand between the two parties positions in Afghanistan. The Conservatives will probably make the next budget difficult for the Liberals to object to.
The political games of the next few weeks will be desigened to focus an election on Afghanistan, being tough on crime & the goodies offered in the budget. Dion could have a tough time establishing his own set of priorities as the important election issues.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Quebec Superior Court challenges criminal background checks for teachers
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070816/teacher_killer_070816/20070816?hub=Canada
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=697743e4-fdbf-484a-900b-98fae8522aee&k=53748
Schools across the continent have adopted policies to have criminal background checks for their teachers. This policy is designed to protect students and keep schools safe.
A man applies for a teaching position in Montreal. The application form asks if he has a criminal background. He fails to mention the fact that he has just spent 7 years in jail for killing his wife. The school is happy with his job performance until they discover his criminal record. He is immediately fired. The union files a grievance. The Quebec Superior Court upholds a ruling by the Human Rights Council that the skill must give the teacher his job back. Their reasoning is that the criminal conviction was in no way a factor in his ability to perform his job. They sight the details of his conviction that he is not a risk to re-offend and posses no risk to the students. Quebec law makes it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they have a criminal record, if it is not a factor in their ability to perform the job.
There are two very dangerous precedences that could come out of this ruling. The court is establishing that it is OK to lie on a job application if it does not affect their ability to perform the job. These factors may not be significant in determining if a person is qualified. They could be significant when a manager is making a final decision between 2 or more applicants. If a person gets hired based on the law they have no fear of being fired when the lie is finally uncovered. This hurts honest job seekers. Nothing good can come out of this reasoning.
Schools have a responsibility to protect the safety of their students. The burden is now being placed on the principals to not only establish if an applicant has a criminal record but if the crime will effect the potential teachers job performance. They must take a detailed look at the individual details of the crime to determine if they pose a threat to students. Being a murderer is not enough to disqualify them from the application process. A wrong decision will either result in unnecessary danger to students or a law suit against the principal.
Hopefully this ruling will be appealed and struck down by the Supreme Court.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/natio
Schools across the continent have adopted policies to have criminal background checks for their teachers. This policy is designed to protect students and keep schools safe.
A man applies for a teaching position in Montreal. The application form asks if he has a criminal background. He fails to mention the fact that he has just spent 7 years in jail for killing his wife. The school is happy with his job performance until they discover his criminal record. He is immediately fired. The union files a grievance. The Quebec Superior Court upholds a ruling by the Human Rights Council that the skill must give the teacher his job back. Their reasoning is that the criminal conviction was in no way a factor in his ability to perform his job. They sight the details of his conviction that he is not a risk to re-offend and posses no risk to the students. Quebec law makes it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they have a criminal record, if it is not a factor in their ability to perform the job.
There are two very dangerous precedences that could come out of this ruling. The court is establishing that it is OK to lie on a job application if it does not affect their ability to perform the job. These factors may not be significant in determining if a person is qualified. They could be significant when a manager is making a final decision between 2 or more applicants. If a person gets hired based on the law they have no fear of being fired when the lie is finally uncovered. This hurts honest job seekers. Nothing good can come out of this reasoning.
Schools have a responsibility to protect the safety of their students. The burden is now being placed on the principals to not only establish if an applicant has a criminal record but if the crime will effect the potential teachers job performance. They must take a detailed look at the individual details of the crime to determine if they pose a threat to students. Being a murderer is not enough to disqualify them from the application process. A wrong decision will either result in unnecessary danger to students or a law suit against the principal.
Hopefully this ruling will be appealed and struck down by the Supreme Court.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Sex Drugs & Deportation
Out in B.C. a man was arrested at the request of American authorities for selling Marijuana to the U.S. He tried to fight his extradition based on the assumption that he had not committed a crime according to Canadian law. The argument moved on to be centred on weather a crime on the books that is never enforced is actually a crime. However, the core of his argument and the ton of supporters he had was if someone commits an act that is not a crime in Canada should not be sent to the states to be charged.
Currently there is an American man being held by CBSA who will be facing a hearing tomorrow on weather he can stay in Canada. He was convicted of sexual assault in Buffalo and the judge gave him the choice of serving 1 year in an American jail or living in Canada for 3 years. He will live with his wife and three kids in St. Catherines (home of the Paul Bernardo murders) and he will only be allowed to enter the U.S. for probation hearings.
The politicians and media have unanimously come out and condemned this decision. "Canada is not a dumping ground for American criminals" I agree with this sentiment. If there were grounds to serve his sentence in Canada it should be in a Canadian prison paid for by the Americans. Under special circumstances this has been done before.
Taking a closer look at the case I can't understand why I haven't heard any groups come out to support his sentence in Canada. He was convicted of fondling his 15 year old female student on the outside of her clothing inside his car in a parking lot. In Canada the age of consent is 14 and intercourse needs to occur. If this happened in Canada this would not have been a crime. The government has introduced legislation to raise the age of consent to 16 but there is some opposition to this move.
Where are the protestors that if it is not a crime in Canada they should not be forced to do time in a U.S jail? Where are the protesters that the age of consent should in the U.S is to high? It is amazing once a person is labeled as a sexual predator noone wants to hang on to their principals.
Currently there is an American man being held by CBSA who will be facing a hearing tomorrow on weather he can stay in Canada. He was convicted of sexual assault in Buffalo and the judge gave him the choice of serving 1 year in an American jail or living in Canada for 3 years. He will live with his wife and three kids in St. Catherines (home of the Paul Bernardo murders) and he will only be allowed to enter the U.S. for probation hearings.
The politicians and media have unanimously come out and condemned this decision. "Canada is not a dumping ground for American criminals" I agree with this sentiment. If there were grounds to serve his sentence in Canada it should be in a Canadian prison paid for by the Americans. Under special circumstances this has been done before.
Taking a closer look at the case I can't understand why I haven't heard any groups come out to support his sentence in Canada. He was convicted of fondling his 15 year old female student on the outside of her clothing inside his car in a parking lot. In Canada the age of consent is 14 and intercourse needs to occur. If this happened in Canada this would not have been a crime. The government has introduced legislation to raise the age of consent to 16 but there is some opposition to this move.
Where are the protestors that if it is not a crime in Canada they should not be forced to do time in a U.S jail? Where are the protesters that the age of consent should in the U.S is to high? It is amazing once a person is labeled as a sexual predator noone wants to hang on to their principals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)