Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Another 'Traversty'

I usually don't bother allowing my eyes to even glance at a James Travers column, but this cannot go unanswered - On crime issue, facts don't matter.


Contrast this:

"...wasting time on violence in a safe and growing safer country is at least a misdemeanour and maybe even a crime."


With this:

(Sun's Joe Warmington - With 10 weeks left in 2007, Toronto could be headed for a record year in the number of murders committed on our mean streets):


Just look at the numbers. It's shocking if you consider the city has already eclipsed last year's count of 69 murders.

( . . . )

"Lets hope the record isn't broken, but there are still 10 weeks left in the year," AM 640 crime expert and former cop Craig Bromell said yesterday. "We pray it doesn't happen, but it could because today's criminals have absolutely no fear of the system."

Combine that with easy access to bail, guns, an increase in stabbings and that the gangsters have a "no snitch" edge, it makes it difficult for the overworked cops.

"These guys are out on bail or parole before the poor cops can get their paperwork done properly to prevent some liberal judge from throwing out their whole case and then order compensation for the criminals for their inconvenience," said an angry Bromell.

"No matter the number, there better not be dancing in the streets come Dec. 31st from the leftists that crime is down. It would be a slap in the face to all of these victims and their families."




But don't let that stop you, James Travers.

We all know that in your column, facts don't matter.


* * * *

Update: The Post takes Travers to task on a previous column. Heh.

Wow! Now the Globe's Adam Radwanski is taking on the Post editorial!

Media flame wars!!!



Meanwhile, Alberta Ardvark has a suggestion for Mayor Miller! (Courtesy of Jim Travers).

Wednesday Update: Lorrie Goldstein - Existing parole rules a sham.

Truth in sentencing - Post (Well worth the read.)

Don't let anti-American rant cloud need for tory anti-crime law - by Criminologist John Martin of the University College of the Fraser Valley.


31 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, you take the article that pleases you most and say it's the one that is right.

Duh....

Anonymous said...

stats can says violent crime is up 35% over the past 20 or so years. 73% of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. travers is an idiot and that's being kind.

Anonymous said...

Clearly Travers has not been reading any Winnipeg or Calgary newspapers, has never heard of all the missing womwan in Edmonton, the missing women on Highway 16, or even been following the Pickton trial.

Can someone explain to him that building schools is not a federal responsibility?

The real crime is that I have wasted time reading him.


As bad as today's column is, his Saturday column was short and stupid as well.

Anonymous said...

Link this to today's Post article that says TO Star and CBC are working on overdrive to discredit and scare monger the sheeples...I know, I know, you'll say; "What else is new?" But it is currently bad and will only get worst before and during the next election which we need ASAP.

Knowing that the Conservatives have taken the Liberals centre position minus the corruption and do nothing but promise and study everything to death and poll for popularity; and If only Harper's Conservatives were proposing true right wing ideology then Travers would have some excuse to attack...But this is simply for pure brand name sake.

"No, no Coke here, Pepsi"

skuleman said...

The more important aspect of this is spouses seem to be killing each other a whole lot less, but murdering strangers is up, either through robberies, home invasions, or just the fact the idiots can't shoot straight.

At the rate Toronto is going we'll have to move to Detroit to be safe.

Swift said...

Did Travers complain that too much attention was paid to faith based schools during the election? Did Travers point out that the world's best two health systems are two tier systems when the Libs and NDP were using scare tactics. And speaking about keeping "a cold high cost country internationally competitive," just why did he think the Conservatives have been complaining about the economic effects of Kyoto.

aek said...

"wasting time on violence in a safe and growing safer country is at least a misdemeanour and maybe even a crime."

Is Mr. Travers suggesting that the Prime Minister be arrested?

Is the Red Star running a contest for the most hysterical anti-conservative propaganda piece?

On the subject of gun violence, Mark Steyn wrote in the Sept 17 Western Standard:

"There is no "Canadian" murder epidemic or "Ontario" murder epidemic. There is a problem within one very narrow stratum of Toronto society (as no RCMP assistant commissioner is ever likely to say)."

"In contrast to gun-infested Switzerland and Norway, Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates on the planet, and it exports its pathologies to wherever the Jamaican diaspora settles."

"In practical terms, the guilt-ridden white liberal would rather go on blaming rural white gun-owners and implicitly accept random intra-Jamaican gun-death as just another feature of the heartwarming multicultural mosaic, in the same way that we accept gas-sniffing as a time-honoured native tradition practiced on the tundra ever since the first Innu popped the tank of the first Honda Civic back in 1478. In neither case does liberal "compassion" or multicultural squeamishness seem to be doing anything for the designated victim class."

Gayle said...

You people are funny.

Does anyone know the difference between the "murder rate" and the "number of murders"?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

The real crime is that I have wasted time reading him.

Yes, I apologize for that. One of the hazards of reading blogs, I suppose.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Does anyone know the difference between the "murder rate" and the "number of murders"?

Since Gayle likes stats so much, I'll link to CTV's analysis of the Statscan report here.


Gayle, if I may, I think the salient point here is that Travers is using selective statistics to somehow support the argument that Harper is trying to create some kind of nonsensical issue at the expense of far worthier ones for political purposes - That in fact there is little crime and all is well in La-La Land.

I think the folks in large cities still see violent crime as a concern.

But what do I know? I certainly have no impressive credentials in this field.

Gayle said...

Joanne - the crime rate has fallen significantly over the past 15 years or so. It is too soon to say if the recent upturn in some crimes is part of a general trend that will result in the crime rate increasing to the levels it was at in the 1970's.

Homicide rates are a different kettle of fish, since they tend to fluctuate year to year.

There are any number of studies that show the crime rate is not affected by incarceration rates.

People need to know that, and they need to know how much money this tough on crime approach will cost them (billions of dollars). We cannot spend that much money without giving something else up.

If Canadians want to spend their money on this initiative, knowing that increasing penalties will not decrease the crime rate, then that is up to them.

No one likes crime. I want the streets to be safe as much as anyone else does. The unfortunate reality is that crime is not going away, no matter how many people we put in jail.

LynnH said...

Let's see, according to progressive journalists, spending a billion dollars or so on a useless rural duck and farmer long gun registry was money well spent. I mean this is obviously a high crime demographic and the solution to the urban crime problem. Besides ....if it saves just one life...and all that.

But, according to the same progressive journalists, the conservatives crime package is unnecessary. Well of course. Spending money on building jails for mandatory sentencing and reverse onus laws and dangerous offender legislation pf actual criminals is just crazy. After all the repeat, handgun-toting or three times convicted violent offender's are not really the problem (see paragraph one for the real criminal demographic).

I often wonder if this type of journalist actually believes what they write or are just testing the stupidity levels of their readers.

Swift said...

From StatsCan: Crimes by type.

All incidences: rate per 100,000
2002 8504.0
2003 8900.6
2004 8950.6
2005 8535.4
2006 8269.0

It looks like the criminals didn't trust the Liberals to delay the tough on crime bills long enough to get their cases through court.

bluetech said...

Dear gayle..please explain to us lo life the difference between murder rate and number of murders. Just for fun explain the difference between attempted murder and murder...oh wait ...somebody dies with one and somebody almost dies with the other, right?Am I good or what?
Violent crime is up. But stick with your numbers Gayle. You can make them work for you.


Oh...and one other difference between attempted murder and murder..our expert First Response teams who are getting real good at their jobs at saving people from being one more stat on the dead list.They are getting lot's of practice.

Your attempt at making the Libs look squeaky clean on this issue is tiresome.
Just like Ralph, you think if you say it enough times someone might believe it.
Let's see some Hansard to prove your stuff.

Sorry Joanne...the topic was
Travers. Yeah...what anon @ 9:37 said.
Joanne you are so polite to Gayle and she still takes offence.She should apologise to you for taking up so much space on your blog.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

.She should apologise to you for taking up so much space on your blog.

Bluetech, I don't mind. I see her as the ultimate challenge. If I can win her over to our side, I can do anything. She likely thinks the same thing about me. ;)

Gayle said...

"Your attempt at making the Libs look squeaky clean on this issue is tiresome.
Just like Ralph, you think if you say it enough times someone might believe it.
Let's see some Hansard to prove your stuff."

blue - the only reason I have repeated myself is because some people here have decided it is easier to debate me when they pretend I have said something I did not.

I have never said the liberals were squeaky clean - quite the contrary in fact. Just because I call the conservatives out on their misinformation does not mean I agree with the liberals.

As for the Hansard proof you seek - I assume you are prepared to take the word of the conservative minister of justice who just this morning published an op-ed where he admits the liberals proposed a motion to fast track some of the crime bills last March.

"If I can win her over to our side, I can do anything. She likely thinks the same thing about me. ;)"

Not likely - on both counts :).

Brian in Calgary said...

I for one like reading Gayle's comments. As I've observed, she sticks to issues and refrains from mindless name-calling and personal abuse, unlike too many commenters from all sides of the ideological spectrum.

And, to be purely OT (with absolutely no apologies), Go Roughriders!

Gayle said...

Thanks Brian.

And given the current state of the Eskimos, I even agree with you on cheering the Roughriders!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And I will forever hold out hope that one day Gayle will agree to drink the Blue Kool-aid. ;)

Anonymous said...

Well I am so glad Gayle brought up the op-ed by the Minister of Justice. Remember Gayle, that you said Goodale's op-ed was accurate because the Conservatives never denied it? Well, here is the full op-ed. As for the Liberal's offer to fast-track some bills, both CBC and CTV confirmed that in fact theprocedural motion Goodale talked about was not legally possible.

Where do you stand on crime, Stephane Dion?
Rob Nicholson, National Post
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The National Post op-ed by Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale ("Harper's crime of deceit," Oct. 22) represents the latest attempt by the Liberals to explain why their party's MPs and Senators did not pass Conservative crime bills during the last Parliament. Mr. Goodale claims the Conservatives "preferred to concoct an artificial fight, rather than make progress." The facts tell a different story.

In the last session, our government introduced 13 important pieces of legislation to tackle crime. Unfortunately, our legislative agenda was met with numerous Liberal stall tactics. What did not get delayed in the House of Commons was delayed in the Senate.

Cases in point:


-Bill C-10 (Mandatory Prison Sentences) died after a total of 414 calendar days before the House of Commons and Senate. While it was being studied at committee, the Liberals, with the help of the Bloc Quebecois,moved to gut the entire bill by voting to delete all but two clauses. It was only with the help of the NDP that our government was able to restore the bill closer to its original version when it was reported back to the House.

While I do welcome yet another Liberal about-face on mandatory jail time, the fact remains that the bill was studied in-depth by members of Parliament and should have received approval by the Senate before the summer recess.

-Bill C-22 (Age of Protection): Despite being endorsed by the Kids Internet Safety Alliance and the Canadian Crime Victim Foundation, C-22 died after a total of 365 days before the House of Commons and Senate. Studied in-depth by the house justice committee, Bill C-22 received the House of Commons' approval with amendments that reflected the Opposition concerns. Yet this bill sat in the Senate for well over a month. Had the Liberal Senators not stalled, a 40-year-old sexually engaged with a 15-year-old would no longer have been able to use consent as a defence.

-Bill-35 (Reverse onus on bail for firearms offences):Despite being endorsed by the Premier of Ontario and the Mayor of Toronto, this bill died after a total of 211 days before the House of Commons and Senate. It was passed in the House with all-party support without amendments. Had the Liberal Senators passed C-35 before rising for the summer holidays, an individual would now face tougher bail provisions after being accused of assault or robbery with a gun.

The Liberals claim that last spring they put forward a motion which would have seen our crime bills fast-tracked into the Senate. What they have neglected to say is that they came forward with a motion that they knew to be procedurally out of order. They were also aware that the NDP and the Bloc were against their motion, which pretty much sealed its fate. Their posturing now is nothing but a show of dishonesty.

Last winter, Stephane Dion told Canadians he was going to get tough on crime, but the Liberals did nothing. We do not need any more grandstanding or excuses from the Liberals. Canadians want Parliament to move decisively to tackle crime.the above-described measures with a single, comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act (Bill C-2). These measures were studied in-depth by Parliament in the last session. I see no reason why this legislation should not receive Parliament's approval without delay.

If the Liberals allow our Throne Speech to pass, they cannot continue to obstruct our core priorities, as they did in the last session, without consequences. This time, our government will hold them to account: Our Tackling Crime Bill will be a matter of confidence.

If Stephane Dion and the Liberals are truly serious about crime, I defy them to pass Bill C-2 in the House of Commons at all stages and send it immediately to the Senate for ratification so that it becomes law. I would then strongly encourage Mr. Dion to speak with the Liberal Senators and urge them to swiftly pass the legislation, and not further delay the will of Parliament as they have so effectively done with the old bills.
\\

Paulsstuff(sign-in not working)

Gayle said...

anon - there is nothing in that op-ed that contradicts any of the facts I have set out both on this thread and two other threads below it.

I do find it funny that the minister of justice is complaining that the senate did not pass a bill they had only for a month when that same bill stayed in the House between March (when the liberals publicly stated they would vote for it) and June when the conservatives finally allowed it to be voted on.

The reason the motion was proceduraly illegal is because it was attempting to circumvent the commitees - those same commitees the conservatives are now complaining held up the bills. You cannot use a motion in the House to circumvent the commitees.

I also find it funny how many of you can simply ignore the fact that Harper could have reintroduced many of these bills directly to the senate rather than have them go through the HofC again, causing further delay.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I also find it funny how many of you can simply ignore the fact that Harper could have reintroduced many of these bills directly to the senate rather than have them go through the HofC again, causing further delay.

Gayle, don't quote me on this but I think the Conservative house leader offered to do just that with the whole bill yesterday, but the opposition wouldn't go for it. We'll have to check Hansard to get the details.

Gayle said...

It would be difficult to do that with the whole bill, since the conservatives have included the contentious issue of dangerous offenders in this bill. That was the only bill that did not pass, so I do not think he can simply send that oen to the senate. The others ones can go though.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

the conservatives have included the contentious issue of dangerous offenders in this bill.

Yeah, I hear you, Gayle. It's important to make sure the legislation will pass the test of the courts.

Swift said...

At least traditionally any bill that dies on the order paper must be reintroduced and go through all the steps before becoming law. Unless there is a clear precedent the law would certainly be open to challenge.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Swift. And if I recall yesterday's events correctly, all propositions by various house leaders met with nays, which means no consensus.

Anonymous said...

Cheer up conservatives. Go to Rick Mercer's website and take your frustrations out on this week's photo challenge......it's Dalton McGuinty. Time for a little fun.
Anyone got a lemming on their photoshop?

Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday Joanne!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Why do people keep wishing me a Happy Birthday when it's not my birthday?

Möbius said...

Why do people keep wishing me a Happy Birthday when it's not my birthday?

a) misinformation campaign
b) 1 in 365 chances of being correct and looking prescient
c) confused
d) total suck-ups
e) forgot to do so when you were friends in high school

Oh, by the way, Happy Birthday!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ha-ha! Möbius, you always make me smile.