เล่นบาคาร่าให้ได้เงิน pantip_โปรแกรมพรีเมียร์ลีก_ปืนเกมยิงปลา

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
WilderMore
NDP will support Conservative bill allowing greater use of Citizen's Arrest

By: Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The NDP says it will support Conservative government legislation to make citizen's arrests easier.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said Saturday she supports a decision by the Tories to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code.

The prime minister's office confirmed on Saturday that a bill would be tabled soon after Parliament resumes Jan. 31.

"I expect that the government will be introducing legislation as quickly as possible once the new session starts, in the next couple of weeks," Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas told The Canadian Press Saturday.

"We also hope that the opposition parties will support the government legislation."

Despite the controversy that sometimes accompanies their law-and-order agenda, the Tories were hopeful of Liberal and NDP support because each party has already tabled private members' bills on the issue.

"The roadmap is in front of them. My private members bill, it's in the House of Commons. All they have to do is say yes. If they want to copy it, that's fine by me," Chow said in an interview Saturday.

"Let's make sure that hard working store owners won't get punished if they try to defend their stores because that's totally unfair."

Harper told two Toronto businessmen, shopkeeper David Chen and investment banker Ricky Chan, in a private meeting Friday that the new bill would be introduced in Parliament in three to four weeks.

Chen made national headlines last fall when he was acquitted of assault and forcible confinement after catching and tying up a shoplifter in Toronto.

Catching a thief in the act is a requirement of the law when making such a citizen's arrest. Chen captured the shoplifter one hour after he stole plants from his store. However, a judge called the one-hour issue a "red herring," saying the thief had gone back for more loot.

The huge public outcry over Chen's case - especially in vote-rich Toronto - caught the attention of the government and opposition parties.

Soudas stressed that the government was not playing politics with the issue. He said Harper was tracking the case closely but could say nothing publicly until it wound its way through the courts.

"The prime minister was following this very closely from the get-go," said Soudas.

"On issues such as this one, politics should always be left aside."

In separate interviews Saturday, Chen and Chan said their private meeting with Harper the previous evening left them feeling upbeat.

"People steal lots of things and we can't do anything," Chen said.

"We hope the law, (they) can change it so we can have more power to protect the store owners . . . I know how much money we lose there."

Chan, who attended the meeting to help with translation, added that Harper seemed genuinely interested in Chen's plight.

"In about three to four weeks, there will be a law tabled at parliament," said Chan.

Last year, Chow - Chen's MP - introduced a private bill to change the law to allow more time for such an arrest to be made. Liberal MP Joe Volpe tabled a similar bill, using different language.

"The Conservative government, hopefully this time around with the expressed support of the Liberals and the NDP, hopefully this thing will go forward," said Chan, who formed a victims' rights action committee a year and a half ago to aid Chen after his arrest.

"If you've got the governing party presenting a bill, you've got a better chance of getting it done."

In November, Harper instructed the Justice Department to look at changing the Criminal Code to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened to Chen.

Chan said Friday's meeting was called on short notice, while Harper was in the Toronto area.

Chen, Chan and Harper spoke for about 10 minutes around the 6 p.m. supper hour, said Chan.

"It was very nice. The prime minister took a personal interest on this matter. He was very genuine and interested in David's current situation," said Chan.

Though the meeting was private, and the media was not advised that it was taking place, Chan said, "we were told it was ok to discuss the meeting . . . by the prime ministers' office."

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's office would not discuss the prospect of new legislation being tabled when the House of Commons resumes, deferring all questions to Harper's office.

A man was convicted and served 30 days in jail for stealing plants from Chen's store.

Anthony Bennett admitted in court that he returned to the store an hour after that theft to steal more.

After Chen's acquittal, a Crown prosecutor said the decision would not set a precedent, and that it could continue to prosecute such charges against shopkeepers on a case-by-case basis.

?

?

WFPD

Now can we can arrest war criminals in Canada, including Canadian ones??

Aristotleded24

While I certainly sympathize with the store owner and don't blame him for taking action against someone he knew to be a troublemaker, were the laws that bad originally that they had to be changed?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

WTF?!..Seriously.

So now we open the door to vigilantes,eh?

What in the FUCK is the NDP thinking?!!

jrootham

This is Olivia having to deal with some of her constituents. ?I do not expect the change to have large ramifications in how things actually work.

?

NDPP

and that's not all they're willing to support it looks like:

?

NDP Not After A Fight, Says Layton : He wants all parties to get along.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/after+fight+says+Layton//4151848/story.html

"...Layton said if Harper is willing to deal with NDP's issues, there doesn't have to be an election."

that oughta inspire troops for the fray eh? Looks like the fix is in. He'll vote for the budget in exchange for a few ndp scraps for optics sake, and give the country yet another round of Harpo? because he's not up for a fight.? Here we go again. The left hand washes the right and both wash the face...

?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

WilderMore: please do not copy and paste entire articles from other news sites. It's copyright violation and against babble policy. A short excerpt and a link will do just fine.

Fidel

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

and that's not all they're willing to support it looks like:

?

NDP Not After A Fight, Says Layton : He wants all parties to get along.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/after+fight+says+Layton//4151848/story.html

"...Layton said if Harper is willing to deal with NDP's issues, there doesn't have to be an election."

The Liberals would insist on more gigantic tax cuts for profitable corporations as the middle ground for their support while a phony war rages on in Afghanistan. At least with the fourth party and effective opposition NDP pushing and prodding them we might win a few crumbs from the bastards.

Life, the unive...

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

and that's not all they're willing to support it looks like:

?

NDP Not After A Fight, Says Layton : He wants all parties to get along.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/after+fight+says+Layton//4151848/story.html

"...Layton said if Harper is willing to deal with NDP's issues, there doesn't have to be an election."

that oughta inspire troops for the fray eh? Looks like the fix is in. He'll vote for the budget in exchange for a few ndp scraps for optics sake, and give the country yet another round of Harpo? because he's not up for a fight.? Here we go again. The left hand washes the right and both wash the face...

?

From now on I think we can dismiss all comments or analysis attempts by you.? If you don't understand the most basic positioning attempts you don't understand much.

I have no real problem with this.? If you have ever worked independent retail (outside of a mall) you would understand where there is a need to better define the rules.? At the moment they are a mismash of mixed legal precedents, urban myth and things people think they understand from TV

Fidel

Yeah bargaining with the government is how our obsolete FPTP democracy is supposed to work when Canadians don't trust either old line party enough to hand them dictatorial powers by phony majority. Christ knows the Liberals won't do anything other than capitulate,? acquiesce, cow-tow and grovel to the Reform-Tory Government agenda without any strings attached whatsoever.

Unionist

Well, Harper has adopted Chow's bill, so now the NDP owes Harper one - have I got the New World Order right?

And just this evening, I heard Harper talking to a Conservative crowd rallying them to his tough-in-crime agenda.

What a dismal performance by Olivia Chow.

Fidel

theprovince.com wrote:
Asked later whether he thinks there will be a spring vote, Layton said it's hard to predict.

"It depends on whether Stephen Harper is ready to work with other parties or continue to just poke people in the eye with his attack ads and adopt a kind of 'My way or the highway' approach to being prime minister in a minority parliament," he said.

Shrewd, Jack. Play their FPTP shell games. Neither old line party wants an election. They haven't done anything worth voting for, and they know it.

Stockholm

After the absurd charges against that shop keeper in Toronto - it was obvious that the existing laws on citizens arrests were ridiculous and in need of reform. If the Tories want to run with an NDP idea - what's not to like. I suspect this particular bill will pass unanimously - its a motherhood issue.

Unionist

Good one, Stock.

Can the NDP take credit for extending the mission? And what about that stellar EI reform they voted for last year?

I think you're on the right track, Stock and Fidel. Layton just has Harper outclassed. The master tactician. What an inspiration!

Stockholm

what exactly do you object to in Olivia Chow's bill?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Good one, Stock. Can the NDP take credit for extending the mission? And what about that stellar EI reform they voted for last year? I think you're on the right track, Stock and Fidel. Layton just has Harper outclassed. The master tactician. What an inspiration!

EI? Afghanistan? They don't want a highly skilled work force. That's not being very friendly toward Bay St and foreign creditors. I'm afraid we'll have to elect a lot more NDPers to Ottawa if we want a debt-free and competitive economy not driven by supplying cheap fossil fuels to the imperial master nation.

Meanwhile the "North Atlantic" Treaty Org continues waging phony war. And the NDP began insisting that no more troops be sent to Afghanistan by December 2005 and not spring of 2006.

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

what exactly do you object to in Olivia Chow's bill?

Let's hope it's actually something of substance and not a knee-jerk reaction.

?

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

what exactly do you object to in Olivia Chow's bill?

Nothing. I object to the NDP dancing to Harper's agenda. I objected to their support for his last crime bill, and disciplining Siksay for voting his conscience. I object to their stupidity and pandering. If they really believe Canadians are social conservative reactionary jerks, why not run under the Conservative banner? Why he content with third-best of the same flavour?

What fools they are.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

It's sadly predicible amazing how party policy gets bent out of shape to accomodate parochial concerns in the Toronto area.

Fidel

lol It's not Harper's agenda at all - he's simply a marionette controlled by Bay Street and US interests. He hasn't had an original thought in that empty melon of his since entering politics and probably way before that. Same goes for Iggy the American.

Apparently Unionist backs the NDP's plan to cure electoral dysfunction in the Northern Puerto Rico. Welcome aboard, Unionist. One Canadian one vote now!

Stockholm

What specific party policy do you think is being bent out of shape by supporting a bill that will clarify the laws around citizens' arrests?

George Victor

This NDP old fool is responding to the party's federal appeal to "Help Defeat Stephen Harper in the coming election."

Rather than encouraging infighting while touting?a superior moral position - otherworldly, actually - I'll help to put up a defence against the Conservative machine's propaganda, which seems to?cause capitulation,?even among the "solidarity forever" folk.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Question...Will this mean the self righteous can now legally arrest some kid smoking a joint in a park?

Sounds like an expansion of the police state and sounds eerily reminiscent of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers...

'Scuse me while I puke.

George Victor

Never saw the flick, myself. But I tend to base my decisions on reality, not an imagined reality.? We'll see what?citizens are allowed to do...besides, obviously, detaining someone repeatedly stealing from them.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Question...Will this mean the self righteous can now legally arrest some kid smoking a joint in a park?

Sounds like an expansion of the police state and sounds eerily reminiscent of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers...

'Scuse me while I puke.

Harper wants to fill all those new prisons he wants to build, and getting citizens to help with arrests - including of victimless crimes such as smoking pot - is one way to get there.

Sean in Ottawa

Have not seen the bill yet- rather busy. Will decide when I see it what I think of it. I trust that all those commenting have actually read it -- right?

The wider issue of cooperation with the Cons is exactly what I suggested the NDP do last year.

Last year the NDP said they would vote against the budget before they even saw it.

This month Ignatieff is throwing that in their face.

They need to read the thing, they need to try to get concessions and they need to sound like they are trying to work with the government before they vote.

Then if there were something to vote for they can point to it but it better be substantial. I am not optimistic about that. Then if there is not they need to vote it down.

Rather than critique the NDP for positions it has not yet taken call NDP MPs and tell them what your bottom line is.

Mine is that I want them to consider carefully, avoid public statements about what they will do, sound cooperative and then vote the budget down.They need to give opportunity to the government on the issues we want and let the government refuse rather than come out saying they can't support a document that they have not seen

But they can't very well announce that can they?

I expect this budget will be impossible to support but how can we say more?

As for Chow's bill (I wanted to respond to the other comments first), this needs also to have a analysis based on exactly what it says. Same witht eh government version. When I have time I will look to form my opinion at least. Unfortunately I am not optimistic but am withholding judgment for now.

George Victor

Sean, how do you expect such a rational position to hold water hereabouts?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Question...Will this mean the self righteous can now legally arrest some kid smoking a joint in a park?

?

Don't freak out or anything, but you don't actually need a change in law for this. The proposed changes seem to be oriented around allowing a greater window of opportunity for a citizen to make an arrest (as opposed to the existing laws which restrict citizens to making an arrest only if they catch the criminal in the act).

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Will these new powers give ordinary citizens the power to act on 'probable cause' ?...Will vigilante groups be given the same authority as police?

Would citizens be cleared of being charged with assault when arresting people?

What next,bounty hunters?...Guardian Angel chapters?...Professional snitchers?

This stinks...This is the next step to an absolute police state.

And all this with a crime rate that's been dropping every year for 20 years.

This bill can be spinned any which way possible and it's still BULLSHIT.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Will these new powers give ordinary citizens the power to act on 'probable cause' ?...

?

No.

?

Quote:
Will vigilante groups be given the same authority as police?

?

Nope.

?

Quote:
Would citizens be cleared of being charged with assault when arresting people?

?

If they use reasonable force, the same as now.

?

The Cons changes haven't been made public yet, but if they're like Chow's proposed changes, citizens' arrests will work just like they always did, except that there'll be a more realistic window of opportunity to make the arrest. Currently, if you catch someone in the act of stealing your bike, you can make a citizen's arrest. If the change passes, you can also make a citizen's arrest an hour later when you see the thief riding around on your bike.

?

Not really such a horrifying dystopia now, is it??

?

?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Maybe I'm being cynical but anything the Harpercons are involved with-especially their paranoid tough on crime agenda--is in itsself cynical.

Life, the unive...

So the old guilt by association.? Who is it that is in favour of police state mentality again?

The rules around citizens arrests are very murky and unevenly applied.? Why is it shocking to anyone that the police often don't give a rats ass about a shop owner who is having stuff stolen?? Chow's bill at least clarified when an arrest can be made, what the boundaries are, and gave those being stolen from a bit of protection if they have to detain someone.? Step over that line though and you will be subject to reasonable force charges and so on.

This is mostly a nothing to see here update of existing regulations and laws that have been subject to contradictory precedents and a whole ton of urban myth making from American TV and movies.

Fidel

alan smithee wrote:

Maybe I'm being cynical but anything the Harpercons are involved with-especially their paranoid tough on crime agenda--is in itsself cynical.

But they are not tough on crime that pays. Harpercons are soft on corporate tax evaders and stock market fraud. Liberals just as soft.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It is true...The Reform Party's 'tough on crime' agenda has nothing to do with combatting crime and everything to do with right wing ideology.

Alternative policies in regards to prohibition is a REAL tough on crime agenda.

Instead,the Reform Party is committed in protecting the livelyhoods of organized crime and making these organizations richer.

Whether it be the Hell's Angels,the Triads,the Mafia OR Bay Street,their cronies and the biggest international crime syndicates in Oil,pharmaceuticals,insurance firms and weapon manufacturers.

Somehow,right wing ideologues in Canada and abroad have perverted the issues so if anyone was to inact any policies that would cripple organized crime and regulate industries and pay off all our debts while strengthening social policy,the economy and give the resources to slash income taxes all at the same time,would be tarred and feathered 'soft on crime' or a dreaded left wing liberal socialist.

How else has fascism become a populist alternative?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

We haven't seen the Conservatives' bill on reforming citizen's arrest, but here's what Olivia Chow's private members bill C-565 proposes.

The following is the present Criminal Code provision. Olivia Chow proposes to add to it the words I have bolded. She does not propose any deletions:

?

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

......(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

......(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may, within a reasonable period, arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property or a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed such an offence.

Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

=====================

Thus, if you have reasonable grounds to believe that someone has committed a criminal offence and is being "freshly" pursued by persons who have the legal power to arrest him, you may arrest him yourself (present law); but if it's a criminal offence against your property, or taking place on your property, the requirement for "fresh" pursuit is waived, and you - or your authorized private vigilante force - are free to arrest him "within a reasonable period".

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The ' anyone can arrest without warrant' point disturbs me.

Maybe it's not Chow's intention but once the Cons get their hands on this,I think they are going to exploit that point of the bill.

Hence an increase in warrantless raids and arrests.

It's not Chow's bill I worry about...It's a bill which makes changes to our criminal code with the words ' arrest without warrant' in the hands of the Reform Party.

Their star candidate Julian Fantino made it expicitly clear that he wants to change our Charter of Rights...I DON'T trust the Harpercons with changes to our criminal code.

Sean in Ottawa

What a distraction this whole thing is.

It is a cold night in much of Canada. We have thousands and thousands who cannot afford shelter.

Sometimes people need some perspective.

We should look at this debate - barely more than semantics - in that context.

?

I think the clarification being proposed does not violate the principle of the law but the daily reality of thousands of our people ought to violate everything we believe in. If only we had as much debate about that.

Fidel

Well that does it. It's a police state. And the NDP are to blame!! Cons-NDP in cahoots? Reeks of conspiracy it does.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, this is the politics forum, and it's a political issue, so I find this attempt to change the channel a bit annoying. Yes, there are other issues, but bring them up in another thread, okay? Kiss

trippie

The classic NDP would have tried to figure out why this person was stealing in the first place.

?

The new and improved NDP, tables a bill giving more people the ability to arrest others. Giving more credence to property rights.

?

Lets face it, the guy stole some shitty flowers, and what does the NDP do about it. Turn everyone into a snicht and cop.

Sean in Ottawa

Boom Boom wrote:

Well, this is the politics forum, and it's a political issue, so I find this attempt to change the channel a bit annoying. Yes, there are other issues, but bring them up in another thread, okay? Kiss

My comment is not an attempt to change the channel if you are getting at that.

My point, on topic, is that this is overblown, not worth what is being devoted to it. Like it or not-- that is a comment on point and my way of expressing it, like it or not, was not detailed but a point about perspective.

I think context is valuable to an issue -- don't you?

Certainly I was not trying to direct the thread anywhere other than to point out that many of these comments are out of proportion to the problem being discussed.

So I guess be annoyed, but I still think I was on-topic and the relative value of an issue is a point worth considering.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My point, on topic, is that this is overblown, not worth what is being devoted to it.

Who are?you to?presume to make this decision for the rest of us - that's what I'm getting at. If others want to discuss this topic in an overblown? (your word) way, what's it to you?

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

What specific party policy do you think is being bent out of shape by supporting a bill that will clarify the laws around citizens' arrests?

Refer me to a list of "specific party policies" and I'll let you know.

I'm also looking for Olivia Chow's photo op with Anthony Bennett, talking about her new private member's bill aimed at enhancing society's approach to dealing with poverty, racism, substance dependency, and prevention of social crime. I've already got the video and photos of her with Chen, thanks. Can you help?

?

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What a distraction this whole thing is.

It is a cold night in much of Canada. We have thousands and thousands who cannot afford shelter.

Sean, I agree. That's why I asked [url=/48f/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-will-support-conservative-... to see a draft of Chow's bill to help alleviate the suffering of Mr. Bennett and the thousands and thousands like him. Remember him?

Instead, she sought photo ops for Chen - even serving as his interpreter for the media - and proposed expanded DIY legislation to catch criminals.

It is utterly irrelevant what words Chow proposed to amend the Code. What is utterly relevant is what you said, Sean. Why is the NDP talking about petty crime, when huge crimes are being committed against Canadians every day? Why are they giving the slimmest credibility to the Conservatives' agenda? Do they think some small businessperson will vote NDP rather than Con if they're looking for a tough-on-crime candidate?

Sean hit the nail on the head. Chow's private member's bill - and now the cooperation with Harper to pass some unknown crime legislation - is the rankest betrayal of the trust that so many people have placed in the NDP.

?

Life, the unive...

What a load of horseshit.?? This is a minor change to an area of law that needs clarifying.? "The rankest betrayal of the trust that so many people have placed in the NDP"? Do you even read your hyperbole?? Do you think even good progressives have never had 'petty' or not so-?crimes committed against them?

And here's a big shock for you too.? The NDP has a lot of members and supporters in the small business community.? Small business is everything from local gallery and artisan shops, farmgate stores, local conveinance shops and many more that are important aspects of our communities, but often vulnerable to property crimes.?

And Olivia Chow has been out there fighting for the poor and dispossessed for a very long time while a lot of us having been pounding off on our computers.? I would have greater trust in her understanding what might be needed than a bunch of utopian internet key pounders.?

Sean in Ottawa

Boom Boom wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My point, on topic, is that this is overblown, not worth what is being devoted to it.

Who are?you to?presume to make this decision for the rest of us - that's what I'm getting at. If others want to discuss this topic in an overblown? (your word) way, what's it to you?

I was expressing my opinion that this topic is overblown. In the context of the sky is falling comments no less.

Now who are you to say that an opinion that the topic is overblown does not belong. Do you not think the relative importance of a topic is relevant to its discussion?

In any case -- I did. And who are you to say I should not have.

I did not say that it should not be discussed -- I just said that it is overblown.

Now let me move on to say your reaction to my post is rather--- shall I say Overblown?

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
The ' anyone can arrest without warrant' point disturbs me.

Maybe it's not Chow's intention but once the Cons get their hands on this,I think they are going to exploit that point of the bill.

Hence an increase in warrantless raids and arrests.

It's not Chow's bill I worry about...It's a bill which makes changes to our criminal code with the words ' arrest without warrant' in the hands of the Reform Party.

Their star candidate Julian Fantino made it expicitly clear that he wants to change our Charter of Rights...I DON'T trust the Harpercons with changes to our criminal code.

The police have always had authority to arrest people without warrants in certain situations, particularly when the police catch someone in the act of comitting a crime or emergency situations.

Sean in Ottawa

Now Unionist, let me just pause a moment as I take those words you put in my mouth back out.

No, I don't have a huge problem with this bill -- either way-- nor do I see it as a betrayal of anything -- unless it is used as an excuse as to why the NDP or anyone else does not turn to the more important issues-- of which I gave one example. (If anyone doesn't like that one, I pick any number -- say conditions on FN reserves.) The point is not to discuss those as Boom Boom suggests but to show that this issue is not a high enough priority to justify any of the hyperbole here.

The fact that the NDP might organize lunch at a meeting I also do not consider a rank betrayal. And if someone wants to discuss, by all means, but if part of that discussion includes statements suggesting massive importance then people should be able to dispute that without Boom Boom's suggestion that it is out of line to say, no it is not that big a deal. Perhaps one of the problems in politics is that we treat all issues as equal and lack the tolerance to allow judgment of just how important something is. I think parliament is spending a lot of time on the small stuff while critical things go unattended. And i think that is very relevant to the discussion of both the things that are being discussed and the things that are not.

Now Unionist if you separate from this topic and you want to say the NDP is not getting at the things that matter, then yes, I can agree and I have made that point, but I don't think preoccupation with this is the reason-- it may be preoccupation with an endless stream of things like this but this one thing-- rank betrayal?

Now Boom Boom, just pause for a moment-- I don't actually have a habit of belittling other people's discussions nor do I frequently try to change the channel. My point was an on-topic discussion of the relevant context and importance of the topic at hand.

OK I am working late and need to go home.

Unionist

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
Do you think even good progressives have never had 'petty' or not so-?crimes committed against them?

Yes. But that's not a huge problem in Canada today - except in Harper's playbook. Someone who disagrees with me and thinks crime is a huge problem in Canada, probably should vote for Harper.

Quote:

And Olivia Chow has been out there fighting for the poor and dispossessed for a very long time while a lot of us having been pounding off on our computers.

Then why did she propose a bill to solve Mr. Chen's problem, but not Mr. Bennett's? Why was apprehension of the criminal her first and only priority? Why didn't she speak out - then and there - about poverty, race, disability (addiction), treatment, prevention? Why only about apprehension?

I think her heart is in the right place. It's her head that's screwed on wrong. If she compromises with Harper's agenda on crime, and forgets what the source and solution to petty social crime is, then she and her party will lose. That's my opinion.

?

Fidel

Wikileaks says billions of untaxed Canadian dollars salted away in Swiss bank accounts. Rev Canada estimated $88 billion years ago. We'd all go to jail if we refused to pay taxes we legally owe to the feds. It's treasonous imo.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Refusal to pay taxes = treason?

Where's Sean the Hyperbole Cop when you need him?

Pages

Topic locked