Soft on crime


Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Question Period, yesterday. “Soft on crime does not work. This is why I always say that when it comes to standing up for victims and law-abiding Canadians, the only people who can be counted on are in the Conservative Party and in this Conservative government.”

Canadian Police Association president Charles Momy, news conference, yesterday. “The Police Officers Recruitment Fund is insufficient both in terms of a lack of long-term sustainable funding, the amount of money being contributed to the funding and the controls over the use of those funds. Our member associations feel betrayed that these moneys are being diverted from front-line policing and are not sustainable for the long term.”

British Columbia Police Association president Tom Stamatakis, news conference, yesterday. “Not one of those dollars has made it to the city of Vancouver to assist with recruiting and deploying more front-line officers in that community. And the same can be said for every community in the province of British Columbia.”


Soft on crime

  1. Don’t these silly police officers understand that in the wonderful world of politics words speak louder than actions.

    • … and ideology is more important that reality.

      • Great Insite.

  2. I’m still waiting for the CPA (or any other lobby group, for that matter) to issue a press release stating that everything is A-OK, that they’re awash in cash.

    • I tried to express a simialr reflection on the value of professional groups as reliable authorities in another string on health care. Professional groups, unions, colleges of nurses/lawyers/doctors, etc.. all have an inherent bias built into their organizational DNA that makes it impossible to take what they have to say without discounting heavily for their self interest.

      That’s why I object to them being cited as being in favour or against public policy issues generally. Cops benefit from OT and enhanced equipment. Why would they ever speak against the principles of keeping something like pot illegal, for example? Yet their associations are quoted endlessly on the topic without reference to their self interest. On and on it goes.

      For me, it is a waste of breath to argue that the answer to an issue is obvious because one group or another says they support that idea. Give me demonstrable evidence that your idea is sound, don’t trot out (self) interest groups.

      • I really am getting quite tired of that response. Anyone who ever contradicts conservative dogma is irreparably biased and self-interested.

        How about Stats Canada? They keep showing that liberal/progressive crime laws actually work. They reduce crime. Period. They reduce the number of criminals who re-commit crimes; they reduce the number of criminal organizations; they reduce the number of kids who become full time criminals; they reduce the violence in crimes.

        Nicholson is being blatantly dishonest both in calling non-conservative crime policies “soft on crime” and saying they don’t work.

        • So the next time the police come out in favour of, say, mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes when proposed by the Conservatives, liberal/progressives will nod approvingly and say they’re absolutely in agreement? After all, the police are right about the gun registry, and about the Tories not hiring enough police, right?

          The point made above is that every political party can point to some organization that supports their policy X or initiative Y, and that same organization could very well have different views about other policies or initiatives they put forward. That’s why they have an organization in the first place: to represent their own interests, not those of a political party. There is no unanimity of opinion on issues — that’s why they’re issues.

          Statistics like those produced by Statistics Canada and commentary from an interest group are not the same thing. Some may want to attribute a reduction in crime rates to certain policies, but that’s not what Statistics Canada does. They give the numbers, and those with their own interests — political parties, advocacy organizations — interpret them as being the result of a set of policies they support. That doesn’t make it correct. It’s just their interpretation, which is influenced by their own interests.

          Political parties and the media won’t stop reading out supportive quotes from advocacy groups on various issues, but we shouldn’t necessarily read these quotes as anything more than an endorsement of their own interests.

  3. More to the topic: CONs have crowed that they’ve put more police officers on the streets, that they kept their 2006 election promise. Police say differently. Is there no way to quantify who is lying (CONs) and who may be fudging (police)?
    Can that square be circled, or is it typical political squaredancing. Let’s face it, CONs are happy to ride the back of big-bad crime because it works. Gets the back up, riles people. But unfortunately there is no ribbon cutting on a new police officer being delivered, not yet anyways.

  4. You know what doesn’t work out?
    Spending my well-earned money through taxes to pay to keep inmates in jail so they can take classes and do chores? NO WAY is that all right; University students are doing that well on their own.

    I’d rather they work at stopping poverty.

Sign in to comment.