25

Stephen Harper laments Stephen Harper’s soft-on-crime attitude


 

The Prime Minister marks national crime victims week with reference to Graham James.

The government is planning to introduce new legislation this year to toughen the pardon system, in reaction to revelations earlier this month that sex offender Graham James, the disgraced former hockey coach, received a pardon three years ago.

“Even though he ruined the lives of boys that just wanted to play hockey, he can travel without having to admit his criminal record,” Mr. Harper said. “That, my friends, is how the laws have been written over the past few decades, written when soft-on-crime attitudes were fashionable and concern for criminals took priority over compassion for victims.”

Mr. Harper did not mention that his government reviewed the system for sex-offender pardons in 2006 and opted for minor administrative tinkering rather than changing legislation to make it harder or even impossible for people like James to be pardoned.

More, previously, here.


 

Stephen Harper laments Stephen Harper’s soft-on-crime attitude

  1. Stephen Harper is like a natural gas salesperson – he talks a good game,but you better read the fine print

    • no.. no.. natural gas salespeople actually stick to what's written down.

    • Last week a Natural Gas man came to my door. He lost me at "Good afternoon ma'am, is the man of the house home."

      This little diatribe of the PM strikes me the same way. He's questioning my intellect.

  2. We spend so much time talking about how much Prime Minister Harper disagrees with Opposition Leader Stephen Harper that I fear we don't pay close enough attention to the many issues on which Prime Minister Stephen Harper disagrees with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Of course, this isn't really a stellar example of that. It's hardly shocking that PMSH 2010 thinks PMSH 2006 was soft on crime. I mean, four years!?!?! PMSH doesn't always agree with what PMSH said 48 hours ago!

  3. OK…then we all agree that the CPC in their 4 years in minority gov`t have been soft on crime.
    Now, would someone site some examples of any of the three opposition parties criticizing the gov`t in Parliament for this negligent behaviour and proposing substantial improvements in Crime Bills that would limit the freedoms of sex-offenders like James.
    Save me the narrative about prorogation.

    As an example of the degree of dedication of the LIberals on this file and others that are relevant to Canadians, I`m sure Mr. Wherry will note in a later posting that the first 8 questions of these Liberals in Question Period today were concerning Ms. Guergis and her husband.

    • “That, my friends, is how the laws have been written over the past few decades, written when soft-on-crime attitudes were fashionable and concern for criminals took priority over compassion for victims.”

      That my friends, is called passing the buck.

      Harry Truman he ain't

      • Harry Truman didn`t have 3 left-wing opp. parties threatening coalitions and opposing any legislation they did not consider " progressive."
        Having said that, I agree with you that he should have tried harder to pass tough-on-crime legislation. Now, when and where did the opp. parties encourage him to do that.

        • Who stopped him from deciding the pardon laws only needed some tinkering two years ago?

          Who forced him to throw out his crime bills when he prorogued in 2007, when he called a snap election against his own law in 2008, prorogued in 2008 and again in 2009?

          What crime bill has the Liberal Party not voted for? Other than perhaps one badly flawed and poorly thought out piece of criminal law, what criminal bill wasn't passed in the senate?

          Say Anything Steve has essentially been able to run his government as a majority. So trying to pass the buck for Harper's failures is getting really really old.

        • But back in 2006, his own Minister (Stockwell Day) reviewed the very system that pardoned Graham James, and concluded all was well. Now that there's headlines to be read, the PM conveniently sidesteps that, and declines to accept any of the blame.
          If your children behaved like this you would explain to them about accountability and integrity and the need to face mistakes and learn from them. What is it about Stephen Harper that entitles him to bypass this childhood lesson?

          • I might be wrong, but I think Harper is including himself and kicking his own a$$ when he talks about how laws have been written over the last few decades.
            I think he has genuine compassion for people like Sheldon Kennedy and Theo Fleury and he probably wishes he had been able to do something to ease their emotional suffering.

    • It's not about what the Liberals have done or not.

      It is about Harper, once again, claiming to be something he is not and criticizing the opposition for something he himself did.

      • Or to put a finer point on it, when he shills that government can't do anything about Karla Homolka applying for a pardon, what he means is that his government didn't do anything about it.

        It is really hard to believe Say Anything Steve is going to this well once again. He's introduced and thrown out his own crime bills three times now; he accused the Liberals or the senate of slowing down his crime bills (the ones that passed) when it has been shown that the Liberal MPs passed pretty much everything he's introduced and the senate often passed it faster than the House; and now accuses others of not doing anything about pardons as being soft on crime when he considered and rejected doing anything about pardons.

        • Yet only a few call him out on it.
          Damn – he is crafty. I don't think many people will even think about how Harper has failed to deal with this.
          The idea of Homolka being pardoned will no doubt resonate a strong emotional response from the public.

  4. What Stephen Harper says: "Government can't stop Homolka from applying for pardon:"
    What Conservatives hear: "Karla Homolka has been pardoned."

  5. “That, my friends, is how the laws have been written over the past few decades, written when soft-on-crime attitudes were fashionable and concern for criminals took priority over compassion for victims.”

    So, exactly when were laws written with more concern for criminals than victims? Which laws? Who wrote them?

    Oh, yeah. This is a fiction; a strawman argument put up to validate biases and preconceived notions only. Fact free filler from the CPC.

  6. whoops on me, "their" own philosophies, rather.

  7. Will any of this do anything to a legal system that is broken …. how many more kids will have to face sex offenders in our classrooms?
    For those people who have nothing but gas to share…shut up will you. If you care about victims say something intelligent. SPEAK UP FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY! CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS! WHEN WILL VICTIMS? But I guess you Canadians all like thinking about little boys and girls getting you know…. thats why Canadians allow this filth to go on for years…. Where did you say Carla is now…..who h cares… Who is the next victim…1 in thee girls and 1 in 6 boys… The Pardon abuse is nothing compared the rest of our legal system of Criminal Rights and Lawyer Deals

  8. Hey, Vic Toews later agreed that the review "didn't go far enough".

    Um. Ok. Sure.

  9. whoops!

    I think this is an example of how bereft of ideas the Conservatives are— they can't even come up with programs, legislation or ideas that support there own supposed philosophies. Why did they prorogue again?

    And I think it is also an example of how the best before date of blaming the previous government has run out, and is an excuse they can no longer use. Their actions, or lack thereof, are beginning to catch up with them.

    • I like to call it the "weight" of government – the longer you are in power, the more you have to answer for.

Sign in to comment.