Harper and his fellow Tories seem to be on a roll but they do have a few striking vulnerabilities which could rob them of their of long sought after Majority.
The first relates to their Law and Order Agenda.
Crime is down, policing is up and cops support their claim for more resources on a per capita basis - i.e. as the population increases, they believe more officers are needed despite the fact that there is much less crime per capita.
Prison populations are bulging despite that fact that approx. 50% of inmates are in for non-violent crime and yet the Tories want to spend more money on prison expansion. We cannot afford it!
Simply stated - the Conrad Blacks of this world do not belong in jail - that only costs us the taxpayer more. Rather - take away their money and other valuable assets - strip them of their boardships and corporate positions - place ankle bracelets on them - even sandwich boards if you will, but keep them out of jail. Make them do Community Service. Jails are nothing more that finishing schools for criminals and it benefits us all to keep the non-violent as far away from them as is possible.
Jail, when it is used, should only be used for violent offenders to keep the public safe and punishment for these violent offenders needs to be much more severe on the basis that the longer they are behind bars - the safer the public is. Hopefully by the time they get out their tendency toward violence will have burned itself out with age.
Military Spending
The second area where I see the Tories as being vulnerable is with respect to spending billions of dollars on our military.
Canada is at best a medium power - our population of 33 million ranks at the lower end scale of nations. Added to this is the fact that we have the second largest land mass in the world. This all means that we have to carefully budget and plan for our military needs. Search and Rescue, Coastal Surveillance, Ice-breaking and such needs to take priority.
The latest in jets and other specialty air craft are just too expensive for us and as their predecessors have shown - are often under utilized.
We do need aircraft but why not use cost effective Drones or relatively new American cast-offs.
As I said, it comes down to dollars and cents. Britain the second power in NATO recently had to make severe cuts in it military - e.g. 25% due to its growing debt. Here in Canada we too have a growing debt - $600+ Billion and we have to get serious about getting it down. The day is quickly coming when even our neighbour to the South will have to bite the bullet - so to speak - and cut their own military.
Attack Ads
This brings me to the third and final main area where I see their vulnerability.
In the unofficial election campaign within which we now find ourselves, the Conservatives have once again fallen back on negative ads - that is to say - attack ads on the personalities of the Opposition Leaders.
Studies pretend to show that such ads work - and they very well may - but I cannot stand them. I see them as the last refuge of a rouge.
With all the legitimate issues our country and indeed the world now faces - war, economic melt down, numerous serious societal pressures - I see it as a cop-out for our Politicians to try to skate around these issues through personalty attacks.
It diminishes the public perception of our politicians, assuming that is still possible, and takes all of our eyes off what is really important.
As I see it...
'Galagher'
Friday, January 21, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
A Human Rights Commission Does It Again..
And This Time They Really Do It.... They took away one of our most fundamental rights - the Right to Free Speech.
You may have read about this recent decision of the Human Rights Commission of Quebec levying a fine of $12k against an individual for calling his neighbour a derogatory name for a Gay Person. Speaking as a lawyer, the ramifications of this Ruling is truly disturbing.
Some facts on this case which really matter little other than for general interest.
According to Lt. Col. (ret'd) Rusk, his Neighbour nearly ran over his son while playing ball hockey on the road. He claimed the Neighbour was driving in a totally reckless manner.
Lt. Col Rusk thereupon expressed a word to the Neighbour which the Neighbour found objectionable. We would find the world objectionable as well.
Neighbour takes Rusk to Criminal Court where the case is thrown out since to that point, Free Speech was allowed in our Society. It is indoctrinated in the American Constitution and here in Canada was initially brought into legislation by John Diefenbaker's 1960 Bill of Rights and then subsequently codified in our own Constitution via Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(As an aside - the one area of difference between the Diefenbaker Bill and the Trudeau Charter was with respect to the inclusion of Enjoyment of Property Rights - it is included in the former but not the latter. Trudeau, as a Socialist, had difficulty entrenching that right for the benefit of our citizens).
Now back to Freedom of Speech. Prior to protection in legislation, the Right to this Freedom was ingrained in the English Common Law indeed it along with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Assembly were the corner stones of our Society.
Then along comes a Quasi Judicial Human Rights Body that Rules against One of those very Corner Stones - The Right to Freedom of Speech.
And Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not talking here about things said on Radio or TV - we are now talking about what an individual may say in his or her private life. The fact that such comments may not be palatable to the ordinary person is not the issue since Freedom of Speech by definition should be without restriction unless serious death or injury is apt to occur (e.g. yelling our 'fire' in a crowded theatre).
To be truly Free - Speech cannot nor should not always be sanitized.
And yet that is precisely what we have with this recent decision. Political Correctness is an attempt to have done what this decision does but it does not have the Commission's power of enforcement. That is to say we as citizens are free to voluntarily accept Politicial Correctness but are compelled to follow Quasi Judicial powers to fine and imprison.
This is decision represents a Sad Day for Freedom and Democracy but more sadly, it is another in a long lis of our diminished Rights.
As I see it...
'Galagher'
You may have read about this recent decision of the Human Rights Commission of Quebec levying a fine of $12k against an individual for calling his neighbour a derogatory name for a Gay Person. Speaking as a lawyer, the ramifications of this Ruling is truly disturbing.
Some facts on this case which really matter little other than for general interest.
According to Lt. Col. (ret'd) Rusk, his Neighbour nearly ran over his son while playing ball hockey on the road. He claimed the Neighbour was driving in a totally reckless manner.
Lt. Col Rusk thereupon expressed a word to the Neighbour which the Neighbour found objectionable. We would find the world objectionable as well.
Neighbour takes Rusk to Criminal Court where the case is thrown out since to that point, Free Speech was allowed in our Society. It is indoctrinated in the American Constitution and here in Canada was initially brought into legislation by John Diefenbaker's 1960 Bill of Rights and then subsequently codified in our own Constitution via Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(As an aside - the one area of difference between the Diefenbaker Bill and the Trudeau Charter was with respect to the inclusion of Enjoyment of Property Rights - it is included in the former but not the latter. Trudeau, as a Socialist, had difficulty entrenching that right for the benefit of our citizens).
Now back to Freedom of Speech. Prior to protection in legislation, the Right to this Freedom was ingrained in the English Common Law indeed it along with Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Assembly were the corner stones of our Society.
Then along comes a Quasi Judicial Human Rights Body that Rules against One of those very Corner Stones - The Right to Freedom of Speech.
And Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not talking here about things said on Radio or TV - we are now talking about what an individual may say in his or her private life. The fact that such comments may not be palatable to the ordinary person is not the issue since Freedom of Speech by definition should be without restriction unless serious death or injury is apt to occur (e.g. yelling our 'fire' in a crowded theatre).
To be truly Free - Speech cannot nor should not always be sanitized.
And yet that is precisely what we have with this recent decision. Political Correctness is an attempt to have done what this decision does but it does not have the Commission's power of enforcement. That is to say we as citizens are free to voluntarily accept Politicial Correctness but are compelled to follow Quasi Judicial powers to fine and imprison.
This is decision represents a Sad Day for Freedom and Democracy but more sadly, it is another in a long lis of our diminished Rights.
As I see it...
'Galagher'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)