Conservative Party

Plagarism is Always Wrong, Mr. Harper.

Melanee Thomas — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:20:55 -0600

At least that's what every decent undergraduate student knows.
Thanks to the sands of time, I find this kind of bald-faced policy mistake hilarious. It's illuminating as I've suspected Harper has been coordinated with a variety of interests for quite some time. Much of the anti-Bloc campaign in Quebec seemed too slick to be coincidental. Harper strikes me as the kind of leader who micro-manages every detail of any action plan to the "T", ensuring each operative knows their role in executing the plan. I just assumed he was too savvy to be so blatant, or smart enough to realise a number of people would think, "hmm. That sounds awfully similar. Let's compare the text."
Is this irrelevant? In English Canada, perhaps not. That's not the key battleground on this one, though, and watching the Quebec media will tell us how much this will hurt Harper in QC. Given that the war in Afghanistan is highly unpopular in Quebec AND that a large number of Canadians feel that avoiding Iraq was the smartest bit of Canadian foreign policy in a long time, I'd say this plagarism is decidedly relevant. Harper's strategy of attacking the Bloc might have dislodged a good number of voters into the "undecided" category, but certainly hasn't convinced them that the Conservatives are the way to go. The Bloc is experiencing a bit of a resurgence in Quebec already due to the Conservatives' proposed changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This might just be the spin Duceppe needed to claw his way back up.

Vengence is not a victim's right.

Melanee Thomas — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:46:00 -0600

If elected, Stephen Harper announced today that protections within the Youth Criminal Justice Act are history.
I'll make no bones about this one: this proposed policy change isn't about making anyone more safe. It is very unclear to me how naming a child who's done something terrible increases public safety or provides deterrence. It seems more likely to me that this feeds society's darker penchants for voyeurism and vengence.
I don't care how one spins it, anyone who is 14-years old is still a child, albeit a child above the age of innocence. Asking a child above the age of innocence to know the difference between right and wrong is fair. It is also fair to ask a child above the age of innocence to understand that there can be very serious consequences for their actions.
However, asking a child above the age of innocence to process the full implications of their actions, even when they know they're doing something they shouldn't, is unjust. I can honestly say I did not fully understand the full import of my actions at 14. I can imagine a kid with a less privileged, less comfortable, and less loving childhood than mine certainly wouldn't get it either.
It's rarely the "good kids" who get themselves into such serious trouble. Instead, it's the kids with the "unconventional" lives, often involving issues of poverty and abuse. We as a nation should be ashamed of wanting to publicly shame such a child and their families after they've done something terrible.
At 14, there's still significant hope for rehabilitation. I want the legislation that deals with children who land themselves in this much hot water to acknowledge that.
It's not like the Harperites don't understand this. Apparently it's OK to say that a 14-year old doesn't understand the full implications of sexual activity and the choices/consequences that come with it while saying the same 14-year old should understand the full implications of homicide. The cognitive dissonance it takes to rationlise away that one must be pretty intense.

Layton, Harper and Global Warming

Greg Farries — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:41:20 -0600