When it comes to budget cuts, police seem to always be sacrosanct. I've seen cuts to teachers, social workers, scientists, all kinds of admin staff and almost every other type of government employee. But not police. Nor, come to think of it, fireman.
This editorial claims that policing costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation in Canada (at all 3 levels of government) despite a falling crime rate. It also claims that police resources are used inefficiently with $100k a year policeman doing all kinds of work that could be done by lesser trained staff.
Perhaps when marijuana is legalized, that would be a good opportunity to examine policing needs. Maybe there is an opportunity to redirect resources towards supporting people, not prosecuting them.
Harper and the Conservatives have been responsible for so many negative, divisive and disgraceful actions that it's hard to keep track of all of them. So, I thought it would be helpful to have a thread to catalogue them.
Here is an opening list:
- Ran huge deficits caused by ill-advised and ineffective tax cuts
- Politicized non-partisan institutions by using or squabbling with the incombents; including the GG, Elections Canada, the PBO, and the SCC
- Dramatically increased the centralization of power in the PMO
- Interfered in the internal workings of the Senate
- Appointed the most partisan and corrupt senators
- Gutted environmental rules and laws
- Used the CRA to attack environmental groups and charities that disagreed with his policies
- Gagged scientists to prevent information that would not support his pro-oil agenda from reaching the public
- Defunded pure scientific research in favour of applied science that would help his industry friends
- Destroyed scientific documents with no assurance that they were digitized first
- After being elected on a platform of accountability, did everything possible to evade accountability
- Was found in contempt of parliament
- Systematically interfered in the ability of Parliament to perform its duties by withholding information, proroguing parliament and writing omnibus bills so massive they couldn't properly be debated
- Undermined democracy by deliberately disenfranchising groups of voters that are not inclined to vote for him and by changing media rules to better allow for negative campaiging
- Damaged our international reputation through one-sided support of Israel and against the Palesinians
- Damaged our international reputation and climate change efforts by withdrawing from Kyoto.
This list isn't even close to being complete. There is a website called shd.ca
Note: if you want to debate the actions of Chretien, Wynne, Pierre Trudeau, or anyone else, you're welcome to open a different thread.
I'm not talking about Harper, Mulroney, Martin or any one politician. I am talking about any and all politicians who uses their position to conceal felony crimes by having files sealed or investigations derailed, or refusing to fund an inquiry. Because they have authorities to control and manipulate investigative agencies and regulatory bodies and bureaus, they effectively can get away with a lot of graft and corruption. This is especially true when they can hand-pick the heads of these agencies who then run interference for them if their are "irregularites".
So, since they have this unique ability to delay and derail investigations, should we not have a special law that eliminates he statute of limitations for their crimes, or at least do not start the clock until they leave office? A good example is the Schreiber scandal. Mulroney could not be criminally prosecuted because the statute of limitations expired. But we did not learn of the accusations for years because he made damn sure everything was so well hidden.
I thnk such a law might make these pols realize that their impunity is only temporary and they might actually be held legally responsible for their criminal adventures - eventually. Politicians that are lawyers and know how to manuever the legal system and shop judges are even more likely to get away with super crimes. What do you guys think?
Canada has signed many international treaties that accept migration and immigration of all people to be a right and not a privilege. Almost all of our ancestors were immigrants. Yet now we look down upon today's immigrants and deny them the same opportunities our great grandparents had. I think this is a bit shameful and unethical.
Even if they create a temporary tax burden, I think skilled and educated immigrants should be granted admission and given one year to prove themselves - sort of "probationary immigration" I guess I would call it. If after one year they cannot be self-sustaining and productive to society, and able to speak English or France, they can be shown the door. My guess is that 80% of these immigrants have value to Canada - even if it is taking the unwanted jobs the rest of us reject.
Canada cannot grow to its maximum potential without more people. Just my opinion.
The Unconstitutional Political Practice Should Be Ended Soon
The definition of democracy: is ruled by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.(1)
The definition of republic: A republic is a representative democracy with a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.(1)
From the definitions of democracy and republic, I found that politically a republican regime is more advanced than a democratic regime, and a republic is developed for overcoming the trap of democracy. The definition of republic includes the good part meaning of democracy, but the definition of democracy does not the more advanced meaning of republic. If I have right to choose, I choose to live in a republican regime other than a democratic regime, and I choose to live in a more republican regime other than a less republican regime. The reason is that, if I am one of majority, I dislike the omnipotent power, and if I am one of minority, I hope my fundamental rights are in good protection.
As I measure the politics in Canada, I believe that it is a republic other than a pure democracy. We have a written constitution, we have the Chapter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I also notice that, in political practice, because of the Canadian political history, even the rights and freedoms of the representative function of a MP are under the limitation of the discipline of her or his own party.
"Whether MPs should act as delegates or trustees, both views of representation are constrained by another reality of Canada's parliamentary tradition: party politics and discipline. Most MPs are members of a political party and, as such, are required to follow the wishes of their party when deliberating and acting in the House. In Canada party discipline is much more acute than in other western democracies. In the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, representatives enjoy considerably more freedom from their parties. Canadian MPs, however, are expected to follow the direction set by their parties' leadership and caucus — even when that direction is in opposition to their views or the demands of their constituents."(2)
This corrupt custom, the discipline of a party has been put over the constitutional rights and freedoms, and also over the representative function, is unconstitutional, and should be ended as fast as we can. We, the Canadian people, should ask strongly that each MP should be really responsible for her or his riding, and we need more republic and good democracy, we do not need a false democracy!
Tell a friend