I didn't think we had a thread for this. 

Is Trudeau this out of touch or does he just not care?

 

8 minutes ago, Brandon said:

That's why I said part is culture and part is poverty.   Their is such minor consequences for committing crimes in Canada that the risk reward is just to much to pass up for petty criminals. The jails are so soft that some prefer to go to jail then to be out.  I have met people who purposely get arrested for the winter months so they have somewhere warm and with high quality meals!

I don't want to cite extremes but the numbers show that the crime rate and re-offending rate at places that are very strict are extremely low.  I can't imagine Canada doing this ever,  but instead of shaking a finger and fining someone 20 dollars and put them in jail where they eat better then many working Canadians.....   it would be nice to make people fear going to prison instead of looking forward to it. is over 80%.

Also Australia isn't a fair comparison... it's a super racist country (just watch the videos of them treating Chinese locals in regards to the Corona) and it's 90% white.   Totally different culture make up to Canada.  Not to open up a can of worms but in Manitoba alone 75% of the prison population is aboriginal and a large portion of the rest are refugees from bad countries.  Not an apples to apples comparison. 

Australia is an excellent example of how to change a society with one act. Not only did their mass shootings drop to near-zero, but violent criminal acts involving other weapons dropped by over half as well. Racism has nothing to do with it, one way or another. If you were schooled in criminology, you would learn that there is a direct relationship between the length and frequency of incarceration and recidivism. In Holland, non-violent first-time offenders are not jailed but put into reformative programs and their recidivism is about 15%, whereas the US (which has the highest incarceration rate in the western hemisphere) has a recidivism rate of about 80%. Your argument does not hold.

I have no problems banning assault weapons. The problem I have was this was done like a royal decree with no debate in the House Of Commons. It was just done unilaterally by the Liberals. They are a minority government but are using the Corona virus to rule like a majority. Yes, the banning is no doubt popular by urban voters but it should have been  introduced as government bill, debated upon, passed through 3rd reading & then gone to the Senate for Royal Assent.  What happens next if Trudeau announces something that will affect our freedoms unilaterally? Like I said, no problem with the banning but do it democratically  in the HOC. He is not a king even though he thinks he is. 

 

16 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I have no problems banning assault weapons. The problem I have was this was done like a royal decree with no debate in the House Of Commons. It was just done unilaterally by the Liberals. They are a minority government but are using the Corona virus to rule like a majority. Yes, the banning is no doubt popular by urban voters but it should have been  introduced as government bill, debated upon, passed through 3rd reading & then gone to the Senate for Royal Assent.  What happens next if Trudeau announces something that will affect our freedoms unilaterally? Like I said, no problem with the banning but do it democratically  in the HOC. He is not a king even though he thinks he is. 

 

Usually I’d agree. But they ran on this and it’s one of those things I’d like to see the US do via executive order.   So I have no issue. It’s too much of a no brainer.  They can be brought down if need be and people can vote for Trump cover band aka Cons if they want to. 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Usually I’d agree. But they ran on this and it’s one of those things I’d like to see the US do via executive order.   So I have no issue. It’s too much of a no brainer.  They can be brought down if need be and people can vote for Trump cover band aka Cons if they want to. 

When democratic governments start taking shortcuts like this without any debate then we're in big trouble. What if Trudeau decrees that all vaccines are mandatory? Or that general elections are suspended because of the virus? Once the Genie is out of the bottle it is a dangerous precedent. Allow debate in the HOC. What does it do? Slow the process by a few days or a week?? 

22 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I have no problems banning assault weapons. The problem I have was this was done like a royal decree with no debate in the House Of Commons. It was just done unilaterally by the Liberals. They are a minority government but are using the Corona virus to rule like a majority. Yes, the banning is no doubt popular by urban voters but it should have been  introduced as government bill, debated upon, passed through 3rd reading & then gone to the Senate for Royal Assent.  What happens next if Trudeau announces something that will affect our freedoms unilaterally? Like I said, no problem with the banning but do it democratically  in the HOC. He is not a king even though he thinks he is. 

 

I agree with you on the democracy approach and it should be brought in by a legislative bill and voted on, but the term you use “assault weapons” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation. 

Just now, Tiny759 said:

I agree with you on the democracy approach and it should be brought in by a legislative bill and voted on, but the term you use “assault weapons” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation. 

I don't trust Trudeau as far as I can throw a 45 kg rock. 

2 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I don't trust Trudeau as far as I can throw a 45 kg rock. 

Hey not gonna disagree with that, just clarifying that the term “assault weapon” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation, even though Trudeau and others like to use that term. 

Edited May 2, 20205 yr by Tiny759

Just now, Tiny759 said:

Hey not gonna disagree with that, just clarifying that the term “assault weapon” is not a legally defined term in Canadian firearms legislation, even though Trudeau and others like to use that term. 

He wants to ban all guns so the definition doesn't matter.

24 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Australia is an excellent example of how to change a society with one act. Not only did their mass shootings drop to near-zero, but violent criminal acts involving other weapons dropped by over half as well. Racism has nothing to do with it, one way or another. If you were schooled in criminology, you would learn that there is a direct relationship between the length and frequency of incarceration and recidivism. In Holland, non-violent first-time offenders are not jailed but put into reformative programs and their recidivism is about 15%, whereas the US (which has the highest incarceration rate in the western hemisphere) has a recidivism rate of about 80%. Your argument does not hold.

Lol clearly you have not worked or spoke with anyone in law enforcement.

Once again Holland is not the same as Canada.... totally apples to oranges comparison.   If Canada did not have Aboriginals and refugees our crime numbers would be drastically lower.  Not the same comparison.

It would blow your mind if you knew the truth and how many time people re-offend.   It's insane.   Do yourself a favour and speak with someone in law enforcement or in the court system.  You would not like to hear what they would say.

 

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

He wants to ban all guns so the definition doesn't matter.

Idk if he wants to ban all, I’m curious to see how far he will continue to push this.

1 minute ago, Tiny759 said:

Idk if he wants to ban all, I’m curious to see how far he will continue to push this.

He could ban all the guns in the world... it still won't change the massive amount of weapons being smuggled over the border.  Unnnnnnless he builds a giant wall

1 minute ago, Brandon said:

He could ban all the guns in the world... it still won't change the massive amount of weapons being smuggled over the border.  Unnnnnnless he builds a giant wall

👌and Mexico is gonna pay for it 👌

Bad guys will always have guns. Good people? Defenseless. Hunters & farmers are the bane of Canada. 

4 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

Idk if he wants to ban all, I’m curious to see how far he will continue to push this.

I think it's pretty clear what he wants to do. 

23 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Lol clearly you have not worked or spoke with anyone in law enforcement.

Once again Holland is not the same as Canada.... totally apples to oranges comparison.   If Canada did not have Aboriginals and refugees our crime numbers would be drastically lower.  Not the same comparison.

It would blow your mind if you knew the truth and how many time people re-offend.   It's insane.   Do yourself a favour and speak with someone in law enforcement or in the court system.  You would not like to hear what they would say.

 

I have worked with the legal system and have several police in my extended family, both active and retired. People are people worldwide with few exceptions and the comparison is valid. Your slur against aboriginals and refugees betrays you.

6 minutes ago, Tracker said:

I have worked with the legal system and have several police in my extended family, both active and retired. People are people worldwide with few exceptions and the comparison is valid. Your slur against aboriginals and refugees betrays you.

Slur?  Lol google it you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.   Google demographics of Manitoba jails.  I won't bother engaging anymore as you clearly are out there.

3 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I have no problems banning assault weapons. The problem I have was this was done like a royal decree with no debate in the House Of Commons. It was just done unilaterally by the Liberals. They are a minority government but are using the Corona virus to rule like a majority. Yes, the banning is no doubt popular by urban voters but it should have been  introduced as government bill, debated upon, passed through 3rd reading & then gone to the Senate for Royal Assent.  What happens next if Trudeau announces something that will affect our freedoms unilaterally? Like I said, no problem with the banning but do it democratically  in the HOC. He is not a king even though he thinks he is. 

 

Excellent post. 

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Excellent post. 

Even if vote in the HoC, outside of the Cons who would vote against it? I canna think of anyone else.

Now on to National Phamacare!

Edited May 3, 20205 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

3 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Even if vote in the HoC, outside of the Cons who would vote against it? I canna think of anyone else.

Now on to National Phamacare!

It's the principle of the thing, he by passed the democratic process, that is a no no. 

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

It's the principle of the thing, he by passed the democratic process, that is a no no. 

Bypassed or is it something that does not have to go through HoC in the first place? Guessing latter.

 

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

When democratic governments start taking shortcuts like this without any debate then we're in big trouble. What if Trudeau decrees that all vaccines are mandatory? Or that general elections are suspended because of the virus? Once the Genie is out of the bottle it is a dangerous precedent. Allow debate in the HOC. What does it do? Slow the process by a few days or a week?? 

Not really.  Candidates run on specific platforms so when they win and push for those it’s no surprise.  Secondly we don’t live on a dictatorship anyway.  If majority of Canadians disagree liberals lose next election.  That simple.  For all those people upset the problem is there is no right of Center opposition currently.  

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

It's the principle of the thing, he by passed the democratic process, that is a no no. 

Running on a platform that includes banning weapons and winning the election is actually the democratic process.  Secondly when the buy back program comes into effect there will be legislative changes so you’ll get you’re precious debate.  Thirdly current owners can keep their weapons anyway.  They just can’t use them.  
 

If I was upset about the democratic process I’d focus more on a right wing party that is in free fall trying to play mini trump rather then be a legitimate option for government.  

18 hours ago, Brandon said:

Lol clearly you have not worked or spoke with anyone in law enforcement.

Once again Holland is not the same as Canada.... totally apples to oranges comparison.   If Canada did not have Aboriginals and refugees our crime numbers would be drastically lower.  Not the same comparison.

It would blow your mind if you knew the truth and how many time people re-offend.   It's insane.   Do yourself a favour and speak with someone in law enforcement or in the court system.  You would not like to hear what they would say.

 

I’ll give it to you straight up.  I have taught gr. 12 Law for about a dozen years, and I have several police officer friends, they come to my class as guest speakers.  Yes, about 90% of the criminals they deal are repeat offenders.  Yes, the correctional system has a high number of Aboriginal inmates.

But to say our crime rate would be lower if we didn’t have any Aboriginals?  The issues with Aboriginals are not only the fault of Aboriginals, not by a long shot.

1.  The longest running human rights abuse in recorded world history is residential schools in Canada.  From New France in 1600s until the last one closed in 1996.  

2. If you want to learn more about residential schools for Aboriginals, go to the Canadian Encyclopedia and search residential schools.  I would also recommend reading ‘Clearing the Plains’ by James Daschuck.

3. Even just a cursory glance at the current situation, shows a situation that will naturally create a higher crime rate.  All of it created by government legislation, namely, The Indian Act.

a) Funding per person that is below welfare levels, with local politics worsening the situation, due to unfair distribution.

b) Education funded at a rate of $4300 per students, when the public education system is spending $10 000 per student.

c) Teaching staff that will be snapped up by school divisions in large urban centres, as soon as they have gained experience and proven to be effective.  

I could go on, but considering all of the above, it is clear that the high Aboriginal crime rate is a shared responsibility.  

I also want to add one final point - it’s not that Australia and New Zealand don’t have Aboriginals - they actually have world renowned English as a second language education programs for their Aboriginal students. 

16 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I’ll give it to you straight up.  I have taught gr. 12 Law for about a dozen years, and I have several police officer friends, they come to my class as guest speakers.  Yes, about 90% of the criminals they deal are repeat offenders.  Yes, the correctional system has a high number of Aboriginal inmates.

But to say our crime rate would be lower if we didn’t have any Aboriginals?  The issues with Aboriginals are not only the fault of Aboriginals, not by a long shot.

1.  The longest running human rights abuse in recorded world history is residential schools in Canada.  From New France in 1600s until the last one closed in 1996.  

2. If you want to learn more about residential schools for Aboriginals, go to the Canadian Encyclopedia and search residential schools.  I would also recommend reading ‘Clearing the Plains’ by James Daschuck.

3. Even just a cursory glance at the current situation, shows a situation that will naturally create a higher crime rate.  All of it created by government legislation, namely, The Indian Act.

a) Funding per person that is below welfare levels, with local politics worsening the situation, due to unfair distribution.

b) Education funded at a rate of $4300 per students, when the public education system is spending $10 000 per student.

c) Teaching staff that will be snapped up by school divisions in large urban centres, as soon as they have gained experience and proven to be effective.  

I could go on, but considering all of the above, it is clear that the high Aboriginal crime rate is a shared responsibility.  

I also want to add one final point - it’s not that Australia and New Zealand don’t have Aboriginals - they actually have world renowned English as a second language education programs for their Aboriginal students. 

But but but what about all those refugees (AKA immigrants) bringing crime, disease and filth to our pristine land?

27 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

I’ll give it to you straight up.  I have taught gr. 12 Law for about a dozen years, and I have several police officer friends, they come to my class as guest speakers.  Yes, about 90% of the criminals they deal are repeat offenders.  Yes, the correctional system has a high number of Aboriginal inmates.

But to say our crime rate would be lower if we didn’t have any Aboriginals?  

So basically you are agreeing with me with the numbers and that poverty + culture equals higher crime rates?   

Clearly crime rate would reduce if you removed poverty + cultures that promote crime.  Are you saying that if you removed 75% of the criminals from Manitoba that someone else would take their spot?  Maybe for organized crime but for all other crime that's a ridiculous statement. 

I don't understand why you added all those other bullet points,  at no point did I place blame on anyone for why crime is high aside from saying culture + poverty.  It comes off very weird.    Currently we have a very relaxed justice system and based off what you said it clearly is not working since it's a higher repeat offender rate.   I gave you an example that people purposely cause crime because they want someone to take care of them during winter months.  That shows how relaxed our system is. 

I'm not sure if the term is snowflake (i'm old)  but I don't get why folks like Tracker and Mark H are so terrified about offending despite the numbers showing the truth?  It's a dangerous mindset to have. Need to face reality instead of fantasy and being afraid to tackle the truth will never solve anything.  Move on from blaming residential schools that was a valid response many years ago,  now days it's a totally different reason for why things are the way they are.   

For the record back in my day I took Grade 12 law and my teacher told us about how it's normal on reserves for parents to pass around their under age daughters around the community for sexual favors and tried to pass that off that  it's not a bad thing because that's normal in their culture.   Maybe it's my mindset but personally I don't believe that's right... but since my Grade 12 law teacher said so I should accept it?