That said, shading reality seems ok.
The story below repeats the canard that the Conservatives are being blocked in dealing with white collar crime.
How?
Because the Opposition wants to consider carefully Conservative plans to gut conditional sentencing.
White collar criminals who steal hundreds of thousands of dollars don't get conditional sentences -- the people who do are single moms who are caught cheating on welfare.
Whether appropriate or not -- and the Conservative proposals on conditional sentences are not irrational -- the proposed changes won't impact serious white collar crime one bit.
Conservatives say opposition blocking efforts to fight white-collar crime
Montrealgazette.Com
The federal Conservative government is blaming opposition parties for watering down its efforts to beef up the criminal justice system to make it easier to catch potential fraudsters and
thieves.
After a meeting in Montreal with people alleged to have been bilked
by financial adviser Earl Jones, Christian Paradis, minister of
public works and government services, and Dave MacKenzie,
parliamentary secretary to the minister of public safety, said the
Conservative government is being obstructed in its attempt to fight
white-collar crime.
"The Conservative government continues to believe that we need
tougher sentences for serious crimes, including fraud and theft,"
the ministers said in a statement. "We continue to believe the
rights of victims should come before the rights of criminals.
"Unfortunately, the Bloc (Québécois), the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party use every tactic to obstruct, delay and water down our efforts to strengthen our criminal justice system."
The statement said during the last Parliament, the opposition voted
to gut a Conservative bill that would have done away with house
arrests for offences like fraud. Criminals convicted of theft over
$5,000, robbery and breaking and entry are still eligible to do
their time "in the comfort of their home," the ministers said.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
10 comments:
Flat out lies don't work in Canadian politics?
How about the Liberal ad which had Harper sending "soldiers into our streets". That was a flat out lie?
What about politicians in Canada saying we have the best health care system in the world, yet they can only compare it with Vietnam and Cuba?
What about politicians in Canada who try to say Canada is a peacekeeping" nation? Iggy thinks that's flat out lie too.
What about Premier Dalton saying no new taxes if he wins election and then goes ahead and rips off the people with a tax.
The list goes on and on and on Morton.
Why do you have to include the USA when talking about Canada?
The guy who stole 158 million and who will be out in jail within 6months is proof positive that the Liberal justice system is corrupt, and needs to be completely reformed, with judges being elected and vetted by the public before they are appointed.
You say jail isn't a deterrent to crime but surely stealing 158 million and only doing 6 months is not a deterrent either.
So what do we do?
Continue to allow people to rip off hundreds of millions of dollars and do almost no time, or change it so that these white collar criminals do 30 years.
This country is a shame on the international stage and this 2 years sentence for a 158 million fraud is ample evidence of the corruption that needs to be stopped.
One day it will stop , but it might take the people and an armed revolution to do it.
The general public cannot accept Liberal elites taking care of their friends rather than the citizens themselves.
There is no way this judge would have given the 158 million fraudster 2 years without being paid off. The crown had to be paid off as well. There is no other reasonable conclusion other than a conspiracy.
Canada needs to rewrite the whole constitution and bring it more in line with a full democracy, where you can at least vote in the P.M of your choice.
Then we'll move on to electing judges, crowns, senators,police chiefs.
I would bet that if that corrupt judge had any accountability to the public, this corruption would not have happened.
Not so obvious anyway.
Is this what it's come to? I have to consider arming-up because the right-wing (with their CONSTANT lying) doesn't plan on disarming any time soon? Thanks. LJK
What's wrong of having a minimum sentence of 15 years not one day less or exceptions. You would take the decision right out of the judge's hands.The decisions,that judges would have is whether to increase their sentence or not.
Does anyone know the sentence that Mr.Madoff got in the U.S.humm? Do you think that he will ever get out of prison?
Is anyone able to bring up the last time a convicted white collar crime in Canada,that got a life sentence? I'll bet you'll be searching for ever.
Here is a good read on "corporate criminal" in Canada. Does anyone really think that the person in the article got the justice that he deserves?
I agree with Anonymous @9:45am. Lies do work.
-If we were going to have a recession, it would've happened by now.
-This looks like a good buying opportunity.
-A coalition is undemocratic.
-Separatists would have a veto in that coalition.
-There is no truth to the allegation of bribing Chuck Cadman.
-No new taxes on income trusts.
And that's only 1 man.
To Proud Canadian: I assume you'd give that same 15-year sentence to the single mother cheating on welfare hypothesized by Morton? Personally, I don't think she'd deserve the same as, say, Madoff. I'd prefer to trust the wisdom of the judge. If something's really out of line, the crown could appeal for a tougher sentence, right?
Trn
So what is your suggestion? Please don't tell me what we have right now,because it is crap and you know it. Anyone in their right minds knows it too.
Proud: Like I said, the crown should appeal for a tougher sentence.
I don't like the idea of electing judges. I'd rather they have some degree isolation from both elected government and the public.
However, I have much less problem with elected officials directing crown attorneys. For example, the appeal in the case of Omar Khadr. I dislike the Harper government for doing that, but I think they have the right and this is preferable to more drastic changes.
So, why don't crown attorneys push for sentences at the higher end of the range, and why don't they appeal if they don't get it? It seems like we're not fully using what we've already got. I'd address the problem with the crown attorneys first, before jumping on the judges.
I do agree we need major changes -- my point is that the changes suggested are not relevant to corporate crime even if they are otherwise sensible.
TRN:
"Proud: Like I said, the crown should appeal for a tougher sentence."
See this is the problem here,if we had a system that would give a minimum sentence to peoples who committed these types of crimes that go into the millions of dollars maybe the crown wouldn't necessarily have to appeal the decision and thus save us tax payers $$$. As it is now if the crown should appeal in which I think they should,more of our tax dollars would go to waste in the processes and get no guarantee in winning. Does anyone still think that we don't need minimum sentences? I'm talking about the crimes that go into the millions give or take a couple of thousands.
Proud: So you'd discriminate, say, Madoff from that single mother based on total dollar value of the crime? That's a reasonable suggestion, but I'd still put my faith in the judge.
Morton: I think I agree, but may be missing more subtle points you're making. For me, I think tougher sentences have little success as a deterrent to crime. If we had capital punishment, would there be fewer murders? I doubt it.
My preferred weapon against crime is transparency; if we can detect the crime we can do something about it. I believe security cameras can present a deterrent if people know they're being watched. The same would go for _monitoring_ of financial transactions and account with respect to white collar crime (I'm not saying regulations of the transactions, just required reporting). While people could still lie on the reports, more information and using computers to correlate what several people are reporting and sniff out the dishonest.
The opposite view is invasion of privacy. Maybe it is. But I have no problem with it in the context above. In general I trust our military, police, doctors, etc., so why wouldn't I trust financial investigators _in the same way_ (not blind trust but managed trust)? It doesn't bother me that Revenue Canada knows how much I earn, as long as they don't tell anyone else.
And I don't buy the argument that 'well, 1 revenue agent made 1 mistake that released...'. I couldn't apply the same logic to doctors as if 'well, 1 doctor made 1 mistake that killed...'. Doctors and agents make mistakes, little can be done about that, that isn't already.
Which reminds me of Harper's (so called) Accountability Act, which solves only 1/2 a problem (if indeed it works at all). What's accountability without transparency? If no one can see you cheat, you can avoid accountability.
Post a Comment