There's a curious intellectual disconnect, or an apparent disconnect, in the Federal positions on the census, the gun registry and the crime agenda.
The positions on the census and gun registry seem to follow a libertarian approach. Less government is better and we must focus on core functions -- keep government out of people's lives. This is a valid intellectual position -- one with legitimate conservative roots -- and while I don't agree with it I respect it.
The crime agenda, by contrast, focussed on the government managing people's lives so as to ensure they behave properly -- hence the proposed increases in penalty for running a bawdy house or drug offences. I don't agree with the position but I understand it.
The trouble is the positions don't seem the be consistent and, what's more, the inconsistency cannot be justified by claiming that the government is doing what works regardless of ideology -- expert opinion is opposes the Federal position on all three areas.
So what's the deal?
My sense is the intellectual basis of the three positions is nothing more complex that an "us and them" view.
Specifically, "we" don't use drugs or prostitutes but "we" do own guns and sometimes get the long form census. As a result, a tough on crime agenda doesn't affect "us" -- it only affects "them" -- and so being tough on crime works. But, "we" don't need meddling in our business so out with the gun registry and long form census.
Of course, if a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged, a Liberal is a Conservative who's been arrested. There really isn't an "us and them" (at least for these purposes). Of the last 16 police murdered in Canada 14 were shot by long guns. Even if MP's don't smoke marijuana, their kids might.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
www.jmortonmusings.blogspot.com
6 comments:
Within a week, Harpo has pissed off both the military and the police.
Well done Tubby!
I think when we boil it all down, the reality is many politicians use bawdy houses and drugs, and the reason these are suppressed in the black market is for easier concealment from family members & the public. Throughout history, affluent men have kept mistresses, recreational substances have been used by people in all walks of life, and until recently, they never bothered to hide it. The women's movement, rather than eliminating these things, has merely made discussing them taboo, but good governance is there to address what's actually going on, whether by intervention or otherwise, not to address only the bit of life that isn't deemed taboo. Perspective is really in order when shaping policy on these matters.
This is less contradictory then it seems. One of the government's core functions is to keep the members of society safe. Therefore prevention, deterrence and punishment of actions that threaten the safety of society are part of that. The debate arises over whether actions in the name of the core function of protection of society have spilled over into unrelated areas.
Police catch drug gang career criminals with illegal handguns and they plea-bargain those charges away yet somehow the farmer or hunter who's paperwork got lost in the bureaucracy is the villain here. Guns are bad but it's far too dangerous and uncomfortable to go after those bad guys so we'll pick on nobodies instead.
On the bawdy house thing I would be one conservative, or libertarian if you prefer, who supports women choosing to work together in safety. Funny as it may seem for a libertarian to call for regulation I am all for allowing prostitution in safety and regulating it with licensing and health checks.
On the other hand drugs are a choice as well, but a choice that usually ends up with someone stuffing their hands in my pocket to pay for other people's poor choices. Still, if we decriminalize drugs (do it now for marijuana, it's not a hard drug) will we also make people responsible for their choices or will we still want free safe injections, free treatment, free everything and millions in enabling and support or will we finally be able to tell users to deal with it themselves? Liberals seem to want both the freedom to choose badly and then force others pay for their bad choices.
Political fashion may dictate stronger or weaker sentences for violations of the criminal code. I agree some laws should be removed from the code and others have less sever punishment mandated. Introducing a new law and outlawing what is a common practice among millions of Canadians is another thing altogether. If Harper builds more jails, the liberals will waste no time filling them. Fight for the rights you value not the rights your rulers allow.
Post a Comment