Blogging Tory Jonathon Narvey pulls a "Hunter," by which I mean he posts something really, really fucking stupid:
Am I crazy, or did a convicted terrorist just walk free for no good reason?
Me, I'd go with "crazy" but let's keep reading to see what's yanking Jon's panties:
Just a few days ago, we had this story about how criminals could no longer take advantage of a legal loophole to avoid hard-time behind bars:
Criminals convicted in Canada will no longer be able to receive double credit for time served before trial unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson will announce in a news conference on Parliament Hill Tuesday afternoon he is enacting the legislation which eliminates the common practice of two-for-one credit for pre-trial custody…
“It’s going to go a long way to giving people confidence in the justice system,” said Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan.
And today, a man who entered a plea of guilty of involvement in a terrorist plot goes free the same day as a result of the old rules about two-for-one credit: ...
And now, we follow said link to discover what Jonathon managed to miss (all emphasis nad-grindingly added):
[Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew] Swan said the bill will affect only those convicted after it takes effect and he expects it will take time to see the impact of the bill.
Yeah, the devil's in the details, isn't it, Jon? Or, more precisely, it's in the parts of the article you were incapable of reading. But speaking of Bill C-25, how's that coming along? Well, shit:
"I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government – more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being “tough on crime” than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented."
Some advice, Jon -- find another hobby. Blogging isn't for you. It typically requires an ability to, you know, read. And stuff like that.
I'm just sayin'.
BY THE WAY, JON, when you're reading stuff like news, let me emphasize the parts that you might pay particularly close attention to:
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson will announce in a news conference on Parliament Hill Tuesday afternoon he is enacting the legislation which eliminates the common practice of two-for-one credit for pre-trial custody...
The bill will mean ...
See that highlighted stuff, Jon? That's what we in Literateville refer to as "the future tense." It's kind of a giveaway.
2 comments:
The point being that if we could just do away with that whole parliament thing and institute direct rule by the divine right prime minister, the announcement of the new rule would be the same as the promulgation thereof and the terrorist would get his justice instead of his get out of jail free card. Because it was probably the terrorist's fault it took the crown so long to get the case to court. And why do terrorists get the same rights as Real Canadians anyway?
Not to mention, I suspect the breathlessly shocked and bug-eyed opiner wouldn't be happy unless the said "GUILTY" party was hanging from a rope anyway. After being waterboarded and other 'monkey on a stick' punishments to show how 'tough on crime'Canada is.
Why does criminal justice always seem to end up associated with the complainer's individual penile size and testosterone level and anything less than thumping Others to jelly blobs with bone(r) cudgels just isn't acceptable?
Post a Comment