Blogging Tory Maria "Dodo is an Idiot" Nunes goes full-metal shrieky as only she can:
Something is seriously wrong with Bloc Quebecois MPs
On Sep 30, MP Joy Smith's bill C-268 on child trafficking law, was adopted after the third reading with a vote of 239 in favor and 46 opposing. The Bill has now moved to the Senate and needs approval before becoming law.
43 BQ MPs and 3 NDP MPs opposed the bill.
Tell me, what sort of a person do you have to be to oppose a bill that will deter child traffickers and if not deterred , clamp down mandatory sentences on the scum? In my personal opinion, the MPs who are opposing Bill C-268 are not representing their constituents because I refuse to believe that any thinking person would want to keep a child trafficker from going to jail.
Fuckin A! The BQ clearly supports slavery and trafficking in human beings since, after all, there can't possibly be another reason for their resistance. Oh, wait:
Although we are well aware of the worldwide scourge that is human trafficking, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill. Allow me to explain the reasons for its decision.
In 2005, the Bloc Québécois voted in support of Bill C-49. Creating an offence to specifically condemn human trafficking was necessary, and we willingly cooperated to see it passed. The amendment to the Criminal Code gave law enforcement authorities the legal tools they need to prosecute and convict anyone who unfortunately engages in these horrible practices that show no respect for human dignity.
Bill C-268, however, we believe is a step in the wrong direction. By automatically imposing a minimum sentence of five years on anyone convicted of the trafficking of persons under 18, the government is not solving anything. I will explain why.
First of all, many experts have established that minimum sentences have negative effects and dubious value when it comes to fighting crime.
For instance, criminal lawyer Julian Roberts, from the University of Ottawa, conducted a study in 1997 for the Department of Justice of Canada in which he concluded:
Although mandatory sentences of imprisonment have been introduced in a number of western nations... the studies that have examined the impact of these laws reported variable effects on prison populations and no discernible effect on crime rates.
In early May 2006, during a press conference on the controversial passing of Bill C-10, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety at the time were forced to acknowledge that no Canadian study has demonstrated that new measures to introduce minimum penalties are effective in fighting crime.
Minimum sentences can also have a negative impact. According to André Normandeau, a criminologist at the Université de Montréal, minimum sentences can encourage plea bargaining by lawyers wanting to have their clients charged with offences that do not have minimum sentences. Minimum sentences can also force judges to acquit an individual, rather than be forced to sentence that individual to a penalty the judge considers excessive under the circumstances...
In addition, Bill C-268 is not consistent. It does not provide for a minimum sentence when an offender found guilty of trafficking of a minor kidnaps, commits an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against or causes death to the victim during the commission of the offence. The bill does not change the subsection that covers this.
We are having a hard time understanding the logic behind Bill C-268. On the one hand, they say that they want to prevent serious offences involving the trafficking of minors by imposing minimum sentences, but on the other, they are not changing sentences for offenders who use extreme violence in committing the crime.
To ensure the most appropriate court rulings possible, we would be wise to look at recommendation 33 of the House Standing Committee on the Status of Women's report on human trafficking. Judges and prosecutors should be informed of, educated about, and made aware of the Criminal Code provisions concerning human trafficking and the disastrous impact of this crime on its victims.
When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is still, and will always be, prevention. We have to attack crime at the root. That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that people can live peacefully and safely.
Huh. A careful, thoughtful discussion of the issues, backed up with references and supported by what would appear to be logical and rational analysis, to the point where it at least suggests that there are some things here worth discussing further. It's no wonder Maria didn't understand any of it.
9 comments:
once again, an idiot conservative who conflates opposing a specific piece of legislation because of the language in it with opposing a general principle.
Maybe Dodo would like to support my proposed bill to empower the police to shoot on sight anyone who double parks their car? No?
Doesn't she trust the police? Is she opposed to traffic safety? Does she support people who double park and block ambulances that could be rushing sick children to the hospital? Why does Dodo want children to die?
Cripes, the Bloc should run candidates across Canada.
"uniquill"
yes, they should indeed.
Chucker also believes this line of reasoning.
Or at least he fanned the flames of this to the delight of his commentators.
With conservatives, the issue is not the protection of members of society, nor some undefined 'justice' but simply personal revenge and the feeling of empowerment they get from it.
@ GaryB: I could not agree more.
Yep. Conservatives can only derive happiness from knowing that someone else is misreable, whether said misery is well deserved or not.
All projection and no empathy.
I posted the following on Dodo's blog a couple of hours ago. She didn't post it.
"Perhaps, just perhaps, the MPs, despite your gut reaction, do indeed want tougher stands taken against human trafficking but found the bill, as it stands today, incomplete and potentially ineffective.
Instead of engaging in the typical conservative practice of looking for something to hate, why not look to the reasons it was done and think your way through it?
@GaryB
Anyone in the reality-based community can get banned from her comment threads. All you have to do is, y'know, leave a comment.
Conservatives generally appear to find free speech much easier to handle when they reserve it for themselves and their sycophants.
Post a Comment