Guilty Until Proven Innocent

social justice

From today’s Globe And Mail:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took a page out of tough U.S. justice legislation yesterday by announcing that his government will introduce a three-strikes law to force repeat violent and sexual offenders to justify why they should not be locked away indefinitely.

Ah, so this is what Harper meant by “get tough on crime.” Let’s take a look at what this would mean.

First, it’s a strike against that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing we like to value. The accused would be responsible for proving that they’re not a danger to society, instead of leaving that responsibility with the crown to prove that they are. Call me old-fashioned, but I like the presumption of innocence. (Just so everyone knows what a radical I am, I’m also a fan of habeas corpus.)

Some of you may not be convinced that that’s a big problem, since we are talking about third-time offenders of violent and sexual crimes. Fine. So then, this plan would at least reduce crime, right?

Wrong. From the same article:

[The announcement] was resoundingly panned by justice experts who say similar measures south of the border have proved ineffective in reducing crime…The California law caused an increase in the state prison population of 17.7 per cent between 1993 and 2002 while the crime rate dropped more slowly than that of other states, such as New York, where there was no three-strikes law.

Oh, ok. So we’ll have a bigger prison population, more crime than we would otherwise, and fewer liberties.

Also, according to both Harper and my rudimentary understanding of the fact that jails cost money, it’ll cost more.

One other quote from the article really struck me, “Mr. Harper said his government is answering a call from Canadians who believe the country is not as safe as it once was.” The key word there, of course, is believe, since crime is actually on the decline in Canada.

There was a telling moment in a recent Toronto municipal campaign town hall broadcast on CBC, when a reporter asked the council candidates to explain why they thought Canadians felt less safe, when in fact they were more safe. The candidates’ answers were regrettably predictable; they didn’t even understand the question. They just went on and on about how we have to get tough on crime, whatever that means, as politicians tend to do.

I think I’ve figured out where we got the idea that we shouldn’t feel safe. And I think I know who benefits.

This Is Getting Intense

climate crisis, conservative party, green party

Wait a second, the Conservative government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to let them rise? Oh, but don’t worry, they’ll rise “more slowly.” I’m thinking of sending Rona Ambrose a certain James Cameron film in the mail. Water entered the Titanic pretty slowly too.

This planned rise in emissions is due to the government’s last minute announcement that, at the request of the oil industry (ok, they didn’t actually admit that part), they’re going to be using “intensity-based” targets. What that means is that overall emissions can go up, as long as emissions per production unit go down. For example, as long as the oil industry reduces the amount of emissions that are created by the extraction and refinement of each barrel of oil, they can go ahead and increase the total number of barrels they produce.

How does that help the fact that the earth is hotter than it’s been in a million years? It doesn’t.

(No, that wasn’t hyperbole. I actually mean 1,000,000 years. It’s not your fault if you didn’t know that, it wasn’t really headline news. Other stuff was more important I guess.)

Still, not everyone gets that this is a problem. Some continue to say things like, “reducing our emissions is, you know, really hard, so we shouldn’t even try.” Those of us in the choir need to keep reiterating to our skeptical coworkers and friends that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is not a luxury. It’s not an option. The best case scenario for failure is a serious decline in our quality of life and economy. The worst case is unthinkable.

The good news is, reason has the momentum. As Elizabeth May’s Globe And Mail column pointed out in true Green style, the Clean Air Act has nothing to do with either clean air or action. The Conservative government thinks Canadians are too dumb to figure that out. We will prove them wrong.

Where Has Rona Been?

climate crisis, conservative party

Out to lunch. With oil executives.

At least that’s where Rona Ambrose, our environment minister, was two weeks ago instead of reacting to the environment commissioner’s report. We’ve been hearing a lot from the Conservatives about how that report slams the Liberals, and very little about the fact that it also criticizes the Conservatives for being on the wrong path. As usual, the Conservatives are more interested in attacking others than putting forward their own ideas.

Since then, Rona testified at a Commons committee where she lied (or, in the least, betrayed her ignorance) by saying that the Liberals had spent money on stuff they hadn’t. Then she tried to claim that comments made by Daphne Wysham from the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington supported her government’s opposition to Kyoto. Elizabeth May, who knows Daphne, thought, “hmm…that doesn’t sound right,” and called Daphne to confirm. Here was her response:

I am horrified that my statement criticizing the CDM has been interpreted by Canada’s Environment Minister as justification for not living up to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. We absolutely need a vehicle for both curbing emissions in the North and providing resources for clean energy in the south. The CDM may be flawed, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater will set us back decades at a time when action to reduce greenhouse gases is urgently needed. Canada must not violate its legally binding Kyoto commitments.

I spent a lot of time packing this past month. I can think of at least one other person who should be sent to do the same.

UPDATE (October 12, 2006): More untruths from Rona.

Where Has Jim Been?

green party

Blogging.

When Jim Harris stepped down as leader of the Green Party of Canada two months ago, he said he’d be moving from being in front of the cameras to the back room. Then Elizabeth May told him she didn’t want us to have a back room, so he settled for kitchen cabinet.

True to his word, he’s been keeping busy since then. (One spy even told me he took a shift answering the phones at the national office. That’s dedication for you.)

Most recently, Jim has started a blog which you can follow here. It’s worth reading — Jim’s very good at coming at old stories from new angles, and finding those clever twists and soundbites.