|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 48)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nick Cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Next up, Omnibus. Shut that down. |
Anybody with a a proper understanding of criminology knows that this bill will result in two things:
1) a huge increase in the amount of taxpayers' money being spent on corrections due to the inevitable growth in Canada's prison population; and
2) the artificial creation - i.e., inflation - of crime, giving way to the perception that even more draconian legislation is required to deal with the 'crime problem'.
Plus, the greater influx of inmates into our prison system will necessarily result in the production of more 'career criminals'.
Decades and decades of methodologically sound research from the U.S. on the use of mandatory minimum sentences reflect the utter ineffectiveness of this punitive response to criminality. But, as I have been saying for years now, the Harper government rules entirely according to ideology and the promotion of fact-less fear; Justice Minister Rob Nicholson himself has stated unambiguously "We don't govern on the basis of statistics".
Shame on anybody who supports the Federal Conservatives' campaign of fear. The Prime Minister, the Minsiter of Public Safety, the Justice Minister, etc. consistently lie about the scope of criminality in our country and the probability of success re: measures that will reduce the seriousness of the problem.
Criminal justice is big business, never forget that fact. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
I doubt this to be the case. I agree Canadian culture is simply not one for protests - in other parts of the world, like say GREECE or South America, those people protest absolutely everything. |
There are tons of small protests across Canada on a daily basis. What is so bad in Canada that would draw hundred of thousands of canadians to band together in protest of? Overall, you have small little groups that want to bitch about something they think other people will actually care about. When nobody really does anything after a few weeks they go back to sitting in their club house and continue bitching. |
|
|
| LightsOut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick Cenik
|
I would suggest that if you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. It's pretty simple. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by FunkyCrew
because people from those societies have valid and much more important issues to protest about - and they should!
|
We have many issues in this country facing all of us today but the general populations just doesn't seem to care much at this point but I promise you that will change. Sure every country has its own issues but at this point we all have a common problem and that is the economy and no matter how much we like to tell the world that we are better than them it is just the matter of time before we start feeling the pressure here too.
Our economy today is all connected around the world and if one goes down everyone else will feel it as well. Our banking system also DID get bailed out not as much as the American banks but they sure did get lots of money out of our pockets. |
|
|
| Orko |
The OWS protests did not affect the CRTC ruling.
What I was saying, is that protesting got the CRTC to change.
Events:
1) CRTC set to introduce new billing rules for internet.
2) Citizens banded together and signed a HUGE internet petition against new rules(protest).
3) Industry Minister took notice, told CRTC to re-evaluate ruling.
4) CRTC re-evaluated, and come up with a new ruling, which was a better compromise.
Effect: protest worked to create rules which were better than the original ruling.
I think people are taking a very narrow view of the word "protest". A protest is not constricted to gathering en-mass, in person to shout at something. Protests have a very wide way of being represented. This is why the OWS movement won't die with the removal of occupants in a park. The largest gathering place, the internet, will be the largest breeding ground for change. The movement started on the Internet, it moved to a public and visible place, and will move back to the Internet.
That is why this was actually a success. There are tremendous amount of 'protests' on the internet. This one actually gained enough traction to move into the streets. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
This seems like a really dumb question, but what is the difference? A by law was put into place by elected officials acting in the interests of the local residents, no? Supreme Court judges are not publicly elected, so I don't see how they can just go overruling things that are already in place and being enforced. |
Isn't that the case with any law before a court?
Law is created, somebody 'breaks' law, and it is challenged in court because the definition was loose enough for somebody to take offence to its application. The judge is the tie break. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
The OWS protests did not affect the CRTC ruling.
What I was saying, is that protesting got the CRTC to change.
Events:
1) CRTC set to introduce new billing rules for internet.
2) Citizens banded together and signed a HUGE internet petition against new rules(protest).
3) Industry Minister took notice, told CRTC to re-evaluate ruling.
4) CRTC re-evaluated, and come up with a new ruling, which was a better compromise.
|
What I took out of the article was it was Harper who quickly pushed back against this...now did this happen before the petition was completed and submitted to anyone.....I don't know. I think you are making an assumption that the petition is what made the government tell the CRTC to re-evaluate the ruling. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
What I took out of the article was it was Harper who quickly pushed back against this...now did this happen before the petition was completed and submitted to anyone.....I don't know. I think you are making an assumption that the petition is what made the government tell the CRTC to re-evaluate the ruling. |
The petition got Ottawa's attention, that is the point. A protest/petition cannot actually make a governing official change the rules, only change their minds.
The public backlash 100% had a positive effect on the changes. The ruling only effects 6% of internet subscribers, you think Harper would have cared about them, had there not been a public backlash? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
The petition got Ottawa's attention, that is the point. A protest/petition cannot actually make a governing official change the rules, only change their minds.
The public backlash 100% had a positive effect on the changes. The ruling only effects 6% of internet subscribers, you think Harper would have cared about them, had there not been a public backlash? |
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you are jumping to that conclusion when the article does not make any clear connection between the petition and it leading to the CRTC revisiting the issue. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you are jumping to that conclusion when the article does not make any clear connection between the petition and it leading to the CRTC revisiting the issue. |
I used the article to merely show that the ruling was changed. The history provides anecdotal evidence to show the petition worked.
I'm sure in the days to come, some one will write a story on the history of this issue, making more conclusions about the effects of action. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by FunkyCrew
because people from those societies have valid and much more important issues to protest about - and they should!
|
Yea because corporate greed running amok and holding the economy and people's jobs hostage is NOT a valid reason :rolleyes:
| quote: |
are you a parrot? if you have nothing to say of your own, pls stop repeating stuff without adding anything of your own. |
Really?? Can you link me to your thought-provoking, intellectual posts? Cause I totally remember you posting a bunch of articles without so much as a thought other than "See I told you so!" Using some articles to support your own stance.
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you are jumping to that conclusion when the article does not make any clear connection between the petition and it leading to the CRTC revisiting the issue. |
Dude it's not "jumping to conclusions"; it's pretty much obvious fact if you've been following the issue from Day 1. Rogers/Bell wanted to introduced UBB (which you unsurprisingly supported if I remember correctly); people petitioned it; and now the CRTC made it's decision to not allow it. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Had it not reached the scale that it did in those first 2-3 weeks the media wouldn't have taken notice of it and the decision would pass in favour of Rogers/Bell quietly. |
|
|
|
|
