Thanks, PET

Excellent smack-down of the wooley-thinking, bleeding-heart professor by Mr. Tarantino. Facts are such stubborn things, which is why the left consistently ignores inconvenient facts, willfully distorts inconvenient facts, or both.

I don't know what the solution is. I do know what the problems are. Every week where I live there are a couple of stabbings or other invasive activities like shooting or slashing. Some guy stopped at a red light or checking a tire...no reason. No fear or respect to consequences or the police. The Crown defends and prosecutes, promises made and broken the whole schmoo. The jails are just a senior collection of guys from the streets.
I like the idea of work camps but I don't see this turning around at any point in my life. There a lot of good people and there is a lot of bad people.

I miss Bob's blog, especially his frequent smack downs of Trudeau's spawn.

Yet another chablis sipping, pontificating liberal from the center of the universe telling us what he "feels". One wonders if he has even deigned to be west of Mississauga. (You know where the rednecks cavort in the boondocks) Has he been to a reserve or has some justice report come across his desk?

Meanwhile, the Samson Cree are scared to leave their homes for fear of being randomly shot or stabbed by someone that is being "rehabilitated" in a sensitive, understanding manner in their community.

Cudos to Mr. Tarantino for exposing this worthless drivel for what it is.

pierre elliott trudeau- the worst scum that ever slithered out of La Belle Province

Judging by the comments he received, Mr. Morton's woolly-brained nonsense blew back in his face. I feel no sympathy, especially since I've lived in and around native communities where the native victims of crime ask the same question, "Why don't they lock that guy up -- forever?" The aggravated revolving door "justice" system makes life hell for the victims. One can speak out in one's defence against a perp if one can feel confident that the system will impose real consequences on that perp, and will effectively protect you against him. If sentencing is a crap shoot which releases the criminal right back into the community, his victims won't speak up because they're too intimidated, knowing that testifying against the criminal will simply fan the flames of his anger and he can come seeking revenge, without real consequences. Talk about a viscious cycle!

Takes the steaming pile left by his neighbours dog, puts it in a bag, lights it, and rings his doorbell.

That was awesome.

Morton: "Studies...show that sending people to jail...increases the likelihood of re-offending."

So if we don't send murderers/rapists/arsonists/rapists/armed robbers to jail, they'll stop offending? Flaming prog-twaddle. Look at it this way: A person who has been charged -- not jailed for, just charged with -- drunk driving is more likely to drive drunk at some point in the future than someone who has never been charged with drunk driving. Similarly, a person who has been charged *five* times for drunk driving is more likely to drive drunk in the future than someone who has been charged one time. Using Morton's logic, we should not charge people for drunk driving, because the stats clearly show that the more charges we lay against an individual the more likely he is to drive drunk in the future.

It's as if they teach stats-bending in law school. Makes me want to stick my head in a paint shaker.

Tarantino's comment isn't the only one worth reading. The third "Anonymous" post (at 12:30PM) nailed Morton beautifully. It attacks a central tenet of modern liberalism, namely, that all identifiable groups have, on average, the same abilities and tendencies, and that therefore any discrepancy in outcomes must be due to discrimination.

Morton is a wanker

Oh, that was a beautiful read. I've got to copy that response for future reference.

*
best comment of the week, bar none...

"It's like saying there are too many cancer patients,
so we're going to cut back on chemotherapy."

i think i just peed myself..

*

Has Mr. Morton questioned the environment which might make someone commit crimes? Nope. Ignore the elephant in the room.
I am not excusing crime or abdicating personal responsibility, only pointing out what the more PC crowd won't talk about.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Victims+fatal+Alberta+crash+identified/1820642/story.html

"RCMP collision investigators said the weather was clear and the road was dry at the time of the crash and are focussing on whether excessive speed and alcohol caused the collision."

Has Mr. Morton questioned the environment which might make someone commit crimes?
~Osumashi Kinyobe at July 24, 2009 2:55 PM

The environment doesn't make people commit crimes.
That idea leads to the thinking that criminals are victims of circumstance.

Criminals choose to commit crimes because they think they and their wants are more import than law abiding citzens and the security of the society they live in.

Exactly. Poverty doesn't CAUSE crime. A lack of morals causes crime.

Re-read my post, Oz. I never excused anyone. My point was that blame is unfairly cast against a system rather than an individual or group that refuses to adopt more responsible behaviours, in this case, aboriginals and "bleeding hearts" who blame "white" society. There are mitigating factors, yes, but NEVER excuses. No one wants to talk about these things because then fingers would point the wrong way. Why not blame society instead of blaming the individual and his crappy parents? Maybe someone might conclude that aboriginal values are heavily romanticised by leftist idealists and that something should be done about that. Perhaps I should have explained myself better. Sorry.

*
speaking of mindless left-wing cant...

maybe... just maybe... you're gonna accuse somebody
of being some kind of jack-booted night rider... you
might not want to start with the guy who runs the police
force's "racial profiling" initiative.

i'm just sayin'.

*

Poverty doesn't cause crime. Crime causes poverty...

I'm reminded of Robert Heinlein's short story "Coventry". For those not familiar, in the story, criminals are banished to a walled area called Coventry. They are sent in with some basic necessities, but are usually robbed within minutes of entry. Inside, various types of societies have evolved, some based on force, some based on trading, but all have elements of both.

We have enough open space; why not build some basic shelters, build a big friggin' wall, and just throw all the recidivist criminals in there? Let them sort it out, and don't let them come out. If they choose to reject our social norms, let them develop their own. Give them a few head of cattle, and some seeds, and let them grow their own food. Give them marijuana plants and poppies, and let them grow their own drugs. If, pace the grasshopper and the ant, they find they don't have enough food to survive the winter - tough. People survived prairie winters in the 1800's in sod houses by working hard. Why should criminals get the soft touch?

Probably ought to give them SOME basic farming and survival classes, to give them a chance.

Just saying.

Funnily I was just saying something similar about the political class of New Jersey - in case you care - they've arrested a whack of mayors and other's of New Jersey's native criminal class.

I was suggesting they arrest all the politicians of NJ and then filter the 3 or 4 honest ones out.

Criminals treated differently than everyone else ?

Modern Liberalism says there can be no discrimination - absolutely none whatsoever. Even if the result is chaos and lawlessness, I guess.

To those who think that there is a link between poverty and criminality, please explain Bernie Madoff, Michael Milkin, etc, etc, and the simple fact that the majority of poor people are honest and law abiding.

UNicorns and Fairie's dust will make it all better.

The answer to every bleeding heart who argues for molycoddling criminals is that they cary the cost and they be the ones to hold responsible when their pets continue to piss on the furniture.

The rest of us should not be paying for these simpletons desire to conduct social experiments.

Osumashi Kinyobe @2:55 is right. What part of "I am not excusing crime or abdicating personal responsibility" are some of you not getting?

Look at it this way: Lefties, ignoring freedom of choice and accountability, insist that people are SIMPLY the products of their environments; at the same time they advocate social policies whose results - welfarism, the destruction of the family, drug culture, leniency towards dangerous criminals etc. etc. etc. - create the kind of toxic subcultures which are bound to produce every kind of social pathology.

You can be a conservative and still admit that a kid raised in a nice home is a lot less likely to wind up in jail than his identical twin "brought up" by violent junkies.

bob c @6:58 - there is a big difference between poverty and depravity.

If Canada wants to fix the native crime imbalance then they have to fix the native entitlements imbalance.

Dissolve the reserves, split up the assets equally among treaty individuals, double it and then call the North American Indian Act and all connected legislation quits.

It may bankrupt Canada for a few years but at least the racist cancer will have been cut out of our collective national guts.

If indians want to be more than second class Canadians they must stop trying to put themselves ahead of everyone else. The result of elitism pushed by native leadership actually lowers the value of their culture in everybody else's eyes.

It's hard not to see Canada's first nations, where the "first" refers to crime rate, as a bunch of losers. They can do something about it but it begins by taking a long look in the mirror and climbing down from their high horses to do something about fixing what they see.

When natives as a whole become net contributers instead of takers to Canada then they will at last become members of a real "first" nation.

...certain kinds of depravity lead to certain kinds of poverty; then it becomes one of those vicious-cycle thingies.

Certain kinds of depravity can lead to wealth; that's why Bernie made off with so much $$$.

But no "link between poverty and criminality"? Please. Nobody really believes that.

I think the main reason that aboriginals have such problems re crime and incarceration is that they were forcibly placed under socialism long before everyone else.

The Gladue decision of the Supreme Court is one of its worst ever, and it frankly shows contempt for native victims of crime.

I agree that PET is still the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

Black Mamba @ 10:53, 12:04:

There's definately a vicious cycle kind of thing going on - have a look at this paper 'Genes, Environment, and Criminal Behaviour': http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html

Natives will continue to commit crime at a higher rate than the rest of society until conditions change, and all the 'Sovereignty' and tax payer dollars in the world will achieve nothing towards that end. The only answer is to end the segregationist Reservation policy, convert them to municipalities, and phase out government programs at they integrate with Canada,

nv53: "they were forcibly placed under socialism"

Well then, lets as a country end the forced socialism that's keeping the native individual down. Settle with them and remove all segregationist legislation and laws. Time to kick start the healing.

The first step is giving the conservatives a majority.

What Martin said! YEP!

Reading that excerpt from Hansard sent a horrible chill down my spine. There it is in black and white: our elected leaders deciding to de-prioritize the protection of the innocent law-abiding citizens of their country. I never imagined that it could have happened so callously, but there it is - and it explains so much, so simply. I am sharing this little factoid with everyone I know.