Sunday, October 15, 2006

Harper Exactly Right On Reverse Onus

I don't usually find myself in agreement with the Toronto Sun, so today is a rare day. Their editorial today praises Mr Harper's recent decision to place a reverse onus on a criminal convicted for the third time, a plan opposed the Liberals and the NDP. To quote:
We were particularly amused to see the federal Liberals and Toronto mayor David Miller criticizing Harper's proposal almost as soon as he announced it.

Remember in the last federal election when former Liberal PM Paul Martin and Miller, along with Premier Dalton McGuinty, announced they favoured placing a reverse onus on people accused of gun crimes who seek bail?

They said that following a wave of shootings in Toronto leading up to the horrible Boxing Day massacre on Yonge St.

So, to review, less than a year ago they advocated placing the onus on someone simply accused of a gun crime to prove he was not a threat before being granted bail.

But now they're against a law to place a similar onus on repeat offenders who have not just been charged, but convicted of violent crimes not just once, but three times?
The Conservatives have got it right on this occasion.

I always felt the Liberals started to lose support around Boxing Day, and not because of the RCMP investigation into the income trust tax scandal. It was after the shooting of Jane Creba on Boxing Day. Toronto had been struck by gun crime for the last year, and the government seemed to do nothing. I lived in Toronto, and I always voted Liberal, and I was frustrated at the Liberals.

Especially when Paul Martin unveiled his good-for-nothing plan to ban guns that were already banned. Especially when he suggested a policy of reverse onus on a person not yet convicted of anything. That showed to me that the Liberals were desperate, willing to do anything and say anything to cling on to power, and such governments rarely do any good.

Though I disagree with Mr Harper on most issues, on the problem of crime he has got it exactly right. As I wrote before to the Sun,
There are two aspects to dealing with crime - social and judicial. We need social policies to distribute wealth to the poor, to provide education and health care. We need to identify and assist "at-risk" youth. But once a crime is committed, the criminal no longer deserves our sympathy. We don't need to find reasons why they committed the crime. We have to provide justice to the victim - by hunting down the criminals and punishing them with a tough sentence that will act as a deterrent to others. The criminals involved in the Toronto Boxing Day shootout had the same health plan, education and opportunities in life as their victims. Where is the "exclusion?"

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Agree here again.

If you commit a crime, you should be the one who should give a good reason why you should be set free in society.

Emilia Liz