We need to get angry.
Stephen Harper opposes the majority of Canadians on way too many issues:
- The Omnibus Crime Bill (Bill C-10)
From The Star
The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada:
1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.
2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on more than 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.
3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.
4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.
5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.
6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?
7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offences and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?
8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.
9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s aboriginal people already represent up to 80 per cent of inmates in institutions in the Prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.
10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?
- Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
- Pardon Services Fee Increase
Which passed regardless of the fact that they held a poll to see if people supported or opposed the idea and the poll revealed that people strongly OPPOSED the fee increase:
A large proportion of respondents who did not support the proposed increase to the user fee indicated that the increase would pose a financial burden to applicants, making it difficult or impossible for many to apply for a pardon.
These respondents also indicated that the proposed fee would make applying for a pardon difficult or impossible for people needing a pardon to help them obtain employment or pursue their education.
Many of these respondents also viewed the proposed fee as an additional punishment to that already imposed by the court.
They also indicated that the proposed fee would make a pardon inaccessible to many individuals, thereby impacting the contributions pardons can make to the rehabilitation of individuals and lower levels of crime.
Some of them also felt that the proposed fee would represent an additional tax by the Government.
A number of respondents said there should be a sliding scale for the fee, with the amount varying according to the seriousness and nature of the crime, or by their ability to pay, while others indicated that a pardon should be automatically granted after the passage of a certain number of years.
The inability to pay the proposed fee as a barrier to obtaining a pardon to facilitate travel to other countries was also raised by some respondents.
Some also indicated that they thought the proposed fee increase was politically-driven.
A large number of respondents who stated their opposition to the proposed fee increase gave no specific reason.
In terms of a breakdown of the responses received, 1,074 individuals/organizations did not support the proposed fee increase while 12 were supportive of the proposed increase.
His Prison Expansion Plan fits well into this as well. Even considering…
(better image here)
- Lawful Access Bill:
The Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. (Bill C-30)
From the CBC:
Among other things, the bill requires ISPs to install surveillance technology and software to enable monitoring of phone and internet traffic. Section 34 is there to make sure ISPs comply. So what, exactly, does it say?
Essentially, it says that government agents may enter an ISP when they wish, without a warrant, and demand to see absolutely everything — including all data anywhere on the network — and to copy it all. If that seems hard to believe, let’s walk through it.
First, Section 33 tells us that, “The Minister may designate persons or classes of persons as inspectors for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of this Act.” So we’re not talking about police officers necessarily. We’re talking about anyone the minister chooses — or any class of persons. (Musicians? Left-handed hockey players? Members of the Conservative Party? Sure, that’s absurd — but the bill allows it…)
Next, Section 34 spells out the sweeping powers of these “inspectors.” And, if they sound Orwellian, welcome to the world of Section 34.
The inspectors may “enter any place owned by, or under the control of, any telecommunications service provider in which the inspector has reasonable grounds to believe there is any document, information, transmission apparatus, telecommunications facility or any other thing to which this Act applies.”
And, once he or she is in, anything goes.
And how much it will cost us to get spied on.
- The Anti Refugee BillPreventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act. (Bill C-4)
- The bill imposes the mandatory incarceration of groups of asylum seekers, including children, who arrive in Canada, even where there is no concern that the individuals present a danger or threat of any kind. The Minister can decide that any group of asylum seekers should be incarcerated upon arrival based on suspicion of smuggling, but also simply on the basis that the process of their identification cannot be done in a “timely manner”. This violates the International Convention on the Status of Refugee which prohibits the imposition of penalties for illegal entry for refugees fleeing persecution.
- The bill prevents any review of the imprisonment and detention by the Immigration Review Board for 12 months. Currently, in compliance with constitutional guarantees, an initial review of whether a detention is warranted is done within 48 hours.
- The bill creates a second class of refugees by denying even people whose refugee status is eventually established rights given to other immigrants: even people whose refugee status is confirmed cannot obtain travel documents nor even apply to become permanent resident for 5 years. This again violates the International Convention which obliges countries to issue travelling documents.
Again with strong opposition.
- Discrimination At the Airport
- The Alberta Tar sands
And how Stephen Harper is silencing scientists in order to hide the fact that the tar sands are detrimental to the environment and to exploit them as he is exploiting them is immensely irresponsible.
These are only some of Stephen Harper’s horrible plans. we should not sit idly by and passively allow him to turn Canada into a fascist police state.
Why have we not kicked out Stephen Harper yet?
I hope that the robocalls allegations prove to be true and that it is found to be sufficient reason to throw him out of Parliament immediately. But even if they aren’t true, I believe we should get rid of Stephen Harper nonetheless.
Enough is enough. Stephen Harper should have never been given a Majority Government, that’s why he was toppled by Votes of Non-Confidence prior to the last elections and we got brutally reminded that we were still, after all these years, a colony of England when Michaëlle Jean was put in power.
It’s time we stop passively accepting Harper’s reign of terror.
I often hear people say that what we need now is another Trudeau but I say stop wishing for what we cannot have and act! Have a voice! Let your discontent be showed!