Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Bad idea. Bias should distance itself from this sort of committee.


No question, his personal experience is something of great value to this committee. Boisvenu should provide his expertise in this matter to the committee...but in the way of testimony, as a witness, not as part the committee itself. Better to have unbiased folks make the decisions and recommendations, based on a wide variety of witness testimony.

   

I understand your point. But, as a Québécois who followed Pierre-Hugues Boivenu's battle for a better justice for the victims before he become a senator, I must disagree. Yes, he has bias. But, he passed the last 10 years to help victims and lobby to counter the idea that all criminals need more chances of rehabilitation. You have to understand that it was in a Quebec context of justice.

He's not a nut job yelling that we should put every criminal to jail. He's someone who decided after his daughter's death to help people and mostly to show to all Québécois how the justice system in Quebec was behaving with criminals. He experienced it: his daughter's murderer was released 3 times for aggravated assault and rape. He wants to change the laws so that judges don't have to say 'that's the worst I can do' by giving a recidivist a third or fourth chance.

Sincerely, this guy could have just go along and do nothing. He decided that his life would be dedicated to the protection of the victims of criminal acts. For that, he has my best regards. He's not a born politician. He can make mistakes like today by talking too "friendly". But, he's one of the best pick by Harper to help reform justice.

   

Fair enough. Should we have a criminal on the committee too? I mean, who has more expert value on the topic of crime than criminals? I say to "No" to both extremes. Let them testify, share their knowledge, but staff the committee with folks who can think impartially.

   

Victims of something being part of a committee isn't bad, but there is a risk that they can't see the big picture and as such there's always a risk in making their positions too important.

   

I think there's some room for extremes here, not that I think he's indicating anything of the sort. Really, since when did having a bias, especially one earned in the way his has been, suddenly disqualifies you from having an opinion? Guy said those in for life should have the option of ending it... wow, if that's the level to which even centrists have stooped to now be wringing their hands, then the quality of debate has certainly shifted to the banal.

   

Well said.

   

No, that's not what he said. He said "Give the fuckers a rope". His statement was about suffering, not about the right to end one's life by choice. This isn't about centrism, hell, that's not me. I'd execute every murderer before they had the chance to hang themselves. So I likely shouldn't be on that committee either. But, the concept of an impartial jury is a sound one.

   

Yeah... that's what he said. He's giving those guys in for life, the POS ones that will never get out... an out.

Anyway, this ain't about juries.

   

Come on, really? With a rope? Not a lethal injection? Firing squad?


It's about making sound decisions, based on reason over emotion.

   

From my point of view, having studied political sciences, the senate has a meaning and it is different of the the chamber of commons. One is elected to represent the people and the majority. The other is to represent the view of the communities and the interests of the minorities.

I think both chambers are important and that's why I'm against the abolition of the senate. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu was appointed to the Senate to do what he's doing now: protect minorities, the victims of criminal acts. He's doing his job.

But, don't forget Lemmy that Pierre-Hughes Boivenu's vote only count once. He's a representative of something and as a senator, has only one vote.

   

Good points.

   

Why not? maybe not someone out on day parole, but certainly someone who has done time and is now living as a law-abiding contributing member of society might have some ideas on how to help others follow the same path. That is what we want isn't it? For criminals to stop being criminals?
Whether it's because they're locked up where they can't cause harm, or whether it's because they've reformed doesn't matter all that much to me. I say go with whatever's gonna cost me the least in the long run.

   

Maybe Harper'll appoint Mulroney to the Senate then he can join the committee.

   

They don't need ropes. They have access to bed sheets and hang themselves just fine that way. If not there are plenty of sharp objects they can create to slice up with.

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next