COLUMN: CONS HAVE REASON TO VOTE LIBERAL
Date: Jan 19, 2006 6:42 AM
PUBLICATION: The Winnipeg Sun
DATE: 2006.01.18
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial/Opinion
PAGE: 11
BYLINE: ROBERT MARSHALL
Robert Marshall was a police officer for 27 years.

————————————————————————

CONS HAVE REASON TO VOTE LIBERAL

————————————————————————

If justice is on your mind as you make your way to the polling booth on
Monday, remember this. The Liberals have failed spectacularly on that
front. Victims’ groups know it. Most front-line people know it. And if
that’s not enough, the ringing endorsement of Paul Martin’s gang by
Canada’s prison population should clinch it.

Reporting from Stony Mountain Pen last weekend, CTV National News said
that “from cell to cell, prisoner after prisoner told (the reporter)
they were voting Liberal, with no exceptions.”

***And if I were in their shoes I’d vote Liberal, too. Because Liberals
would be my best chance of staying out of jail, no matter what.****

Remember, it was the Liberals who dreamed up conditional sentences that
allow violent offenders to serve their time on the couch, and the lack
of supervision ensures the con’s comfort is never compromised. Even if
caught breaching conditions, chances of being shipped off to jail are
less than 50%. In fact, one option is to adjust the conditions, to make
it easier for the con to comply. In 2004 Justice Minister Irwin Cotler
said that he’d look at the conditional sentence issue but that high
priorities like marijuana reform might get in his way. Since then
they’ve done some vote-getting tinkering. For example, by ruling out
house arrest for terrorist activity. I love it when they talk tough.
Ergo — no real change.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, brought on by former justice minister
Anne McLellan, has even some left-wing judges wringing their hands. It
expects meaningful, rehabilitative consequences to be meted out to young
people who are encouraged, by legislation, to hide behind the special
rights that promote dishonesty and keeps the truth distant. Just the
answer for any youngster leaning toward a deviant life.

DNA is the No. 1 crime-busting tool of all time. But Orwellian
propaganda resulted in the Liberals writing restrictive, labyrinth-like
legislation that guides its use. An expert who appeared before a justice
committee testified that “the holes in this net are too large to be
truly helpful to the homicide or sexual assault investigator.” Another
said, “It’s like getting a new car with all the bells and whistles but
no wheels.”

Properly enacted legislation could yield tens of thousands more success
storied than the few there are now. Despite minor improvements, the
administration of federal DNA labs are in such a mess that the auditor
general has gathered a team to investigate and is expected to report
back to Parliament later this year or in early 2007.

And a mess down at the forensic lab is just what a predator wants to
hear.

Astonishingly, until just recently the Liberals paraded like peacocks in
the justice ring, and denials followed the growing levels of violence
witnessed by Canadians. Even following the spring slaughter of four
Mounties in Alberta, Liberal MP Paul Devillers blabbed on about today’s
safer society.

But with the election, those theatrics are in storage and new, get-tough
talk on minimum sentences take the stage. In reality, though, Cotler, an
intense opponent of minimum sentences, and Martin would rather choke
before they walk that walk. And the crooks know that, too.

As for Stephen Harper, his platform is clear. Mandatory minimums for
serious drug trafficking, weapon and violent offences. The end of
conditional sentences for violent, sexual and other serious offences.
Protection of citizens, especially women and children, through an
enhanced DNA data bank.

Harper says he recognizes that society has an obligation to at-risk
youth. He says he’ll shift resources from wasteful bureaucracies, like
the billion-dollar gun control program, to the front lines and offer
alternative opportunities and environments. He also says meaningful
consequences and punishment are part of that obligation. Sounds like
work. And sounds different from the current reality of being sentenced
to hang around the mall with your gang buddies.

Harper is on solid ground stating, “Our collective obligation is clear,
we want to make sure every young person in this country has the
opportunity to live in a safe environment, to grow up and become a
productive citizen who is neither a criminal or a victim of crime.”

Harper says, “We’ve got to put people who play by the rules first, not
the ones who break them.”

Compare that with Paul Martin, who in the wake of Toronto’s Boxing Day
massacre spouted off that “the tragic act” was committed by young people
who have felt marginalized and excluded by society.

A tightened justice system will make Canada a better country. Harper has
promised to get tough and make the criminal life far less appealing.

Helping those in conflict and preventing future crimes go hand in hand
with, but are not a substitute for, tough law enforcement.

Finally, Martin has promised to pay $250,000 to the families of police
killed in the line of duty. I guess he’s feeling guilty about letting
guns, drug and gangs flourish and creating a Canada more dangerous than
ever.

Martin has said time and again that his values are very different from
Harper’s.

Those values make it clear why the cons are voting Liberal.