24 November 2010

Call me wacky... but I'm thinkin' I've got...

...a pretty good idea who Clifford, Willie, Paul & Russell will be voting for...libs & dippers

-- OTTAWA -- A bill to do away with the faint hope clause that allows murderers like notorious B.C. serial killer Clifford Olson to apply for parole has been sent packing from the House of Commons.

Opposition parties joined forces late Tuesday to pass a series of amendments to Bill S-6.
Seriously, Mr. Ignatieff? You're coming down on the side of convicted killers?

Convicted serial killers?!?!
The Liberals proposed the five amendments and secured the support of the Bloc Quebecois and NDP to pass four of the motions over Conservative objections.

NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said that while his party supported the bill initially, they have changed their minds and want to keep the faint hope clause.

“The system as it is now works. It’s as close to a perfect system as there is when dealing with rehabilitation,” Comartin said.
Well, it's official... Stephane Dion has been supplanted as the "Rainman" of Canadian politics.


19 comments:

Michael Harkov said...

You know Neo, I realize that I may seem like a broken record posting this link every couple of weeks or so, but it is stories like these that you've just posted that, well goshdarnit, keep it relevant -
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/elxn_prisoners_vote_060111/20060113?s_name=election2006&no_ads

I mean really, a jail-bird shaving a red Liberal "L" on the side of his head? Gee, I wonder if Jeff Power supports these amendments benfiting him and his peers. Locking up (pun?) the criminal demographic vote? Liberals coming through for criminals again. Business as usual.

Pissedoff said...

Kicks any idea of a Bloc/Tory coalition out the window. But shows the coalition of the stupid still alive.

The statement by Comartin just shows how dumb these people are if they think the system works.

Chris said...

This provision of the criminal code would not apply to "Clifford, Willie, Paul & Russell" as they are serving for more than one murder.

Neo Conservative said...

*
chris... you could reassure me about that by pointing to the place you sourced that info.

regardless... i'm gonna be a spoilsport and ask... you're okay with a "faint hope clause" for non-serial killers?

what... like the first human life you snuff out... is deductible?

i don't get it.

*

Chris said...

Look to Criminal Code of Canada 745.6(1). The exception is 745.6(2)

You don't have to get it, the exception is very clear.

Neo Conservative said...

*
chris... seeing as you have it to hand... the url and the relevant passage please.

and again... the first murder... in your humble opinion, anyway... is deductible?

*

Chris said...

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/index.html

Under "Sentencing"

What does my opinion of the CCC have to do with your inaccurate posting?

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry, chris... your link has absolutely no information on the faint hope clause.

i mean... you thought i wouldn't check?

if you have the url AND the relevant info... please post them.

and once again... the first murder... in your humble opinion, anyway... is deductible?

c'mon... let's have your "a" game.

*

Chris said...

Well, you didn't check any information before putting up an inaccurate post.

The link I provided is the Criminal Code. Its all there.

You have posted about the Criminal Code before, so I assumed you know how to find sections within the code. They are in numeric order.

You do know that the criminal code does not 'name' the clauses, right? The term "faint hope clause" is an informal term that people use to indicate section 745.6 You won't find that term in the code.

In any event - here is a discussion paper on it: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/J2-291-2001E.pdf

So, are you going to acknowledge your mistake or are you going to hold firm and redirect?

Neo Conservative said...

*
sure chris... your proof is the canadian criminal code. you'll forgive me if i wanna have some evidence of that, right?

i just wanna see it in writing... and you won't provide the url AND the source material... or answer a simple question.

see... "because i say so" isn't an argument.

you're still a little pissed from that last little trolling expedition, aren't you?

c'mon, chris... all i'm asking is that you educate me.

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
oops... deleted some comments by mistake.

pls repost.

*

Chris said...

The Section numbers were given.

The link to the criminal code too.

A link to a government discussion paper on the "faint hope clause" was also provided. It stated 745.6(1) and (2).

I am not sure what better 'source' there is than the actual legislation.

If you are looking for some other 'proof' that the 'faint hope clause' actually is S. 745.6 just google 'faint hope clause' and 'criminal code of canada' (link: www.google.ca)

So (again) will you admit you are wrong or are going to hold firm and redirect?

Neo Conservative said...

*
hang on, chris... what you're saying is... x2+y3=z... and if you don't believe me... google it? they teach you that one on the high school debating team?

and, look... you forgot that other question yet again.

so tell me, chris... is that first murder deductible?

*

Chris said...

NC - this is a debate? Did you read the links? Your posting indicated that the faint hope clause applies to serial killers. The actual legislation expressly states that it does not.

A serial killer cannot apply for early release under this clause. Its not an argument, its in the legislation.

Its not entirely your fault as the Sun did not get that correct either.

As well, if you read the legislation, there is no 'deductible' or other similar language - if the convict fits the requirements he or she may apply but not necessarily be granted early release.

The question you should be asking is based on data: how many convicts who have made application have actually succeeded under the faint hope clause. I bet the answer to that would be interesting.

Neo Conservative said...

*
no chris... it's not even close to a debate.

more like the little kid who runs up somebody's porch, shouts a name through a window... and runs away.

even a high school essay requires footnotes.

*

Chris said...

So - did you read any of it?

Neo Conservative said...

*
i like that you're so engaged here, chris, but i'm still waitin' for that url and an answer to my question.

educate us, master yoda.

*

Chris said...

I did send the links and they have all the information (especially http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/J2-291-2001E.pdf) did you read any of it?

Neo Conservative said...

*
chris... i'm really looking forward to your letter to the editor of the montreal gazette...

OTTAWA — Clifford Olson, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, is scheduled to go before a parole board in Quebec on Tuesday to plead for release from prison.

It will be the third hearing for Olson, now 70. And while there is little chance he will succeed, he is entitled to be heard every two years. His hearing comes at a time when the federal Conservatives are trying to eliminate regular parole hearings for serial killers.

Olson also appeared before the board in 1997, seeking release under Canada's seldom-used "faint hope clause" which allows murderers a slim chance of release for good behaviour. A bill to eliminate a chance of early release is currently winding its way through Parliament.

Another bill, recently introduced by the Conservative government, could make multiple murderers and serial killers ineligible for parole for their entire lives.


go get 'em, boy.

*