My politics were all over the map during Mulroney's time in office. I remember going from thinking that Mulroney et al. were the devil incarnate to being one of the half-dozen Canadians who voted Conservative in the 1993 election. (My first and last time voting for that party.)
May I ask, what were your reasons for deciding to vote Conservative in 1993? Did your opinion on Mulroney change, or did his departure lead you to think the party had become more acceptable?
Looking back all I would say with certainly is that he was much better than what his successor party currently has on offer.
I am of the opinion that the Progressive Conservative Party would have (d)evolved into what the Conservative Party is now, with or without the formal schism. There was a shift in conservatism the world over, and Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, and now Doug Ford are all examples of neo-liberal populists who have managed to attain power under the old PC label.
And as my anecdote from Flanagan would seem to illustrate, Mulroney himself seems to have regarded the Harper Conservatives as his political heirs.
My politics were all over the map during Mulroney's time in office. I remember going from thinking that Mulroney et al. were the devil incarnate to being one of the half-dozen Canadians who voted Conservative in the 1993 election. (My first and last time voting for that party.)
May I ask, what were your reasons for deciding to vote Conservative in 1993? Did your opinion on Mulroney change, or did his departure lead you to think the party had become more acceptable?
Looking back all I would say with certainly is that he was much better than what his successor party currently has on offer.
I am of the opinion that the Progressive Conservative Party would have (d)evolved into what the Conservative Party is now, with or without the formal schism. There was a shift in conservatism the world over, and Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, and now Doug Ford are all examples of neo-liberal populists who have managed to attain power under the old PC label.
And as my anecdote from Flanagan would seem to illustrate, Mulroney himself seems to have regarded the Harper Conservatives as his political heirs.
As I say, my politics were all over the map during this time and generally more conservative in 1993 they were in 1984. That said, I recall the presenting issue was the deficit which it seemed the Liberals had no intention of doing anything about. I may well have been right about that at the time of the election but obviously events turned out otherwise.
Also, I had been in the States for about a year at the time doing my MA (I just happened to be home visiting my parents on Election Day) and I think it’s fair to say I wasn’t really in tune with the Zeitgeist of Canadian politics at the time.
I suspect part of the reason for the decline of the old PC party was that by say 2000 the centrist wing of the party wasn’t meaningfully different from centrist wing of the Liberals at a basic policy level, in terms of issues that people cared about.
As I say, my politics were all over the map during this time and generally more conservative in 1993 they were in 1984. That said, I recall the presenting issue was the deficit which it seemed the Liberals had no intention of doing anything about. I may well have been right about that at the time of the election but obviously events turned out otherwise.
It was ironic. There was a near moral-panic about Trudeau's deficits in the early 80s, and Mulroney came to power with macho rhetoric about administering "tough" fiscal measures, but it really wasn't until the Chretien regime, with Martin in finance, that any significant reversal took place.
I suspect part of the reason for the decline of the old PC party was that by say 2000 the centrist wing of the party wasn’t meaningfully different from centrist wing of the Liberals at a basic policy level, in terms of issues that people cared about.
The thing is, though, on certain files, especially related to social issues, Harper wasn't much more of a crusader than Mulroney was. He consistently vetoed his anti-choice caucus from presenting bills on reproduction related issues, even symbolic, softball endeavours like
"This House condemns abortion for purposes of sex-selection."
I think the most blatantly reactionary thing Harper did was propose that "barbaric practices" hotline. I'm guessing he wagered, correctly, that Canadians had more tolerance for anti-immigrant bigotry than for anti-woman or even anti-glbqt bigotry. But that bombed, at least partly because it ticked off multicultural groups.
Just saw the headline: Naheed Nenshi is running for leader of the Alberta NDP.
Wow. I'm on again/off again when it comes to following Alberta politics, but I'm still mildly chagrined to confess that I did not in any way see this coming. I DID think NN might try for a provincial ascension, but assumed it would be via something in the vicinity of the Liberals/Alberta Party/some re-grouping of the remnants etc.
As someone with a slightly more than superficial awareness a the Alberta NDP, I suspect he'll get a hit of pushback from the left; but can't really make any more detailed predictions than that.
Obviously, part of his sales-pitch will be a supposed ability to carry rodeo-burg. I have not much idea about his post-mayoralty reputation in that cosmopolis, but given his political skills, I'd suspect he's got a pretty realistic gauge of it himself.
And, in terms of invasive liberalism, how much worse can this be than Quebec Liberal Thomas "Thatcher did what needed to be done" Mulcair?
I was just going to say he dove head-long into the vat of Orange Crush.
All NN needs to do is say at least one positive thing about unions every day and he'll do OK. It wasn't that long ago that the Alberta NDP wasn't considered a prize at all.
ETA: Dippers only spike the Orange Crush with Jack Daniel's at victory parties. It's a cultural thing.
I was just going to say he dove head-long into the vat of Orange Crush.
Are you predicting a provincial Orange Crush in the next election? (No dog in this fight, myself. I'm pretty sketchy about the party's current fortunes, except that they seem likely to dominate the 'chuk for a while.
All NN needs to do is say at least one positive thing about unions every day and he'll do OK.
I wonder what his labour record as mayor was like. Presumably, worker-positive enough that he'd deem it not a major source of controversy. (Again, assuming Nenshi has above-average political skills.)
It wasn't that long ago that the Alberta NDP wasn't considered a prize at all.
I think it was in the late 80s, after the NDP had formed official opposition twice in a row, that there was even semi-wide speculation that the party could come to power. By the 2012 election, Rachel Notley was reduced to re-tweeting Brian Mason's plea for civility, as Redford and Smith duked it over the Lake Of Fire.
It's Canada. Since when does politics make any sense?
Well, yeah, but the time-line between the 2012 election and the 2015 election was especially odd, with a series of "Great Man" style events, each of which, I believe, pivoted things in a way that would not have happened if we were just relying on socioeconomic trends.
Just for starters, I truly believe that Alison Redford could still be premier today, with a hefty majority and the NDP confined to the low single digits, had she not had the brilliant idea to make the top of the old Federal Building into the so-called Sky Palace.
Then there was that mass floor-crossing of Wildrosers to the Tories, an event which I struggled to find a non-wartime precedent for in Canadian politics.
*snip*
ETA: Dippers only spike the Orange Crush with Jack Daniel's at victory parties. It's a cultural thing.
I have been reliably informed that Orange Crush benefitted by infusions of Seagram's Crown Royal, but my source may have been coloured by my informant's family background (a grandparent was employed by Sam Bronfman about a half-century ago). Fans of the Icelandic Canadian fact may enjoy knowing that it is still distilled with water from Gimli, Manitoba, the heart of the old West-Iceland Republic.
Five'll get ya ten the Cons make law-and-order a centerpiece of their campaign, what with car-thefts reportedly taking place everywhere, and the, shall we say, interesting bit of advice from the cop in T.O. about where to put the keys at night.
For an allusive jaunt down memory lane...
You're either with us, or you're with the home invaders!
Five'll get ya ten the Cons make law-and-order a centerpiece of their campaign, what with car-thefts reportedly taking place everywhere, and the, shall we say, interesting bit of advice from the cop in T.O. about where to put the keys at night.
That is not new advice, though, is it? I'm sure that when I was a young woman, so a good thirty years ago, someone advised women that if they were sleeping alone upstairs in a house they should leave their car keys on the stairs, so that would-be rapists would take the keys and steal their car, rather than continuing on up the stairs.
That shows a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of sex offenders - and a total lack of common sense generally. There is nothing stopping them carrying out assault and burglary *and* taking the car.
That shows a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of sex offenders - and a total lack of common sense generally. There is nothing stopping them carrying out assault and burglary *and* taking the car.
Yeah. Without getting too epiphanic, I think there are certain crimes where the criminal sets out to commit that particular act for a specific end, and is not likely to be distracted into abandoning that goal by being given the opportunity for another.
In the Toronto case, I could see the advice working IF a) he means leave it near the front door INSIDE your house, and b) getting your keys is the only reason the thief is breaking in.
IOW you weren't able to prevent the break-in to begin with, so having the keys near the door on the inside minimizes the amount of time the thief will spend in your house, and thus the chances for a confrontation.
But I guess if you're using a Faraday bag(something I've never heard of before), the idea is to have it outside your house, with the bag acting as a deterrent to any random person taking your keys, but still allowing a skilled thief to get them?
A Faraday bag blocks radio transmissions to and from an electronic device - I think the idea here is to prevent car thieves from standing near your house and using remote cloning technologies to clone a fob from your key fob. I think the concept is that the keys are still inside the house but readily accessible if someone actually manages to break in.
This seems to be an unintended consequence of the effectiveness of anti-theft technology - sometimes the easiest way to steal the car is to steal the fob, if necessary from inside the house, and some organizations are willing to take that risk despite the higher penalties if they get caught. But from the homeowner’s perspective if they are able to get into the house in the first place it is safer if they are in and out quickly once they have found what they are looking for.
Thanks. I need a crash-course on the issue. I really only just found out about it a month or so ago, when a casual friend got his car stolen in Montreal, which also happened to be the time I first noticed the issue being discussed in the media.
I'd be interested to know what specific policies Poilievre thinks Trudeau introduced that led to the upsurge in car thefts. I don't rule out progressive approaches to crime occassionally backfiring, but in this case, the connection seems pretty fabricated.
I heard a CBC Radio report stating yhe Police Chief saysthere w8s a car theft every 49 minutes in Toronto.
The Toronto Police Chief playing politics against see.
BTW I park outside all year and I have never had a problem here in Ottawa. Mind you the SPKmobile is 15 years old and not worth stealing.
Well, aren't alot of the cars shipped overseas and sold in relatively impoverished countries? I would think even an old clunker might still be seen as a status symbol over there, albeit maybe more among whatever exists of a middle class, rather than the elite.
...
I'd be interested to know what specific policies Poilievre thinks Trudeau introduced that led to the upsurge in car thefts....
The same policies that have led to the increase in other crimes. It's the soft on crime suite of measures introduced. Too many to mention. Just read the news from something other than the CBC or the Toronto Star. These include removal of minimum sentences, consideration of criminals' backgrounds from their childhood (or how their great grandfather was hard done by) when considering sentencing.
Crime will increase when the penalty does not discourage it.
...
I'd be interested to know what specific policies Poilievre thinks Trudeau introduced that led to the upsurge in car thefts....
The same policies that have led to the increase in other crimes. It's the soft on crime suite of measures introduced. Too many to mention. Just read the news from something other than the CBC or the Toronto Star. These include removal of minimum sentences, consideration of criminals' backgrounds from their childhood (or how their great grandfather was hard done by) when considering sentencing.
Crime will increase when the penalty does not discourage it.
But how many of those progressive measures would be applied to people involved in obvious for-profit organized crime?
And if by "consideration of criminals' backgrounds" you mean Gladue Reports, I thought those were only used in cases involving indigenous suspects. From what I've heard, that's not a demographic well represented in these car-heist gangs.
Gladue Reports have been in the Criminal Code since 1996. Harper did not repeal that section. Do you have any substantive objection or is this a knee-jerk reaction?
I don't know if t his is pertinent, but some years ago my late mother was "hosting" one of her lunches for former students ("hosting" because I was doing the cooking and prep). One was then the deputy chief peacekeeper on our local reserve and the other was a provincial constabulary detective. We were being regaled with policing tales and the question was put to them as to what would reduce criminal incidents. They both said that it had nothing to do with punishment, a factor to which the malefactors paid no attention, but it was to the high likelihood or not of being caught.
The desperadoes were certain that they were more clever than the law, and would melt into depression (and tears!!) when the authorities would collar them.
A former colleague who, entering into the private sector, was nailed for massive tax evasion, spoke to me of much the same. He was shocked when he was caught, and became physically ill. He told me that, in advance of his crime, he had not a clue about the punishment as he was certain he would get away with it. Given his age and health, he got house arrest (and a huge fine), but a very very very lucrative business (with annual income about 6 or 7 times his former salary) disappeared, as did many of his friends (and all of his once-influential wife's political contacts).
Offhand, I think the probability of getting caught (and convicted) is a major factor in deterrence and more important than slight differences in expected penalty. The thing is that the probability of getting caught is a product of many factors many of which are not easily controlled by the state. Whereas the state does have more control over the range of sentence after conviction.
I understand it’s quite difficult to measure the effect of increasing or decreasing sentences empirically. Though at an intuitive level if sentences are too low, this eventually becomes known to actual and potential criminal actors and they become nothing more than a cost of doing business (and also likely deterrent to investment of resources by law enforcement). To use an extreme example, if the expected sentence for stealing a $50K vehicle was a $5000 fine then vehicle ownership would likely become a largely theoretical concept.
I think the more organized and commercial the criminality is, the more it’s reasonable to assume that criminal actors are making a risk-benefit calculation, and the more it makes sense to impose higher sentences as deterrence. It’s harder to deter the first-time amateur, especially the amateur who has a run of good luck for a long time before getting caught.
Well, one of the arguments against capital punishment, is that one state - I think it was New Zealand - kept changing its mind and swung between life imprisonment and the death penalty. The change in penalty didn’t change the murder rate, (Though this may reflect that most murders aren’t planned, more an explosive loss of self control on the part of the perpetrator.)
Well, one of the arguments against capital punishment, is that one state - I think it was New Zealand - kept changing its mind and swung between life imprisonment and the death penalty. The change in penalty didn’t change the murder rate, (Though this may reflect that most murders aren’t planned, more an explosive loss of self control on the part of the perpetrator.)
Capital punishment has been abolished for a long time in Canada, but IIRC before it was abolished it was available only for first-degree murder, which in most (not all) circumstances has to be “planned and deliberate” killing. I don’t know if there was any measurable effect on the murder rate when it was formally abolished - one problem being that practically speaking death sentences were routinely being commuted for some time before that.
The last time capital-punishment was a significant issue in Canadian politics was in the early 80s, fueled in large part by outrage over Clifford Olson and his seemingly repulsive
cash-for-bodies deal
with the government.
This culminated in Mulroney promising the hangers a free vote on the issue, which was finally held in 1987, and which I watched on TV. Mulroney gave an eloquent speech against the death penalty, which many interpreted as carrying the day. (Though I suspect anti-hanging woulda won in any case.)
Shortly thereafter, the Reform Party made law-and-order an explicit part of their platform, but to no significant avail, and Stephen Harper never revisited the death penalty. Even though it's probably popular with a large majority of Conservatives, I suspect it has too much the whiff of "divisive social issue" and yankee-ism about it, relative to easy crowd-pleasers like stiffer-sentencing and reduced parole. Poilievre may or may not be gearing up to make car-swipers the Clifford Olson of the 2020s.
I remember the 1987 vote well (Hansard does not seem to have back files open before 1995 so I could not easily revive memories). I had friends working in Québec Tory MPs' offices and they told me that the gallows group had lobbied anglophone Tory MPs but seemed to have forgotten their francophone colleagues and were stunned by the negative vote. Feeling quite defeated and that they had lost in the most favourable situation imaginable, the death penalty seems to be buried for the foreseeable future.
I remember the 1987 vote well (Hansard does not seem to have back files open before 1995 so I could not easily revive memories). I had friends working in Québec Tory MPs' offices and they told me that the gallows group had lobbied anglophone Tory MPs but seemed to have forgotten their francophone colleagues and were stunned by the negative vote.
The Quebec contingent were a defining part of Mulroney's caucus(as a result of it being such a rarity for the tories to get anything in Quebec), so it seems odd that no one would think to lobby them. Maybe they assumed that Quececkers were all just a buncha bleeding-hearts, so what's the use anyway?
The most recent polls I've seen say that most Canadians still support the death-penalty. But Canada prob'ly stays sufficiently wedded to small-t toryism that most people will just go along with elite opinion on the matter.
Well, one of the arguments against capital punishment, is that one state - I think it was New Zealand - kept changing its mind and swung between life imprisonment and the death penalty. The change in penalty didn’t change the murder rate, (Though this may reflect that most murders aren’t planned, more an explosive loss of self control on the part of the perpetrator.)
Capital punishment has been abolished for a long time in Canada, but IIRC before it was abolished it was available only for first-degree murder, which in most (not all) circumstances has to be “planned and deliberate” killing. I don’t know if there was any measurable effect on the murder rate when it was formally abolished - one problem being that practically speaking death sentences were routinely being commuted for some time before that.
The split into first and second degree murder happened on the way to abolition, actually; it dates to 1961. Before that there was just one murder class (as there still is in England. it was the same law) and the penalty was death. Which often didn't happen as the sentence was frequently commuted to life in prison through the excise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. In 1961 murder was reclassified into capital and non-capital murder. Non-capital murder evolved into second degree murder and capital murder into first-degree murder after abolition in 1976.
I should add the number of wrongful murder convictions which piled up in the early 2000's dating to the 1970's (or 1950's in the case of Stephen Truscott) turned the Canadian public's appetite against the gallows or any other capital punishment. Better to let murders rot in prison, exhaust any appeals and cover wrongful convictions with cash settlements.
I should add the number of wrongful murder convictions which piled up in the early 2000's dating to the 1970's (or 1950's in the case of Stephen Truscott) turned the Canadian public's appetite against the gallows or any other capital punishment. Better to let murders rot in prison, exhaust any appeals and cover wrongful convictions with cash settlements.
According to a poll reported by CTV in March of 2023, 54% of Canadians support reinstating the death penalty.
Alberta, in line with beloved stereotypes, leads the way at 62%, though Manitoba and Saskatchewan, at 60%, and Ontario and BC, at 58%, aren't significantly lower. The only region where it seems to be a minority opinion is Quebec, with 43% support.
Of course, there is a difference between saying yes to the gallows on a survey, and actually having that as a pivotal influence on how you vote. I don't think there are many voters in the latter camp.
I don’t get the sense it’s really a live issue in Canada - nobody feels that strongly about bringing it back. And the Supreme Court has never had to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it’s clear from what they have said in other contexts that there’s no realistic possibility they would find it to be constitutional.
...the Supreme Court has never had to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it’s clear from what they have said in other contexts that there’s no realistic possibility they would find it to be constitutional.
That's a good point.
Theoretically, a government COULD reinstate the death-penalty, and then if presented with an unfavourable SCOC ruling, invoke Section 33. But I doubt that they would do that over a policy that the general public hadn't been pushing for to begin with.
...the Supreme Court has never had to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty, but it’s clear from what they have said in other contexts that there’s no realistic possibility they would find it to be constitutional.
That's a good point.
Theoretically, a government COULD reinstate the death-penalty, and then if presented with an unfavourable SCOC ruling, invoke Section 33. But I doubt that they would do that over a policy that the general public hadn't been pushing for to begin with.
When the vote on Capital punishment came up in the Commons, Trudeau said that if capital punishment were to be retained, he would make sure that there would be hangings. In my limited experience, most Canadians, when confronted with the hard facts of capital punishment, are reluctant to "pull the lever." Many may like the idea, but not the act. They are, in Nietzsche's turn of phrase, "pale criminals."
Interesting. I gather (from Wikipedia) that there was a formal moratorium on the use of capital punishment from about 1963 onward, so basically Trudeau was warning people that a vote in 1976 to retain capital punishment was not a vote for the status quo.
When the vote on Capital punishment came up in the Commons, Trudeau said that if capital punishment were to be retained, he would make sure that there would be hangings. In my limited experience, most Canadians, when confronted with the hard facts of capital punishment, are reluctant to "pull the lever." Many may like the idea, but not the act. They are, in Nietzsche's turn of phrase, "pale criminals."
Comments
May I ask, what were your reasons for deciding to vote Conservative in 1993? Did your opinion on Mulroney change, or did his departure lead you to think the party had become more acceptable?
I am of the opinion that the Progressive Conservative Party would have (d)evolved into what the Conservative Party is now, with or without the formal schism. There was a shift in conservatism the world over, and Ralph Klein, Mike Harris, and now Doug Ford are all examples of neo-liberal populists who have managed to attain power under the old PC label.
And as my anecdote from Flanagan would seem to illustrate, Mulroney himself seems to have regarded the Harper Conservatives as his political heirs.
As I say, my politics were all over the map during this time and generally more conservative in 1993 they were in 1984. That said, I recall the presenting issue was the deficit which it seemed the Liberals had no intention of doing anything about. I may well have been right about that at the time of the election but obviously events turned out otherwise.
Also, I had been in the States for about a year at the time doing my MA (I just happened to be home visiting my parents on Election Day) and I think it’s fair to say I wasn’t really in tune with the Zeitgeist of Canadian politics at the time.
I suspect part of the reason for the decline of the old PC party was that by say 2000 the centrist wing of the party wasn’t meaningfully different from centrist wing of the Liberals at a basic policy level, in terms of issues that people cared about.
It was ironic. There was a near moral-panic about Trudeau's deficits in the early 80s, and Mulroney came to power with macho rhetoric about administering "tough" fiscal measures, but it really wasn't until the Chretien regime, with Martin in finance, that any significant reversal took place.
The thing is, though, on certain files, especially related to social issues, Harper wasn't much more of a crusader than Mulroney was. He consistently vetoed his anti-choice caucus from presenting bills on reproduction related issues, even symbolic, softball endeavours like
I think the most blatantly reactionary thing Harper did was propose that "barbaric practices" hotline. I'm guessing he wagered, correctly, that Canadians had more tolerance for anti-immigrant bigotry than for anti-woman or even anti-glbqt bigotry. But that bombed, at least partly because it ticked off multicultural groups.
Wow. I'm on again/off again when it comes to following Alberta politics, but I'm still mildly chagrined to confess that I did not in any way see this coming. I DID think NN might try for a provincial ascension, but assumed it would be via something in the vicinity of the Liberals/Alberta Party/some re-grouping of the remnants etc.
As someone with a slightly more than superficial awareness a the Alberta NDP, I suspect he'll get a hit of pushback from the left; but can't really make any more detailed predictions than that.
Obviously, part of his sales-pitch will be a supposed ability to carry rodeo-burg. I have not much idea about his post-mayoralty reputation in that cosmopolis, but given his political skills, I'd suspect he's got a pretty realistic gauge of it himself.
And, in terms of invasive liberalism, how much worse can this be than Quebec Liberal Thomas "Thatcher did what needed to be done" Mulcair?
All NN needs to do is say at least one positive thing about unions every day and he'll do OK. It wasn't that long ago that the Alberta NDP wasn't considered a prize at all.
ETA: Dippers only spike the Orange Crush with Jack Daniel's at victory parties. It's a cultural thing.
Are you predicting a provincial Orange Crush in the next election? (No dog in this fight, myself. I'm pretty sketchy about the party's current fortunes, except that they seem likely to dominate the 'chuk for a while.
I wonder what his labour record as mayor was like. Presumably, worker-positive enough that he'd deem it not a major source of controversy. (Again, assuming Nenshi has above-average political skills.)
I think it was in the late 80s, after the NDP had formed official opposition twice in a row, that there was even semi-wide speculation that the party could come to power. By the 2012 election, Rachel Notley was reduced to re-tweeting Brian Mason's plea for civility, as Redford and Smith duked it over the Lake Of Fire.
Then a buncha weird shit happened...
Well, yeah, but the time-line between the 2012 election and the 2015 election was especially odd, with a series of "Great Man" style events, each of which, I believe, pivoted things in a way that would not have happened if we were just relying on socioeconomic trends.
Just for starters, I truly believe that Alison Redford could still be premier today, with a hefty majority and the NDP confined to the low single digits, had she not had the brilliant idea to make the top of the old Federal Building into the so-called Sky Palace.
Then there was that mass floor-crossing of Wildrosers to the Tories, an event which I struggled to find a non-wartime precedent for in Canadian politics.
Just saw that Gil McGowan is running for the leadership as well. I'm gonna assume that, right now, he's got more default labour support than Nenshi.
I have been reliably informed that Orange Crush benefitted by infusions of Seagram's Crown Royal, but my source may have been coloured by my informant's family background (a grandparent was employed by Sam Bronfman about a half-century ago). Fans of the Icelandic Canadian fact may enjoy knowing that it is still distilled with water from Gimli, Manitoba, the heart of the old West-Iceland Republic.
Well, I guess I need to keep up more. Makes sense that it wouldn't be coming just out of the blue, I suppose.
aka the Unitarian Rome. (Well, for the prairies, anyway)
For an allusive jaunt down memory lane...
You're either with us, or you're with the home invaders!
I hesitate to ask, but where?
Officer at Etobicoke town hall advises car keys should be...
Thank you.
Yeah. Without getting too epiphanic, I think there are certain crimes where the criminal sets out to commit that particular act for a specific end, and is not likely to be distracted into abandoning that goal by being given the opportunity for another.
In the Toronto case, I could see the advice working IF a) he means leave it near the front door INSIDE your house, and b) getting your keys is the only reason the thief is breaking in.
IOW you weren't able to prevent the break-in to begin with, so having the keys near the door on the inside minimizes the amount of time the thief will spend in your house, and thus the chances for a confrontation.
But I guess if you're using a Faraday bag(something I've never heard of before), the idea is to have it outside your house, with the bag acting as a deterrent to any random person taking your keys, but still allowing a skilled thief to get them?
This seems to be an unintended consequence of the effectiveness of anti-theft technology - sometimes the easiest way to steal the car is to steal the fob, if necessary from inside the house, and some organizations are willing to take that risk despite the higher penalties if they get caught. But from the homeowner’s perspective if they are able to get into the house in the first place it is safer if they are in and out quickly once they have found what they are looking for.
That all makes sense, yeah.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/organized-crime-s-system-for-stealing-cars-transcript-1.7112360
Thanks. I need a crash-course on the issue. I really only just found out about it a month or so ago, when a casual friend got his car stolen in Montreal, which also happened to be the time I first noticed the issue being discussed in the media.
I'd be interested to know what specific policies Poilievre thinks Trudeau introduced that led to the upsurge in car thefts. I don't rule out progressive approaches to crime occassionally backfiring, but in this case, the connection seems pretty fabricated.
The Toronto Police Chief playing politics against see.
BTW I park outside all year and I have never had a problem here in Ottawa. Mind you the SPKmobile is 15 years old and not worth stealing.
Well, aren't alot of the cars shipped overseas and sold in relatively impoverished countries? I would think even an old clunker might still be seen as a status symbol over there, albeit maybe more among whatever exists of a middle class, rather than the elite.
But I honestly don't know.
Sober Preacher's Kia?
Ah, I see. But it wouldn't have fit the change-one-letter game I had goin' on.
The same policies that have led to the increase in other crimes. It's the soft on crime suite of measures introduced. Too many to mention. Just read the news from something other than the CBC or the Toronto Star. These include removal of minimum sentences, consideration of criminals' backgrounds from their childhood (or how their great grandfather was hard done by) when considering sentencing.
Crime will increase when the penalty does not discourage it.
But how many of those progressive measures would be applied to people involved in obvious for-profit organized crime?
And if by "consideration of criminals' backgrounds" you mean Gladue Reports, I thought those were only used in cases involving indigenous suspects. From what I've heard, that's not a demographic well represented in these car-heist gangs.
The desperadoes were certain that they were more clever than the law, and would melt into depression (and tears!!) when the authorities would collar them.
A former colleague who, entering into the private sector, was nailed for massive tax evasion, spoke to me of much the same. He was shocked when he was caught, and became physically ill. He told me that, in advance of his crime, he had not a clue about the punishment as he was certain he would get away with it. Given his age and health, he got house arrest (and a huge fine), but a very very very lucrative business (with annual income about 6 or 7 times his former salary) disappeared, as did many of his friends (and all of his once-influential wife's political contacts).
I understand it’s quite difficult to measure the effect of increasing or decreasing sentences empirically. Though at an intuitive level if sentences are too low, this eventually becomes known to actual and potential criminal actors and they become nothing more than a cost of doing business (and also likely deterrent to investment of resources by law enforcement). To use an extreme example, if the expected sentence for stealing a $50K vehicle was a $5000 fine then vehicle ownership would likely become a largely theoretical concept.
I think the more organized and commercial the criminality is, the more it’s reasonable to assume that criminal actors are making a risk-benefit calculation, and the more it makes sense to impose higher sentences as deterrence. It’s harder to deter the first-time amateur, especially the amateur who has a run of good luck for a long time before getting caught.
Capital punishment has been abolished for a long time in Canada, but IIRC before it was abolished it was available only for first-degree murder, which in most (not all) circumstances has to be “planned and deliberate” killing. I don’t know if there was any measurable effect on the murder rate when it was formally abolished - one problem being that practically speaking death sentences were routinely being commuted for some time before that.
This culminated in Mulroney promising the hangers a free vote on the issue, which was finally held in 1987, and which I watched on TV. Mulroney gave an eloquent speech against the death penalty, which many interpreted as carrying the day. (Though I suspect anti-hanging woulda won in any case.)
Shortly thereafter, the Reform Party made law-and-order an explicit part of their platform, but to no significant avail, and Stephen Harper never revisited the death penalty. Even though it's probably popular with a large majority of Conservatives, I suspect it has too much the whiff of "divisive social issue" and yankee-ism about it, relative to easy crowd-pleasers like stiffer-sentencing and reduced parole. Poilievre may or may not be gearing up to make car-swipers the Clifford Olson of the 2020s.
The Quebec contingent were a defining part of Mulroney's caucus(as a result of it being such a rarity for the tories to get anything in Quebec), so it seems odd that no one would think to lobby them. Maybe they assumed that Quececkers were all just a buncha bleeding-hearts, so what's the use anyway?
The most recent polls I've seen say that most Canadians still support the death-penalty. But Canada prob'ly stays sufficiently wedded to small-t toryism that most people will just go along with elite opinion on the matter.
The split into first and second degree murder happened on the way to abolition, actually; it dates to 1961. Before that there was just one murder class (as there still is in England. it was the same law) and the penalty was death. Which often didn't happen as the sentence was frequently commuted to life in prison through the excise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. In 1961 murder was reclassified into capital and non-capital murder. Non-capital murder evolved into second degree murder and capital murder into first-degree murder after abolition in 1976.
I should add the number of wrongful murder convictions which piled up in the early 2000's dating to the 1970's (or 1950's in the case of Stephen Truscott) turned the Canadian public's appetite against the gallows or any other capital punishment. Better to let murders rot in prison, exhaust any appeals and cover wrongful convictions with cash settlements.
According to a poll reported by CTV in March of 2023, 54% of Canadians support reinstating the death penalty.
Alberta, in line with beloved stereotypes, leads the way at 62%, though Manitoba and Saskatchewan, at 60%, and Ontario and BC, at 58%, aren't significantly lower. The only region where it seems to be a minority opinion is Quebec, with 43% support.
Of course, there is a difference between saying yes to the gallows on a survey, and actually having that as a pivotal influence on how you vote. I don't think there are many voters in the latter camp.
That's a good point.
Theoretically, a government COULD reinstate the death-penalty, and then if presented with an unfavourable SCOC ruling, invoke Section 33. But I doubt that they would do that over a policy that the general public hadn't been pushing for to begin with.
Yes, exactly.
Gloomy topic @Pangolin Guerre but welcome back!