Why is "doing the time" so wrong?

Canada’s opposition parties just don’t get it.

Ordinary law-abiding people are tired of hearing about sex offenders released from prison just in time to target another child. We hate reading in the news about a guy arrested for stealing a car who sits in jail for a couple of hours and then gets back on the street to steal another one.

And we are really, really sick of convicted criminals of serious crimes who, instead of receiving hard jail time, get an ankle bracelet and house arrest.

I know that we aren’t supposed to think like this in kinder, gentler Canada but if bad guys do the crime, frankly, they should do the time.

And if they are whining the jails are too crowded, too bad.

Criminals and their pals should get used to sharing a bed if they insist on breaking the rules that the rest of us manage to follow.

Just this week, NDP, Liberal and Bloc Quebecois Members of Parliament from the House of Commons Justice Committee decided to gut the new Conservative crime bill.

This new law included such controversial elements as minimum mandatory sentences for gun crimes, limits on house arrest for serious crimes and automatic dangerous offender classification for criminals on their third spin through the justice system.

Hmm, I don’t know about you, but these seem pretty common sense to me.

The NDP and Liberals have decided that house arrest is appropriate for serious crimes and want to allow judges the right to impose it when they feel that the criminal shouldn’t face the music because of whatever pathetic justification his or her lawyers trot out.

Hurt someone else, destroy a child, ruin property and do it over and over again, or with a gun - hard jail time sounds pretty good to me. I don’t care how drug addicted you are or how awful your childhood was – sit in jail until you figure out that hurting others won’t fix your own pain.

Academics and others admit that the new crime bill will protect people and our property but they are afraid it will make it harder to bring the bad guys to the good side of the force.

They would rather follow them around after the crime spree and sugar coat the damage done to their victims.

The guy that broke into our house and stole my grandmother’s jewelry – nothing expensive, but oh so valuable to me – was a pro. He did it all the time. And guess what, after his next court appearance, I’m sure your house or apartment could be next.

Let’s give judges the tools to lock these guys up – four to a cell if necessary. It might hurt their precious feelings, but at least the rest of us will be safe for another night.

As seen today in 24 hours

Taking Back Birth

Women who have caesarean sections for the births of their babies are more likely to end up with future ectopic pregnancies and stillbirths, issues around infertility, and increased newborn breathing difficulty.

These major side-effects don’t seem to stop the growing number of BC women handing over the most important physical moment in their lives to their obstetricians who blind following a medical program rather than standing up for normal birth.

Driven by fear, women have bought into the “as long as the baby is healthy” mantra espoused by doctors too impatient to allow births to unfold as they should.

The World Health Organization thinks that 10-15% maximum of all births warrant a caesaren section. In Vancouver, the rate is 27% - almost one in the three births is conducted as surgery, rather than a loving, natural experience. In some BC communities, the rate is over 40%.

Dr. Jan Christilaw from BC Women’s Hospital spoke earlier this year at a conference aiming to get to the bottom of this sad phenomenon. She feels that women are scared of birth and because of this fear, they are more likely agree to drugs to speed up labour and numb the pain.

Known as a “cascade of interventions”, this scenario often ends up in a c-section for the mother, giving her permanent physical and psychological damage.

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard women announce that they refuse to labour without an epidural not knowing the negative outcomes that could flow from this choice.

Doctors care more about getting the birth done quickly than supporting a woman emotionally through the most amazing experience in her life. If they could knock us out completely, as they did during the 1950s, it would make their jobs much easier.

Due to this approach, less than 45% of women believe birth is a natural process that should be left alone. The path to normal birth isn’t like following a road map, it unfolds like a story, with unexpected plot twists.

Unfortunately, many doctors want a predicable straight line and aren’t trained nor have the patience to just let it happen, no matter how long it takes.

According to Dr. Christilaw, the main factor that predicts c-section rates is the obstetrician. Some doctors have rates as low as 8% and others are way above even our high provincial average.

Pregnant mothers need to shop around for an obstetrician with a low c-section rate. Or better yet, look into midwifery care which, using standards supportive of womens’ needs and a different understanding of birth, reduces much of the fear and pain that can lead to unnecessary caesarean sections.

This week Canadian midwives are meeting in Ottawa for their annual conference. More information about the midwifery option in Canada can be found at: www.canadianmidwives.org


Published today in 24 Hours Daily

It isn't easy being green

Mandatory curbs on carbon dioxide, tax credits for leaving the car at home and funding for the development of renewable fuels.

These announcements from…drum roll… the Conservatives? I don’t blame you for being confused, especially since you’ve been told over and over how the Federals Liberals and Greens are the official environmental stewards of Canada.

Of course the Liberals fail to mention under their watch there was a 31% increase over Canada’s targets under the mangled Kyoto Accord, that air quality declined in all major Canadian cities and that Canada slid in a spectacular fashion to 28 out of 29 in the OECD’s pollution rankings.

But this week’s announcement in Vancouver by Harper flies in the face of the “green police” rhetoric.

Let’s not forget that Canada’s greenest Prime Minister was none other than the much-maligned Brian Mulroney. Awarded by Corporate Knights, the honour demonstrates that when it comes to action on environmental and pollution issues, you are better off with a Conservative government.

Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party was unstinting in her praise for Mulroney, who she says focused on the environment by signing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, finalizing an acid-rain treaty and establishing the $3 billion Green Plan.

Apparently Ms. May only has nice things to say about former Prime Ministers, because she sure ripped into Harpers’ new Clean Air Act.

In a disingenuous opinion article printed yesterday she completely ignores the new mandatory emission standards, like those found in California, and pretends this Act sidesteps the Canadian government’s commitment to greenhouse gas reduction.

Clever politics, Ms. May, but blatantly and purposely inaccurate. Too bad you were willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of partisan play.

The new Act deals with pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions together – as they should be – not in the isolation they’ve been handled in the past.

The biggest source of emissions come in the form of carbon dioxide and sulpher dioxide from vehicles. Mandatory standards will go a long way to reduce these.

How I can tell that this is the right move? The Ontario auto industry is crying the blues about the new rules.

There is an old saying that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

The Conservatives have been clear from the beginning that the Kyoto Protocol was a pipe-dream. Now they’ve brought this act, in addition to rules dealing with mercury release, environment land banking and reductions on release of toxic substances from base metal smelters.

No doubt Elizabeth May is justifiable angry that the Conservatives have stolen pages from her policy book. I just wonder if she’ll sing the praises of Stephen Harper when he gets his green PM award.

As seen today in 24 Hours

Just because all your friends are doing it, doesn't make it smart

Just as the Commonwealth was formed to keep its colonies aligned globally with Great Britain, La Francophonie was established in 1970 as a way to foster cooperation among states with some French heritage and protect the vestiges of France’s imperialist past.

There are 53 member countries, 2 associate members and 13 observers, all with various levels of French culture, language or historic ties. Canada, as a country is a member, as are the governments of New Brunswick and Quebec.

Canada has always been an important player at La Francophonie meetings, partly as a sop to our own French-linked population in Quebec, and partly because we offer both British and French pasts in an increasingly mono-culture world.

Generally at its biannual meetings, La Francophonie devotes itself with topics including arts and culture and development opportunities among its very poorest members, including Rawanda and the Congo.

However, at this year’s meeting in Bucharest, Romania, members of La Francophonie presented a resolution calling for support for Lebanese citizens from this summer’s mini-war between Hezbollah/Lebanon and Israel.

That’s right. The motion, led by Eygpt, called for alignment with Lebanon and, effectively, censure for Israel.

Stephen Harper, attending the conference, was having none of it.

Let’s remember that both sides experienced deaths during July and August– the only difference was the Israeli army didn’t hide out in civilian bedrooms, like Hezbollah.

Harper took a strong stance and forced a compromise expressing the suffering of all people in war is wrong, regardless of their nationality or religion. The revised resolution was accepted unanimously, though grave reservations were expressed by Egypt and Lebanon.

Reading through the left-wing blogs, you’d think that Stephen Harper, in suggesting both sides had suffered during the conflict, had personally held a gun to the heads of Lebanese children.

His impassioned appeal for intervention in the Sudan, as well as Canada’s contributions to the discussions in education and technology were brushed over.

Stephen Harper questioned the anti-Israel bias of the international community. What kind of Canadian does that?

Well, for starters, one that isn’t going to bow down to world pressure. It takes guts to go in front of 68 world leaders and say no. Canada was the only one who raised issue of equal suffering, which says more about the other countries, frankly, than anything else.

This meeting afforded us another glimpse into Stephen Harper, the Prime-Minister.
And it showed very clearly that he’s a guy that will take the hard, unpopular road – if it’s the right way forward.

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.