Thursday, February 14, 2008

Holding them to account: The NDP

An interesting bit of serendipity struck me on Tuesday that I feel compelled to blog about. Apologies for taking a couple of days to post this, had midterm exams on Wednesday and earlier this morning.

Tuesday afternoon, Parliament moved to pass the Tackling Violent Crime Act (TVCA) onto the Senate for long-awaited approval and passage into law. While this process should have been completed months ago, the Liberal-dominated Senate stalled the legislation until Prime Minister Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson forced the issue into a confidence motion. A smart, cagey political move on their behalf. Regardless of political party, I think everyone should be on side with tougher legislation on violent crime.

The Liberals refused to vote on this bill, instead making a spectacle of their dissent and marching out of the House of Commons. Shame. Their classless, weak-kneed approach to such an important issue speaks volumes about their policies and inability to see past their own rhetoric in order to pass a fundamental piece of legislation. Are these really the people you want governing the nation?

My issue is with the NDP, as usual. They voted against this bill, the only party to officially do so. While I give them credit for at least standing up and voting, it is beyond comprehension why they would disapprove of tougher crime laws. Violent crime is violent crime no matter what ideology you subscribe to. Children deserve the protection of raising the age of consent to 16. Gun crimes are heinous and serve no purpose but to harm our society and should be treated with the utmost strength of the law. Apparently the NDP feel differently. That is the true shame in all of this.

Now on to my blog topic, holding the NDP to account. On the same day that the NDP voted against the TVCA, I received in the mail a piece of pre-campaign literature from the NDP MP of my Hamilton Mountain riding, Chris Charlton. While littered with standard NDP propaganda, I found a glaring contradiction within. On the front page is a photo of Charlton with a Hamilton Police officer at a fundraising dinner, ironically entitled 'Officers Need Assistance'. Yes, Ms. Charlton, officers do need assistance. Through tougher legislation on violent crimes, police officers would be able to do their jobs and take dangerous criminals off of our streets. Instead, the NDP and Ms. Charlton voted against the Tackling Violent Crimes Act. That is not assisting officers, Crown Attorneys, and society at all.

Then, inside the newsletter is an outright lie about Charlton's support for tougher crime legislation. "I was proud to support bills in the House which imposed mandatory minimum penalties for firearms crimes, raised the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years, and placed the onus on those accused of firearms offences to prove why they should receive bail." That is a complete falsehood. Well done, Ms. Charlton. You voted against the Tacking Violent Crimes Act.

Now, with a federal election looming, the challenge is for Hamilton Mountain voters to expose Ms. Charlton for who she really is: a dishonest, ineffective MP who does not represent the views of her constituents and goes as far as to insult people's intelligence in order to get herself elected.

After this past week, I'm glad I'll be in Arizona for the next 7 days to relax and be recharged for the election because I promise to go all-out to ensure that Chris Charlton is not re-elected.

-AB

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

One may argue that 'get tough' approaches and 'just deserts' are appropriate means for punishment, but being a critical criminologist, I disagree. One may argue that a society built on conservative-liberal values engenders crime. Mr. Buck has a fundamental flaw in his arguement, which is the assumption of individual rationality. One must look at the causes of certain phenomenon before making judgements based on the social construction of his middle-class reality. Any party which endorses this policy is misinformed about the true nature of crime.

Good bloggin buddy...keep it coming! I'm just responding for the sake of arguement.

Brad Remigis