Back from the Dead

After a protracted absence, I will force myself to put down a blog entry today.  No explanations, no apologies.

Alright.  I'm sorry and lots has been happening.

When last I was here there was a federal election and since that time we've also not elected a new premier.  The Conservatives have formed a majority at the federal level and we haven't practiced democracy in Alberta, well... ever.  Let's do a quick bitch about things as they stand.

As feared, and when you fear what the government will do it usually means the government's going to do something fearful, the Progressive (sic) Conservative government in Ottawa is moving ahead with its omnibus crime bill, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.  Since crime in Canada is at a 40 year low the time is right to increase the number of people convicted of crimes and to remove discretion from judges.

Or maybe crime isn't at a 40 year low.

Sad to say, but this government has already shown no compunction about behaving like a collection of politicians, namely by lying to the public about the state of the nation.  I remember well how the Conservatives jumped on the opposition parties for suggesting that Canada was vulnerable to slipping into a recession during the federal election of 2008.  It was suggested that just talking about a recession was irresponsible since Canada was sound economically, but not so sound that it could withstand talk of a recession.  It was also suggested that the only reason the opposition was talking about a recession was for partisan gain, that there was no reason economically for Canada to fall into a recession.

I would love to hear the partisans explanation for the recession that almost immediately followed the election.  I'm sure it wasn't the fault of and Progressive Conservative policies and that no one could have foreseen its arrival.

On the first part, that it wasn't the fault of Harper's policies, I mostly agree.  I would be remiss, however, if I didn't point out that this wasn't due to a lack of trying on Harper's part.  When the PC's were part of the opposition at the beginning of the century they argued for policies that would deregulate Canadian banks allowing them to do the same speculative gambling that crashed the world economy.  The reason that Canada has done so well to avoid the worst of this recession is because we didn't deregulate the Canadian banks.  If Harper had been Prime Minister then I'm sure Canadian banks would have fallen along with a greater part of the Canadian economy.

This becomes especially ironic when one considers how much credit Harper has claimed for the strength of the economy to weather this recession.  The economy was strong precisely because Harper didn't have the power to deregulate at the start of the 21st century.  He actually opposed the policies that have kept us stronger!  When it comes to taking credit, however, he takes the "heads we win, tails you lose" philosophy to heart.  Forget that he advocated policies to crash the economy, he was Prime Minister when his failure to gut regulations paid off, so he takes the credit for not succeeding in crashing our economy.

This is becoming relevant again today as Harper demands that the EU take steps to avoid making their recession, and by extension our recession, worse.  Of course, the solutions he advocates are more ideological than effective.  Also, it's no longer dangerous for them to talk about a recession.  Probably because the election's over.

Returning the the crime bill, it's possible that the federal government has been fudging crime statistics for years in order to paint a more controlled picture it can use for elections and that our crime rate is higher than the government has tried to paint it.  This interpretation wouldn't be unjustified by the behaviour of the PC's or the Liberals.

That leaves us with two choices.  One, crime is higher than the government had acknowledged, which means the government has been knowingly lying to the people of this country for partisan gain (okay, that should read as "the government has been continuing to knowingly lie") and it can confidently make arguments for actions that contradict themselves without much opposition.  Two, the crime rate is low and the government is ignoring this in order to push an ideological agenda against the best interests of the nation.

There could be more choices that I'm unaware of, but I feel safe in limiting it to either they lie about crime in order to push their agenda, or they lie about crime in order to push their agenda.  Either way, instead of making progress, something a "Progressive Conservative" party should support, we're being asked to be regressive, to increase penalties for non-violent and essentially harmless activities, to reform the judicial system to remove judicial discretion and to make it less likely that the majority of sexual assault victims won't report the crimes because the perpetrators, usually people closely related, will face major jail time with no discretion allowable by the government.

A solution to a non-existent problem.  Could be the definition of "ideological"  from The Devil's Dictionary.

One last observation.

The Conservatives have been touting their elimination of the long gun registry and particularly pointing out that, in their view, it criminalized "law-abiding citizens".  They've consistently hammered home the point that it was an intrusion into peoples privacy (their right to own a gun that the government can't trace), didn't make society any safer and made it too easy for an innocent farmer to fall on the wrong side of the law by forgetting to register their rifle.

One of the parts of this crime bill that was thankfully withdrawn, although I'm sure we'll see it again, was the provision for making it easier for law enforcement to monitor internet communications.  It sure seems funny that they don't make the same arguments about this intrusion upon our freedom that they make for the long gun registry.  Apparently, intruding upon people's privacy is only an issue if it involves firearms.  Apparently, the ease with which an individual could fall on the wrong side of the law is only an issue when it involves firearms.  When it comes to protecting people right to anonymously own devices capable of killing people the government will show no restraint, the same non-restraint they show when it comes to violating their communications or entertainment.