your lying eyes

At some point, someone is going to have a fun time explaining why it is that Canadian politicians and members of the professional commentariat seem congenitally incapable of telling the truth about our crime rates.  Lies and obfuscation are the order of the day, and seemingly nothing, but nothing, can change the received narrative.

Take, f'rinstance, Chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission (and also member of Toronto city council), Adam Giambrone, as quoted in today's Globe and Mail:

A series of muggings at subway stations in recent weeks is not a sign that crime on the public transit system is getting out of control, Toronto Transit Commission officials say. ... TTC chairman Adam Giambrone acknowledged that the list of reported crimes - including an incident at Kennedy Station on Tuesday afternoon when four young men attacked two others over a cellphone - was longer than he would expect. "My understanding is that crime is not growing exponentially. But at the commission, we have various security issues," Mr. Giambrone said, adding that he is notified of every incident. "Proportionately," he said, "I believe crime is actually steady or falling on the system."

Sure, what the hell - "steady or falling".  Except, as you should expect, the TTC's own statistics show that crime on the system is rising, and rather rapidly, at that:

While the TTC would not release figures for 2007, the crime rate on the transit system rose in 2006. The agency recorded 1,601 crimes of all descriptions against passengers in 2006, for a crime rate of 0.36 crimes per 100,000 riders, an increase from 0.29 in 2005 and 0.24 in 2004. The rates more than double when crimes against TTC staff are included.

So... the crime rate has increased, what, roughly 50% from 2004?  But, hey, pay no attention to those squiggly little lines - it's "steady or falling".

Giambrone could be forgiven, however, if he's been getting his cues from reading the paper - because innumeracy, or lack of reading comprehension, seems to be the order of the day.  You will recall that recently the Harper government recently introduced a criminal justice bill which would, horrors, make obtaining bail harder to achieve in the case of serious gun crimes, introduce additional mandatory minimums for gun crimes and impose a reverse onus on dangerous offenders.  This engendered much sneering from the commentariat, who harrumphed that crime was actually "going down", so this was all fear-mongering by the Conservatives.  Problem is, in making their argument, they engaged in misdirection of the most mendacious sort (how's that for alliteration?).  Let's pick columns from a few different points on the political spectrum, to demonstrate how pervasive the highly politicized narrative is.

Start with Dan Gardner, writing in the Ottawa Citizen:

They have said for years that crime is a growing menace and the streets are being overrun by -- as Mr. Harper likes to say -- "guns, gangs and drugs." This is nonsense, but they claim to believe it.

What did the Toronto Star's James Travers have to say about the matter?

Most recently, and with exquisite timing, [Statistics Canada's] abacus wizards trumped the throne speech by reporting the homicide rate is continuing its happy downward spiral.  Combined with July findings that the overall crime rate is at a 25-year low, that should have poked a hole in the Conservative hot air justice balloon. Truth is, facts don't matter.

Howzabout law professor Alan Young, writing in Toronto's NOW Magazine:

Should we be surprised that Stephen Harper’s omnibus Tackling Violent Crime bill was introduced the same week that StatsCan reported a 10 per cent decrease in the national homicide rate? In fact, the national crime rate has reached its lowest point in 25 years.

The fact that the same talking point is repeated can serve as the first clue that what we're dealing with is cant, rather than fact.  Here's what each of the three gentlemen noted above, along with so many other commentators, missed: the Tories introduced a bill called the Tackling Violent Crime Act because, wait for it, violent crime is on the rise.  But don't take my word for it - let's read the StatsCan July 2007 release that fueled so many disdainful mockings of the Conservative bill.  Let's see who is engaged in spreading "nonsense" and obscuring "facts" which "don't matter".  Let's see, in other words, what StatsCan actually had to say:

Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006, driven by a decline in non-violent crime.  ... The crime rate dropped by 3%, mainly due to declines in break-ins, thefts under $5,000 and counterfeiting.

... The national homicide rate fell 10%, halting two years of increases. However, increases were reported in many serious violent crimes such as attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, robbery and kidnapping/forcible confinement.

... While overall violent crime remained stable, most serious violent crimes were on the rise, a situation similar to 2005.

... The youth crime rate increased 3% in 2006, the first increase since 2003. Violent crime among youth rose 3%...

So, let's concede to Travers, Young and Gardner that things that people really worry about, like counterfeiting, are on a decline.  Unfortunately marring the rosy picture they want to paint is the minor fact that inconsequential things like, say, the "most serious violent crimes" have been on the rise for a couple of years.  Anyways, let's go back and look at the title for that legislation the Tories were proposing - hmmm... why, it's called, imagine that, the Tackling Violent Crime Act!  They must be crazy! Fabricating so-called "violent crimes" out of thin air!  Lunatic, I tells ya! 

We won't be able to have a lucid discussion on criminal justice policies in this country until the fundamental facts about crime actually manage to make it through the veil draped across the issue by so many.

Comments

[The Self-Loving Uniculturalist]

Damn leftist media again, I tells ya. If we can't have a serious discussion about executing children under the age of 12, then this country will go to hell in a hand-basket, and we'll all be reading the Qu'ran while having gay abortions and shooting up heroin.

[Dan Gardner]

Mr. Tarantino,

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that I did not say violent crime is going down, nor did what I wrote contradict the data you've posted here. I simply noted that the Conservative talk of streets increasingly awash in blood and chaos is absurd, which it is.

Stranger still, I actually agree with your point that many commentators are repeating a simplistic message that "violent crime is falling." Broad trends are what matters and the broad trends are clear: Violent crime fell substantially through the 1990s but it has bounced up and down with no strong overall trend in one direction or the other through the years since.

Unfortunately, the fact that violent crime has bounced up and down has provided plenty of numbers that cherry-pickers can pluck out and use to "prove" that crime is going up or down, depending on the politics of the cherry-picker in question. To see some of the most egregious examples of this sort of cherry picking, read some of the prime minister's speeches.

So good for you for spotting and correcting some very simplistic claims. But, well, leave me out of it.

Dan Gardner

[Mike H]

“Unfortunately, the fact that violent crime has bounced up and down has provided plenty of numbers that cherry-pickers can pluck out and use to "prove" that crime is going up or down, depending on the politics of the cherry-picker in question.”

I see this argument a lot from people like you, people who endeavour to convince the public that the status quo is just fine. It isn’t fine, and although we’ll never be able to prevent all homicides, attempted homicides, aggravated assaults and other serious violent crimes, there are many such crimes that are preventable. The means of prevention is very simple: longer, and mandatory jail sentences for violent offenders.

“They will have formally endorsed the view that longer sentences are an effective way to reduce crime -- even though a mountain of criminological research says otherwise. “

I’d like to see you tell Lynda Shaw’s parents that.

http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=122284&x=articles&s=societe

Same goes for the surviving loved ones of the 58 Canadians who were murdered by paroled killers between 1975 and 199:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2004/200408/20040811.html

Seems your “mountain of criminological research,” is really a mountain of horse shit, isn’t it Dan? Perhaps you can tell me why we should be locking these people up at all? Apologists for violent offenders rarely get asked that. What do you mean when you state your opposition to “longer” sentences for these criminals? Does that mean sentences now are just where they should be, in your mind, or are they too long as they are now? If you’re against “longer” sentences, then why are you for any jail time, period? How long do you think someone should serve in jail for, say, trying to stab someone to death in a bar, but narrowly failing?

“They have said for years that crime is a growing menace and the streets are being overrun by -- as Mr. Harper likes to say -- "guns, gangs and drugs." This is nonsense, but they claim to believe it.”

For someone who writes for a newspaper, you don’t read them much, do you?

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=26237

“RCMP say at least 6 murdered in Surrey, B.C. apartment”

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060410/mass_murder_autopsies_060410?s_name=&no_ads=

“Five charged in murders of 8 Bandidos bikers.”

Seven RCMP officers have been murdered in the last 2 ½ years. As far as drugs are concerned, you’d be laughed out of any major urban police station in this country if you pulled that schtick. Your reception would be decidedly less polite if you told the citizens of East London, who continually find used needles in their backyards, that the Conservatives are fear mongering over the drug problem. Same goes for sleepy little Perth County, dubbed in 2005 by The Toronto Star as the “Crystal Meth capital of Ontario”

http://pdhu.on.ca/healthinformation_display.asp?PDHUtype=1&PDHUsubtype=1&PDHUid=719

The issue isn't whether crime is marginally increasing or decreasing. We have an unacceptable crime problem in this country, and the most logical measure to combat it is to up the ante for the most dangerous perpetrators.

[Mike H]

Oops, I almost forgot about you, Self-Fellating Multiculturalist.

Actually, I think I will just forget about you, and redirect my comment to Bob.

Bob, in my extensive pilgrimages through the blogosphere, I've observed that the best antidote for assholes who provide nothing substantive to the discussion, like our "friend," is to simply delete their comments shortly after they're posted. Nothing else takes the fun out of trolling quite like deletion.

As an added bonus, it really pisses them off. Probably because it works every time......

[The Self-Loathing Multi-Uni-Culturalist]

Mike, I don't know what Bob's feelings are towards deleting posts he consider's trolling, but if he deleted mine, 50% of his posters would be gone. All he'd have is you, and your hysterical whining.

Honestly, if you want to be taken seriously, then stop responding with such emotional responses.

And incidentally, if you think that prevention is the best response to increased crime, then why stop with mandatory minimum sentancing? Why not execute 12 year olds? Or 15 year olds? Why not introduce capital punishment for theft over $5000? If executing people for theft reduces the level of crime, then why is this not a desirable alternative?

Public policy is so much easier from behind a computer screen isn't it?

[Self-Loving Mike H Culturalist]

My correction, it appears that Mike and I are not the only posters here. It appears that the author of one of the articles has appeared to clarify his remarks.

Funny, I guess this is an example of the MSM holding the blogosphere's feat to the fire.

Don't feel so lucky, MSM. We'll get you next time, you and your little self-loathing islamofascistcommiefeminazi dog too!

[Mike H]

"Mike, I don't know what Bob's feelings are towards deleting posts he consider's trolling, but if he deleted mine, 50% of his posters would be gone. All he'd have is you, and your hysterical whining."

You have a short memory. Why don't you refresh it by checking some of the past threads. Not only are there many other posts from others, but they include comments from well known journalists like Andrew Coyne, Paul Wells and Colby Cosh.

I realize this might be difficult for you to comprehend, but this blog would be far better off without your inane "contributions" to the comments section.

As if we needed further evidence of what an egomaniac fop you are, I can't help but make the observation that you apparently think you're too smart to need the services of spell check.

[The Self-Selfing Uniculturalist]

My contributions? Moi.

Did you read what Gardner wrote? He simply stated that the issue of criminal statistics were being taken out of context by individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, and that Bob's points were not applicable to him.

You responded with hysterical raving, without disproving any of his points. Spell check, or no spell check, that is pretty sad.

[Mike H]

I read what Gardner wrote here, as well as his column. If you did the same, it obviously hasn't sunk in, so maybe you should re-read both items.

In spite of his denial to Bob, Gardner isn't non-partisan on the issue of sentencing. He clearly aligns himself with opponents of mandatory minimum sentences. And contrary to your (and Gardner's) contention that he attacks "both sides of the political spectrum," for cherry-picking crime stats, his Ottawa Citizen column is not critical of the "crime is falling," faction in the debate. Rather, his criticism is solely targeted at those the Gardners of the world would label as "crime alarmists."

"You responded with hysterical raving, without disproving any of his points."

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Tell me why I haven't disproved any of his points. You know, some specifics?

[DCardno]

It appears that the author of one of the articles has appeared to clarify his remarks.

Not quite - Mr Gardner did not so much "clarify" his remarks, as try to disavow them. He made two major points in his column: that the Tories were engaging in political tactics in the timing and presentation of the various crime bills (quelle surprise - although Mr Gardner professed to be shocked, shocked that politicians would practice politics), and that longer prison sentences would not improve public safety. Along the way, he made the observation that a concern for increased rates of violent crime is nonsense.

There are two ways to interpret that remark, of course: one is that although violent crime rates are admittedly increasing it is nonsense to be concerned about them; the other is that since violent crime rates are not increasing, it is nonsense to feign concern over a non-existent problem. Mr Gardner does not attempt to defend the first position, and I think it is fair to assume that his position is the latter one: there is no increase in violent crime to be concerned about.

The blog entry rather batters that proposition, doesn't it? StatsCan remarks on the increase in many serious violent crimes and notes that "... While overall violent crime remained stable, most serious violent crimes were on the rise...". Damian takes no position on sentencing, or on the political machinations that Mr Gardner objects to - his sole point is that on the issue of increases or decreases in violent crime Mr Gardner was observably incorrect. The minor exculpatory factor is that Mr Gardner -unlike his media colleagues- did not present an evident falsehood by asserting that violent crime was actually falling.

Mr Gardner's "clarification" consists of the claim that "everybody does it" and that in disparaging those who read the StatsCan report and see rising crime trends he really meant to disparage anyone who makes any comment on it, either way. His argument with the Tories in particular is that his characterization of their argument ("streets increasingly awash in blood") is absurd. I grant that it is - but just try to imagine how silly my (mis)characterization of Mr Gardner's argument will be; sorry, but no points for beating on a strawman.

Gardner makes the broad brush statement that violent crime decreased "substantially" in the 1990s and has followed no clear trend since then. According to StatsCan, violent crime is down by 5% in the ten years to 2006 - that's not "substantial" in my books, particularly given the demographics of an aging population that should on its own reduce violent crime. As an aside, StatsCan excludes kidnapping and forced confinement from violent crime -which I find strange- but that's not the point here, although that category is up by 108% over the ten year period (Hint for Dan - that's the kind of figure where you are allowed to use qualifiers like "substantially"). From the (very small) chart included in the StatsCan release there is no evidence of any sharp decline in the 90s not captured in the reported 1996-2006 decline, although there is a fairly steady increase from 1962 to 1990 or so - notably, a much sharper and more sustained rise than the "substantial" fall Mr Gardner sees in the subsequent years.

Mr Gardner's final comment is So good for you for spotting and correcting some very simplistic claims. But, well, leave me out of it.
Sorry Dan - but you put yourself "into it" by writing a simplistic dismissal of a claim underpined by a current and relevant StatsCan release. It's too late to be left out now.

[DCardno]

"Damian takes no position..."
Obviously lost... I meant "Bob takes no position..."

[The Self-Selfing Selfer]

DCardno, that was the funniest post I've read in a while. There literally is no point to what you wrote. Read this:

"on the issue of increases or decreases in violent crime Mr Gardner was observably incorrect. The minor exculpatory factor is that Mr Gardner -unlike his media colleagues- did not present an evident falsehood by asserting that violent crime was actually falling."

OK, so Dan Gardner is a bad man, but not as bad as the rest of the terrorist loving MSM because he didn't actually say that violent crime is falling.

"According to StatsCan, violent crime is down by 5% in the ten years to 2006 - that's not "substantial" in my books, particularly given the demographics of an aging population that should on its own reduce violent crime"

Wait a minute, I thought violent crime was increasing? It's slightly down, or not substantially changed. And as statscan explains, some categories are up, and some are down.

But of course, what wingnut post would be complete without contradictions:

"Gardner makes the broad brush statement that violent crime decreased "substantially" in the 1990s and has followed no clear trend since then."

So, first Gardner didn't claim that crime was decreasing. Now he apparently did. But since his statement was true, then he wasn't wrong.

So, the score so far kids: EvilislamofascistterroristlovingMSMfeminazimedia - 2, Heroic Bloggers - 0.

Mike, you need medical help. I'm serious. A person who is as angry as yourself all the time, really, really needs help.

[DCardno]

Self-loathing - Wait a minute, I thought violent crime was increasing?
Depends on your measurement period, doesn't it?
So, first Gardner didn't claim that crime was decreasing. In his published article, no; he was silent on the issue, although he disparaged any concern about it as "nonsense". Now he apparently did. In his subsequent post on this blog, yes.
To quote DrDawg - "please try to keep up."

[Mike H]

"Mike, you need medical help. I'm serious. A person who is as angry as yourself all the time, really, really needs help."

Oh my, you certainly have put me in my place, haven't you? Let me take a few minutes and digest those "specifics" I asked you for.

There, all done. Could you please clarify your rebuttal on behalf of Gardner? I'm having trouble finding it.

"So, the score so far kids: EvilislamofascistterroristlovingMSMfeminazimedia - 2, Heroic Bloggers - 0."

I don't think so, Multi, unless this guy's keeping score for you:

[Mike H]

I guess I answered my own e-mail question, Bob, in relation to linking.

Here's the link to Multi's scorekeeper:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/bliraqdenial.htm

[The Selfing Self-Selfer]

'So, first Gardner didn't claim that crime was decreasing. In his published article, no; he was silent on the issue, although he disparaged any concern about it as "nonsense". Now he apparently did. In his subsequent post on this blog, yes.
To quote DrDawg - "please try to keep up."
'

Here's what Dan said...

"Violent crime fell substantially through the 1990s but it has bounced up and down with no strong overall trend in one direction or the other through the years since."

I guess this is the latest technique from the right: confuse people with faulty logic?

Mike H: there are no specifics to respond to because you did not make a single point in your post. You posted examples of crime as proof of the fact that crime is out of control. At least I think that is what you said. Frankly, if you can't be bothered to put together a coherent argument, I can't see why I should bother to respond to it.

[Mike H]

Why don't you admit the obvious? You're completely out of your depth, and you choose not to respond with substantive points because you don't have any.

There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now go away and do something you might actually be good at, like getting drunk, texting your pals, or Kicking Halo 3 ass on your X Box 360, 'cause this blogging thing, it ain't for you.

[dcardno]

Here's what Dan said...

"Violent crime fell substantially through the 1990s... Yes - and that is incorrect: there was no "substantial fall" in the nineties - at least, not that can be identified on the StatsCan release that Dan refers to....but it has bounced up and down... through the years since. And he is correct (depending on the year you measure) - so why is it nonsense to be concerned about crime rates, but not equally much nonsense to dismiss such concerns on the basis that crime rates are falling?

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Dcardno: maybe I am, in the words of Mike H, out of my depth, but the whole basis of your long winded post is a debate on the definition of the word substantial, as it applies to crime statistics. Personally, I find it kind of boring.

Personally speaking, I'm not opposed to mandatory minimum sentancing, my posts not with standing. However, conservative politicians, with the exception of Richard Nixon, have a tendancy to focus on punishment, at the expense of rehabilitation and prevention. We'll probably simple have to agree to disagree on some things.

Mike H: please direct me to the part of your post where you made an actual point, and defended it with evidence.

[Mike H]

"Mike H: please direct me to the part of your post where you made an actual point, and defended it with evidence."

That would be the entire post, but you already knew that. I'm not about to regurgitate what I've already said, to someone who has demonstrated both a lack of knowledge and intellectual honesty.

As you've just conceded, you are out of your depth. Some more words of advice: attempted exercises at mockery really suffer when you run up the white flag.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Mike, as I explained. There isn't a logical point in your post. As per the Statistics provided by Bob, I accept, and I assume that the rest of us do as well, that there is, in fact, violent crime in Canada. The point of discussion is around what conclusions can be drawn from the statistics.

Pointing out individual examples of violent crime, without any context, would be a useful point if I had been arguing that there was no violent crime in Canada, which I was not. That is the only point you made in your post. The rest of it his hysterical whining, which you are very good at.

Honestly Mike, if you were a paid agent of the NDP, you would not be doing a better job at making conservativism look foolish.

[Mike H]

"Mike, as I explained. There isn't a logical point in your post. As per the Statistics provided by Bob, I accept, and I assume that the rest of us do as well, that there is, in fact, violent crime in Canada."

Wow, aren't you the cerebral one? As per the statistics provided by Bob, you accept that there is, in fact, violent crime in Canada.

I take back what I said earlier. "Out of your depth," doesn't really begin to describe your present situation, does it?

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

As painful as it is to subject myself to your incoherent ramblings, here goes nothing. A small sample of what you consider to be meaningful debate: "If you’re against “longer” sentences, then why are you for any jail time, period? How long do you think someone should serve in jail for, say, trying to stab someone to death in a bar, but narrowly failing?"

So, if you're not opposed to mandatory minimum sentancing, then what be opposed to locking people up forever? Why not, as I said, execute every person who commits a crime, since that will prevent repeat offenders and save tax payer dollars(provided the execution process could be streamlined)?

"We have an unacceptable crime problem in this country, and the most logical measure to combat it is to up the ante for the most dangerous perpetrators."

Here's the juicy part. Up the ante, eh? How did you determine what is, or is not the most logical measure? I guess it wasn't from these guys...

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Is_Not_a_Deterrent/page.do?id=1101085&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99

Here's another quote you won't like, from an article you haven't read, and probably never will: "Mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences do not deter crime"

http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/c10en.html

So, Mike, take it away! Let's see what kind of whining you can come up with now. Dance wingnut! Dance!

[Mike]

“So, if you're not opposed to mandatory minimum sentancing, then what be opposed to locking people up forever? Why not, as I said, execute every person who commits a crime, since that will prevent repeat offenders and save tax payer dollars(provided the execution process could be streamlined)?”

Now that’s what I call an actual incoherent rambling.

Although it shouldn’t have to be said, it seems I have to stoop to your intellectual level, and state for the record that I am not taking the absurdly exaggerated position you so pathetically attempt to attribute to me. Next time you decide to attempt a straw man construct, try to find some straw first.

“Here's the juicy part. Up the ante, eh? How did you determine what is, or is not the most logical measure? I guess it wasn't from these guys...

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Is_Not_a_Deterrent/page.do?id=1101085&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99”

Couldn’t find anyone a little less partisan? I guess you weren’t too interested, not that it matters.

Here’s a link to a recent study, conducted by decidedly less partisan criminologists, who come to the exact opposite conclusion:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691447

From the abstract:

“Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death.”

For the record, I’ve vacillated back and forth over the years on the matter of capital punishment. Count me as one who would be quite content with true life sentences over capital punishment.

“Here's another quote you won't like, from an article you haven't read, and probably never will: "Mandatory minimums and consecutive sentences do not deter crime"
http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/c10en.html”

No, I tend to have little interest in reading submissions from prisoner advocacy groups, especially those who don’t believe in incarceration, period.

Setting aside for a moment the mandatory minimum sentences for murder (and they’re far too low anyway), it is ridiculous and illogical to suggest that “mandatory minimum sentences and consecutive sentences do not deter crime,” especially in the Canadian context, because aside from murder, we don’t have meaningful mandatory minimum sentences.

Right now, there are no minimum sentences for most serious violent offences, like manslaughter, attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault, or robbery, unless you use a firearm in the commission of these offences. Doing so nets you a four year minimum sentence, which is ridiculous in and of itself. Any individual committing an aggravated sexual assault WITHOUT a firearm involved should serve far more than 4 years. Why would someone contemplating such a crime be deterred from using a firearm to commit an offence that should result in a sentence greater than 4 years if he committed it without the aid of a gun?

To repeat myself, how can we evaluate whether mandatory minimum sentences work, if we don’t have meaningful mandatory minimums? Moreover, how can we evaluate them in an environment where the sentences handed out to criminals are chopped by 50% to 75% through 2 for 1 credits for pre-trial custody, and generous parole eligibility?

And spare me the “ but U.S. studies show…..” crap. We aren’t the United States. Our societal factors and influences, and the nature of our crime trends and policies vary significantly. And a point the American anti-incarceration, anti-mandatory minimum sentence activists never provide a plausible rebuttal for is the assertion that crime in the United States would be far worse without mandatory minimums.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. It is “illogical” in the extreme to suggest that mandatory minimum sentences are incapable of reducing crime.

If minimum sentences are sufficiently tough, a percentage of the so-called “rational” criminals decide that the risk of incarceration outweighs the reward for perpetrating the crime. Perhaps they choose to commit a similar, non-violent offence (a positive), or not commit any offence (even better). The percentage of rational criminals who come to such a decision climbs proportionally with the severity of the minimum sentence. Where that sentence tops out depends on the tipping point of the public. When does it move from outrage over the psychotic thug shoving a loaded pistol into the mouth of a store clerk, to sympathy for the bastard because he’s been sentenced to 15 years, no parole, no faint hope, serve every day? The less misguided sympathy for the offender that leftist criminal advocates can instill in the public, the greater the minimum sentence becomes, and it follows that the deterrent becomes greater.

But as the bad guys’ champions are so fond of telling us, we also have another segment of the criminal demographic that isn’t much deterred by minimum sentences, ergo, minimum sentences don’t work.

The problem with that line of argument is, any sentence, minimum or otherwise, works real good when the non-rational sociopathic offender is locked up. Every day he/she is locked up is a day he/she can’t harm anyone other than a fellow criminal. And I’ve yet to see any of these so-called “experts” who lobby against harsher sentences, explain why the public is better served having the non-rational sociopaths, who aren’t deterred by minimum sentences, on the street more than they would be if tougher sentencing was in place. This is absolute insanity, and anyone who propagates it, or buys into it, is equally insane.

Now, I happen to think you’re not insane, Multi, just stupid. Arrogantly stupid. But I leave open the possibility…..

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Mike, Mike, MIke. So angry. So very, very angry. Did you miss Jack Bauer yesterday.

"Couldn’t find anyone a little less partisan? I guess you weren’t too interested, not that it matters."

Are you saying that the statistics are wrong, or that the interpretation is wrong? If the interpretation is incorrect, then can you explain why it is, that places that execute people have higher murder rates?

"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death."

Did you actually read the article, or just the abstract? If you follow their argument to it's logical conclusion, then the state has a moral responsibility to execute people even if they are innocent, because of the deterrent value. That means, if we executed yourself, your children, your loved ones, then that could save up to 18 lives. Would you be willing to allow your children to be executed by the state if it saved lives, and had a deterrent value?

I should also add, that I did a bit of reading about the people who authored the study. It seems they also support torture, on the same grounds.

"And spare me the “ but U.S. studies show…..” crap. We aren’t the United States. Our societal factors and influences, and the nature of our crime trends and policies vary significantly. And a point the American anti-incarceration, anti-mandatory minimum sentence activists never provide a plausible rebuttal for is the assertion that crime in the United States would be far worse without mandatory minimums."

Very well, how is the Canadian context different then? If you reject US studies that show that mandatory minimums have little to no impact on the grounds that Canada is different, then you ought to be able to explain why.

"But as the bad guys’ champions are so fond of telling us, we also have another segment of the criminal demographic that isn’t much deterred by minimum sentences, ergo, minimum sentences don’t work."

Don't we have something called dangerous offender status, that allows people to be locked up indefintely? Or is Paul Bernardo going to be moving into our neighbourhood soon?

From what I can tell, you haven't thought much about crime, it's causes or how to deal with it. You don't seem very well versed, even on the one link that posted that justifies your own argument. Did you even read the entire post, or just the abstract?

You just seem to like locking people up for it's own sake.

I suggest you leave thoughtful analysis of public policy to those more interested in actually learning about issues. That way, you can spend your time watching Jack Bauer save America by torturing people.

[DCardno]

If you follow their argument to it's logical conclusion, then the state has a moral responsibility to execute people even if they are innocent, because of the deterrent value. That means, if we executed yourself, your children, your loved ones, then that could save up to 18 lives.

I don't think there is much deterrent value in random executions of people not found to be guilty of a crime, Multi, if that is what you are suggesting. If Mike's children (or Mike and his children - I'm not sure just which you are proposing for execution) were found guilty of murder, then presumably he would accept (however sadly) a death sentence for them, although he did go on record that he was in favour of "true life incarceration" in the place of the death penalty.

In any event, this is the sort of discussion we should be having (or our political and chattering classes should be having) - out in the open where we can judge the arguments and the facts and the interpretations placed on them. The original point of Bob's post was that we cannot do so so long as the punditariat distorts or obfuscates the facts.

It is clear that they have done so in reporting or commenting on these Bills, either because they are predisposed to a particular message, or because they are lazy and incompetent (I suspect a mixture of both). No doubt, we will have to agree to disagree on policy decisions and the right balance between our actual interests as citizens and our potential interests as persons who might, someday, be charged with a crime - but there is no need to "agree to disagree" on the facts.

[Mike H]

"Are you saying that the statistics are wrong, or that the interpretation is wrong? If the interpretation is incorrect, then can you explain why it is, that places that execute people have higher murder rates?"

Of course the interpretation is wrong. There are other consequential factors contributing to the overall murder rate, beyond whether a jusrisdiction uses capital punishment. For proof of that, let me turn your second question back on you. Can you explain why it is, that Michigan, which doesn't execute people, has a higher murder rate than Missouri and Florida, which do execute people?

"Did you actually read the article, or just the abstract? If you follow their argument to it's logical conclusion, then the state has a moral responsibility to execute people even if they are innocent, because of the deterrent value. That means, if we executed yourself, your children, your loved ones, then that could save up to 18 lives. Would you be willing to allow your children to be executed by the state if it saved lives, and had a deterrent value?"

You really are an imbecile, aren't you? That has to be the absolute dumbest statement I've ever seen on the issue of capital punishment. It comes as no shock, however, that you made it.

" I should also add, that I did a bit of reading about the people who authored the study. It seems they also support torture, on the same grounds."

Reluctant as I am to take your word for anything, I don't have time at the moment to fact check. Assuming you are correct, what does that have to do with this discussion? Oh, you think you're impeaching their credibility, don't you? Nice try. Even uber-lefty Senator Chuck Schumer supports torture "if thousands of lives are at stake."
So do I, and most folks blessed with a modicum of common sense.

http://www.drudge.com/news/100313/schumer-supported-torture-2004

"Very well, how is the Canadian context different then? If you reject US studies that show that mandatory minimums have little to no impact on the grounds that Canada is different, then you ought to be able to explain why."

Actually, I reject them on two fronts. As I pointed out in my earlier comment, I reject the conclusion that "mandatory minimums have little to no impact" on U.S. crime, because no believable argument is available to refute the claim that crime rates would be worse without mandatory minimums in place. I notice you've made no attempt to rebut the final three paragraphs of my previous post, where I point that particular logical disconnect out. How telling.

Secondly, The United States is not Canada. There are sufficient societal differences that render crime rate comparisons into apples and oranges territory. Why not compare our violent crime rate to that of Singapore, and its draconian, capital punishment-using justice system? How about Finland, which was in the news yesterday with the Columbine style shooting at a Finnish school. Media reports made the observation that gun violence is rare, even though Finland has the highest gun ownership rates in Europe (50 % of Finnish adults own firearms).

"Don't we have something called dangerous offender status, that allows people to be locked up indefintely? Or is Paul Bernardo going to be moving into our neighbourhood soon?"

Try to make sense, would you? Ignoring your Bernardo silliness, successful danger offender applications are relatively rare. Proponents of stiffer sentencing, and I count myself among them, believe they should be used much more often, especially if meaningful mandatory minimum sentences are not going to be implemented into our justice system.

Sounds to me like you approve of the use of dangerous offender applications. In reality, they are the ultimate mandatory minimum sentence, aren't they? How do you explain your inconsistency?

"From what I can tell, you haven't thought much about crime, it's causes or how to deal with it. You don't seem very well versed, even on the one link that posted that justifies your own argument. Did you even read the entire post, or just the abstract?"

You couldn't be more wrong (and that's saying something, given the shit I've seen you post at this blog). I've worked in the criminal justice system for 25 years.

No, your comment is really an accurate assessment of your own level of knowledge and understanding of the subject, not mine.

"I suggest you leave thoughtful analysis of public policy to those more interested in actually learning about issues. That way, you can spend your time watching Jack Bauer save America by torturing people."

You try hard to be funny, in a cutting sort of way. You're not very good at it, so I'd suggest you save yourself some embarrassment. You might want to consider smoking a little less pot when you're blogging as well.

[Bob Tarantino]

Nice to see everybody's been having a good time in my absence. Try to keep things civil.

TSLM: A "dangerous offender" designation does not necessarily result in an offender being locked up indefinitely - approximately 5% of DOs are released (see the sixth answer under the heading "Dealing with high-risk offenders".

Mr. Gardner: With all due respect, I feel compelled to keep you in the "distorters" camp. I'm not sure that "broad trends" matter all that much, since the broader the trend, the more latitude for unhelpful refraction. In any event, if you still don't consider the statement "the Conservative talk of streets increasingly awash in blood and chaos is absurd" to be somewhat imprecise (not least because of, to pick a random example, recent events in Vancouver), let's focus on an even better example from your column.

I quote:

"The result will be a general rise in sentence severity. Prison populations will swell. Correctional budgets will soar. And it will make little difference to public safety. This is not speculation. It is the history of American justice over the last 25 years."

Really? A 40% decline in the violent crime rate over the period in question represents "little difference to public safety"? The statement is absurd on its face, but let's give it the most generous reading, and assume that what you meant to say was that the increase in sentence severity was not itself responsible for the decline in crime rates. Your source (as indicated by your next sentence following the quotation above) is Franklin E. Zimring's "The Great American Crime Decline". Unfortunately, Zimring's conclusions (such as they are) are based on, to put it kindly, sophistry. He cherry picks facts, ignores inconvenient evidence and distorts his arguments to reach his preferred pre-packaged conclusion.

I'm happy to discuss Zimring's book further with you in private correspondence, since for most readers of this blog the argument will quickly become tedious as it requires having read the book or having a copy close at hand. But indulge me a couple of examples.

As Zimring repeatedly states, he has essentially no idea why crime rates go up or down (see, e.g., his seven "lessons" with which he concludes the book: it contains almost no conclusions (other than that crime did indeed decrease during the 1990s) - he posits a few different possible causes (including increased sentence severity), but then argues (somewhat implausibly) that none of those potential causes were present in Canada, so clearly none of them played any role) and no authoritative mechanisms for assesing any given hypothesis. His arguments against incarceration having any impact are, frankly, bizarre - see especially his discussion from pages 45-50, where he notes that incarceration rates increased, and that crime declined, and then, apropos of nothing, concludes that the former had nothing to do with the latter. On pages 38-39, he concedes that California's prison population nearly doubled from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, and that the crime rate in the state collapsed over the same period, but dismisses any determinative connection between the two (by means of the bizarre assertion that because the rate of the decline didn't alter, it therefore proves that there was no causal link). He also seems to have a strangely detached notion of how the criminal justice system operates: on pages 51-52 he states as a conclusion that "the most dangerous offenders" will be locked up first - a notion which is completely nonsensical, taking no account of the fact that when an offender is captured and sentenced has nothing to do with his or her propensity for violence (do the criminals all get together and form a line from most to least violent and then proceed out into the world accordingly?). By page 131 he's reduced to making the quasi-mystical case that what explains crime rates is "the mysterious prospect of crime cycles" - a prospect so mysterious that he's unable to identify the beginning or the end of such cycles, or quite why all of the various policy changes which he chronicles would have no effect (whether positive or negative) on such "crime cycle". He goes searching for causes, and about the best he's able to come up with is voodoo.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

Again, I'll limit myself to points that were at least coherent:

"Sounds to me like you approve of the use of dangerous offender applications. In reality, they are the ultimate mandatory minimum sentence, aren't they? How do you explain your inconsistency?"

I think that the decision on sentancing ought to be made on a case by case basis. A person like Bernardo, is clearly a sociopath. Whatever hardships he may have experienced earlier in life that resulted in his current behaviour, he is, in all likelihood, unreformable, and a serious danger to society.

Again, I see no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing has a deterrent value. However, in cases such as "Bernardo style" examples, in addition to the need to punish the offender and set an example, there is also the need to protect society at large. The only sure way to do this, is to give the state the ability to incarcerate the individual indefinitely.

I'm glad you think I'm funny. However, I haven't smoked a joint in several years.

[Mike H]

"Again, I'll limit myself to points that were at least coherent:"

Translation:

" I've got nothing, but rather than admit it, I'll pretend Mike's arguments lack the coherence to warrant a reply. Maybe they'll buy it. Even if they don't, it's still better than admitting I've got nothing."

"I think that the decision on sentancing ought to be made on a case by case basis. A person like Bernardo, is clearly a sociopath. Whatever hardships he may have experienced earlier in life that resulted in his current behaviour, he is, in all likelihood, unreformable, and a serious danger to society."

That's nice. Setting aside your psychiatric blame shifting on Bernardo's behalf, you still haven't answered my question. How can you be for dangerous offender committals, yet claim mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective?

"Again, I see no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing has a deterrent value. However, in cases such as "Bernardo style" examples, in addition to the need to punish the offender and set an example, there is also the need to protect society at large. The only sure way to do this, is to give the state the ability to incarcerate the individual indefinitely."

You're contradicting yourself again. If mandatory minimum sentences have "no deterrent value," as you claim, then how does dangerous offender legislation "set an example?" To whom? Those who aren't deterred by mandatory sentences?

I realize you're terrified to address the point I've made at least twice before on this, but I'm going to keep hounding you on it until you give me an answer, or admit you haven't got an answer. You claim mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, but logic says they really can't do anything other than reduce crime through their application.

There can be no doubt that a percentage of "rational" offenders would decide not to commit offences if there were sufficiently stiff, unavoidable minimum sentences in place. Likewise, non-rational sociopathic offenders serving much longer sentences can only serve to reduce the crimes they commit.

How do you counter that, other than with this "no evidence" assertion, which, thanks to Bob's most recent post, we now know is simply not true in the context of American crime rates? Crime rates in the U.S. fell dramatically through the 1990s. You've based your argument on the presumption that crime rates in the U.S. didn't fall, therefore there is no "evidence" that mandatory minimum sentences work. I'd say you and your argument have a very big problem.

"I'm glad you think I'm funny. However, I haven't smoked a joint in several years."

You don't read very well, do you? I think you're very unfunny. By all means, start toking again. Maybe that will make you funny.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

"How can you be for dangerous offender committals, yet claim mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective?"

Obviously you didn't read my post: "there is also the need to protect society at large. The only sure way to do this, is to give the state the ability to incarcerate the individual indefinitely."

"If mandatory minimum sentences have "no deterrent value," as you claim, then how does dangerous offender legislation "set an example?" To whom? Those who aren't deterred by mandatory sentences?"

Touchez. The only purpose of dangerous offender status is to protect society, not serve as a deterrent. You are correct on this point.
`
"I realize you're terrified to address the point I've made at least twice before on this, but I'm going to keep hounding you on it until you give me an answer, or admit you haven't got an answer. You claim mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, but logic says they really can't do anything other than reduce crime through their application."

I claim that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime on the basis of the evidence I've provided and you have rejected on the grounds that they are overly partisan. You countered me with evidence from a think-tank that justifies captial punishment and torture. If you're too lazy to read my posts or links, that's not my problem.

"I realize you're terrified to address the point I've made at least twice before on this, but I'm going to keep hounding you on it until you give me an answer, or admit you haven't got an answer. You claim mandatory minimum sentences do not reduce crime, but logic says they really can't do anything other than reduce crime through their application."

I claim that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime on the basis of the evidence I've provided and you have rejected on the grounds that they are overly partisan. You countered me with evidence from a think-tank that justifies captial punishment and torture. If you're too lazy to read my posts or links, that's not my problem.

"How do you counter that, other than with this "no evidence" assertion, which, thanks to Bob's most recent post, we now know is simply not true in the context of American crime rates?"

Mike, this is what you said earlier in the thread: "Secondly, The United States is not Canada. There are sufficient societal differences that render crime rate comparisons into apples and oranges territory."

That was in response to evidence citing the lack of success of mandatory minimum sentencing in the US. Are you suggesting that US statistics are valid if they prove you point?

Mike, honestly, you are embarrasing yourself. In each of your posts, you have shown a complete lack of civility, humourlessness, an inability to comprehend the implications of your own line of reasoning, and general laziness. If I can propose a mutually agreeable solution, I would suggest you reply to my post with a hysterical rant about how leftists are destroying society and how stupid we are. I, in turn, agree not to post any more on this topic, thusly rendering you the "winner" of our debate. That way, you can save face with the wingnut element of the right, and I can be left to a more productive use of my time.

Bob and I may not agree on political subjects, but his blog posts are amusing and insightful, and I enjoy reading them even when I don't necessarily agree with them. Furthermore, he is tolerant and respectful of other people's viewpoints, and takes the time to carefully read other poster's opinions when responding(probably been more patient with myself than he has a right to). I would suggest you that you have a bit to learn from Bob in matters of decorum. You will probably find yourself a better blogger, and have a better understanding of politics and current affairs if you do.

[Mike H]

"Obviously you didn't read my post: "there is also the need to protect society at large. The only sure way to do this, is to give the state the ability to incarcerate the individual indefinitely."

Let me put this a different way. What would be an appropriate label for a violent criminal for whom meaningful mandatory minimums are not a deterrent? How about "dangerous offender?" Does that fit? Yes, I think it does. Remind me again, please? Exactly why are you against mandatory minimums? You're okay with incarcerating really bad, dangerous people "indefinitely," but you're against incarcerating really bad, dangerous people for a definite period, with eventual release. Makes complete sense.

"I claim that mandatory minimums do not reduce crime on the basis of the evidence I've provided and you have rejected on the grounds that they are overly partisan. You countered me with evidence from a think-tank that justifies captial punishment and torture. If you're too lazy to read my posts or links, that's not my problem."

Where to start....?

I'll repeat what I stated in an earlier post. We do not have meaningful mandatory sentences in this country now, so it is dishonest for incarceration-hating (let's call them what they are) criminologists and activists to claim they are ineffective in the Canadian context. They haven't been tried.

These people (and you) are fond of claiming minimum sentences have been "proven" elsewhere to not only be ineffective, but actually increase crime rates. I have repeatedly challenged you (and once again, you're evading the challenge) to explain why such an obviously counter-intuitive statement can be true. Give me some actual cause and effect scenarios to explain why locking up serious offenders for longer periods of time increases the crime rate. Do otherwise law abiding citizens suddenly start committing home invasion robberies and sexual assaults as a form of solidarity and sympathy for those they feel have been locked up for unreasonable terms? The assertion that mandatory minimums have no effect, or even increase crime rates, is absurd. You say it isn't. I've asked you to explain the dynamics behind your answer. You refuse.

The sites you link to are overly partisan, especially the Canadian Criminal Justice Association:

“Society has spent millions of dollars over the years to create and maintain the proven failure of prisons. Incarceration has failed in its two essential purposes - correcting the offender and providing permanent protection to society. The recidivist rate of up to 80 percent is evidence of both.”

This is an absolutely dishonest statement, made by an activist organization that quite simply hates the concept of incarcerating offenders at all. How much more partisan can one be on criminal justice issues than that?

Actually, I take that back. This one jumps the shark. It's also an out and out lie:

"All domestic and international sentencing scholars, as well as commissions of inquiry in Canada, have decried the existence of mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment".

The link below is to a Department of Justice paper written by two University of Ottawa criminologists.

http://canada-justice.org/en/ps/rs/rep/2002/rr2002-1a.pdf

Far from "decrying" the existence of mandatory minimum sentences, the authors are fairly neutral on MMS in the broader context, and on pg 31 in the concluding remarks section, they state "MMS shows somewhat more promise with regard to impaired driving and firearms offences."

"They also note on pg 31 that "....there is a conspicuous absence of Canadian research on MMS...." Both quotes contradict the assertions made in the CCJA passage.

Further, your CCJA friends contradict themselves on the question of minimum mandatory sentences:

"In 2002, the federal government released a review of 111 studies on the effects of criminal justice sanctions on more than 442,000 offenders. It found that harsher punishments had no deterrent effect on repeat offences. In fact, it suggested that punishment caused a 3% increase in recidivism among all groups of offenders.”

[....]

"Accordingly, we must look at the available data and respond accordingly. What does the data tell us? Crime and particularly violent crime is in a continued decline. Police reported 2.6 million offences in 2004, a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade ago. Approximately 300,000 violent crimes were reported in 2004 which indicates a 10% decrease in violent crime in Canada over the last decade. Crime, youth crime and violent crime are also minimally down from last year"

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here, Canada's incarceration policies are apparently increasing recidivism, resulting in a "continual decline" of the crime rate. Try and wrap your head around that contradiction.

"Mike, this is what you said earlier in the thread: "Secondly, The United States is not Canada. There are sufficient societal differences that render crime rate comparisons into apples and oranges territory."

"That was in response to evidence citing the lack of success of mandatory minimum sentencing in the US. Are you suggesting that US statistics are valid if they prove you point?"

No, I was taking Gardner's word (and yours) at face value, when you both asserted that US crime statistics prove MMS don't work. That was a complete misrepresentation of the facts, as Bob has pointed out above. To repeat what I said earlier, individual anti-crime policies do not exert influence on the crime rate in individual vacuums. Even if what you and Gardner had stated about US crime rates were true, that wouldn't necessarily prove MMS had failed, when in all probability the crime rate would be worse without it.

"Mike, honestly, you are embarrasing yourself. In each of your posts, you have shown a complete lack of civility, humourlessness, an inability to comprehend the implications of your own line of reasoning, and general laziness."

I'll leave it to other readers and commenters to decide which one of us is embarrassing himself. I have an intense dislike for people of your ilk, Multi. People who attempt to save face when getting their asses kicked, by distorting and misrepresenting what others have said. You really are a complete idiot, and a very dishonest individual as well. That's quite a combination.

As someone who arrived at this blog trying to intimidate another commenter with the patently juvenile tough guy line, " you wouldn't say that to my face, I'm so big and strong.....," your lecture about "decorum" is as hypocritical as it gets.

So thanks for the advice, but I'll continue to treat you like the no-nothing, pompous asshole you are.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

" you wouldn't say that to my face, I'm so big and strong.....," your lecture about "decorum" is as hypocritical as it gets."

Once again, Mike H, I have to introduce you to my friend called, reality. Here is what I actually wrote..

"Now that the unpleasantness is over, I'll address a few points. As for my cowardice, it's true I never put my own contact information when I post on blogs. However, as a general rule, I do my best to make it a rule to never make comments on a blog that I would never be prepared to make in person. While I respect your identifying yourself to me, I have a very hard time convincing myself that, if confronted with all 6'2" of me, you would be quite so brash. "

The reason I wrote that comment, was in response to this little gem from yourself:

"By the way, I'm in the habit of tracking down and murdering homosexuals. But it seems that none of the many faggots I've killed was an Iraqi civilian. Would you please confirm for me that you see nothing wrong with what I'm doing, since it does not kill Iraqi civilians, and that is the only test?"

Now, Mike, once more from the top..

"TSLM, you're a hypocrite, and a coward and a liar. I hate you, because you love criminals, and are an arrogant leftist. You are stupid. I have statistics that, if read the right way, prove that I might not be wrong. Why don't you admit it, you're a terrorist loving coward."

And you think I'm a bad guy. I just saved you the trouble of replying. Please, no need to thank me. Your love is enough for me.

[Mike H]

"The reason I wrote that comment, was in response to this little gem from yourself:

"By the way, I'm in the habit of tracking down and murdering homosexuals..... "

I didn't say it. Someone else did. Apparently, reality isn't your friend after all.

But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

""The reason I wrote that comment, was in response to this little gem from yourself:

"By the way, I'm in the habit of tracking down and murdering homosexuals..... "

I didn't say it. Someone else did. Apparently, reality isn't your friend after all.

But then, we already knew that, didn't we?"

Given the person's proclivities for anger, I assume I can be forgiven for confusing the two of you. And since you aren't the same person, then that is even more of a reason for you not to be mad at me? Why would you take offense at a comment directed at another poster, which, you must concede, could hardly be considered posturing or aggresive, let alone threatening?

And now, blog radio presents, the number one hit, for 3 weeks in a row. Here's Mike H, with, "TSLM is a Cowardly Loser"...

"TSLM, you are a coward and criminal lover! You are an arrogant leftist, and you hate western civilization. You think you're better than me. You're stupid, and you don't live in reality. You don't know anything about blogging. Why don't you go away and smoke some pot you terrorist loving, criminal coddling, islamofascistfemicommienazi pseudo-intellectual trade unionist."

[Mike H]

I had you pegged as a garden variety troll, but lately, you're starting to sound downright creepy.

You really need to think about changing doctors.

[stephen.reeves]

Of course if Harper had said simply that violent crime against women and minorities was up, and we had to do something about it, then I am sure the Left/Lib media would have been singing a different tune.
The left sometimes seems confused about what type of violent crimes the State should try and control.

[stephen.reeves]

Self-Loathing is probably one of those guys you meet on the bus or subway muttering nonsense to themselves.

[The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist]

"Of course if Harper had said simply that violent crime against women and minorities was up, and we had to do something about it, then I am sure the Left/Lib media would have been singing a different tune."

You forgot abortion doctors, drug dealers, islamic terrorists, black nationalists... God, do you know anything about politics.

"The left sometimes seems confused about what type of violent crimes the State should try and control."

Only the sort of crime that prevents the downfall of western civilization.