Court ruling defies democracy

In August of 1982, Ronald Smith, a drifter from Alberta, murdered two men in cold blood for the thrill of it.  That event took place, in Glacier National Park in Montana, not in Canada.

Smith, in a plea arrangement asked for the death penalty, which I might add, was deservedly granted.  He also reiterated that request in March of 1983.  In the intervening years Smith has been on death row in a State that is relatively slow to carry out capital case executions.

For years the Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin had their diplomats play the game with Montana authorities seeking, at least on the surface, some form of clemency for Smith, from the hangman's noose.  Metaphorically speaking of course.  I am not sure how Montana gets rid of its Death Row inmates.  Although what is ironic in all of this is that the State of Montana seems poised to get rid of the death penalty.  Their House of Representatives is to hold a vote later this spring on the matter.

Smith also seems to have had a change of heart in that he has availed himself of every legal avenue to try and delay or commute his richly deserved death sentence. 

With the election of a Conservative government, a different view was taken on the Canadian tradition of diplomatic intervention in death penalty cases.  The Tories said, and rightly so in my view, that they would not intervene with democratic countries with the death penalty in cases of multiple murders.  Had they removed the word 'multiple' I would have wholeheartedly agreed with the position.

Smith's lawyers, funded not by Smith, made application to the Federal Court of Canada to get that decision overturned.  And so, it was overturned by Federal Court Judge R. L. Barnes, who has made an order that the Government of Canada reconstitute its diplomatic efforts to gain clemency for Smith.

Now I don't know Judge Barnes from Adam other than what it says in his official bio.  But I note he was appointed during the waning days of the Liberal administration of Paul Martin.  But I am stunned that any court in this land has the power to overturn policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

I am not referring to a piece of legislation deemed unconstitutional by the ermine clad wonders of the Supreme Court of Canada.  That is quite another discussion.

The Federal Court of Canada is a Trudeaupian concept that, as far as I can tell, serves no useful function.  It is the court directly responsible for the absolute joke that has rendered our refugee system dysfunctional and created an industry for a generation of lawyers that didn't exist 20 years ago.

And let's bear in mind that the State of Montana is not Saudi Arabia or Iran holding public stonings.  Smith has had the benefit of every possible avenue of appeal spanning 25 years through the American justice system.   There is no question he is guilty of two thrill kills.  By his own admission, he killed two people because he wanted to see what it was like.  Oh, really?

The irrepressible "useful idiot" Jack Layton waded in on this case saying: "You can't be against the death penalty in Canada but be in favour of it for a Canadian citizen outside of Canada."

Has anyone ever heard the Harper government say they were "against" the death penalty?  I certainly haven't and considering the last vote on the matter in the House of Commons was in the mid 70s, I sincerely doubt than any sitting MP has actually registered their position by vote on the subject.

In point of fact, poll after poll has shown that a majority of Canadians support the death penalty in certain cases.  I would rank in that number and I suspect, so too would the Prime Minister.

The bottom line is that Smith committed a disgusting, incredibly offensive crime, which he has admitted to doing.  And he did it in a jurisdiction with the death penalty.  Well, in my view he is the author of his own misfortune, come what may.  He needs to be accountable for his actions and in Montana, as it stands, that means he should pay forfeit with his life.  I don't have a problem with that and neither does our federal government.  The Federal Court of Canada should not be involved. 

And therein lies the problem.  That any body of unelected judges can dictate policy to our elected representatives is offensive in our democracy and their power needs to be curtailed.  

Frankly, I cannot see any reason for their existence in the first instance. 

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

Clouding the issue of gang crime

I have always taken a more Libertarian view of politics.  For the record, I believe in less government coupled with the strong enforcement of the laws of right and wrong. 

As an example, Vancouver is wrestling with a spike in gun violence and an apparent gang war with the daily shootings in the most public of places like shopping mall parking lots.  As the politicians wring their hands trying to figure out what to do about it, they come up with empty public announcements about the addition of 168 more police officers and hiring up to ten prosecutors to work directly with police in the investigation of organized crime groups. 

Well, super. 

Considering it takes a minimum of one year to hire and train a police officer who is then deployable, that man or woman, on day one, has exactly zero experience as a police officer, it remains to be seen exactly how the announcement by BC Premier Gordon Campbell with have one iota of effect on the reality of the bullets flying today in the Greater Vancouver area.

Equally, while I would never argue against the idea of having dedicated prosecutors working with law enforcement in organized crime investigations, the addition of ten will take more than a little time to find, hire, train and then be functionally able to advise the police involved in complex investigations. 

And, for the record, while this 'problem' has only recently captured the public interest, regular readers will note that in the waning days of 1999, I wrote a column saying that organized crime was the biggest threat to this country in the 21^st Century.  Yes, that was in the idyllic days pre-9/11, but the threat remains no less so even with the so-called War on Terror.

Yet, for some reason, the rising body count in Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary and Edmonton seems to have suddenly become a major issue with the mainstream media and the politicians seeking ways to shut them up lest the voting public notice the bullet casings alongside the rising body count.

Well, I am glad they finally noticed, but really, isn't it a little late in the game?  Ah well, better late than never I suppose.

But then, Campbell and his Attorney General Wally Oppal have spent the last week crowing about the need to lobby the federal government to tighten gun control laws.  Huh?  Gun control laws in this country are already ridiculously strict.   While I, as a law abiding citizen may technically own a gun as long as I have had a course, acquired an FAC and done everything in my power to ensure that the bullets and the gun never contact each other, the reality is that it is extremely difficult and arduous to actually acquire one.

But if a criminal involved in organized crime wants a gun, it is as easy to get one as making a phone call or two and having a few hundred spare dollars.  No firearms course required.

If that same criminal commits an offence with a firearm, such as sticking up the local corner grocery corner store, shooting at a rival or threatening someone in a nightclub, the law says that he or she should get a minimum of four years tacked onto whatever sentence the court hands down for the original offence. 

Does this happen?  Uh, no.  The 'use of a firearm in the commission of an offence' charge recommended by police is bargained away so often and so fast that it is simply assumed by the defense that the offender will not have to deal with it.

So, what is more effective, Wally Oppal espousing the virtues of more police, more prosecutors and lobbying the federal government for stricter gun laws, or simply telling the prosecutors who work for him not to plea bargain away the mandatory minimum on gun crime?

There is absolutely no need for further government control on firearms.  There is a need for enforcement of the rules as they apply and the support of the Crown and the courts in the application of those laws.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

The making of a saint

I wonder when the Vancouver Sun will finish its canonization of Ivan Henry, the rapist jailed in the early 80's after a series of terrifying rapes in Vancouver. 

Since Lenny Doust, the elder statesman of BC barristers, reviewed the case and said there were some procedural issues at trial which should be reviewed on appeal, the Vancouver Sun in particular and the mainstream media with the sole exception of Global BC, has endeavored to elevate this guy into another victim saint along with Donald Marshall, Stephen Truscott and, dare I say, Maher Arar. 

Now we need to understand a few things about this case.  The Vancouver Sun has tried to paint a case against the Vancouver Police as is their wont, by portraying the image of Henry in a police line-up, being obviously there against his will, as though this was the evidence used to convict him. 

It wasn't and not by a long shot.  

In fact, the VPD detectives handling the serial rape case knew that Henry had queered the lineup process by his resistance.  And let's not lose sight of that little detail: it was the actions of Henry himself who made the lineup inadmissible with his physical resistance forcing the VPD to drag him into the lineup room. 

So, they then put together a photo lineup and got their prosecutable identifications in that manner.  Additionally, in court all the victims that testified and at least two that were not called to testify pointedly, directly and without ambiguity, identified Henry as their attacker. 

Henry knew the system inside and out.  He has more convictions and run-ins with the police than Carter has little liver pills.  He deliberately declined counsel and chose to defend himself against all advice from the Crown and the Bench. Yet, he went forward. 

That he was convicted should surprise no one.  That his appeals went nowhere also should surprise no one.  That one lawyer, albeit a senior and talented one, should examine the file and determine there were some procedural issues which may (highlight the word 'may') taint the conviction is a far cry from screaming injustice and innocent man jailed as the Vancouver Sun has suggested. 

Ivan Henry is a scumbag who was declared a Dangerous Offender by the courts and, as a result, has spent over 25 years in prison.  That is as it should be.  That he is being given the attention he has by the Vancouver Sun and painted as a victim is wrong at so many levels.  He was not declared a DO because of this conviction, rather it was because of a lifetime of crime which culminated with a conviction as a serial rapist.

As an example, Henry writes in his excuse-filled "Woe is me" statement, that he was forced into the lineup even though he wasn't charged with anything and the lemmings at the Sun breathlessly report his words as though something horrible was done by the VPD. 

The police do physical lineups as part of the investigative process in the hope that they may develop further evidence establishing they have the right suspect before a charge is laid. Any suggestion that the police did something wrong and Henry was hard done by because the VPD forced him into a lineup before he was charged is nothing more than a red herring.  Henry orchestrated that deliberately to nullify the effect of a lineup.  The only reason to do that was to try and create a possible avenue for appeal because he was - and remains - absolutely guilty. 

And we know that because a jury said so, a number of victims said so in a courtroom as well, at least two rape victims said so who were not called to testify.  And not only that, but his wife, who he uses as an alibi in his statement trumpeted by the Sun, later gave police a statement of her own saying that everything he said was a lie.

In a conversation with one of the investigators, he said, "If this guy gets out and there is any justice, he'd move next door to [the columnist in the Sun.]  And I would happily pay his first month's rent."

Spin in the media is effective.  It can result in an innocent man being pilloried for no good reason.  It can also result in a guilty man going free.  Doust's report is what it is and the system will have another look at the case. But, there is a wide chasm between procedural issues and innocence.

The Vancouver Sun should be more careful in who they are proposing for sainthood.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

Holidaaaaaaaze . . . .

Well, the weather outside was indeed frightful, no matter in which part of the Deranged Dominion you reside.  I had the distinct pleasure of spending an unscheduled three days in Edmonton in a particularly sub-arctic chill after our plane wasn't allowed to land at a snow-bound Vancouver airport, uncharacteristically up to its knees in the white stuff.

And, I must admit, I certainly did not understand the efforts of the Vancouver media to pillory Air Canada because of the weather.  The talk shows and the newspapers were filled to excess with examples of how people couldn't get home or wherever, and somehow it was Air Canada's fault and Westjet, which handles a fraction of traffic that Air Canada does, was somehow beyond reproach. 

In the space of four days, major airports Pearson, Halifax Stanfield, YVR then Pearson again then YVR again, got blasted with snowstorms so severe that Environment Canada called the phenomena "Storm-a-geddon."

And somehow that was Air Canada's fault?  Flights were delayed all over North America over the Christmas period.  But the media seemed to focus on Air Canada.  One has to wonder at the critical thinking abilities of the mainstream media.  Are they so focused on whatever their political agenda is that they are unable to ask critical questions?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Despite the several days warning preceding the extreme weather, officials at YVR didn't see the necessity to bring in extra de-icing fluid.  No, really, I'm not kidding.  Flights were delayed at YVR because the airport ran out of de-icing fluid and airlines had to wait for de-icing fluid to be trucked in from Calgary.  But the mainstream media and the talk show hosts seemed incapable of discovering that salient fact.

I'm no apologist for Air Canada, God knows they have their challenges, but the criticism they got for the weather delays across the country and most especially in Vancouver was grossly unfair bordering on libel. 

And I guess that the media unfairness is what lies at the heart of this rant. 

When I was first hired at the Montreal Star in the early '70s, I was taught by then City Editor, John Yorston, the concepts of objectivity in reporting and above all, checking sources and questioning everything.  I see little of that anymore in the mainstream media. 

Take, for example, a Toronto Star piece published to ring in the New Year.  Toronto police Chief Bill Blair was quoted in a story talking about how the murder rate has dropped in that city: "We live in one of the safest metropolitan cities in the world.  So, it's bland, it's boring here. Boring is good."

This, from the police chief of the city that had a gang shootout on Boxing Day a couple of years back that took the life of a beautiful, 15 year old girl out shopping with friends.  The Jane/Finch area of the city is a virtual "No Go" area for everyone including the police.  Crack cocaine and methamphetamine is the currency and guns and bullets are the calling cards.

The city was so "boring" that only a few hours after midnight on New Year's Eve, shots rang out in several parts of the "boring" city.  By dawn there were three gunshot victims in area hospitals from separate incidents.  And those are only the ones that I know about.

Blair is obviously trying to spin some good news into a public relations win for a police department beleaguered by scandal in recent years.  I get that and I get that he would want to do that.  But please, neither he nor the Toronto Star should insult the intelligence of the public.

Drugs, guns and shootings are a part of all our major cities in Canada in this day and age and any attempt to minimize that is irresponsible on the part of our police leaders or politicians.  The swallowing of the irresponsible spin by the mainstream media is an abdication of their responsibility in what I used to believe was a proud calling.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

Justice?

While sitting in the lounge at Toronto's Pearson airport this week I was killing some time reading the only newspaper in this country worth spending some time with: The National Post.  And there on page A11 with the slug "Justice" was this story: "Judge banishes teenage car thief from Winnipeg in unique sentence."

Some little piece of human excrement, described as a serial car thief, who cannot be named here because of the $%$$!! stupid YCJA, will be sent away from Winnipeg to spend a term of probation in Yorkton, Sask.  The time is to be spent with "family" according to the court.  I'll just bet the good burghers of that town are overjoyed at that prospect.  Sales of steering wheel locks ought to go up overnight at the local Canadian Tire store.

Everyone associated with the decision is unsure if there will be any effect on the young darling who cannot seem to get through a day without stealing a car.  But he isn't likely a disappointment to his family.  His family has a collective 180 convictions for auto theft among them.  That's convictions, not charges or even police interventions in theft auto files.  Convictions.

Now, I don't know about you, but I suspect this is all going to be a waste of time, money and people's efforts who have to try and manage this file in the probation office.  I also suspect, and I will give odds, that this waste of good oxygen is going to be arrested in the first 30 days behind the wheel of a stolen car.  I will even allow you to hedge your bet by my stating that the arrest will result from a high-speed chase with police.

And that's really the problem here – this little piece of crap, masquerading as a human being, is not being made responsible for his actions.  That's offensive to the rest of society and not just the people of Yorkton, Saskatchewan who are about to experience a crime wave courtesy of the Manitoba courts.

The courts simply cannot or will not get their heads around one of the basic principles of sentencing stipulated in the Criminal Code of Canada which is that protection of the public must be a consideration when pronouncing sentence upon a convicted person. 

So, let me ask the question:  How are the citizens of Yorkton, Saskatchewan being protected by the courts in a sentence where a prolific car thief is given probation and sent to a town in which he does not live, to stay with a family who seem to think auto theft is the family trade?

It's all a mystery to me.  Our justice system, were it actually that, should put this little piece of crap in prison for a very long time.  Because, in doing that, they would actually protect the good people of Yorkton, Saskatchewan.

And while they were at it, they could send the other members of his family along with him. 

Or, as some would say, just shoot the lot and put them out of society's misery.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

 

The eyes have it

Yesterday's announcement by the BC Crown Counsel's office that there would be no criminal charges laid in the tasering of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanskie should come as no surprise to anyone with the ability to think and analyze what they were able to see with their own eyes in a little over a minute of very available video, broadcast widely on news stations in Canada and on the internet. 

I said at the time that the RCMP members who responded to a violent and apparently emotionally and mentally unstable man at Vancouver International Airport did exactly as they were trained to do and now the Crown Counsel has backed up those members. 

That Dziekanskie died is sad indeed to those that knew and cared for him.  Albeit, the information that has come to light in the intervening time seems to indicate that there were precious few of those. 

No indeed, the bloodlust whipped up by the media seems to have been all about their own particular ideology which in general is to play "gotcha" journalism and, in specific, is to attack the actions of the police.

But despite the attempts of the assembled media hounds baying for the blood of the RCMP members in this case, the Crown has made the correct decision and the police officers involved have been vindicated in the actions they took on that fateful night.

But, let's be very clear, every media outlet in this country all but called this an execution of an innocent man at the hands of the police. 

And they were wrong, at every level.

 
The Mounties responded well after Customs and Immigration (now CBSA) dropped the ball, as did airport security, letting an agitated man stew for a dozen hours in a secure area not knowing where to go, what to do, or indeed, how to help himself.

 
He was plainly visible on their security cameras.  They had to see him, time and time again for 12 hours.  And yet they did nothing until the behaviour of the nicotine and alcohol-deprived addict became so egregious the police were called.

 
And, as yet, no one from those organizations has said word one about why they failed in their jobs, preferring to let four young members of the RCMP dangle on the end of a rope not of their creation. And for some strange reason, they have been given a big wide pass by what passes for mainstream journalism in these strange times as the fourth estate aggressively attacks those whose job is to protect us.

The police officers who attended knew they were dealing with an irrational man in an agitated state.  They approached him carefully using hand signals to try and calm him.  When the man escalated his behaviour they engaged him physically and used a Taser - exactly as they were trained to do.

 
Complain all you want about the training, the Canadian Border Services Agency, airport security or the media frenzy, but the four members of the RCMP who attended and dealt with Dziekanskie did absolutely nothing wrong and all of the media attempts to appoint them as the bad guys in this movie are shameful.  

The videotape tells the truth. The media would have you not believe your eyes and instead believe their whipped up frenzy and bloodlust for the police. 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" seemed to be the line of thinking.

The RCMP may be a lot of things and have a lot to answer to the Canadian public as depicted in Paul Palango's masterful work: Dispersing the Fog, but those four members, all since scattered hither and yon by the Force, did their job on that night.

 
And, as near as I can see, the mainstream media didn't do theirs that night or on any day or night since on this file.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

The last Rae Day

As much as he tried to be conciliatory and magnanimous, the angst on the face of Bob Rae as he reluctantly let go of his passionate, all-consuming ambition to be the Prime Minister of Canada was all too evident.  And, so too must have been the angst in the boardroom of Power Corp, where Rae's brother, John, is part of the ruling class, oops, sorry, senior management.

But wait, Michael Ignatieff is still part of the ruling elite "entitled to their entitlements" class of the Liberal Party of Canada isn't he?  Well, that's a little hard to say.  He's been absent from Canada for much of his adult life.  On the surface he seems more centrist than the former NDP Premier of Ontario could ever claim to be.  And whatever ties to Power Corp. he may have, it seems to be only a friendship to the Raes.  Well, so far.

What is clear is that, with the notable exception of Stephen Harper, every Prime Minister in office longer than the time to have a cup of coffee in the past three decades, owes his allegiance to Power Corp.  Then, add the likes of Maurice Strong (he of the UN Oil for Food scandal) and Paul Volker (former chair of he US Fed and current Barack Obama advisor) to the mix and their influence – dare I say dominance - over North American government is complete for the last 40 years.

And there's the rub isn't it?  There is no ability to control Stephen Harper is there?  Oh sure, Brian Mulroney, another Power Corp. alumni, was an adviser in the early days, but that too failed.  So how to continue the run?  Obviously Harper has to go.   

But how?  He was just elected a few weeks earlier.  Albeit to a minority government as the Libs were reduced to their lowest vote tally in living memory.  In the last minority Parliament, Lib leader Stephane Dion supported the Harper government against all of his pet causes in a twisting, hypocritical, mind-numbingly theatrical performance to avoid an election, all the while saying he was against what Harper was doing.  It's a wonder his dog, Kyoto, didn't bite him.

No problem apparently though after the next election forced by Harper.  The Libs did exactly what they said they would never do and crawled into bed with the NDP and the separatist Bloc.  Well, as threesomes go, I doubt there has been another dripping with more sleaze and hypocrisy than that one.  Or as Mulroney once mused, "There's no whore like an old whore."  And I suppose he is an authority on that subject.

What puzzles me is the concept that Rae, and by extension his supporters, or more accurately, string pullers, tried to peddle that the Governor General had an obvious choice to make if they, the combined opposition, simply said they had no confidence in the sitting government and she should appoint them as the government. 

It not only defies logic, and law and tradition, but speaks to the unadulterated ego and sense of entitlement possessed by the Liberal Party of Canada.  That Jack and Gilles jumped on the train is really of no import.  Neither will ever get close to the Prime Minister's office in any way, shape or form save and except as an invited visitor.  Canadians, as apathetic as they can be in their "I'm all right Jack" existence, would never be so stupid as to let them close to the levers of power.  So Layton signed on to his only shot and is still trying to milk out the dry udder of that cow while Duceppe is still sniggering at the door those idiots opened for him and the separatists.

And at the end of the last Rae-Day, the worst Premier Ontario has ever seen will not have the opportunity to become the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever seen.   His brother, John Rae, who ran the campaigns of Jean Chretien and is a central, dominating part of the power brokers of Power Corp. will not have a direct pipeline into the Prime Minister's office. 

Or will he?

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

The world according to the CBC

 

I should know better.  But I watched the CBC National news tonight.  I know, I know, but there really wasn't much else on. 

For the first time since, uh, I don't know when, I screamed at my television. 

The CBC ran a piece of journalistic tripe about the war in Afghanistan with the marking of the 100^th Canadian soldier killed in action in that troubled part of the world.  The absolute bias was prevalent in the piece.  They found two families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and a peace activist who has written a book to present an anti-war point of view that had not a hint of balance or, dare I say, common sense.

Without disparaging the families of the brave men who died in the service of this country, I couldn't help but get angry at the mother of one soldier who said she was okay with her son being a peacekeeper but didn't want him shooting at someone.   Honestly, she said that.

And then the intellectually-challenged man married to her criticized the mission we are on in some weird attempt to say Canada has done its bit for NATO and we should leave without addressing the job that is not yet done against the Taliban and the forces of evil who are trying to destroy our very way of life.

Now, I grieve along with every other Canadian for the death of every man and woman who is killed in the line of duty in the service of this country.  But, it is disingenuous to the extreme to suggest that if we simply bail on Afghanistan life will be alright.  The harsh reality for all the group huggers is that we, the West, have got to engage in a shooting war with the forces of Islam who are trying to eliminate our way of life.  There is no other way to look at the so-called War on Terror.  And best that war be conducted in a place far away from our shores.

********************************

It's been awhile since I have posted and for those who have written wondering why, suffice to say it has been an extremely busy period for me given that, in addition to my day job and other writing projects, I advise two CFL clubs on matters of security and November was the playoff season.  One of the clubs I work with won the Grey Cup and it was a pure joy to bear witness, at close quarters, to their victory. 

To those of you who enjoy my musings I pledge I will be more forthcoming in the next while.  To those that hate what I say, I will try to say more than ever. 

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

None of the above

I don't have a dog in this fight. And if ever there was an election that screamed out for a None of the Above selection on the ballot, it is this Presidential election in the USA.

A few days ago I was speaking with a waitress in the hotel lounge I was staying at in Calgary and she struck up a conversation on the book I was reading - The War Within by Bob Woodward.

It seems she is a young idealistic economics student at the University of Calgary. She asked me what I thought about the US election and I stated the above. She asked what I didn't like about Barack Obama and I said that in my view he hasn't said much about what he would do save and except for mouthing a bunch of empty rhetoric and the usual socialist tripe about raising the minimum wage and creating the conditions for more unionization in America.

She seemed appalled and said well, what about what George Bush and the Republicans have done to the economy? I replied that the current economic meltdown had very little to do with Bush and was almost exclusively the responsibility of former President Bill Clinton.

Well, she looked as though someone had just drowned her puppy. She then said that's not what her professors taught at university. Which, of course, caused me to pass several ounces of a perfectly potable Australian Shiraz out of my nose.

So patiently, I explained, after I had cleaned up the table in front of me, that universities in Canada and the US, with all but a very few exceptions are bastions of political correctness and socialist dogma and of course they wouldn't teach anything but what fits their socialist version of reality.

Well, with a few taps on the IPhone I unearthed several articles in places like the Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily that proved my point. She then got mad, as she should have, at her profs and said they should be teaching the truth. Ah yes, got it in one my dear. But neither our institutes of higher learning nor the mainstream media can see past their dogmatic idealism.

In Toronto this morning, I watched the all-Obama news channel formerly known as CNN. They've already got this guy elected and were breathlessly talking about who might be his Chief of Staff and possible cabinet appointments. Well Obama may well be the President-elect come Wednesday morning or, as in the last two elections, the MSM may have gotten it wrong. But whatever happens, this election has clearly shown that both sides need to work harder to find better candidates.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

*For those of you who are interested in the original piece written by Terry Jones for the Investor's Business Daily which is a subscription site, I have found a discussion board with the original article posted. You can read it here: http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1266142

The Lesser of Two Weasels

I have had about all the stomach-churning rhetoric and blatent nonsense I can handle in this election campaign.  

The economy in the USA, Iceland, Japan and many other parts of the world is in the toilet and circling the drain.  NDP leader Jack Layton and Liberal Stephane Dion can only scream "Why isn't the Prime Minister doing something?"  Well, what exactly isn't made clear.  

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not panicked and knee-jerked his way into doing something for the sake of appearing to be doing something.  That's what a leader does.  A leader does not panic.  

While I abhor some of the things the Harper government has done, or not done as the case may be, one cannot say he has been reckless, which seems to be what the lefty weasels are demanding.

Now, I know for certain that Dion's Green Shift is a pack of stuff and nonsense.  But clearly, if it was stuff and nonsense a month ago, with the market meltdown, it  is unadulterated stupidity now.  But, Dion continues to say a Liberal government will adopt this in its first budget.  

This is beyond reckless given the market situation, this is economic suicide.  Follow me here.  The so-called Green Shift, the term in itself was stolen without the permission of the owner of the name, is touted to be revenue neutral because carbon taxes placed upon carbon emitters would be offset by income tax reductions.  

Okay. But if the carbon tax is designed to incent the carbon emitters to emit less doesn't that also follow that that leads to paying less?  And if they are paying less and the income tax reduction is not recinded, isn't that a recipe for deficit budgets? Well, you know it is, and I know it is.  But that 's because we can actually think something through.  And, of course, this simple concept doesn't deal with the inflationary result because increasing costs on business means business has to reflect that cost on their price to the end user.  Simple economics.

But, apparently not simple enough for the critical thinkers who pull the strings on the most corrupt political party this country has ever had endure. And, if you doubt the accuracy of that statement please purchase Paul Palango's new book: "Dispersing the Fog" and get back to me after you've digested it.

But simple economics seems to elude the other weasel as well, Jack Layton. I may climb a clock tower with a rifle if I hear the phrase "working family" or "corporate welfare" again. Is Layton so devoid of ideas that he must resort to the 1974 election campaign speeches of David Lewis who coined the phrase "corporate welfare bums?"  Layton's stated policy of eliminating the so-called "$50 billion" in corporate tax cuts enacted by the Stephen Harper minority government may be ideologically sound with the ideological unsound on the political left, but it doesn't make any sense in the real world.  I don't care how you paint it, if government raises the cost to business of anything, then business must, by definition, pass that cost onto its customers which of course, means the buying public.  And that is true whether we are talking about oil companines, or financial institutions or the Ma and Pop corner grocery store.  

Why would any political leader with any concept of reality want to add to the financial burden of the average Canadian family at this point in time with the American economy in free-fall and our economic times so uncertain?  Notice I didn't use the term "working family" and instead used "average Canadian."  The NDP seems to think the only people who "work" are single moms and union members.  Weasel the Lesser should try and see how hard people like you and I work to pay our taxes, our bills and try and keep a few shekels out of the hands of the government thieves for a rainy day.

The concept of a Dion government or a coalition Dion/Layton government is frightening at best and downright disastrous at worst.  Whatever one may think of Stephen Harper, he is, at least, a true leader and a careful steward of the country. The choice on October 14 is either Stephen Harper or the lesser of two weasels.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

Tilting at windmills with effect

I have just finished reading an advance copy of Paul Palango's new book: entitled Dispersing the Fog: Inside the Secret World of Ottawa and the RCMP. 

Palango, who is no stranger to anyone interested in the RCMP and the problems that have befallen this national icon, walks the reader through a series of cases that have dominated the news headlines. From the Mahar Arar debacle through Project Sidewinder and up to the murder of the Mayerthorpe Four, Palango looks carefully at the reasons the RCMP keeps taking it on the chin.

But it is so much more than a look inside the travails of Canada's national police force.  It is really an examination behind the scenes and the politicization of the RCMP to suit the needs of the real power behind the throne in Canada and he lays bare the systemic corruption that has everything to do with power and money for a small group and little or nothing to do with what is right for the country. 

Palango methodically strips away the layers of obfuscation and lays bare the fabric of lies that ultimately ensures the RCMP can never be what Canada really needs of our national police force.

I have long described the RCMP as 133 years of tradition unhampered by progress and Palango nails it as he takes the reader on a roller coaster ride through some of the biggest headlines of the last decade. 

The book, published by Key Porter Books, will be in bookstores in early November.  If you care about Canada, read this book.  Palango takes the reader inside the corridors of power and shines a light on the cockroaches that inhabit them.

The RCMP have already begun discreet inquiries to try and determine who may have given Palango information used in this book.  And that, in and of itself, illustrates what is wrong with the Force.  They are a fundamentally flawed, dysfunctional organization.  Instead of trying to fix their myriad of issues outlined by Palango, they initiated a witch-hunt to find out who let the cat out of the bag. 

Palango has done a significant service to the country with his work on this book.  He should receive the Order of Canada for his efforts.  Instead, I fear he will be attacked mercilessly for his efforts by those who believe they are entitled to their entitlements.

Wait for it, unfortunately.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com

An affront to the brave

Being Canadian means having to accept stupidity disguised as political correctness.

I have spent much of this week on planes moving between Alberta and BC and back and forth. I was making my way at Calgary Airport to the baggage carrousal the other day and I watched a number of soldiers in battle fatigues clearing security on their way to the front lines of the war on terror being waged by extreme Islamist thugs against western democracies.

In the same week as an addle-brained spokesman for the Taliban claimed they were targetting Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan deliberately in order to have an effect on the current federal election campaign, I watched as our soldiers were being subjected to physical searches by CATSA security guards with names like Ali and Mahmoud. The female baggage screener wore a Muslim head scarf.

There was something wholly incongruous and hypocritical about what I saw.

I harbour no illusions about the efficacy of airport security in Canada. There is no doubt is it little more than an expensive pantomine to create the illusion of security for the travelling public in the post-9/11 world. But, really, couldn't we really add some actual effect to the illusion?

And I have to admit that it just pissed me off to watch a Canadian soldier who has been security cleared to a level the CATSA guard could never aspire to, being searched, in combat uniform, before getting on a plane to defend this country from the religious zealots who threaten the world and are connected by faith to the very guards supposedly protecting our flying public.

Never mind Sharia and the male dominance over the female of the species, how is it possible that political correctness can trump security in this day and age?

It's an an absolute mystery and an affront to those soldiers in combat uniform heading to a war zone who had to submit to the searches.

I was ashamed to be Canadian as I watched the scene. Unfortunately, it was not the first time.

Leo Knight
primetimecrime@gmail.com






- Leo Knight on Blackberry

Spin bears no relation to the truth

Well, election madness is upon us, whether we wanted it or not.  And one of the things we know inherently is that we are about to be subjected to spin on an unprecedented scale.

I received this email yesterday that I thought worth sharing with you.  I thought it particularly poignant.

Hi Leo,

I just watched a local news station do a story on the dirty politics between Stephane Dion and the conservative government.  They actually said that Dion wanted to "increase" the restrictions on several kinds of firearms, "including the type that was used in the Montreal Dawson College shooting."  Then the story ends and they go on with the next really quickly to a service for those who recently lost their lives in the CF.

What many people don't already know is that at the time that massacre occurred, those Beretta Storm's were restricted firearms.  Now they are already prohibited, at least according to my local gun store.  As are all bullpup arms.  So how can they increase any further restrictions on a prohibited firearm?

This upsets me because they don't bother to explain to the public the difference between non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited.  They just use an angle that serves their purpose -- at the shameful expense of those victims.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could do a blog entry on firearms and this liberal spin thats been going through the news and schools.  Criminals don't get guns by going through the RCMP, they illegally import them, or steal them from registered lawful owners because of the registry itself.  Granted, handguns have been registered for decades, but this longarm registry needs to go -- and besides, you can't hide a 44" to 48" rifle in your pants.  There are big lists by the NRA using real statistics to show that its better for us to be a lawfully armed society.  They show that as criminals are more comfortable with the idea that you are not armed, crime increases.  And saying that guns kill people is like saying spoons made Oprah fat.  If there weren't guns and people were so dead-set on killing, there would be knives, and thats already a problem.  But a person who thinks of pulling a knife on a lawful citizen who might have a carry licence would think several times before doing something stupid.  You can sort in a list the States in an increasing order of gun control, and they are nearly the same states with the same order of increasing crime.  That should speak volumes, but the majority of people in Canada don't recognize that each state have set their own laws, and the states where people are allowed to carry, there is virtually zero crime.

I do agree that in Canada there should remain laws about concealed weapons.  We should be a shall-carry instead of a may-carry society, and wear it proudly on our hip as a symbol of lawfulness.  But for whatever reason they think we'll have shootouts and high noon duelings, even though dueling (with guns or swords) has been illegal for a very long time.  That is, mutually agreeing to a fight without fists.  Mutual agreement of any public display of violence should be against the law, and it is in regards to disturbing the peace.  But we get youtube's of schoolyard fights and the person who never wanted to fight at all has to save face and pretend it was ok on camera.

The "40 reasons for gun control" posted around the magazines, people don't see that it was written as a criticism for gun control.  You have probably seen it around but if you haven't I'll attach it below for your own humour.

Thank you very much for reading,
I enjoy reading you,
Jay Demmery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Reasons For Gun Control 
Significant portions of this article are excerpted from Michael Z. Williamson's excellent and witty piece, "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control" 
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

A day late and a dollar short

I was sent a web link today to a recently launched website disturbingly critical of the Calgary Police Service.  I looked at the website and am very troubled not only by the content, but by the fact they have linked primetimecrime.com as though we are somehow a part of this vitriolic diatribe.  

For the record, primetimecrime.com has absolutely nothing to do with www.calgarypoliceinfo.com and I fervently decry any connection to anyone who would dare to publish such a site unsupported by evidence.  

In looking at the information published, little seems new.  Rather, it all appears to be a regurgitation of things that happened on former chief Jack Beaton's watch.  Beaton deserved to be criticized and I wasn't shy doing just that.  But he has retired and there is a new Chief Constable.  And the new Chief Constable seems, to this observer at least, to be making a lot of right moves.  

No police department is perfect and no one should expect perfection of the Calgary Police Service. But, since the departure of Jack Beaton and the installation of Rick Hanson as Chief, the CPS is in the best shape it has been in since the early 90's. 

I don't know who or what is behind the publication of the website but I can suggest that whoever it is is still fighting a battle that is long since over.  He or she just doesn't seem to realize that simple truth.

There were a great many reasons to criticize the CPS under Jack Beaton.  The current effort seems to be a day late and a dollar short.

Leo Knight

primetimecrime@gmail.com