Pubdate: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 Source: National Post (Canada) Copyright: 2007 Southam Inc. Contact: http://www.nationalpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286 Author: John Ivison, National Post CRIME AGENDA IGNORES THE FACTS Liberals In Favour Of Law And Order, But Hardly Dogmatic About It When the Conservatives are announcing taxpayer funded environmental projects and the Liberals are talking tough on crime, you know there's an election in the air. In a curious role reversal, Stephen Harper was in the Toronto area yesterday, wearing an open-necked shirt and possibly Birkenstocks, as he announced that the government is going to purchase ecologically sensitive land. Meanwhile, mild-mannered Stephane Dion was just down the road, trying to look fierce as he explained his new-found enthusiasm for law and order. Stung by Tory barbs that he is "soft on crime," the Liberal leader promised $200-million for 400 more RCMP officers; changes to the Criminal Code to guard against the Internet luring of children; and tougher laws against identity theft. In addition, there would be more funding for Crown attorneys and dozens of judicial vacancies would be filled, he said. All of which is well and good. The problem is the Liberals don't really believe there is a problem. Mr. Dion said he would base his policy on facts, not fear-mongering. He went on to note that the violent crime rate fell 13% between 1992 and 2004. True, but that ignores the fact that the homicide rate climbed to its highest level in a decade in 2005, fuelled by a spike in gang related killings. It ignores the fact that crime prevention is fourth on a list of things Canadians want their government to act on, behind health care, the environment and poverty. And it ignores the fact that one in four people feel vulnerable to property crime and one in seven feels open to violent crime, even if actual crime rates are one in five for property and one in 25 for violence. Crime is a topic that preoccupies Canadians, with most people believing that overall rates are increasing. Yet studies suggest the one group that does not place a strong emphasis on law and order values are Liberal supporters, for whom respect for authority and personal responsibility are less important than equality and respect for diversity. Mr. Dion's speech yesterday was titled "Protecting our Homes and our Rights" but there is no doubt which is pre-eminent in the Liberal leader's universe. This in itself is not a crime -- different strokes and all that. But then, please spare us the preelection hyperventilating. The last time we heard a Liberal leader talking about crime was Paul Martin's pledge to ban handguns and double minimum prison sentences before the past election. Since then, the Liberals have generally been in favour of law and order but have hardly been dogmatic about it. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP were all committed to cracking down on gun crime during the past election, yet the bill advocating mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns has been gutted by the opposition parties, who argue judges should be given latitude. Mr. Dion gave a clue to his own position in his speech: "Too often, Canadian politicians [suggest] the only solution to crime is longer sentences." The bill is due to be returned from the justice committee to the House of Commons in the next two weeks and it could yet prove to be the trigger to a general election, since the Conservatives argue it is one of the measures they promised to implement when they were elected. Likewise, the Conservatives brought in a bill limiting the use of conditional sentences (house arrest) in cases where the minimum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The Tories argued that criminals convicted of such crimes as arson, luring a child and auto theft should face jail time rather than curfews, community service and counselling. However, the opposition parties carved out non-violent crimes from the bill, which means only those convicted of "personal injury offences" will no longer be eligible for conditional sentencing. Sue Barnes, the then Liberal justice critic, summed up her party's position in the debate on second reading when she argued conditional sentences should be available for non-violent offenders. "Think of the case of a welfare fraud parent, who I am told by defence counsel is usually a woman. She would more likely end up in jail where before, a conditional sentence would often be used," she said. While the system may have caught up the odd errant welfare mother, much more prevalent are the serious drug traffickers still able to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own home, thanks to the efforts of Ms. Barnes and her colleagues. One-third of all traffickers convicted of crimes that carried a minimum penalty of 10 years in jail were given conditional sentences in 2003-04. Mr. Dion may have partly addressed the worry that he'd be as much use in a crime wave as a sheep, but people should judge the Liberals on their past actions, not their good intentions. As Dr. Johnson noted, those are what hell is paved with. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek