(Aired on April 28, 2010)
When an RCMP officer discharges his or her sidearm, it's hard to say what's the more frightening prospect for the officer - the incident itself or the aftermath.
Yesterday, a Mountie was forced to fire on a suspect after that suspect used a car to ram the officer. The suspect was hit in the shoulder and was injured. He'll have to deal with the court system and shouldn't expect an easy ride. But the officer doesn't simply get to go home and forget about it. In addition to the emotional trauma of having to shoot at someone in defence of your own life, it's likely this officer will have to relive the tail again and again for the investigators looking into it.
In the interests of impartiality and fairness, local mounties have called in colleagues from Kelowna and Saskatchewan to handle the investigation. They do it out of an abundance of caution. After all, there has been no shortage of incidents lately where the Mounties have had to investigate themselves, and impartiality is always a concern. The RCMP is a brotherhood of sorts, and there will always be the tendency to close ranks around their own. On the flip side, it would be nearly impossible for police officers to carry out their jobs if they didn't feel their colleagues would have their backs.
The member involved in this shooting may have times during the investigation when he feels like the suspicion is focusing on him - even when he feels he was just doing his job. But bringing in outside officials to examine this incident is the right move. Firing a sidearm has to be a last resort for law enforcement officers. It should be done out of an abundance of caution, and that's also what should be used to investigate it.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
HST Itself Won't Dethrone Liberals
(Aired on April 27, 2010)
The uproar over the Harmonized Sales Tax has reached jet engine-like decibel levels in this province. Observe any anti-H.S.T. petition signing event, and you will see people more than eager to sign up to voice their displeasure. We've heard stories of canvassers being chased down the street by potential signatories they inadvertently missed - people desperate to ensure the tax will fail.
And while all of this outrage is being directed at the provincial Liberals - and very little at Ottawa where the idea originated - my prediction is that it won't be enough to torpedo the Campbell government. The fact that the next provincial election is three years away is part of the reason behind that theory. This degree of pissed-offedness cannot be sustained for that long. But the real reason the H.S.T. itself won't sink the B.C Liberals has more to do with their opposition.
The provincial N.D.P. simply can't position itself against a tax as a matter of principle. I know the B.C. political scene is screwed up, but it's not completely upside down. Not long ago, the New Democrats came out great guns against the carbon tax with an "Axe the Tax" campaign. That effectively raised the hackles of the public.
But if the N.D.P. is going to come out great guns against the H.S.T. as well, it will soon be known as the anti-tax party. Cariboo-North M.L.A. Bob Simpson acknowledged this positioning problem in an interview with me several months ago. He said the party would have to focus on the fact that the Liberals deceived voters by not making the H.S.T. an election issue. Already, though, that argument is losing steam, and the opposition is focused on the effects of the tax itself. In three years' time the N.D.P's argument of "remember what they did last time" won't be nearly as effective as the argument "look what they're doing to you right now."
By then, the sting of the tax will have subsided and the Liberals will live to rule another day.
The uproar over the Harmonized Sales Tax has reached jet engine-like decibel levels in this province. Observe any anti-H.S.T. petition signing event, and you will see people more than eager to sign up to voice their displeasure. We've heard stories of canvassers being chased down the street by potential signatories they inadvertently missed - people desperate to ensure the tax will fail.
And while all of this outrage is being directed at the provincial Liberals - and very little at Ottawa where the idea originated - my prediction is that it won't be enough to torpedo the Campbell government. The fact that the next provincial election is three years away is part of the reason behind that theory. This degree of pissed-offedness cannot be sustained for that long. But the real reason the H.S.T. itself won't sink the B.C Liberals has more to do with their opposition.
The provincial N.D.P. simply can't position itself against a tax as a matter of principle. I know the B.C. political scene is screwed up, but it's not completely upside down. Not long ago, the New Democrats came out great guns against the carbon tax with an "Axe the Tax" campaign. That effectively raised the hackles of the public.
But if the N.D.P. is going to come out great guns against the H.S.T. as well, it will soon be known as the anti-tax party. Cariboo-North M.L.A. Bob Simpson acknowledged this positioning problem in an interview with me several months ago. He said the party would have to focus on the fact that the Liberals deceived voters by not making the H.S.T. an election issue. Already, though, that argument is losing steam, and the opposition is focused on the effects of the tax itself. In three years' time the N.D.P's argument of "remember what they did last time" won't be nearly as effective as the argument "look what they're doing to you right now."
By then, the sting of the tax will have subsided and the Liberals will live to rule another day.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
European Airport Shutdown Warranted
(Aired on April 26, 2010)
Airlines around the world have been in an uproar over the closure of many European airports the past couple of weeks because of that volcano in Iceland. Some are saying that governments were far too hasty in shutting down the airports before they knew the extent of the ash. It's now widely believed that the total shutdown implemented throughout Northern Europe may have been a bit hasty, costing airlines billions of dollars trying to recover and move passengers around.
So are we to believe that the airlines would rather we risk life and limb, not only of their own staff flying those planes, but hundreds of thousands of passengers? Is that what they would have us think? That it's okay to take chances with peoples' lives for the sake of a few dollars.
I'm fully aware of the cost incurred, the hassle trying to reroute hundreds of thousands of unhappy vacationers back to their homes. But would we rather have had a crash claiming several hundred lives because we didn't take appropriate action? Officials had to make a pretty quick decision. They consulted the people who should know. Acting on the best information available, they shut things down. Absolutely the most appropriate move to take. Discretion is virtually always the better part of valour, and it certainly is in this case. Can you imagine the outcry if just one plane had crashed because officials decided it wasn't a danger to fly through all that ash?
Unfortunately for the airlines, unforeseen occurrences are part of the game. And all they can do now is try to get back on track the best they can. Don't blame people for closing the airports. They did everything they should have.
Airlines around the world have been in an uproar over the closure of many European airports the past couple of weeks because of that volcano in Iceland. Some are saying that governments were far too hasty in shutting down the airports before they knew the extent of the ash. It's now widely believed that the total shutdown implemented throughout Northern Europe may have been a bit hasty, costing airlines billions of dollars trying to recover and move passengers around.
So are we to believe that the airlines would rather we risk life and limb, not only of their own staff flying those planes, but hundreds of thousands of passengers? Is that what they would have us think? That it's okay to take chances with peoples' lives for the sake of a few dollars.
I'm fully aware of the cost incurred, the hassle trying to reroute hundreds of thousands of unhappy vacationers back to their homes. But would we rather have had a crash claiming several hundred lives because we didn't take appropriate action? Officials had to make a pretty quick decision. They consulted the people who should know. Acting on the best information available, they shut things down. Absolutely the most appropriate move to take. Discretion is virtually always the better part of valour, and it certainly is in this case. Can you imagine the outcry if just one plane had crashed because officials decided it wasn't a danger to fly through all that ash?
Unfortunately for the airlines, unforeseen occurrences are part of the game. And all they can do now is try to get back on track the best they can. Don't blame people for closing the airports. They did everything they should have.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Icelandic Volcano a Pot Punishment?
(Aired on April 23, 2010)
An Iranian cleric this week is blaming earthquakes on promiscuous women. Yes, you heard that right. Hojjat Ol-Eslam Kazem Sediqi says many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes. Something may have been lost in translation there, because I was following all the way up until the earthquakes part. Not to say I agreed, but at least I was following the argument. You may laugh at immodest women causing earthquakes, but it's hardly more ridiculous than Pat Robertson blaming the Haiti earthquake on the nation being cursed because it made a pact with the devil to get out from under Napoleonic rule.
So if natural disasters are indeed caused by the breach of some subjective standard of morality, what sin, dalliance, or impropriety caused this massive volcanic eruption in Iceland? My first instinct would be to say the sin was sexual in nature, because nobody appreciates a good bit of symbolism like the Almighty.
But maybe it's a little more literal, and that's why I've concluded that the sin being punished here is marijuana use. After all, all of European life is being crippled by a giant cloud of smoke. One of the cities impacted is Amsterdam, what with its permissive drug laws. And with hundreds of thousands of people forced to stay where they are it's quite likely many are experiencing varying degrees of paranoia. That doesn't even mention the fact that Tuesday was 4-20 - a day of celebration and participation for pot users around the world. For all of the headaches this is producing, I suppose we should hope that no one is using the herb for medicinal purposes for fear that the situation will get worse.
This disaster is costing the European economy billions of dollars, but using the same logic as the cleric and Brother Robertson, that's probably a logical punishment for smoking weed.
An Iranian cleric this week is blaming earthquakes on promiscuous women. Yes, you heard that right. Hojjat Ol-Eslam Kazem Sediqi says many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes. Something may have been lost in translation there, because I was following all the way up until the earthquakes part. Not to say I agreed, but at least I was following the argument. You may laugh at immodest women causing earthquakes, but it's hardly more ridiculous than Pat Robertson blaming the Haiti earthquake on the nation being cursed because it made a pact with the devil to get out from under Napoleonic rule.
So if natural disasters are indeed caused by the breach of some subjective standard of morality, what sin, dalliance, or impropriety caused this massive volcanic eruption in Iceland? My first instinct would be to say the sin was sexual in nature, because nobody appreciates a good bit of symbolism like the Almighty.
But maybe it's a little more literal, and that's why I've concluded that the sin being punished here is marijuana use. After all, all of European life is being crippled by a giant cloud of smoke. One of the cities impacted is Amsterdam, what with its permissive drug laws. And with hundreds of thousands of people forced to stay where they are it's quite likely many are experiencing varying degrees of paranoia. That doesn't even mention the fact that Tuesday was 4-20 - a day of celebration and participation for pot users around the world. For all of the headaches this is producing, I suppose we should hope that no one is using the herb for medicinal purposes for fear that the situation will get worse.
This disaster is costing the European economy billions of dollars, but using the same logic as the cleric and Brother Robertson, that's probably a logical punishment for smoking weed.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Is NCR a Way Out?
(Aired on April 21, 2010)
I have issues with the law that allows judges to find persons not criminally responsible for their actions. I made mention of this during the days following the conviction of Allan Schoenborn on charges of first-degree murder in the deaths of his three children in Merritt. It is a decision that makes me wonder whether this is a fair decision. I understand the reasons for it, but the fact is, if it can lead to someone being out on the streets in a shorter period of time than if they were found criminally responsible, I have trouble. Keep a person like that in a facility as opposed to prison, where they can be treated. But there have to be restrictions, and I don't have enough faith in the review board to ease my mind.
Another story this week has me equally concerned. A mentally ill Edmonton woman was shot by police after trying to stab an officer with a steak knife. The woman was apparently psychotic, under the influence of alcohol and Valium at the time, and somehow this means she can be found not criminally responsible. Because a person cannot appreciate the nature of their actions doesn't mean they shouldn't be contained, and be considered a danger to the public. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it with me. If they are let out because someone says they are no longer a danger, who's to say they couldn't go and do exactly the same thing again? If they're psychotic now and can commit an offence, what happens when they're psychotic next time?
Sometimes the explanation of the law makes sense, but it practice it often doesn't. Here's a case in point.
Doesn't matter whether they're criminally responsible at all. To me, the difference should be the place where they are held, not whether or not there's a chance they could be out on the street in six months.
I have issues with the law that allows judges to find persons not criminally responsible for their actions. I made mention of this during the days following the conviction of Allan Schoenborn on charges of first-degree murder in the deaths of his three children in Merritt. It is a decision that makes me wonder whether this is a fair decision. I understand the reasons for it, but the fact is, if it can lead to someone being out on the streets in a shorter period of time than if they were found criminally responsible, I have trouble. Keep a person like that in a facility as opposed to prison, where they can be treated. But there have to be restrictions, and I don't have enough faith in the review board to ease my mind.
Another story this week has me equally concerned. A mentally ill Edmonton woman was shot by police after trying to stab an officer with a steak knife. The woman was apparently psychotic, under the influence of alcohol and Valium at the time, and somehow this means she can be found not criminally responsible. Because a person cannot appreciate the nature of their actions doesn't mean they shouldn't be contained, and be considered a danger to the public. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it with me. If they are let out because someone says they are no longer a danger, who's to say they couldn't go and do exactly the same thing again? If they're psychotic now and can commit an offence, what happens when they're psychotic next time?
Sometimes the explanation of the law makes sense, but it practice it often doesn't. Here's a case in point.
Doesn't matter whether they're criminally responsible at all. To me, the difference should be the place where they are held, not whether or not there's a chance they could be out on the street in six months.
Site C Dam the Lesser Evil
(Aired on April 20, 2010)
The proposed Site C power dam in the Peace Country has already raised the hackles of environmentalists and First Nations, less than a day after it was announced by Premier Gordon Campbell yesterday. The controversy was expected, which is probably why the announcement was made in the back country where no one could invade the media hype.
But while the dam is controversial, let's remember a few things. It's not a fait accompli yet, and will require years of environmental study and consultation with First Nations. It will flood prime farmland. It will cost a lot of money. No question it will have a downside. But let's look at the upside. It will provide power for half a million homes, at a time when there are few alternatives. Short of nuclear power, which generates controversy hundreds of times greater than the hydro dam, there are no alternatives for the future. We can't go back to burning trees for heat and light, wind power and solar power are very limited in their potential, so what are the alternatives? We can reduce power consumption, and we should be trying to do as much of that as we can, but short of reducing the population growth, and spreading our growth further and further afield, there's little else to do. The dam is probably the best of a number of alternatives.
I'm not in favor of flooding farmland, but neither am I in favor of destroying even better farmland at the coast, but developers continue to spread out rather than up. We could save billions if we had housing concentrated in a smaller area, instead of eating up beautiful land that could grow our food supply.
We have so many double standards. First Nations complain about consultation, but they don't mind their own decisions on many issues without consulting us. Environmentalists worry about the dam, yet they still drive the old gas guzzling pickups around their farms, and probably use as much hydro as anyone else. Without some new revolutionary technology showing up somewhere down the road, projects like Site C are really the only way to provide energy for the future.
The proposed Site C power dam in the Peace Country has already raised the hackles of environmentalists and First Nations, less than a day after it was announced by Premier Gordon Campbell yesterday. The controversy was expected, which is probably why the announcement was made in the back country where no one could invade the media hype.
But while the dam is controversial, let's remember a few things. It's not a fait accompli yet, and will require years of environmental study and consultation with First Nations. It will flood prime farmland. It will cost a lot of money. No question it will have a downside. But let's look at the upside. It will provide power for half a million homes, at a time when there are few alternatives. Short of nuclear power, which generates controversy hundreds of times greater than the hydro dam, there are no alternatives for the future. We can't go back to burning trees for heat and light, wind power and solar power are very limited in their potential, so what are the alternatives? We can reduce power consumption, and we should be trying to do as much of that as we can, but short of reducing the population growth, and spreading our growth further and further afield, there's little else to do. The dam is probably the best of a number of alternatives.
I'm not in favor of flooding farmland, but neither am I in favor of destroying even better farmland at the coast, but developers continue to spread out rather than up. We could save billions if we had housing concentrated in a smaller area, instead of eating up beautiful land that could grow our food supply.
We have so many double standards. First Nations complain about consultation, but they don't mind their own decisions on many issues without consulting us. Environmentalists worry about the dam, yet they still drive the old gas guzzling pickups around their farms, and probably use as much hydro as anyone else. Without some new revolutionary technology showing up somewhere down the road, projects like Site C are really the only way to provide energy for the future.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Taxed to the Max
(Aired on April 19, 2010)
I'm surprised at a recent report from the Fraser Institute which says we're paying 41.7% of our total income to taxes. Not surprised that almost half yours and my income goes to taxes. We've known that for a long time. Every time we turn around, the government hits us with a tax on something. Now what surprises me is that the figure isn't very much changed in the past 20 years. In 1981, taxes accounted for 40.8% of income. So while we've gone up a full percentage point in that time, I actually thought it would be more than that.
Every time we reach into our pockets, the government seems to be there first. It never occurred to me that the moths flying out of my pockets were some cruel government joke. And of course, soon the HST will take even more money from us. Governments are quick to defend taxes, suggesting that the money is needed to fund health care, education, you name it. But I don't think many of us are convinced that our tax dollars are being used to best advantage.
In the fiscal year ending March 2005, the government collected $198.4-billion in taxes and other revenues. That doesn't count money taken in by the provinces or municipalities. The largest single spending item was repayment on our national debt. Now that we've spent a lot of money trying to stimulate our economy in light of the downturn, I wonder how long it will be before the tax bite hits even further. The downturn will play a bigger role than it has already when it comes time to repay the money the feds used to try and keep the economy afloat.
If you think it's bad that almost half your income goes towards taxes, you probably are going to be even more disappointed in the years ahead as we try to repay an even bigger debt load. And here is our federal government telling us we're not putting enough away for our retirement years. How do they expect that to happen? If they'd give us back even a small percentage of the tax dollars they drain from us each year, think of how much we could salt away for our so-called golden years. The thought is mind-boggling.
I'm surprised at a recent report from the Fraser Institute which says we're paying 41.7% of our total income to taxes. Not surprised that almost half yours and my income goes to taxes. We've known that for a long time. Every time we turn around, the government hits us with a tax on something. Now what surprises me is that the figure isn't very much changed in the past 20 years. In 1981, taxes accounted for 40.8% of income. So while we've gone up a full percentage point in that time, I actually thought it would be more than that.
Every time we reach into our pockets, the government seems to be there first. It never occurred to me that the moths flying out of my pockets were some cruel government joke. And of course, soon the HST will take even more money from us. Governments are quick to defend taxes, suggesting that the money is needed to fund health care, education, you name it. But I don't think many of us are convinced that our tax dollars are being used to best advantage.
In the fiscal year ending March 2005, the government collected $198.4-billion in taxes and other revenues. That doesn't count money taken in by the provinces or municipalities. The largest single spending item was repayment on our national debt. Now that we've spent a lot of money trying to stimulate our economy in light of the downturn, I wonder how long it will be before the tax bite hits even further. The downturn will play a bigger role than it has already when it comes time to repay the money the feds used to try and keep the economy afloat.
If you think it's bad that almost half your income goes towards taxes, you probably are going to be even more disappointed in the years ahead as we try to repay an even bigger debt load. And here is our federal government telling us we're not putting enough away for our retirement years. How do they expect that to happen? If they'd give us back even a small percentage of the tax dollars they drain from us each year, think of how much we could salt away for our so-called golden years. The thought is mind-boggling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
