Loyal Viewers and Readers,
You may have noticed that our brand spankin' new website at www.cfjctv.com is back up and running. Hooray! The website has many new features, including an integration for One Man's Opinion.
Thus, this blog will be discontinued and we invite you to browse our work at www.cfjctv.com.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Catch and Release Doesn't Work for Drunks
(Aired on October 13, 2010)
If you get picked up for being drunk or passed out in public, you can go to one of two places. You can go to the emergency room if your medical condition is serious enough. Or you can go to the drunk tank.
If you are sent to the drunk tank in RCMP cells, you will essentially be left there to sober up. Every now and then a guard will check up on you, make sure you're doing okay, and give you a meal. When it's deemed you are back in your right mind, you are released. It sounds like I know this from personal experience, but in fact, there has been so much made public concerning drunk tank policy lately that we all probably know, whether we've stayed a night in the clink or not.
A deficiency in the drunk tank system is being played out in a coroner's inquest this week, as a jury hears about the tragic demise of Stanley Cardinal after being lodged in cells last year. The recent sex in cells in controversy also reveals problems with the system.
What the E.R. and the drunk tank have in common is that they are both "catch and release." Once you're done, you're done, and off you go. But a lot of the time, if you get picked up for being drunk or passed out in public, it's not an isolated incident. You'll be back. That's why catch and release isn't necessarily appropriate.
Elsewhere in the province, communities have been setting up sobering centres. At a sobering centre, a person picked up passed out is set up with the programs that will get them on the road to recovery. I'd like to see this become the norm, rather than a rarity. Even during fishing season, it sounds a lot better than catch and release.
If you get picked up for being drunk or passed out in public, you can go to one of two places. You can go to the emergency room if your medical condition is serious enough. Or you can go to the drunk tank.
If you are sent to the drunk tank in RCMP cells, you will essentially be left there to sober up. Every now and then a guard will check up on you, make sure you're doing okay, and give you a meal. When it's deemed you are back in your right mind, you are released. It sounds like I know this from personal experience, but in fact, there has been so much made public concerning drunk tank policy lately that we all probably know, whether we've stayed a night in the clink or not.
A deficiency in the drunk tank system is being played out in a coroner's inquest this week, as a jury hears about the tragic demise of Stanley Cardinal after being lodged in cells last year. The recent sex in cells in controversy also reveals problems with the system.
What the E.R. and the drunk tank have in common is that they are both "catch and release." Once you're done, you're done, and off you go. But a lot of the time, if you get picked up for being drunk or passed out in public, it's not an isolated incident. You'll be back. That's why catch and release isn't necessarily appropriate.
Elsewhere in the province, communities have been setting up sobering centres. At a sobering centre, a person picked up passed out is set up with the programs that will get them on the road to recovery. I'd like to see this become the norm, rather than a rarity. Even during fishing season, it sounds a lot better than catch and release.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
NCR Does Not Mean Innocent
(Aired on October 12, 2010)
The rules regarding those found not criminally responsible for their crimes have to be changed. A man involved in a car crash in Vancouver last December has been released from detention, free to do whatever he wishes, after being found not criminally responsible for the crash. In that crash, the man carjacked a vehicle, then ran it into a building, causing injury to a girl inside the vehicle at the time. The Review Board says the man stopped taking his meds before the crash and was experiencing emotional distress. Somehow that's supposed to excuse his behavior?
The rules are simply wrong. While a man may not be criminally responsible, surely that doesn't mean he can get away with a serious offense. We have others in the same boat who committed murder and are also open to release when their next hearings come up. While we rely on these review boards to make judgments in these cases, one must question whether or not the rules are tough enough to ensure that people are detained for their behavior, no matter what causes it.
I understand it's one thing when you understand your actions and commit a crime, and another when you don't understand. But what's to stop this man from going off his medication again and committing another act? The review says this man is still a threat, and is under several conditions as part of his release. Do you honestly think he would understand those conditions if he again went off medication? That's absolutely stupid.
I don't want to preclude people from being freed when they're ready, but how can you say anyone can be ready under these circumstances? The laws are wrong, and it's time someone took the lead in doing something to make them stronger. Maybe these people aren't criminally responsible, but they're certainly responsible. And certainly they should get more than just a slap on the wrist and let back out into society.
The rules regarding those found not criminally responsible for their crimes have to be changed. A man involved in a car crash in Vancouver last December has been released from detention, free to do whatever he wishes, after being found not criminally responsible for the crash. In that crash, the man carjacked a vehicle, then ran it into a building, causing injury to a girl inside the vehicle at the time. The Review Board says the man stopped taking his meds before the crash and was experiencing emotional distress. Somehow that's supposed to excuse his behavior?
The rules are simply wrong. While a man may not be criminally responsible, surely that doesn't mean he can get away with a serious offense. We have others in the same boat who committed murder and are also open to release when their next hearings come up. While we rely on these review boards to make judgments in these cases, one must question whether or not the rules are tough enough to ensure that people are detained for their behavior, no matter what causes it.
I understand it's one thing when you understand your actions and commit a crime, and another when you don't understand. But what's to stop this man from going off his medication again and committing another act? The review says this man is still a threat, and is under several conditions as part of his release. Do you honestly think he would understand those conditions if he again went off medication? That's absolutely stupid.
I don't want to preclude people from being freed when they're ready, but how can you say anyone can be ready under these circumstances? The laws are wrong, and it's time someone took the lead in doing something to make them stronger. Maybe these people aren't criminally responsible, but they're certainly responsible. And certainly they should get more than just a slap on the wrist and let back out into society.
James Will Regret Booting Simpson
(Aired on October 8, 2010)
Back in December, an interview I did with Bob Simpson made me sit up and take notice. He spoke about an upcoming party convention in which the New Democrats would discuss their Harmonized Sales Tax strategy. While his colleagues were simply launching attacks against the Liberal government, Simpson was much more reluctant. He said after the party already opposed the Carbon Tax, it needed to be careful. Opposing the HST, he thought, would position the NDP as an anti-tax party. BC politics are crazy, but not that crazy.
The interview confirmed to me that Bob Simpson isn't always in step with the rest of the party. Sure enough, Simpson was booted out of the NDP camp this week for criticizing leader Carole James.
Most people will recognize that Bob Simpson was ejected from the caucus for speaking the truth. Simpson sees that the NDP have failed to capitalize on the giant political football fumbled by the governing Liberals directly into their hands. The HST boondoggle should be what the party is jumping all over - not the substance of the tax, but the way the government screwed up its imposition. Instead, the upstart Fight HST group has been the dominant voice keeping the government accountable, and as such has become the de facto opposition party. The NDP are riding high in the polls, but that's because they are the default second option. The party has failed to find its voice. It's exactly the reason why I am still reluctant to write off the Liberals for the next election.
Bob Simpson is right to criticize his party, and he is justified in doing so because he wants to see his party do well. If he stays on the outside looking in, and if his critiques are not heeded, it's Carole James who regret not having him on board.
Back in December, an interview I did with Bob Simpson made me sit up and take notice. He spoke about an upcoming party convention in which the New Democrats would discuss their Harmonized Sales Tax strategy. While his colleagues were simply launching attacks against the Liberal government, Simpson was much more reluctant. He said after the party already opposed the Carbon Tax, it needed to be careful. Opposing the HST, he thought, would position the NDP as an anti-tax party. BC politics are crazy, but not that crazy.
The interview confirmed to me that Bob Simpson isn't always in step with the rest of the party. Sure enough, Simpson was booted out of the NDP camp this week for criticizing leader Carole James.
Most people will recognize that Bob Simpson was ejected from the caucus for speaking the truth. Simpson sees that the NDP have failed to capitalize on the giant political football fumbled by the governing Liberals directly into their hands. The HST boondoggle should be what the party is jumping all over - not the substance of the tax, but the way the government screwed up its imposition. Instead, the upstart Fight HST group has been the dominant voice keeping the government accountable, and as such has become the de facto opposition party. The NDP are riding high in the polls, but that's because they are the default second option. The party has failed to find its voice. It's exactly the reason why I am still reluctant to write off the Liberals for the next election.
Bob Simpson is right to criticize his party, and he is justified in doing so because he wants to see his party do well. If he stays on the outside looking in, and if his critiques are not heeded, it's Carole James who regret not having him on board.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Who's in Bigger Trouble: Campbell or James?
(Aired on October 7, 2010)
One of the things I love about politics is that just when you thought you've seen it all, something else pops up. Just when she thinks things are rolling along for her, and the NDP looks like it's on its way to beating up on Gordon Campbell, the party starts to self-destruct just like the Liberals did a few months ago.
Carole James has booted Cariboo-North MLA Bob Simpson out of the caucus and taken away his post as critic for aboriginal relations and reconciliation. Apparently Simpson attacked James' recent speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention is some online comments. And now his constituency association is openly calling for a leadership race.
Just days ago, it looked more and more like we were going to have a new Liberal leader for James to fight in the next election. Speculation was that Gordon Campbell was going to step down and make way for a new leader who could resurrect the party after all the HST and health care controversy of the past year. But wait-maybe it will be Campbell who will stay and James will go.
James has not been as stellar a leader as many thought she might be when she took over the party reins, but it was generally assumed there was no real challenge to her leadership, and she might well have a chance to become the Premier in 2013. Who knows what might happen now? Is Simpson's revolt the tip of the iceberg? Politics is a crazy game. You just never know where the next bit of juicy news will come from. I'm sure James and Premier Campbell are both going to be watching their back as much as they watch the road ahead over the next few months. Perhaps Campbell is about to rise from the ashes like the Phoenix and maybe it will be James who crashes and burns. keep your eyes tuned for the next installment.
One of the things I love about politics is that just when you thought you've seen it all, something else pops up. Just when she thinks things are rolling along for her, and the NDP looks like it's on its way to beating up on Gordon Campbell, the party starts to self-destruct just like the Liberals did a few months ago.
Carole James has booted Cariboo-North MLA Bob Simpson out of the caucus and taken away his post as critic for aboriginal relations and reconciliation. Apparently Simpson attacked James' recent speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention is some online comments. And now his constituency association is openly calling for a leadership race.
Just days ago, it looked more and more like we were going to have a new Liberal leader for James to fight in the next election. Speculation was that Gordon Campbell was going to step down and make way for a new leader who could resurrect the party after all the HST and health care controversy of the past year. But wait-maybe it will be Campbell who will stay and James will go.
James has not been as stellar a leader as many thought she might be when she took over the party reins, but it was generally assumed there was no real challenge to her leadership, and she might well have a chance to become the Premier in 2013. Who knows what might happen now? Is Simpson's revolt the tip of the iceberg? Politics is a crazy game. You just never know where the next bit of juicy news will come from. I'm sure James and Premier Campbell are both going to be watching their back as much as they watch the road ahead over the next few months. Perhaps Campbell is about to rise from the ashes like the Phoenix and maybe it will be James who crashes and burns. keep your eyes tuned for the next installment.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
More Money Needed for Emerald Centre
(Aired on October 6, 2010)
Doug Sage seems confident. Me, not so much.
I was speaking with Sage today about the former Rendezvous Hotel, soon to be called Emerald Centre. You may recall the property was purchased by the province earlier this year, with the promise that it would be turned into a homeless shelter, jointly run by ASK Wellness and Canadian Mental Health. Sage, who runs CMHA locally, says the estimate on how much it will cost to renovate the property has risen by about $1.5-million. The local organizations have to go back to BC Housing with open hands hoping that the government will pony up the dough.
As I said before, Sage is confident. He says he knows that times are tight, and the government is not handing out money very easily these days. If you listen to him, though, the province is committed to this project. Any hesitation to hand over the money will only result in a delay in project completion, not a complete cancellation.
I'm much more reluctant. I know the Campbell Liberals need to win some popularity points right now, and funding social projects is always a good way to do that. But it's my thinking they'd rather do that on the right, by yanking the reins on spending and getting BC out of deficit as soon as possible, than on the left by spending more. For the sake of the homeless in Kamloops, I hope I'm wrong.
Sage is certainly right about one thing, he says as long as people are forced to stay in shelters rather than their own housing, the fight must continue. In that fight, he will soon find out whether the province is foe or ally.
Doug Sage seems confident. Me, not so much.
I was speaking with Sage today about the former Rendezvous Hotel, soon to be called Emerald Centre. You may recall the property was purchased by the province earlier this year, with the promise that it would be turned into a homeless shelter, jointly run by ASK Wellness and Canadian Mental Health. Sage, who runs CMHA locally, says the estimate on how much it will cost to renovate the property has risen by about $1.5-million. The local organizations have to go back to BC Housing with open hands hoping that the government will pony up the dough.
As I said before, Sage is confident. He says he knows that times are tight, and the government is not handing out money very easily these days. If you listen to him, though, the province is committed to this project. Any hesitation to hand over the money will only result in a delay in project completion, not a complete cancellation.
I'm much more reluctant. I know the Campbell Liberals need to win some popularity points right now, and funding social projects is always a good way to do that. But it's my thinking they'd rather do that on the right, by yanking the reins on spending and getting BC out of deficit as soon as possible, than on the left by spending more. For the sake of the homeless in Kamloops, I hope I'm wrong.
Sage is certainly right about one thing, he says as long as people are forced to stay in shelters rather than their own housing, the fight must continue. In that fight, he will soon find out whether the province is foe or ally.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Nisga'a Fight Clouds Credibility
(Aired on October 5, 2010)
Ten years after it was hailed as an historic deal that could pave the way for the settlement of native land claims, B.C. Supreme Court heard today from a Nisga'a hereditary chief that the landmark Nisga'a deal should be thrown out. James Robinson says the deal is unconstitutional. He says the treaty makes the Nisga'a a third order of government, something Canada's constitution doesn't allow.
Back when this agreement was negotiated, initiated and signed, it was called, ironically, the Nisga'a Final Agreement. It was supposed to end a conflict that had lasted over a hundred years. It was not liked by a number of other First Nations, but it was seen as a groundbreaking treaty that could form a pattern for the future. Now, it is in danger of collapse.
The sad part of the fight is that it casts a cloud on the credibility of treaty negotiations. If agreements are made, considered legally binding by the parties that made them, should they not then be relied upon for the future? First Nations with legitimate land claims, and there are many in our province, in my opinion will be hurt if this agreement is thrown out. And that would be a tragedy. I can see the critics now - how can we trust you to stay true to your word? Ten years down the road, how do we now some more militant band council won't try to have the deal quashed? What kind of guarantee do we have that if we make an agreement with you, that it won't be reversed down the road?
Of course, no one thinks of the other side of the coin, how First Nations have been deceived, coerced and manipulated over the decades. They only see it as black and white, with no grey. But reality is, if historic agreements like the Nisga'a deal can be overturned ten years after it was put to bed, where does that put land claims negotiations that are still ongoing. In my view, this case is a setback for both sides, and will only continue to delay negotiations to end the long fight for First Nations to get what is legitimately theirs.
Ten years after it was hailed as an historic deal that could pave the way for the settlement of native land claims, B.C. Supreme Court heard today from a Nisga'a hereditary chief that the landmark Nisga'a deal should be thrown out. James Robinson says the deal is unconstitutional. He says the treaty makes the Nisga'a a third order of government, something Canada's constitution doesn't allow.
Back when this agreement was negotiated, initiated and signed, it was called, ironically, the Nisga'a Final Agreement. It was supposed to end a conflict that had lasted over a hundred years. It was not liked by a number of other First Nations, but it was seen as a groundbreaking treaty that could form a pattern for the future. Now, it is in danger of collapse.
The sad part of the fight is that it casts a cloud on the credibility of treaty negotiations. If agreements are made, considered legally binding by the parties that made them, should they not then be relied upon for the future? First Nations with legitimate land claims, and there are many in our province, in my opinion will be hurt if this agreement is thrown out. And that would be a tragedy. I can see the critics now - how can we trust you to stay true to your word? Ten years down the road, how do we now some more militant band council won't try to have the deal quashed? What kind of guarantee do we have that if we make an agreement with you, that it won't be reversed down the road?
Of course, no one thinks of the other side of the coin, how First Nations have been deceived, coerced and manipulated over the decades. They only see it as black and white, with no grey. But reality is, if historic agreements like the Nisga'a deal can be overturned ten years after it was put to bed, where does that put land claims negotiations that are still ongoing. In my view, this case is a setback for both sides, and will only continue to delay negotiations to end the long fight for First Nations to get what is legitimately theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
