Sunday, July 10, 2005

God Recalls Independent Canadian MP - Chuck Cadman

The independent Member of Parliament, who was largely to blame for prolonging the life of the most corrupt federal government Canada has ever known, has died. MP Chuck Cadman died yesterday after a two year battle with skin cancer. He was 57-years-old.

His vote in the May 19 non-confidence motion on the $4.6 billion NDP budget amendment gave the liberals the 152-152 tie they needed to survive and avoid facing the Canadian voters. With the liberal party way behind in the polls and drowning in debt from overspending in the last election, the liberals were expected to be ousted from power. Cadman’s vote was all that saved them.

Chuck Cadman comes from the more Conservative end of politics. He represented the riding of Surrey North first as a member of the Reform Party and then as a member of the Canadian Alliance. When the right was finally united in this country, Chuck was not able to win the riding nomination for the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada. Instead, he chose to run as an independent in the 2004 election which he won.

His decision to enter politics was the result of an unfortunate death. Chuck’s 16-year-old son Jesse was murdered in October of 1992. As a result, Chuck played a role in federal politics as an advocate for victim’s rights and against youth violence. Yet, after thirteen years of liberal rule youth crime is worse than it has ever been and convicted mass murders like Karla Homolka are walking free while the families of murder victims look on in horror. All of this is the direct result of liberal policies which coddle criminals and completely ignore victims.

When Chuck Cadman had the opportunity to defeat the party that stood for everything he fought against, he instead voted to prop them up. Mr. Cadman said his reason for propping up the liberals had to do with his constituents not wanting another election so soon after the last one. This excuse was an obvious lie for two reasons. Number one, Paul Martin vowed in a televised address to call an early election anyway; and number two, this is the exact same excuse that the liberal Health Minister and Paul Martin’s chief of staff voiced while trying to coach Gurmant Grewal on how to lie to reporters in the event he left the Conservative Party to join the liberals. Political analysts agree that the true motivation for Chuck’s propping up the liberals had to do with the bitterness he felt after losing the Conservative nomination.

It is a loss to see Chuck Cadman recalled, but for Canadians, life goes on.

29 Comments:

At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Cadman was symptomatic of what ail's Canadian conservatives....we don't stick together as well as liberals.

Either way, may Mr. Cadman rest in peace.

My sympathy to those that loved him.

Frank

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger Shane said...

Well, what he said may have been what we know the Libs wanted him to say, but for him it was true. A survey had been released conducted in his riding of constituents indicatingthey did not want an election at that time. In addition, his public statements made clear that there was no sense from contact with his constituents' direct contact with him (email, phone, fax) that they wanted an election. It was split.

For me to conclude that he lied means I have to disregard the existence of the survey (documented at the time) and conclude that somehow the chemotherapy that Mr. Cadman was enduring had addled his brain so much that he threw all the integrity, honesty and respect with which he has conducted his entire political career out the window, just to keep the Libs in power.

Call me a skeptic, but I don't think so. He may have been misled, but he wasn't a liar.

 
At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even though the vote did not go the way I had wanted it to, Cadman did the right thing.

I have to be consistent. I cannot argue that it's wrong for Belinda Stronach to go against the wishes of her constituents by now undemocratically representing a party that lost her riding in the last election and then turn around and say that Cadman should have just ignored his constituents.

 
At 5:46 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

You say youth crime is worse than ever. Do you have a source for that?

 
At 5:54 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Here is the results of a google search for youth crime Canada.

437,000 hits that can confirm this for you.

 
At 9:16 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

This is what I found in your list (and this is just from the first page).

This is from a 1998 John Howard Society Study on Yoith Crime:

"Judging from the available data, one cannot support the claim that youths in Canada are committing more crime than before or in proportion to all crime. Nor does it appear true that they are committing more serious crimes than in the past. Both localized and national data alike are subject to external biases such as growing public intolerance and collection differences. Smaller scale reports are more vulnerable to problems and suggest no discernible pattern in youth crime. Canadian statistics show that the number of charges laid against youth has been consistent with population increases; most youth crime is not serious but, rather, consists mainly of property offences; and violent offence rates have largely reflected activities of the public and police rather than youth behaviour. Indicators less vulnerable to external factors, such as murder and suspect rates, show no identifiable increases in youth crime."

This is from a 2002 StatsCan study:

"Police charged 99,000 youths with a Criminal Code offence in 2002. Following two years of slight increase, the rate of youths charged dropped 5%, continuing the general downward trend seen over the past decade. The youth crime rate in 2002 was 33% lower than in 1992."

So where did you get your source from? Because I can't see what you are saying.

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

This site seems to suggest that the youth crime rate is dropping as well.

http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/youthcrimedrops1004.html

 
At 2:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson.

Only enablers such as yourself believe that there isn't a 'youth crime' problem. The John Howard site points out, that property crime by todays 'youth', is still going up.

The same site feels that violent crime is down.

Lets look at that a little deeper.

Violent youth crimes are up 52% in the last 50 odd years. The drop in youth crime that you refer to, is only 6% in the last few years....a closer shows violent youth crime moving back upwards in the last couple of years.

You are basing your argument on a minor crime stat drop(blip), which lasted only a few years.

Keep reading....and one of these days you'll come to your senses, and contribute to the CPC.

Allow the site below to enlighten you.

fradical.com/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm

Frank.

 
At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allow me to correct myself.

Violent youth crime is up 52% in the last 20 years, not 50 yrs.

The rate is up about 400% in the last 50 years.

hmmm....rather alarming, isn't it?

Frank.

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Yet, after thirteen years of liberal rule youth crime is worse than it has ever been."

I was responding to the quote from Michael which stated that youth crime is worse than it has ever been. StatsCan in 2002 stated that youth crime has dropped 33% since 1992. You can divide the crimes up and argue them all you want, I was replying to the blanket claim by Michael that youth crime was worse than ever. It is not.

And no, I am not an enabler. Just because I disagree with a statement, does not mean I support youth crime or whatever it is you believe. I believe it is a problem, I just don't believe that it is as bad as some people believe.

 
At 4:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The youth crime rate dropped only 6% since 1992.

StatsCan?....that's a Gov't funded organisation. Enough said.....there are much better research sources than that.

Check out my source, did you?

Know any cops Dodson? They'll also level with you.

Youth crime is an unabated social problem. Just ask the parents of Reena Virk in BC. What justice has been done there? There wasn't a real deterent to the crime prior to the fact....nor is there one now. The Libs wasted a chance on creating tough legislation here.

Frank.

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Yet, after thirteen years of liberal rule youth crime is worse than it has ever been."

"The youth crime rate dropped only 6% since 1992"

So youth crime has dropped since the Liberals took power. Interesting.

"Check out my source, did you?"

Yes, did you? All those numbers come from StatsCan.

"FIGURE 3 SOURCE: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2001, Juristat, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada - Catalogue no. 85-002-XPE Vol. 22 no. 6"

"StatsCan?....that's a Gov't funded organisation. Enough said....."

Haha. Now that's comedy.

 
At 5:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comedy is your unswerving faith in liberal dogma.

I also said in an earlier entry, that despite the 6% youth crime drop since 92'....the rate has been going up since 99%, in which btw, most of the 6% drop....has been given back.

I know enough real 'researchers' to understand where StatsCan comes from.

Try going beyond them.

Do you come in here because your blog is as dead as a doornail?

Your blog is not a blog. It's a lonely wasteland, where you pontifcate on your own.....so destructive envy brings you here.

That's the sad joke....

Frank.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"I also said in an earlier entry, that despite the 6% youth crime drop since 92'....the rate has been going up since 99%, in which btw, most of the 6% drop....has been given back."

I am not arguing that. I was simply disputing Michael's statement that crime had gotten worse. Both of our stats state that he was wrong. That's all I am pointing out.

"I know enough real 'researchers' to understand where StatsCan comes from.

Try going beyond them."

The site that you provided me with uses StatsCan statistics. How come when you use them it is ok, but not when I use them?

"Do you come in here because your blog is as dead as a doornail?

Your blog is not a blog. It's a lonely wasteland, where you pontifcate on your own.....so destructive envy brings you here."

I could care less if my blog is as dead as a doornail. I write it for myself, as a way to get my thoughts together on things. I think better when I write, hence the blog.

And how am I being destructive? By questioning the accuracy of a statement made in support of an argument that in fact turned out to be incorrect? That's being destructive?

 
At 8:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson.

You walked right in.

That's correct my stats use Statscan numbers.

Its just that my stats delved deeper, and were extrapolated to prove that youth crime has risen dramatically in the last 40 plus years. (400%!)

Curiously we have been governed nationally by the Liberals, roughly 30 of the past 40 years.

This isn't the first time I have noticed you stopping short with stats, when they bolster your story.

You've done similar here.

You are trying to tell us that youth crime has dropped, and hence not such a big deal. The facts bear out a 6% drop between 92' and 99'. Most of the 6% has been lost since the rate has moved upward again, since 99'.

The minor improvement you cite is almost an anomoly. The larger trends don't support you at all.

And yes....despite our common usage, Statscan figures can be misleading.

Destructive. Yes, that's my view. I don't appreciate your less than honest approach to debating. I've mentioned your manipulative methods with stats.

I'll tell you something more.

I believe you're a potential future conservative, how else to explain your gravitating this way?....Either that, or....you're playing very deep in 'left field' (the warning track)....and we help you stay committed.

I haven't voted lib (on any level) in about 14 yrs.

It got too full of itself.

Frank.

 
At 9:30 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"You are trying to tell us that youth crime has dropped, and hence not such a big deal."

No, I was trying to get Michael to back up his claim. Once he provided the info, it showed that he was incorrect. I have never once said that youth crime is not a big deal. In fact, I believe it is a very large problem. What I probably disagree with you is over how to deal with it. By the sounds of it, you want tougher sentences for young offenders. I think that other measures need to be looked at because historically, tougher sentences do not equal less crime. Just look at Texas - high murder rate and high execution rate. I'm not saying I have all the answers, just that alternatives need to be looked at. In Saskatoon, we have the Youth Circle Program which allows offenders to go into a sentencing circle and deal with the root causes of youth crime. When I did research on it a few years ago, young offenders who went through it had a lower recidivism rate than those who went through the mainstream justice system.

"The facts bear out a 6% drop between 92' and 99'. Most of the 6% has been lost since the rate has moved upward again, since 99'."

In violent youth crime. That was not what Michael's original piece talked about. He was talking about youth crime in general, which happens to be over-whelmingly property driven. Youth crime in general has dropped in the last 13 years and the links Michael provided bare that out. The stats you provided talk only about violent youth crime not youth crime in general. With violent crime, yes I agree with you - but this misses the point of what I was trying to say.

"And yes....despite our common usage, Statscan figures can be misleading."

Intersting. When I used them, you summarily dismissed them. After you use them, they can be misleading (but not always. Like when you use them).

"Destructive. Yes, that's my view. I don't appreciate your less than honest approach to debating. I've mentioned your manipulative methods with stats."

Dishonest? How so? Statscan, as well as several other sources Micheal cited, said the same thing - youth crime is lower than it was in 1992. You are using one aspect of youth crime, violence, to make your point. Who is being dishonest?

"I believe you're a potential future conservative, how else to explain your gravitating this way?....Either that, or....you're playing very deep in 'left field' (the warning track)....and we help you stay committed."

Actually, I vote neither Conservative or Liberal. For the past several elections I have voted Green because they are the one party that deals with the issue I think is most important - Climate Change. On all other issues, I tend to take them issue by issue. I don't always agree with the Libs, but I usually never agree with the new Conservatives.

 
At 1:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not so sure why you insist Michael was incorrect. The John Howard site points out, that while youth crime dropped between 92' and 99'....property crime rates went up.

Peter its in there....I read the darned thing.

This drop between 92' and 99', is more of a 'blip' than anything else.

We do largely differ on how to deal with youth crime. While I believe 'minor' and 1st time offenders have a good chance at rehabilitation. I do feel much differently about repeat or violent offenders.

In the case of Reena Virk in BC:

She was brutally beaten and eventually drowned by her peers.

The main perps should be imprisoned for life.

Either way, the type of program you describe in Sask, will benefit some....but largely minor or 1st time offenders only.

We still have a problem with the remaining and sizeable group.

Your medicine won't work there.

I told you that I am not a big fan of StatsCan. You feel there is something hypocritical in my use of them.

Hardly.....in my way of thinking, I was speaking your language, and using for own preferred source against you....by simply delving deeper into the stats, as I mentioned and demonstrated.

I also mentioned that you stop short with stats when they bolster your story...you did here also.

I can't understand what's hard about seeing this.

I simply delved deeper into the numbers. Your numbers.

You ask who is being dishonest?

You claim, that stats bear out a youth crime drop in the last 13 years.

Where Peter?....

The crime rate has been rising since 99'.

Property crime rates never went down when the rate dropped between 92' and 99'.....instead they rose.

Youth crime is up 400% since 1960.

Youth crime is up 52% since the last 20 years.

Taking the position that youth crime is down in the last 13 years, is at best...misleading, at worst....dishonest.

New conservative?...or Neo-Con (my fave)is another 'leftie' fairy tale.

So, what is new about conservatism?

What's new....is the radical agenda of the 'left'.

Green Party.

Hmmm....'Green' as a component of responsible Gov't, we already have it.

As a party platform.

Far too narrow.

Climate change is documented throughout our history.

The Mayans....and the preceding civilization to them, the Olmecs....... have left us a wealth of info on this subject.

According to them....we are on target for another ice age, but not in our time.

Very fascinating reading regarding our pre-history.....I can reference you to a writer who is an expert in this field, which makes 'greenhouse gas' concerns seem insignificant.

I am literally too lazy to dig up the info right now.

I can later if you care to check this out.

The gist of it....our planet suffers massive natural cataclysm's every few odd thousand years.

We already know about ice-ages. Thats what this is about....and their repetition along with other phoenomena.

It's all unavoidable. Climate change is a pre-curser.

I did digress. But I'd rather not wait for another 'ice age', to solve our worsening youth crime probs.

Frank.

 
At 2:53 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Honestly, I don't see what you are seeing. That's fine. You can accuse me of stopping short with the stats, I see you picking and choosing the stats. We can agree to disagree.

As for climate change, there is no doubt that it is a natural phenomenen. The point that scientists are making is that this current climate is changing much quicker than in the past and that is because of human activities, namely the burning of greenhouse gases. We also have the destruction of the ecosystems and we are in the middle of the 6th great extinction of species in earth's history, both caused by human activity.

We are already starting to see the results of climate change. Rising sea levels in the South Pacific, melting of the Ice Caps etc.. Eventually, we will all be effected by it. The point is that we can try and lessen how extreme and rapid the change is if we simply reduce our greenhouse emissions. Your right though, not in our time, but in your grand-children's time probably.

As for the the new conservatives. The Conservative Party of Canada is Conservative in name only. While some policies have shifted to a more centrist position, the Conservative Party is still very much the Canadian Alliance of old. If Thomas Flanagan is still Harper's right hand man, there can be no debate about this as Flanagan is about as neo-con as they get :)

 
At 5:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter Peter.

In my last entry, I clearly asked you where you get your conclusions for you 'crime drop' theory.

You aren't providing that.

Your thinking that I am doing some 'fuzzy math' or something to the stats, is unfounded.

I'm using the same source you trotted-out....StatsCan. I went deeper into their dubious research practices than you did.

It's like being slayed by your own sword.

Just put your cards on table, and back-up your assertations....

Either debate properly, or ponder my earlier thoughts about your destructive intent in here.

My case is clear, with the use of Statscan (your choice) research and graphs, a convincing case is made that shows.

400% increase in youth crime since 1960.

A 52% increase in the past 20 yrs.

A whopping 6% crime drop between (although property crime rates increased) 92' and 99'

A return to rising youth crime rates in 99'....which continue to the present.

Where oh where, is your corraberating evidence?

Provide that, and we still have a debate.

Frank.

 
At 10:19 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Fine. Here we go again. But let me state that we are arguing what Michael said here. That the youth crime rate had risen since the 1992. This statement is false. Yes, the youth crime rate may have risen the last 2 reporting years (up to 2003), but overall since 1992 the crime rate has fallen.

From the Canada Justice Website.

"Myth: Youth crime is on the rise
Reality: The youth crime rate has decreased over the past decade.

The media's tendency to focus on violent youth crime stories can contribute to a distortion of youth crime facts. An Ontario study found that 94%of youth crime stories in the media were about violent offences when less than 25%of Ontario's youth court cases actually involved violent crime.[1] Minor assaults account for more than half of the violent crimes committed by youth.

A similar American study conducted in 2000 by the advocacy group Building Blocks for Youth found that crime news on network TV increased 83% from 1990 to 1998. The crime rate dropped 20% during that period to its lowest level in 25 years. Yet polling showed two-thirds of people believed it was still on the rise.

Between 1991-92 and 2002-03, the total number of youth crime cases in Canada dropped by 20%.[2] In that same period, the number of crimes against property committed by youth fell a total of 47% to its lowest level in more than 25 years.[3]

Because the total population of Canadian youth age 14 to 17 is increasing slightly at the same time as the total number of youth crimes is decreasing, the youth crime rate is dropping in part due to demographics. Nevertheless it is a real and significant change."

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/yj/information/mythreal.html#r02

They get their info from statscan.

This is from a 1998 John Howard Society Study on Youth Crime:

"Judging from the available data, one cannot support the claim that youths in Canada are committing more crime than before or in proportion to all crime. Nor does it appear true that they are committing more serious crimes than in the past. Both localized and national data alike are subject to external biases such as growing public intolerance and collection differences. Smaller scale reports are more vulnerable to problems and suggest no discernible pattern in youth crime. Canadian statistics show that the number of charges laid against youth has been consistent with population increases; most youth crime is not serious but, rather, consists mainly of property offences; and violent offence rates have largely reflected activities of the public and police rather than youth behaviour. Indicators less vulnerable to external factors, such as murder and suspect rates, show no identifiable increases in youth crime."

This is from a 2002 StatsCan study:

"Police charged 99,000 youths with a Criminal Code offence in 2002. Following two years of slight increase, the rate of youths charged dropped 5%, continuing the general downward trend seen over the past decade. The youth crime rate in 2002 was 33% lower than in 1992."

This is from a Globe and Mail article on youth crime from 2004.

"This means Canada's incarceration rate in 2002-03 was 13 youths in custody for every 10,000 in the population. The figures exclude Ontario, because data for 12- to-15-year-olds are unavailable, the agency said. The rate was down by 5 per cent from 2002-02 and by 33 per cent from 1993-94."

http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravenarticles/youthcrimedrops1004.html

Again. The data seems to back me up. That youth crime overall has dropped since 1992/3. This is what I posted at the beginning. How is this me being dishonest?

 
At 10:20 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

And again, please provide me your evidence. So far you have just submitted the one website.

 
At 11:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter...you are a champion rambler. You admit so, in your own blog.

You have offered opinion to back you up....but not black and white discernable stats.

You are true to form from our last debate.

One of your prized sources....prisonjustice.ca

Thats a prisoner advocacy group.

Hardly admissable as an unbiased source.

That must have been a 'throw-in' on your part, as it comes late in your reply, with less fanfare than your other two sources.

The John Howard Society is a repeat of your original source, nothing new here.

The Howard site though, does confirm (and we agree on this, I believe)that property crime rates did rise, while the overall youth crime dropped between 92' and 99'.

Howard also get their numbers from Statscan.

Which will have to bring us back to Statscan, as they do appear to be the authority on these stats.

The piece you refer to in your 3rd source....this is from the Dept of Justice/Canada. They are not Statscan, yet they do claim to get the numbers from.....yup! STATSCAN.

Okay.

You've provided an essay here once again. The writer claims Statscan numbers...to the tune of a 20% drop in youth crime since 92'. That shreds my 6% drop, which is similarily sourced from....STATSCAN.

Sure looks like a puzzle....and it is the Dept of Justice against my (gulp!)word.

Two things on your Dept Of Justice article.

It cites an American study on youth violence....What is the relevance of such a study on Canadian issues? It's amazing that such a reference is used.

This did not raise an eyebrow for you, Peter?....American stats to support a Can Dept of Justice article?

Well...I did say it was an essay.

This essay also cites a 20% drop in the crime rate as I mentioned earlier. This can only be an embelishment.

The writer does not have any supporting stats...other than to say they come from Statscan.

My one and single source that you prefer to downplay...also uses Statscan statistics.

And they go one better than all 3 of your sources.

On the earlier link I provided with my info.....the people at fradical.com have kindly laid out actual Statscan graph releases that continue to back-up my initial position on youth crime.

None of your sources can make the same claim.

Not one piece of authentic support from Statscan.

I've provided that.

And you have not.

How could I possibly need another website, when I found one with Statsan research releases?

I put them under your nose at the start of our debate. You should know better than to offer anything less legitimate, as proof of claim.

Still feel honest?

Frank

 
At 12:55 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

You may be the most condescending person I have ever had the pleasure of chatting with.

The stats you provided me with from fradical deal with violent youth crime only. That's it. The title of that page says it all - violent crime statistics - canada. Where is the other info you speak of from? Violent crime is not the only crime youth commit. They also commit property crime which your numbers from fradical do no account for. We are not talking about one type of crime committed by youth, but all crime committed by youth.

Here is a paragraph from statscan (gasp). It seems to suggest as you have that violent youth crime is up overall in the last decade, but that overall youth crime is down since 1992 (which is what we are arguing about). This overall decrease is due to property crimes going down.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030724/d030724a.htm

"Drop in youth crime halts two years of increases

Police charged 99,000 youths with a Criminal Code offence in 2002. Following two years of slight increase, the rate of youths charged dropped 5%, continuing the general downward trend seen over the past decade. The youth crime rate in 2002 was 33% lower than in 1992.

Violent crime among youth was down 2% in 2002. After increasing steadily throughout the 1980s, the rate of youths charged with violent crime continued to increase during the 1990s, but at a slower rate. Even with the most recent drop, the 2002 youth violent crime rate was still 7% higher than a decade ago. The youth property crime rate fell 5% in 2002 to its lowest level in over 25 years.

Police are now being encouraged to use more informal measures for dealing with youths involved in less serious offences. As a result, trends in the number of youths dealt with informally should also be examined, in addition to youths formally charged. This would provide a more comprehensive picture of youth crime.

Data from police services collecting this information show that the number of youths dealt with informally by police has remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. This suggests that youth crime is still decreasing, but not to the extent indicated by the drop in youths formally charged. Monitoring trends in police response to youth will become even more important in the future given the recent implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in April 2003."

As for the Justice Department Report, the reason that they included the American study was to point out that the public's perception of crime rates rising was helped by the fact that the media was reporting youth crime more often, hence the belief that the youth crime was rising (which is wasn't).

"A similar American study conducted in 2000 by the advocacy group Building Blocks for Youth found that crime news on network TV increased 83% from 1990 to 1998. The crime rate dropped 20% during that period to its lowest level in 25 years. Yet polling showed two-thirds of people believed it was still on the rise."

It is much like the summer of sharks a few years ago in the U.S. when people believed shark attacks were up, but really what was happening was that shark attacks were being reported more often. The use of the American study does not lessen the Justice Department's study, they were simply making the reference to prove their claim that the perception of the public that youth crime is rising is incorrect.

And yes, I can ramble but that's what writers do when they try and sort out their thoughts. Nobody writes anything perfectly the first time through. That's why people revise...and...do...other things.

 
At 5:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter.

Condescending?

I can be, and I have been to you...its also something that I admitted too, in our first debate.

But am I anymore condescending, than libs are to conservatives?

Best just to deal with it....you don't have a lock on the 'high ground'.

My emphasis has been on violent youth crime. I haven't disputed a drop in other areas of youth crime....for the period between 92' and 99'. There is dispute on property crime stats. Your own John Howard reference, felt the rate increased despite the noted crime drops for that period. Other info you provided, contradicts John Howard.

The issue of youth and property crime rates, appears unresolved for now.

The graphs at fradical.com, that are straight news releases from Statscan, are still the best evidence that can be put forward to prove dramatic rises in violent youth crime.

It was not my intention to use those graphs, to support the full spectrum of youth crime.

You point this out.

An oversight on my part...as I am more concerned with the violent crime stats.

Not much changes here....I already agreed with you that youth crime rates went down between 92' and 99'.

We do have dispute over the percentage drop for that time frame. But the rate dropped or improved nonetheless.....and we agree that much.

It did take you long enough, to finally read my link from fradical.

Maybe you're improving at detail.

But we still have a youth crime problem. Some of the info you provided attributes a drop in general youth crime (between 92' and 99') because of law enforcements willingness NOT to press charges for minor crime, in favour of softer measures. So admittedly there was a reluctance to lay charges in some instances.

The larger issue is violent youth crime. All stats and evidence point to dramatic increases in the rate of violent youth crimes. This is much more serious and poses a greater risk to society....the stats may also suggest softer crimes are being spurned for violent acts instead.

But let that be proven.

More from statscan shows that violent youth crime rose 97% during the decade of the 90's....and that girls accounted for an increase of 127% in that period.

statcan.ca/Daily/English/991221/d991221

I'd say the libs have a lot to answer for here, despite a marginal drop in lesser youth crimes.

Frank.

 
At 8:41 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Hey. Who erased my post! That was one of my better one's!

Well, your post proved my point anyway.

To be serious though, I come here for fun. I enjoy arguing over stuff and then laughing as both people walk away thinking they won.

 
At 9:29 PM, Blogger Michael said...

I erased the last one Peter. I am happy to accomodate different points of view, but I click the trash can icon when the language goes south.

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Sailor Republica said...

Frank won this fight hands down.

 
At 9:18 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

How? By arguing the wrong thing? He even admitted that youth crime was up over the last 13 years which is exactly what I was arguing from the beginning. You sure have a weird defintion of "won."

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

As for Mr. Cadman, while I can only imagine his vote was likely not intended to endorse any particular political party, I'll bet that his decision, given his personal circumstances and life experiences, gave him a clarity of thought that transended the capabilities of those of us who do not yet see our own end. May he rest in peace having stood up and taken action for what he believed and his family forever proud of his accomplishments and his character.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home