Perhaps you can convince Mom to let you wear the big boy pants today!
(It always helps to look the part.)

CR was apparently attempting to shield my innocence from the rancorous episode of mom and dad fighting

Well, not really. When I started with: "The short version is that…" I was pretty sure that someone would be along momentarily to fill in the long version, as Gaunilon ended up doing. I just didn't feel like getting into the rancorous aspects, especially since I don't think they're all that important in the grand scheme of things.

I've exchanged a few notes with Jack since his departure, and despite his Herculean time constraints he still visits these blogs often enough, "not without a twinge of nostalgia". My optimism that he'll return eventually is well-founded, but we probably shouldn't hold our breaths, because it's going to be a while yet.

I've heard it said that spaying or neutering your cat will significantly reduce unwanted behaviours, such as mounting, urine spraying and aggression.

What base? His own supporters are up at arms about this one.

You say conspiracy, I say obvious strategy.

You are quite correct, Jan, they did try to sneak it through:

"…Information about this fundamental change to a 40-year-old product did not appear in StatsCan's daily releases on their website. Instead, one had to click on a small link called "Census 2011" that was never publicly pointed out.

"Pirates didn't bury their treasure that carefully," said one insider…"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100802/nationa…

But on the other hand, Glen Clark did not "sneak" fast ferries through or do it in the dead of night. Quite the opposite — it was announced with great fanfare. It was later on that it turned out to be a disaster.

I'm certain 90% of the party would love a graceful way to lose this battle. But there is no way, their leader has painted them into the corner. Even the recommended compromise of simultaneous voluntary and mandatory long forms to compare the effectiveness in a trial run would look more like defeat than this current Prime Minister is willing to tolerate.

So many people paying so dearly, now and for the next few generations, to comfort one man's ego.

The crime issue is like crack cocaine to a lot of politicians. They just can't resist it. It was one of the things that really bummed me out when I was involved in active politics — how cynical veteran political operatives were about the crime issue. It's one of those issues that consistently polls highly in voters' lists of concerns, and that's why so many politicians harp on it, whatever the statistics might say. The Harper Tories practise textbook retail politics, and that's why they're going to pursue this "tough on crime"schtick no matter what the statistics and facts say. That's why Stock Day will sit there and play rope-a-dope (insert snarky comment here) with a bunch of reporters on it — he doesn't really care what reporters think. His next ten-percenter will list all the things the Tories are doing to keep our streets safe, blah blah blah.

I don't have time to peruse all the sources I'd like to, but in literally a 10-second google search I found this opinion survey of Winnipegers, from June 28:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2010/06/2…

Winnipeg, btw, is not south of the border, last time checked.

PJ, I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you disagree with me that crime is considered an important issue by voters? Are you saying they by and large don't care about it? Note I didn't say it was the #1 concern, just that it consistently ranks up there.

And if crime is not an important issue for voters, then why is it that politicians — including, of course, this government — spend so much time talking about it? Why is this government peddling their so-called tough-on-crime agenda? Are you saying this government is obsessed with an issue that voters don't care about? Are you saying they have polling data that shows that nobody cares about crime, yet they're pushing this agenda anyway? If so, why?

Then he asked if any of us changed our minds on who to vote for after hearing these plans.

If I recall my political science classes taken in the same year, their reluctance to 'change their vote' on the issue of violent crime may be because all of the students were either committed international socialists (NDP), global warming enthusiasts (Green) or ambitious old money types (Liberal). I'm not sure your professors sample size was representative of the population, in other words.

I'm actually being quite serious, and didn't mean to offer a cliche. I was pretty involved in my Political Science department, the Politics Society, and other assorted political groups around campus, and I can say with some degree of certainty that about 90% of the individuals I came in contact with were more or less in one of these camps. Are you disputing that students in Canadian Political Science classes, and liberal arts more generally, don't have a definitive left wing slant when compared to the general population? Lets at least be honest with ourselves here.

Tell me about it. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that, to a person, the entire department was filled with the most arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant little… ohhhhh, I see what you did there.

…such tired cliches surely are beneath you.

"Clichés"? Gee, I don't know. I think the characterisation of Liberal supporters as "ambitious old money types" (which, aside from being oxymoronic, refers to the members of fewer than seven prominent wealthy Canadian families and their extended networks) is a fairly disciplined demographic analysis. ;)

… people "who come from families that would be classified as members of the upper socio-economic classes". Or as "rich".

Hmmm. Yeah, that sharpens the analytical foci. ;)

Care to offer a bit of free advice? Where do you think the "people who discovered that they have earls and barons deep in the genealogical recesses of their family history but who are now penurious, bitterly demoralised Tory bohemians with little or no prospect of enjoying significant social mobility or achieving a meta-Calcuttan quality of life" should look for a political home? Damned if I know…

IIRC, the party's positions couldn't really change anyone's mind because all three federal parties quickly came out in support of mandatory minimums for weapons-related offences. There was no debate to be had.

only pointy heads go to university ;-)
not a representative sample, alas

Yeah, they are frightened that all those women with veils have bombs in their mouths.

"PJ, I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you disagree with me that crime is considered an important issue by voters? Are you saying they by and large don't care about it? Note I didn't say it was the #1 concern, just that it consistently ranks up there. "

I believe my words were "I'd like to see that survey please," to which you replied that you didn't have time to look that up and gave me a poll conducted with Winnipeggers.

Hey Bean… Don't get mad at me. It ain't my fault you can't substantiate your claim. I've never seen a poll which remotely suggested that crime " consistently polls highly in voters' lists of concern."

You apparently have seen several. So produce them.

What is it with Cons and their refusal to deal with facts?

PJ, at your suggestion/prodding, once I had time, I did a more detailed web search for original source polling/survey data on this matter. As you can imagine, the amount of raw info out there is quite significant, and it's difficult to summarize and still do it justice. But I'll try. First, the most on-point "academic" study I came across is, of all places, on our federal dept of justice's website:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2001-02…

I think this is the most succinct conclusion in there:

"Taken together, the surveys conducted over the past few years suggest that in comparison with other social issues, particularly health care and the economy, crime does not generate high levels of public concern. When respondents are prompted to consider crime, the issue becomes more important, but this may not be the optimal way to measure public opinion. "

Read my next post. I conceded that I misspoke.

Finally, there's this very recent (June 2010) Angus Reid survey, also on point:
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/06/canadians-o…

This is consistent with the earlier quoted one, to the effect that for Canada as a whole, economy & health care rank higher, but as someone else noted earlier, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, concern about crime is comparatively right off the chart. Something is obviously up there.

And here's a bit from that study which again might indicate why the Tories still see this as fertile political ground: "Two-in-five Canadians (39%) believe there has been an increase in the amount of crime in their community over the past five years, while a similar proportion of respondents (41%) report no change, and 10 per cent say the crime rate has decreased."

I grew up in Winnipeg, spent most of my adult life in Winnipeg, and therefore feel both qualified and entitled to say:
1) Winnipeg is a bit of an outlier, re: national trends; and
2) Thank the gods for that.

It's actually been quite a while since the CPC last donned their black caps and danced their well-practiced demagogic jig at the Jester's Assizes. I was worried that they had lost their cheap carny-barker mojo there for a while. I expect the "Does Paul Martin Support Child Pornography?" presser is being edited and updated for re-release as I type.

It's an old formula. Sagging in the polls? Had an embarrassing run of gaffes? Well, hell, boy… all you gotta do is remind right-thinking folks that you take a dim view of murderers and child molesters and other such riff-raff to set you apart from the Red hug-a-thug hordes—the socialist moral anarchists who've been presiding over a massive and steep overall decline in national crime rates over the last two decades.

… "crime is not a problem"…

You and I have been there, done that. Yes, it is of course idiotic to say that crime is not a problem, just like it's idiotic to say that cancer is not a problem. Both are perpetual problems, pretty much inherent in the organisms they attack. Your approach here is a bit of a straw man.

It's funny, how a drop in crime over the past 20 years is evidence of Liberal wisdom, but a further drop in crime over the previous 5 is a result of a plethora of socio-economic/demographic factors that have nothing to do with government policy.

I reside on neither pole of that Either/Or assumption. Falling crime rates are a trend that has been pretty much general throughout the developed West and that has had much more to do with demographic changes than with government policy, though provincial and municipal initiatives might have had some positive impact as well.

I'm not the one suggesting that…all initiatives that involve the criminal law are necessarily wrongheaded.

Nor am I. And I want you to find the guy who is. I want to slap him: he's really not very bright.

What I am saying is that it is wrongheaded to deny that crime rates are falling when they clearly are. You do realise that a minister of the Crown has just questioned the veracity of the data, don’t you?

I'm asking you to…be consistent about those links.

Fine. Meanwhile, you might want to ask your government to be consistent, and ask them why, if crime is so high, they are not yet ready to declare the criminal law legislation they passed three years ago a total failure?

What was your point, here, then?

That Day's pathetic attempt to discredit the data was…well…pathetic. But I take it you found his arguments persuasive and worthy of a Crown minister?

As for them being my government, and not yours, I have no comment.

And your final comment is just nonsense, on a number of levels. Firstly, it rests on the assumption that if one says "we still have a problem here", they are necessarily admitting that "previous efforts to combat that problem have been entirely fruitless if not counterproductive". It's like fighting a forest fire, using a certain amount of water that had some mitigating effect without putting out the fire altogher, and then suggesting that using more water is an admission that the initial use of water was a "failure". But more importantly, it's still relies on the assumption, which I hope I've dispelled by now, that "deterrence" is the only standard by which we assess the relative worth of a certain sentencing or criminal law policy. So, one can take certain measures, irrespective of the effect on crime rates (which are notoriously impossible to pin down to a certain cause), that may be warranted.

Your position is logically unsound. And in saying that, I'm not saying that the government's position is sound, that they have all the numbers right, or that they're pursuing the cause of justice that I'd like to see pursued. You can both be wrong.

I just think their puerile hypocrisy is worth noting, if only to provide a grace note to the sheer and not atypical idiocy of Stock's recent tin-foiled declaration. Of course, as you point out, all of this assumes that Canadians view falling crime rates as an index of the effectiveness of criminal law—which they do, and which the Conservatives did when they eviscerated Martin.

Remind me to provide you with the Cliffs Notes version of my comments before I actually post them.

I'm just trying to get us all back to what actually matters.

I'm not sure you ever were where things actually matter to the application of the criminal law—at the provincial level, where, as I've said, the most crucial decisions are made.

What actually matters is the minimising of our violent crime rates, something (it so happens) Central Canada has been better at than the Prairies, though both live under the same federal Criminal Code. I don't think it's unreasonable to deduce from this disparity that local initiatives are more crucial than federal ones and that CPC grandstanding on this issue is a criminologically worthless distraction that will have zero net impact (has already had zero net impact, in fact) on crime rates.

If you take a look at the stats, by the way, you'll notice that the most recent drop in violent crime is significantly less than the drop over the course of the Martin years. Just saying.

Look, I just want to know what the CPC's position on crime actually is. Do crime rates always reflect the strength of the federal government's commitment to the administration of justice and law enforcement (over which they have little direct jurisdiction)? If yes, then why did crime rates fall so sharply during the tenure of soft-on-crime pinkos, and why are they so high right now (as the CPC seems to feel they are), after four years of national leadership by our crime-fighting superheroes? Is some intellectual and moral honesty too much to ask for on this file?

So, here's what happens next:

1) The "conservatives" who bleat endlessly about jurisdictional proprieties are not going to let the plain fact that the administration of justice and law enforcement are provincial responsibilities get in the way of some wedge-issue tub-thumping. As Orson says, it works because it's a smarmy "mom-and-apple-pie" tactic that is difficult to oppose creditably;

2) Political correctness is going to prevent Canadians from having a mature national discussion about why violent crime rates are highest in the culturally and politically "conservative" Prairies and lowest in "socialist" Ontario and Quebec;

Are you referring to the relatively large aboriginal populations in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

Is there a demonstrably causative relationship between relatively large aboriginal populations and violent crime? How does that relationship play out in north-eastern Ontario?

Should we take into account that neither Saskatchewan nor Manitoba deals with factors like Hong Kong Triads, Russian mafias, and Jamaican posses when calculating the effect of the presence of their aboriginal populations? And how does the Aboriginal angle apply to Alberta, whose urban violent crime rates are far higher than Toronto's?

Another thing for Saskatchewan is that the overall Aboriginal population relative to the non-Aboriginal population is the largest of any Canadian province. AND, as I understand it, sometime not too far off, if current demographic/birth trends continue, the Aboriginal population is Saskatchewan is predicted to become the majority.

1) Justice certainly is a shared responsibility. The administration of justice is an exclusively provincial responsibility as 92(14) makes clear. The fact is that the Criminal Code is a blunt instrument whose impact depends on the way it is applied by provincial police and judicial authorities, who have huge latitude and discretion in their methods of enforcement.

2) It is very definitely, even mathematically, correct. The correlation is there; look at the numbers yourself. And do not for a minute try to convince me that, if the situation were reversed—with Toronto and Montreal statistically indicating as crime-ridden sinkholes and Edmonton and Winnipeg appearing as crime-free Utopias—Prairie politicians wouldn't be crowing over the civilising effects of conservatism and Prairie common-sense while denouncing the chaotic rancidity of atheist, hug-a-thug, "can't do" urban collectivism. There would be bumper stickers about it, fridge magnets, you name it. All I'm suggesting is that maybe, just maybe, provincial (and even municipal) conditions and priorities have more impact on crime rates than the quality of federal legislation.

The one time in my life someone tried to rob me was in downtown Winnipeg during the Filmon years. I'm not saying it hasn't become worse downtown, but it was already not great to begin with, and unless there's data that shows Manitoba's rates went up proportionally higher than other, less NDP-beleaguered provinces, I'm not sure of the relevance of your statement.

… the CCF/NDP was born in the prairies…

You're preaching to the choir, Orson. One of my favourite ways to annoy Albertan "conservatives" is to remind them of the uncomfortable fact that Canadian socialism is an Albertan invention.

As to the way I characterised the Prairies, you'll notice I used quotation marks to describe its "conservatism", as I usually do—largely because it is not conservative; the word is merely a journalistic common-place. To be more terminologically precise, then, let me observe that Canada's highest crime rates seem to occur in regions that are largely libertarian-populist.

Here's the bottom line. All Canadian provinces operate under the same Criminal Code. There is wide regional disparity in crime rates, with the Prairies on the high end and Central Canada on the low (very low) end. Those regions on the high end are broadly politically conservative, while those on the low end are more liberal. Presumably, the political culture of each region heavily determines the way each region’s law enforcement and judiciary operate. I would be delighted to hear your explanation of why this disparity exists.

…given the massive degree of academic disagreement as to the factors that lead to dropping crime rates.

There is, of course, actually a fairly firm consensus about what has been putting downward pressure on crime rates across the developed West—an historically low percentage of males between 15 and 25 years of age as a percentage of the population.

…the very broad and impossible to measure "political culture" of "each region".

Ah, so the relative conservatism of Alberta and the relative liberalism of Ontario and Quebec are, in fact, impossible-to-measure mythologies rather than demographic realities, contrary to what most political scientists (and everybody else) will tell you. Fascinating. I shall naturally be monitoring your comments very closely from now own in order to get you out of the habit of using categories you've used freely, here and elsewhere, for years.

… it's the urban areas where you see no CPC seats where you see the high violent crime numbers…

I'm sorry. Which urban Prairie areas "where the CPC has no seats" are these? I count
none.

I believe that the prairies generally have older populations than Central Canada does, with Alberta possibly being the exception.

I see. So Ontario and the Prairies are at par in terms of median age. Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Thus, age disparity cannot be a factor in crime-rate disparities between the two regions, which is what I suspected.

3) Why do the goalposts change from whether crime rates are falling relatively when assessing the success of previous governments to whether crime rates are still "high", in the abstract, when assessing the current governments policies.

Although I can't offer an objection to Toews, he strikes me as a rube.

1) What in the phrase 'tough on crime' indicates to you that resulting crime rates are the only measure of being "tough" on it? If anything, the idea (that I'm sympathetic to) that people who commit serious crimes should actually serve out meaningful sentences, regardless of whether this leads to a precipitous drop in crime, is a worthwhile objective. I'm not sure how the objective of "deterrence" has become the be all and end all of the debate on whether a certain sentencing policy is justified or not, but I think it's profoundly misguided.

2) To the extent that they're making such blanket statements, instead of making useful clarifications (what crime is dropping? what violent crimes are dropping and what aren't?), then I have no problem with you calling them out. Of course, Bob Tarantino has dealt with the suggestion that a drop in "crime" equals crime that people are concerned with, and even the suggestion that a drop in "violent crime" equals a drop in the most serious instances thereof.

4) Is quite absurd, in my opinion, as if all the factors that lead to crime are reset upon the coming to power of a new government. My point is that you use steadily dwindling crime rates to point out that what we had was working well enough, and thus any changes to it are stupid at best and wicked at worst, and then use the absolute crime rates (which are still, since 2006, declining) as indication that the CPCs policies aren't working, according to the standard you've set for yourself (crime rates). So, the goal post for the previous regime is whether crime rates are going down, and the goal posts for the current regime is 'why do we still have any crime, then, if you're so smart?'

As to what is, or is not, here's the 2008-2009 numbers http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/t…

There are 3 categories that show a significant increase by percentage. (Attempted murder, Firearms use of, discharging, pointing, and extortion) The way I read them, these are low incidence crimes to begin with, so the percentages will swing wildly. By comparison, a 1% reduction in level 1 assault, translates to 1815 fewer offences, double the number than the increase in the other 3 categories mentioned. (Feel free to check my math)

From what I have read and understand of the topic, this is a consistent trend over the last decade or so. The most effective crime reduction strategies are involve education, employment and higher standards of living strategies. http://employees.oneonta.edu/ostertsf/Reconsideri… Incarceration is the most cost ineffective way to reduce crime. I've simplified this into a soundbite, but I think I got the generalities correct.

Incidentally, I must point out that your 1) has miraculously changed from a gripe about Conservative hypocrisy on the issue of the division of powers to something not at all related to that point. And your 2) has changed from the suggestion that only political correctness will prevent us from drawing the obvious implication that 'conservative' locales are inherently more criminal than more left leaning jurisdictions to something, again, not even tangentially linked to the original point. I would have thought you'd at least have dropped the number system, and ignored my clarifications altogether, lest the ruse be so obvious.

By the way, may I assume that you are totally uninterested in the regional disparity in crime rates that I’ve identified, even philosophically? And is it your position that crime-fighting initiatives are least significant where crime rates are highest? I just ask because I've never seen you express the exasperation with Albertan authorities that I've seen you express with the feds on this file, which is a bit odd, given the whole jurisdictional thing.

Early to bed; early to rise, eh? I'll never understand this health/discipline/sanity fad among the young.

Allow me just a few summing-up points (Caution: numbering system ahead!):

1) It is possible to point out the hypocrisy, ineptitude and ineffectuality of a government's approach to crime without necessarily and simultaneously denying the value of all federal crime legislation. While I have seen little to admire in the CPC's justice program so far, I would be delighted to see the de-criminalisation of marijuana, which would (among other benefits) be devastating to organised crime.

As a philosophical conservative, though, I do believe that we should more consistently enforce the laws we have rather than make new ones. I find few things as obnoxious as the cry of "We oughtta have a law" (or a commission, or new ministry, or new program) for every ill that afflicts us. I think Canada is generally over-legislated and over-regulated as it is.

The odd thing is, short sentences will still be mandatory. It's just the long ones that are too intrusive.

"What is amazing is that Day can talk about fiscal restraint and advocate more prisons (for unreported crimes) at the same press conference and be surprised the press goes wtf?"

I'm not. Again, they've been doing this nonsense since getting in office. What is amazing is that the Gallery actually took them to task on this. The last time something like this happened was when Van Loan tried to snow in the Gallery at a scrum over the gun registry vote in the House, knowing full well that he had withheld a damning report with damning statistics.

(I'll get my coat.)