CRIME AGENDA IGNORES THE FACTS

Liberals In Favour Of Law And Order, But Hardly Dogmatic About It

When the Conservatives are announcing taxpayer funded environmental
projects and the Liberals are talking tough on crime, you know there's
an election in the air.

In a curious role reversal, Stephen Harper was in the Toronto area
yesterday, wearing an open-necked shirt and possibly Birkenstocks, as
he announced that the government is going to purchase ecologically
sensitive land. Meanwhile, mild-mannered Stephane Dion was just down
the road, trying to look fierce as he explained his new-found
enthusiasm for law and order.

Stung by Tory barbs that he is "soft on crime," the Liberal leader
promised $200-million for 400 more RCMP officers; changes to the
Criminal Code to guard against the Internet luring of children; and
tougher laws against identity theft. In addition, there would be more
funding for Crown attorneys and dozens of judicial vacancies would be
filled, he said.

All of which is well and good. The problem is the Liberals don't
really believe there is a problem. Mr. Dion said he would base his
policy on facts, not fear-mongering. He went on to note that the
violent crime rate fell 13% between 1992 and 2004.

True, but that ignores the fact that the homicide rate climbed to its
highest level in a decade in 2005, fuelled by a spike in gang related
killings.

It ignores the fact that crime prevention is fourth on a list of
things Canadians want their government to act on, behind health care,
the environment and poverty. And it ignores the fact that one in four
people feel vulnerable to property crime and one in seven feels open
to violent crime, even if actual crime rates are one in five for
property and one in 25 for violence.

Crime is a topic that preoccupies Canadians, with most people
believing that overall rates are increasing. Yet studies suggest the
one group that does not place a strong emphasis on law and order
values are Liberal supporters, for whom respect for authority and
personal responsibility are less important than equality and respect
for diversity.

Mr. Dion's speech yesterday was titled "Protecting our Homes and our
Rights" but there is no doubt which is pre-eminent in the Liberal
leader's universe.

This in itself is not a crime -- different strokes and all that. But
then, please spare us the preelection hyperventilating.

The last time we heard a Liberal leader talking about crime was Paul
Martin's pledge to ban handguns and double minimum prison sentences
before the past election. Since then, the Liberals have generally been
in favour of law and order but have hardly been dogmatic about it.

The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP were all committed to cracking
down on gun crime during the past election, yet the bill advocating
mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns has been gutted
by the opposition parties, who argue judges should be given latitude.

Mr. Dion gave a clue to his own position in his speech: "Too often,
Canadian politicians [suggest] the only solution to crime is longer
sentences."

The bill is due to be returned from the justice committee to the House
of Commons in the next two weeks and it could yet prove to be the
trigger to a general election, since the Conservatives argue it is one
of the measures they promised to implement when they were elected.

Likewise, the Conservatives brought in a bill limiting the use of
conditional sentences (house arrest) in cases where the minimum
penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

The Tories argued that criminals convicted of such crimes as arson,
luring a child and auto theft should face jail time rather than
curfews, community service and counselling. However, the opposition
parties carved out non-violent crimes from the bill, which means only
those convicted of "personal injury offences" will no longer be
eligible for conditional sentencing.

Sue Barnes, the then Liberal justice critic, summed up her party's
position in the debate on second reading when she argued conditional
sentences should be available for non-violent offenders.

"Think of the case of a welfare fraud parent, who I am told by defence
counsel is usually a woman. She would more likely end up in jail where
before, a conditional sentence would often be used," she said.

While the system may have caught up the odd errant welfare mother,
much more prevalent are the serious drug traffickers still able to
serve their sentences in the comfort of their own home, thanks to the
efforts of Ms. Barnes and her colleagues.

One-third of all traffickers convicted of crimes that carried a
minimum penalty of 10 years in jail were given conditional sentences
in 2003-04.

Mr. Dion may have partly addressed the worry that he'd be as much use
in a crime wave as a sheep, but people should judge the Liberals on
their past actions, not their good intentions. As Dr. Johnson noted,
those are what hell is paved with.