One of the most striking developments of the last decade is the phenomenon best described as a war against science. The internet has given a platform to anyone with an opinion, regardless of merit: this is not a medium that moves knowledge forward on the basis of careful peer review of its content. To be blunt, any wack job with a computer can spew out his or her pet theories on, for example, the need to lock up all illicit drug offenders, why the polar icecaps are not actually receding, and why vaccination is a government plot, a conspiratorial spin of the roulette wheel, with your health in the balance.

But take, for example, the Harper Conservatives. They do actually reject the best available evidence in relation to crime; one has only to look at testimony before the House and Senate in relation to their proposals of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment and the elimination of the faint hope clause. And they are pretty lukewarm when it comes to the science of climate change, historically more likely to side with the Bush Republicans than any other constituency. Their position is that the environment must not interfere with productive enterprise and the building of the gross domestic product – furthermore, there’s always a potential technological solution should the worst case scenario arrive on our doorstep.

(more…)

There is a consistent thread in the recent Conservative crime bills; get tough on crime by imposing mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment. And it seems intuitively appealing – send the bad guys to jail for clearly determined periods of time, crime rates will drop and we will all have a more peaceful and safer society.

(more…)

 As I get older and necessarily see more of political machinations – from my own municipality of Bowen Island, and on to the provincial and federal levels of government – I am struck by the similarities between politics and the worst of competitive sport.

(more…)

In a recent contribution to the Mark (www.themarknews.com), entertainment lawyer Bob Tarantino takes me to task for my opposition to elimination of the faint hope clause. Although there is a good deal of vitriol, anger and ad hominem sentiment in his piece, his essential argument is relatively simple: punishment trumps deterrence, and murderers need more punishment, not less. In his view, if we eliminate the faint hope clause we fail to denounce — and we ask the victims of murder victims “to relive their experiences”.

(more…)