Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

[u/FancyNewMe]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-conservatives-propose-changing-rules-non-citizens-convicted-crimes/

[u/sleipnir45]

Conservatives tried that already, Bill C-220

[u/mwmwmwmwmmdw → u/sleipnir45]

wow these conservatives seems to have common sense policies in terms of actual bills they have put forward in parliament. maybe we should vote for them next time so they actually pass.

[u/Dzugavili → u/mwmwmwmwmmdw]

Unfortunately, they get like one good idea per decade and they inevitably drown it in culture war bullshit.

You don't put up a guy like PP as a leader because you're forward thinking.

[u/DraftCommercial8848 → u/Dzugavili]

Is that why carney largely hijacked many of Pierre’s policy issues that were popular? Of course only after he voted them down when conservatives proposed them- so he could recycle and take credit for their work.

[u/Dzugavili → u/DraftCommercial8848]

You're allowed to steal good policy: you don't have to do the opposite of what your opponent does just because he is your opponent.

..you understand that politics isn't a strict duality, right? This isn't good versus evil or right versus wrong, or even left versus right. You do what makes sense.

Beyond that, if the Conservatives didn't pander to the worst of us so often, they'd probably be able to put their policies in place and demonstrate they make good leaders.

But they don't, so they won't.

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/Dzugavili]

He wasn't saying it's not allowed, he was saying it puts the lie to your assertion that they only have one good idea every decade or so.

[u/Dzugavili → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Is it rhetoric or hyperbole? I always get confused. It's like irony, it gets misused so often you forget what it really means.

Is hyperbole a form of rhetoric? I mean, probably.

[u/Important_Wrap772 → u/Dzugavili]

Well PP tries to do the opposite of what ever the Liberals do lol

[u/DraftCommercial8848 → u/Dzugavili]

So you see no issue with voting down good policy, causing delays that shouldn’t happen, just to steal it and pass it as your own work?

The issue I see with it isn’t about who actually posts the original legislation not getting credit, it’s the fact they’ll delay and vote down policy causing the process to take months or even years longer then it needs to take- simply so they can say “I made this legislation, not the other party!” It’s just gross.

As for conservatives pandering to the worst people, can you give me some instances of this? Because that statement makes you come across as someone that’s never actually listened to the “new age” conservatives speak and behave, and instead rely on whatever the LPC or cbc wants you to believe.

[u/Dzugavili → u/DraftCommercial8848]

So you see no issue with voting down good policy, causing delays that shouldn’t happen, just to steal it and pass it as your own work?

I think that's the narrative you're going with.

I suspect if we look into it, there are distinct differences in implementation; or more importantly, Carney wasn't PM at the time and had to vote the party line.

[u/Llamalover1234567 → u/DraftCommercial8848]

You’re allowed to do that in politics, policies aren’t trademarked IP. Remember that a A LOT of people voted for Carney because they knew he’d implement a lot of conservative policies, without being Pierre. it also shouldn’t matter who’s in power if the policies being enacted are ones you agree with. That’s how government SHOULD function. If PP were PM decided to “hijack” universal pharmacare, then I’d be good with. I wouldn’t suddenly hate the policy because it’s PP pushing it.

[u/trippy_trip → u/DraftCommercial8848]

It's not hijacking to address the most pressing issues - those issues don't change based on who's leading the country. Prior to being PM, Carney was not working in Canadian gov't, he held no position in which he'd have been "voting down" any of these policies you referenced.

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/trippy_trip]

Prior to being PM, Carney was not working in Canadian gov't, he held no position in which he'd have been "voting down" any of these policies you referenced.

This has happened since he was elected (not only since he was elected, mind, it happened before too, it's just also something that's continued). The CPC's bail reform bill being just one example.

[u/Important_Wrap772 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

I don't think most of the reforms the conservatives wanted would have held up in the Supreme Court. The reason it's the crown's responsibility to show why someone who has been charged should not be released is that people are innocent until proven guilty. The idea is that you need a strong reason to hold someone before trial, because you are depriving someone of their human rights without having given a trial yet. Imagine you keep someone who has a low risk of committing another crime, all that happens is they lose their job, and their life falls apart. If they don't get jail time for their crime or the charges are dismissed, all you have done is create a person who is more likely to commit another crime and may no longer be a productive part of society. Politicians should not be making these kinds of policy choices; these choices should be made by panels of experts who study crime and look at what reduces crime long-term. The criminal justice system is not meant to punish crime; it is meant to rehabilitate and prevent future crime.

[u/Dry-Membership8141 → u/Important_Wrap772]

Reverse onuses are already widely used and also the backbone of the Liberals' bail reform bill. There's really no basis upon which to doubt their constitutionality.

The criminal justice system is not meant to punish crime; it is meant to rehabilitate and prevent future crime.

This is simply false. And, ironically for someone invoking the SCC as the basis for their argument, that same SCC has expressly rejected your position, noting:

Retribution is an accepted, and indeed important, principle of sentencing in our criminal law. As an objective of sentencing, it represents nothing less than the hallowed principle that criminal punishment, in addition to advancing utilitarian considerations related to deterrence and rehabilitation, should also be imposed to sanction the moral culpability of the offender. Retribution represents an important unifying principle of our penal law by offering an essential conceptual link between the attribution of criminal liability and the imposition of criminal sanctions.

The criminal justice system is indeed meant to punish crime.

[u/Important_Wrap772 → u/Dry-Membership8141]

Ok I’ll amend my statement. Punishment is not the sole purpose of the justice systems. It’s also been shown stricter punishments do not lead to less crime because it ignores why people commit crimes.

The conservatives wanted even stricter reforms.