Well, I guess it's time to get back to doing what I do best:

Providing you with reasons why you con't vote for the parties currently in the House.

As I said to my Dad, we wanna vote out the Liberals, we really do, but God, Stephen Harper does his utmost to make that impossible. Well there's always the party that I ran for last federal election, the Progressive Canadian Party now in dazzling four-colour (Red, Blue, Green, and Purple) Toryvision TM!

Lets take a look over at 58 year old investment banker (and retired RCAF Lt. Col.) Laurie Hawn's Blog to see what he has to say this incredibly current October 7th

-Word to the wise Laurie, the kids on the 'internet' like to see relatively current content. I try to keep my absences down to a week at most unlike a certain Steve Smith who will remain nameless... actually, I just named him so maybe not.

Oh my, it's a rant on the indignities committed on the justice system by "The Liberal governments of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin" I didn't realise that Laurie missed the meeting where the most considerable roll backs and liberalisation of Canadian law when it comes to the rights of the convicted and accused came during the Mulroney government, where Abortion was fully legalised and not revisited, where capital punishment was reaffirmed as abolished, and where Brian Mulroney used international pressure to ensure that a government was formed in South Africa that avoided ethnic violence to a great degree thanks to the Truth and Reconciliation commission, a body that would fly in the face of what Laurie refers to as, "the concept of consequence for behaviour."

And by the way, no where in this essay can Laurie seem to differentiate between accused and convicted, or perhaps he believes that the convicted should be deprived of due process on subsequent trial, either way it's a chilling thought that this man could be in a cabinet influencing the justice minister. Of course its more chilling, given the shadow cabinet, that Vic Toews could become Justice Minister, but that's a column for another day.

He goes on to excorciate the justice dept. for failing to return convictions in the Air India bombing. Gee Laurie, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the accused were not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt could it? Quoth Laurie:

"According to Air India Victims’ Families Association, Rae’s November report will recommend that we do hold a public inquiry. I don’t know how much this decision process cost taxpayers, but whatever the amount, it is too much. The answer was obvious from the start, and I was under the impression that we were paying Cabinet Ministers like Anne McLellan to make decisions. Does Mr. Dithers have a counterpart?"

1. The AIVFA should not have advance knowledge of a report and if they did, it certainly shouldn't have been leaked by them.

2. Free and fair justice is always cheaper for a democratic society than the rule of the mob. Sure we could have created the preception of action with a brick wall and a handful of bullets, but that misses the point, that we cannot become our enemy in the name of fighting our enemy. The common law system of justice, rather than the Cromwell system of justice must prevail.

To back up the comparison to Th' O.C. I submitt: "You have been here too long for any good you have been doing! Get out!"

3. It's really passe to call Paul Martin Mr. Dithers. I submit Paul the frightendest rabbit. Also, Yes, her name is Sheila Martin.

Laurie attacks the irony of Paul Coffin (convicted fraudster who will never find work in his chosen field again) teaching ethics as part of his sentence. Who better to tell you that fire is hot than someone with third degree burns? The term you're looking for Laurie is Poetic Justice. Irony would be a party preaching about integrity while owing one of their former leadership candidates $70,000 in donations, which are two years overdue.

Laurie continues by mentioning the Rozko shooting. Saying that the justice system failed by not classifying James Rozko as a dangerous offender.

Little arguement here, but with "44 charges and 14 convictions, many of them for violent crimes," I beg to ask the question, why the flimsy conviction rate? Quite simply many who had the opportunity to put this man away for a long, long, time failed to come forward, failed to demand protection, and failed to assert thier rights as witnesses. The solution is not to deny the accused the right to face their accuser. The solution is for the accuser to be knowedeable about their rights and obligations.

He then asserts that prisoners, who now have the right to vote (not the privilidge Laurie, but the right, rights aren't dependent upon good behaviour) are likely voting for the party that set up this cushy rehabilitative justice system.

1. Prisoners are punished by denying them interaction with society and by removing their self determination. They eat when they are told to eat, work when they are told to work and sleep when they are told to sleep, and resistence is met with discipline. Not violence, no water boarding, or sleep deprivation to the point of incoherence, or any other form of previously sanctioned torture, referred to as corporal punishment. One does not teach respect for human rights by stripping them away.

2. Davie Fulton was the Progressive Conservative justice minister who launched a 15 year rehabilitation effort, which carried through Trudeau's first two mandates. I for one doubt that the prisoners voted for me, but surely since my devious two-man campaign was able to trick upwards of 3 seniors into misreading a ballot on which there was a Conservative Party and a PC Party, I must have had to really pull the prison vote to get my whopping 0.8% of the popular vote.

Then these outright falsehhoods:

"The Liberal Party is in favour of legalizing marijuana and prostitution."

The Liberal party had a debate at their last convention. They are in favour of decriminalisation which is to say misdemeanor instead of felony charges on marijuana. The fact that speeding gets you a fine and not jail time is not to say that speeding has been legalised, merely decriminalised.

Also you either a) don't know that prostitution is illegal, but the solicitation thereof is not, or b) have just acknowedged that the communication law is a de facto illegalisation of prostitution and ought to be rationalised into a truly regulated system or banned. I am in favour of the former, as I do not feel that prostitution is an a priori degredation, hoever the expolitation that has followed its illegality is.

Laurie climaxes with this winner:

"It’s time that the justice system stood up for law-abiding Canadians rather than criminals. It’s time for a Government that will stand up for Canadians and Stand Up For Canada!"

The justice system is supposed to stand up for both it is supposed to protect the rights of the law abiding and strictly regulate the imposition of sanction upon the criminal. These sanctions are designed to make the criminal no longer a criminal, not to assuage the wounded honour of the victimised. Ideally the responsibility of the criminla is to make justice through restitution and growth, but some people who feel that justice can be exacted impersonally and at the press of a button or stroke a key, seem to carry a concept completely divorced from justice, that of vengance.

Mr. Hawn, I would submit that you demand vengance where justice is needed and I look forward to working towards your defeat in the next election.

Good day.