Monday, October 16, 2006

Don't vote for Stephen Orser on November 13th

According to an article from Friday's Left Arm for Special Interests, the crime rate is 14% higher this year in London Ontario. Chief Murray Faulkner explains this away into oblivion by citing the increase in police officers resulting in more charges. Faulkner also credits special projects like Project Speak Easy - a program designed to deal with rowdy university and college students, which resulted in triple the number of charges over last year. While it is true that many students in London vandalize local property and cause a general disturbance, especially when under the influence of alcohol, it is apparent to most Londoners that Project Speak Easy will have little impact on the types of crime that are significantly on the rise, largely committed by non-students, especially downtown and in the east end.

Robberies are up 38 per cent this year, auto thefts 43 per cent and break-ins 16 per cent.

Deputy Chief Ian Peer said Londoners must do a better job protecting themselves, especially their vehicles.

Residents should park vehicles in garages, keep them locked and install anti-theft devices. Vehicles popular with thieves should be parked between another vehicle and the garage, Peer said.
The rising crime rate was also an issue at a recent Ward 4 candidates' meeting sponsored by The Old East Village Community Association. The lack of perspective as evidenced by the responses of certain candidates should be noted. Take for example, Stephen Orser, a candidate who wants a full-time council:
Stephen Orser said the solution is to tackle one issue at a time, starting with street prostitution. He said the province could provide more tools, such as seizing and selling the vehicles of clients.
I work in the east end of the city, and based on reports and my own experiences, prostitution is hardly the "issue" to begin with. The criminalization of drugs and prostitution is part of the problem in the first place, as police presence is diverted toward these largely victimless crimes. The reason the drug pushers and the prostitutes and their customers roam the streets is because the government has decreed it illegal to voluntary provide sex and drugs to voluntary buyers. Banning the exchange will do little to lessen the desire, and yet, as the number of hold-ups and car thefts increase in the Old East, Orser is recommending giving the police further powers to seize property they have no right to take.

Ward Four Candidates:

Bill Brock
J. Daniel O'Neail
Stephen Orser
Greg Thompson
Henry Zupanc

14 comments:

Adam said...

"Deputy Chief Ian Peer said Londoners must do a better job protecting themselves"

So they expect us to defend ourselves? I thought that was illegal!

Honey Pot said...

Drug dealing and prostitution victimless crimes? You must have been eating one too many shrooms' when you had that thought. Good enough for anyone's mother, sister or daughter, as long as it is not yours eh?

Unless your head caught on fire as a child and someone put it out with a shovel, you could see the correlation between drug addiction and crime.

I know, you don't believe there is such a thing as drug addiction, you believe it is a choice. Well think again, cause it ain't. Very easy to get anyone to become a drug addict, if you are hell bent on doing it, especially, if you are an illicit business person, and you don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself.

You take the drug dealing, prostitution, slum landlords, poverty pimps and mix them all together and you surely have a recipe for the demise of a community.

Creating ghettos for the disenfranchised has been going on for centuries. They always come back and bite the gatekeepers in the ass, by becoming incubators for disease and crime. Plagues and uprisings of the unwashed masses, throughout the centuries, become the great equalizers.

Former Londoner said...

Speaking of ghetto's, my first drive down Dundas St. EOA in 15 years totally shocked me. It never really nice but now it reminds me of Haarlem of the 1970's.

It also looks like any attempt at urban renewal around the police station have all gone to pot.

Where exactly are the property taxes going? I lived in Edmonton for the last 15 years and the city managed to pull itself out of a slump, making itself work on some of the lowest taxes in the country. Mostly when oil was below $20 a barrel.

It has a typical crime rate of a Prairie city (ie worse than Toronto) but even the infamous crime area east of 97 St is nothing compared to the Dundas strip in London.

Where is the tax money going?

Pietr said...

Where is the tax money going?

Crime.

Deep Trout said...

Agree with you on this one, Lisa. Voting for Orser is a lousy idea. Ditto for his live-in wifey-poo, who's a fringe candidate for mayor.

Delusions of grandeur, surely!

Simple Simon met a pie-man yadda yadda yadda ...

Lisa said...

HP:

I know, you don't believe there is such a thing as drug addiction, you believe it is a choice. Well think again, cause it ain't. Very easy to get anyone to become a drug addict, if you are hell bent on doing it, especially, if you are an illicit business person, and you don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself.

So, "illicit business persons" are to blame for another's urges? Are you a potential drug addict Honey? No free will on the part of the "hell bent" people who voluntarily cough over the loot to obtain the desired substance / service? Look, "drugs" and prostitution are already illegal and yet people still want to get high and pay for sex. Who are the victims here? I would say the taxpayer who has to fund the whole racket of interfering with other people's personal business. Truly, taxpayers have less choice than the drug addicts.

Check Murray Rothbard

Honey Pot said...

Lisa, we know you have never benefited from a social program, nor use them.

Lisa there is many an urge that an illicit business person would cater to, it doesn't mean as a society we should allow it. Child pornography comes to mind.

It is not like a thirty year old adult wakes up one morning and decides to become a crack addict. The starting age is around 12-15. I know you think that is an all grown up person, capable of making decisions, or understanding consequences.


Murray Rothbard, would tell us that no one is responsible to anyone. Children are not the responsiblity of their parents, if the parents chose not to be responsible. Well fuck him, and the bannana boat he came in on. He is a luney tune.

If someone's personal business eg; drug dealing and prostitution are fucking up my quality of life, I don't think they should be allowed to do it. Look at all the shit that happens with the so called government regulated drugs already. They don't need to try and regulate anymore mind altering substances. Go preach it to someone who has lost a kid to a drunk driver, or a family who takes a shit kicking from an alcoholic parent. You legalize something, normalize it, and people have a tendency to think it is harmless. There is no such thing as a responsible drunk or drug addict.

Lisa said...

Cracked pot;

Lisa there is many an urge that an illicit business person would cater to, it doesn't mean as a society we should allow it.

Well, those urges are none of your business so long as the choice is between consenting adults. My point is that drugs and prostitution should not be illegal in the first place. That fact that it is makes it attactive to "illicit business persons" because the payoff is larger on the blackmarket.

As for children, it is obviously sad and regretable that some parents do not look after the interests of their kids, but it does not follow that because some kids might make poor choices that all adults must be denied the right to engage in activities that hurt no one but themselves. What about junk food. Some parents feed their kids crap - should we therefore ban all "bad" food because some people are food addicts?

Who is this society your refer to? Who determines that pot smokers and herion users should go to jail for their preferences? It is apparent that you believe that what you don't like should be regulated.

Go preach it to someone who has lost a kid to a drunk driver, or a family who takes a shit kicking from an alcoholic parent. You legalize something, normalize it, and people have a tendency to think it is harmless. There is no such thing as a responsible drunk or drug addict.

So, do you recommend alcohol prohibition be reinstated? I am a responsible "drunk" because when I drink, I mind my own business. Again, just because some people abuse certain substances, it does not follow that the substances should be banned, only that violent behaviour toward other people be punished. It is not the substances, but the individual behaviour of the person that should be evaluated. If someone gets whacked out on herion and is aggressive toward you or your family, then they should be charged for their aggressive behaviour. Banning substances and activities does nothing to prevent their consumption. It is property violations, which includes violations of the person, that should be the focus.

Honey Pot said...

No not for the banning of a jug, just that you seem to think that there is no consequence to society if all mind altering substances, are made legal. You are under the illusion that by legalizing crack and heroin that all of sudden people will use it responsibly. Yeah I know a whole whack of smokers that only smoke four ciggarettes a day. See Lisa, what happens is that you crawl into the addiction, and that is all you are. It consumes every fibre of your being. Talk to an addict or two if you don't believe me.

You must be the original bubble girl, sheltered from the realities of life. You apparently have no idea what that shit does to people. Will you at least admit that some mind altering drugs are more addictive than others? Banning substances does prevent their consupmtion. For instance, alcoholic beverages are banned from most work places. That is probably a good ban. There may be a small percentage that could drink all day at work and perform their jobs acceptably. Do you think they should be allowed to?

As a society we have came to the realization that children learn what they see, whatever happens to be their environment. Do you think children should see hard core drugs as an acceptable part of society? Do we as a society have a right or a duty to intervene between the drug addicted parent and their child?


"As for children, it is obviously sad and regretable that some parents do not look after the interests of their kids, but it does not follow that because some kids might make poor choices that all adults must be denied the right to engage in activities that hurt no one but themselves."-Lisa

....some kids might make poor choices? The operative word here is kids. They are kids Lisa, easily manipulated and used by your street dealers. I have never met a crack dealer that wouldn't look good lying tits up in a pine box.

"adults engaging in activities that hurt no one but themselves."-Lisa

You really believe that as the need for crack and heroin increases, the junkie, who when in full prime and is encapable of holding a job, is not going to go to animal instinct to obtain it? That means stealing, selling drugs to children, pimping kids or their own grandmother. Hardcore drugs are a bad thing Lisa, you should research what they do to people. Legalizing hardcore drugs and making them an acceptable part of everyday life is a real bad thing.

Pietr said...

Why do they have to pay for drugs? They are only expensive because they are illegal.
If you want to get 'society' involved why not register addicts on a mental health register(public) and give them their drugs for nothing?
Is it because the howling voids that exist at the centres of these people would then not have any excuse for targeting descent humans?

basil said...

Honey Pot said, As a society we have came to the realization that children learn what they see, whatever happens to be their environment. Do you think children should see hard core drugs as an acceptable part of society? Do we as a society have a right or a duty to intervene between the drug addicted parent and their child? ....some kids might make poor choices? The operative word here is kids. They are kids Lisa, easily manipulated and used by your street dealers.

My introduction to drugs came from the media not from some sleazy dealer peddling an unknown substance on the street corner. Of course, much of this initial exposure was negative: crime shows stereotyping criminal drug uses/merciless dealers, etc. Yet somehow the interest in illicit substances persisted. Perhaps because this was exposure was second hand; seeing really fucked up people has disturbed me since childhood (especially drunks) and this only possible if people are doing what you wish to condemn. The fact that drugs are contraband inevitably seems to increase the interest in them - or perhaps it’s the mystic created by these social outcasts. This might suggest drugs should never be mentioned: out of sight, out of mind. After all, the police PR guy coming around to provide "drug education" did more to increase the interest in drugs for myself and my peers than to abate it. Even a 12 year old kid has to wonder "if this shit's so bad why do people like it?" Should we censor the media - purge all lyrics of references? Let' start with cultural icon, the Beatles:
PICTURE YOURSELF IN A BOAT ON A RIVER
WITH TANGERINE TREES AND MARMALADE SKIES.
SOMEBODY CALLS YOU, YOU ANSWER QUITE SLOWLY,
A GIRL WITH KALEIDOSCOPE EYES.
What imagination loving kid is not going to want to see what that's all about? Yeah baby, LSD!!! Open your mind! Tune in, turn on, drop out . . .
Perhaps these references should be censored (boo hoo, no more Beatles loop in the mall). And what about the writings of Oscar Wilde? Didn't Dorian Grey hang out in opium dens - exotic and mysterious places of illicit dreams? I read "Confessions of an English Opium Eater" recently. If I smoke opium could I write prose that beautifully? What about Browning’s “waking dreams”? Wow, if I could have access to that kind of imagination I mightn’t waste so much time reading blogs . . . We must purge society of these drug references which permeate our mainstream society.
Now, if I go down Dundas Street east and have a look around, I don't think the sight will encourage me to take up methadone. Or even cigarettes. Is it the drugs which have really caused these problems? Are they the cause or the symptom? Let’s face it, some folks are miserable and looking for an escape. If they can’t get something, anything, they’ll resort to solvents. Call me old fashioned, but I’d rather see kids smoke pot - which has been lumped in with every other illicit drug in the drug war. Are solvents a good alternative to pot? to junk?
Growing up I was fortunate not to have had (at least to my knowledge) junkies at my doorstep, but I have dreaded drunks to this day. But, as far as I know there is no law which criminalizes showing up to work drunk (there are self regulated codes of conduct for many professions which would condemn doing so). Anywhere I have worked this is simply an understanding. A law is unnecessary because my boss will fire me or, if I’m self-employed, my customer will dump me. I assume the same would go for other drugs which impair performance. I have heard cocaine is used as an energy booster by a handful in some industries (ie: construction - hardly surprising as the natives where it grows have used it in its unprocessed form for centuries for the same reason). I have worked with employers who have handed me a joint first day on the job - works for some folks, but I am not one of them. Most employers do not encourage drug use on the job (with the exception of anti-depressants but I will not go into that).
But back to my original point: we live in a hypocritical society which condemns drug use but idolizes “druggies”. When something is illegal and popular you have a problem. There is a constant attempt at criticizing an activity while celebrating its participants. If you truly believe that drugs are bad then you must agree that there is no better deterrent than first hand exposure to the effects. Let Dundas Street run amok with junkies and organize class trips from schools like Oakridge to help the suburban kids experience the horrors of substance abuse first hand (as it is they’re chopping up lines with mommy and daddies credit card and must only worry about getting caught or running out of cash. Or perhaps their parents are doing it too and are insulated from the negative social effects through wealth and social standing. But you cannot ban it while allowing its promotion through the media. Censor it completely or consider allowing it.
As for the question:Do we as a society have a right or a duty to intervene between the drug addicted parent and their child? It’s not a matter of addiction, rather, it’s a matter of whether or not that parent fulfills the duties of a responsible parent. Irresponsible parenting is independent of drug use. If the parent is otherwise responsible, no, you have absolutely no right or duty to interfere.
I reckon there have been as many families destroyed by parents who can’t resist their sexual urges as by drug use. Shall we criminalize sex?

Honey Pot said...

Basil, some sexual orientations are banned, or at least considered taboo in many social circles. It has been my observation there is a great whack of males who have a penchant for having sex with children. There are laws put in place to protect children from this, not that they are heeded, but they are there. A paedophile will argue children are willing sexual partners, and it causes no harm to society. Most of us realize this is an untruth. Children raised with sexual abuse, normailize it, accept it, and in many incidents perpetuate it. It is referred to as the vampire syndrome eg; Foley.

There are some things best considered criminal as to protect civilized society from falling apart.

basil said...

H.P.: I speak specifically of criminalizing "normal" heterosexual activity between consenting adults. How many relationships are destroyed by infidelity? The family unit then crumbles and all involved, parents and children, may make dangerous lifestyles choices to ease the pain and insecurity which is often the result of having a fundamental social structure destroyed by sexual desire - and, sorry H.P., women, as well as men, willingly contribute when it comes to sacrificing the stability of the family for a little illicit love. The resulting insecurities are fertile ground for the development of addictive personalities.
How many lives are ruined or lost due to sexual disease? Mightn't "normal" sexual practices be a gateway which then leads to the need for higher-risk, stranger, or more perverted thrills?
From what I know of most teenagers, I do not feel most of them are responsible enough to be having consensual sex amongst themselves (no adult penises involved) but they do. The risks to health and future happiness are too great. But even though these great risks exist from sex, one would be written off as a neo-Victorian for suggesting all sexual activity under the age of 21 be criminalized (never mind that there are a lot of adults who hardly seem capable of dealing with the responsibility of sex or anything else). At a certain point people must be allowed to experience life as a free-willed autonomous person - for better or worse.
I think it is criminal that we load our children up with Ritalin and anti-depressants rather than teaching them to live with life's ups and downs and the need for self-discipline. This is bad parenting and, not least of all, child exploitation by the drug companies which will result in pill popping dependents for life. It is bad parenting and bad education. These drugs alter consciousness for life before the child is legally capable of fully understanding what is being done to his brain and consenting.
Child sex and adult drug use are two separate issues: one is wrong because it involves young people consenting (or worse yet, not consenting) to something they are not mature enough to fully understand the repercusions of; the other activity is one in which an free willed decision is made by an autonomous individual to satisfy an urge as fundamental as that of sex - the urge to alter consciousness.

Honey Pot said...

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2006/10/24/2114346.html

Now look at that, perhaps Orser is a prophet.

Good idea, that will cut down on street prostitution. Won't be long until it is implemented here. I know down home they confiscate your auto, and your freezer if you get caught with jacked deer, moose or fish. You get it back, but not without a hassle.

I know the argument is that it is going to put the pedophile's own children, and other people's children in danger because the pedophiles can't buy the disposabal children off the streets any longer. It will put a big dent in street prostitution. Good for you Alberta.