Showing posts with label calgary herald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label calgary herald. Show all posts

Monday, March 30, 2009

Integration Canadian Style

Naomi Lakritz, writing in the Calgary Herald points out something I was unaware of:

It's been quite a while since I've heard the kind of common sense talk about Canadian identity that I heard when Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, visited the Herald editorial board on Thursday. Kenney admits he used to have some trepidation about wading into what he calls the politically correct minefield around this issue, but no more. He obviously realized that when political correctness runs up against common sense, there's just no contest. New Canadians, says Kenney, "have a duty to integrate." Further, he says, "We don't need the state to promote diversity. It is a natural part of our civil society."

To that end, the government has sensibly ceased funding programs such as heritage language classes. Why should the federal government pay for children to learn the language of the country their parents and grandparents come from? It's the family's responsibility to teach children about their heritage, including the language.

"I think it's really neat that a fifth-generation Ukrainian Canadian can speak Ukrainian-- but pay for it yourself," Kenney says. Kenney's right--it is neat. If you can speak your family's mother tongue, your life is just that much more enriched. But such immersion in heritage shouldn't come at the expense of you identifying yourself as a Canadian first --and it certainly shouldn't come at Canadian taxpayers' expense...

I knew about the Canadian government paying for English and French lessons for new immigrants. I think it should be the duty of the immigrant to learn that at their own expense, but still it's in the countries interest to have them speaking the official languages. What the heck is the point of taxpayers paying people to learn Ukrainian or Punjabi? Thankfully they've ended it.

Hat tip: Strack Attack

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Young Offenders

I got a serious case of the willies reading about a teenage, female multiple killer from Medicine Hat:
Over a year after she was sentenced for murdering her parents and brother, the girl, who was 12 at the time of the killings, will have her progress examined by Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Scott Brooker. The judge has ordered a yearly review of the girl’s treatment.

She is serving her sentence at Alberta Hospital Edmonton, where she is undergoing extensive rehabilitation and treatment in a $100,000-a-year program.

The girl’s October sentence review was adjourned pending more information.

The girl, identified as J.R. in court records, is doing well in therapy, but has a
"failure to internalize," a court heard last fall.


The punchline of the article:
The girl, now 15, was described in court as "seriously disturbed." She was given the maximum sentence allowed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act — six years in custody followed by four years of supervision. She will be free at age 22.

So, if she's still a psycho and is "failing to internalize" her murders, do they still let her walk? "Youth Offender" absolutists drive me crazy. Is there never an exception? Shouldn't she be locked up forever?

When I was in grade eight a kid got murdered by another kid in my neighborhood. A few years later the killer was walking the streets, unrepentant. Everybody knew who he was. It didn't seem right. I have no way of confirming it, but I believe he commited a violent crime again. If so, it didn't take a genius to see that coming.

I agree there needs to be a difference between adult, and youth punishment. But let's not be black and white about it. There has to be exceptions for murder, and potential violent re-offenders.