Guns, Gangs and Toronto

[zipperhead_cop]

Those are nice concepts but we know that there is now way in Gods green earth that we would ever get away with that.  The civil libertarians would be screaming and flagellating themselves in the street howling about "slippery slope!!!" and "big brother!!!" and other such rhetoric.  It would be easy enough to fit us out with some of the new facial recognition software and run checks that way, but you will get the same whiny bitch-fest. 
If anyone can rally the masses, we have the ability to sign a notwithstanding clause and suspend parts of the Charter of Rights ala Quebec and the anti-English laws.  But again, the sh_tstorm that would ensue would be quite a thing to behold, but would likely tear down that idea too.
One thing that might help is ramp up the laws that make it illegal to belong to a criminal organization.  Make just looking like a gang member a crime, and see the clothes go in the dumpster right quick.  No one would argue if there was a law against wearing KKK robes, because everyone hates those guys.  If you look like a criminal, you get treated like a criminal.  It would no doubt be a total pain to enforce and charges would get tossed like candy.  But it would still be fun releasing prisoners from the detention unit in blue paper jumpsuits because you had to seize their stuff for evidence. >
Nope.  The people have spoken.  They want the killing, drug trafficking, the lawlessness.  They may make poo poo faces when the headlines hit, but Canadians do not care in any real or effective way.  At least until one of their kids gets killed.  Me?  I'll just be the catch-and-release cop and be assured of thousands of dollars of court overtime for the rest of my career.
Cheers!!

 

[Infanteer]

It's fitting to see, in the same paragraph, somebody whine about "civil libertarian rhetoric" and complain that Canadians want killing, drug trafficking and lawlessness.  Talk about irony.

Do you really understand the consequences of the arguments you are making?  Make "looking like a gang-member" a criminal offence?  You'd be willing to outlaw a red bandanna and baggy pants in Canadian society for what, to stop a few young men from assaulting and killing each other?  I see "unprincipled egoist" is a common fit around here.

Governments are products of the people that they serve.  They are, like people, inherently imperfect and fallible.  There is a reason we hold principles like the Rule of Law to be sacrosanct; it is to maintain a proper relationship between citizens themselves and between the citizens and their government.  You start by telling me what I, as a citizen, can and can't wear today and tommorrow you'll be telling me to turn in my Rap albums along with my handgun and that I can only cut my hair in the prescribed manner (this would all fit in with your proscription against "looking like a gang member") .  Sorry, but that is tyranny plain and simple and you'll find yourself in a bad spot if you come to enforce that upon me, my family or my friends.   

You are a catch-and-release cop for a reason and it doesn't involve our fundamental freedoms....

 

[GO!!!]

Infanteer,

I suppose you also support the "right" of the Angels to grace our city streets wearing their patches, and their prospects to throw their weight around - the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to protect the citizens of this nation, not to give criminals something to hide behind.

The "liberal interpretation" of the criminal code that you accuse the judges of having is alive and well in your post when you immediately equate restrictions on dress with "tyranny". Are tyrrannies like speed limits and drug restrictions also included?

No one is trying to "ban" a certain type of dress, only associate it (officially) with a certain lifestyle that is a threat to society. Just as gun owners give up some money and jump through administrative hoops to remain legal gun owners, I see no reason why a "criminal dress code" could not be used as reason for a search - after all, if you have nothing to hide - what's the big deal?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

It's fitting to see, in the same paragraph, somebody whine about "civil libertarian rhetoric" and complain that Canadians want killing, drug trafficking and lawlessness.  Talk about irony.

No, that is sarcasm.  A subtle but important difference.

Do you really understand the consequences of the arguments you are making?  Make "looking like a gang-member" a criminal offence?  You'd be willing to outlaw a red bandanna and baggy pants in Canadian society for what, to stop a few young men from assaulting and killing each other?  I see "unprincipled egoist" is a common fit around here.

Governments are products of the people that they serve.  They are, like people, inherently imperfect and fallible.  There is a reason we hold principles like the Rule of Law to be sacrosanct; it is to maintain a proper relationship between citizens themselves and between the citizens and their government.  You start by telling me what I, as a citizen, can and can't wear today and tommorrow you'll be telling me to turn in my Rap albums along with my handgun and that I can only cut my hair in the prescribed manner (this would all fit in with your proscription against "looking like a gang member") .  Sorry, but that is tyranny plain and simple and you'll find yourself in a bad spot if you come to enforce that upon me, my family or my friends.   

I guess I should have been more specific about what dress.  Yes, locking a kid up for wearing baggy pants would be unreasonable.  But if someone is wearing Hells Angels colours or any other established gang, it should be a no brainer.  You have to go through a lot of crap to get those and not just buying them at the Gap.  Same for street gangs.  It is well known that there is gang symbology and various ways to wear clothes and colours indicate your membership in a gang.  There is no way to accidentally put together some of these combinations.  I believe I started off by saying that we are far to liberal to enact such laws, and was trying to suggest a somewhat painless solution, since it is already against the law to belong to a criminal organization. 
By all means, please don your best G-Unit hoodie with three point crown medallion on a 36" gold chain with baggy urban camo cargo pants and a brand new Carolinas ball cap with black and white bandanna under it, pull up your left trouser leg to over your calf, cap your front teeth with your best gold and diamond covers, have your four finger ring "playa" bling and roll up to some homies in the Jane/Finch corridor and jump out.  In a clear steady voice proclaim "Fo shizzle, my bitches!!" and revel in your uniquely Canadian experience.  We'll see you on the cover of the Sun with the headline "Courageous Tyranny Fighter Tragically Struck Down".

You are a catch-and-release cop for a reason and it doesn't involve our fundamental freedoms....

And feel free to qualify "the reason" you think I have to do catch-and-release.

 

[Infanteer]

I suppose you also support the "right" of the Angels to grace our city streets wearing their patches, and their prospects to throw their weight around

Yes I do.  I don't understand how targetting somebody's choice of fashion is supposed to stop criminal acts.  Until they break the law, a fat slob with a patch is free to wear whatever they want because they are just that, a fat slob with a patch.  However, I also support Bill C-95; some Biker's brazen use of his freedom of expression will also provide reasonable evidence to tag him with the additional sentence of belonging to a organized crime group.  Now, if one were able to prove that these low-level shooters in Toronto are actually organized criminal enterprises (Crips and Bloods come to mind) then use their dress against them; but I doubt it - most of these guys are probably low-lifes with a silly sense of fashion they lifted from some crappy rap album.

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was intended to protect the citizens of this nation, not to give criminals something to hide behind.

Protect citizens from what?  You should read into what roles constitutionalism and a bill of rights serve in a liberal, democratic society - the wiki links provided are a good starting place.  Constitutionally entrenched individual rights serve to regulate the relationship between people and their government.  A government has a lot of resources and power and can bring the hammer of god down on an individual if it wishes - constitutional rights establish the "rules of the game".  This is certainly the founding principle behind the US Bill of Rights - it responded to many of the complaints that were lodged in the Declaration of Independence.  Our own constitutional evolution is much the same.  The Charter is far from perfect (Section 33 is a joke), but it is a step in the right direction.

The "liberal interpretation" of the criminal code that you accuse the judges of having is alive and well in your post when you immediately equate restrictions on dress with "tyranny".

I don't get where you are getting this from.  How do you equate a justice system that cycles criminals in and out of a "rehabilitative" penal system and the government saying "Hey you, wearing those clothes in that fashion is now against the law!" as the same thing?

Are tyrrannies like speed limits and drug restrictions also included?

Bullocks.  A definite case can be made to show that excessive speed (which is really reckless use of an automobile) and hardcore drug use represent reasonable cases of risk to society; sure, there is a gray area that is open to debate - I think 110Km/H isn't speeding and that Marijuana doesn't constitute a "hard core" drug - but the principles are generally sound.  I've yet to see any of you make the case that violating the fundamental freedom of expression will add any realistic value to a law enforcement officers tool-belt when compared to the costs of doing so in both moral and enforcement terms.  Sure, there is a cessation of some liberty to the government to ensure a relatively free and peaceful society; these reasonable legal proscriptions in society are covered under the Section 7 of the Charter and as far as I am concerned "dresses funny" is not "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

No one is trying to "ban" a certain type of dress, only associate it (officially) with a certain lifestyle that is a threat to society.

Well, Mr Zipperheadcop said "If you look like a criminal, you get treated like a criminal", so I can only assume that a "ban" was the intention.  Baggy pants and doo-rags are not a threat to society - I implore you to prove to me that they are.

Just as gun owners give up some money and jump through administrative hoops to remain legal gun owners, I see no reason why a "criminal dress code" could not be used as reason for a search - after all, if you have nothing to hide - what's the big deal?

As I said above, good governance implies that we surrender a certain amount of negative freedom to ensure a free and safe society.  It doesn't mean we violate our fundamental principles by flagrantly disregarding the most basic liberal democratic freedoms.  Unfortunately, the right to bear arms and protect oneself isn't entrenched, but either way subjecting owners to public scrutiny with a licence and validation is not unreasonable (we do the same with automobiles).  Saying that "if you wear X, you open yourself up to arbitrary detainment and arrest" is unreasonable and I challenge you to prove otherwise; there is no reason that you should face a derogation of your rights and freedoms for shopping at the "Urban Barn" and wearing "FUBU".

The "law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide" line is stale.  Citizens, irregardless of who they are, shouldn't have to juggle their rights when dealing with the government.  As I said earlier, people are fallible and thus governments are apt to follow the fickle whim of whoever is pushing the levers at the time if constraints aren't put in place (and backed by the will to enforce them by the people who live under them).  The proof is in the pudding right on Army.ca; look at all the jaw-jaw that goes around these forums.  One guy says it would be great to forbid anyone to have handguns without providing any real good reason what-so-ever (except for some lame, unfounded cry to security) while another guy wants to put limits on what people do in the sack for the sake of a "moral wall" that "protects society".  Now we see folks willing to base a presumption of guilt upon fashion sense and have no qualms against ignoring the freedom of expression.

You can throw the term "liberal" at me in a crappy ad hominem attempt to undermine my argument, but everything I see here only helps to reinforce my belief in principles because I have no doubt that if we didn't stick to them they would be pissed away in an instant.  Because some idiot who likes Fifty-Cent happens to shoot some other guy from his neighbourhood shouldn't grant anybody, including agents of the state (and that includes us soldiers), the authority to tar all with the broad brush of "presumed guilty" for the mere fact that they (in this specific case) happen to prefer similar dress.

Guys, all of this - gun control, morality between the sheets, the clothes you choose to wear and the right against unreasonable search and seizure - is all connected and underlined by the same fundamental principle.  Just as I don't appreciate some yuppie from Toronto telling me what firearms I should be allowed to own for the sake of public safety, I don't appreciate some cop telling all Canadians (which is what happens when you make a law) what styles of dress should be more appropriate for wear if you wish to avoid detainment.  As I have before, I'll pull out Brad Sallows quote which helps to best encapsulate the debate:

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.

 

[Infanteer]

I believe I started off by saying that we are far to liberal to enact such laws, and was trying to suggest a somewhat painless solution, since it is already against the law to belong to a criminal organization.

Is it?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the results of Bill C-95 I can see that:

"criminal organization offence" means

(a) an offence under section 467.1 or an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or

(b) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a);

Which seems to me to indicate that being a gang-member isn't against the law, but rather committing a criminal offence for the benefit of one is.  This seems to be backed by:

Participation in criminal organization
467.1 (1) Every one who

(a) participates in or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal organization knowing that any or all of the members of the organization engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of indictable offences under this or any other Act of Parliament for each of which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, and

(b) is a party to the commission of an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with the criminal organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Participation is dependent upon engaging in indictable offences - I don't see anything here to indicate that simply belonging to an organized criminal enterprise itself is a crime - and for good reason; if somebody is a member of a motorcycle gang and never commits a crime in their life, how can your put them in jail?  Although the probability of this happening is probably quite rare due to the way these organizations work, the principle of presumption of innocence forces us to assume it to be a possibility.  Until you have an indictable criminal offence, you can't put a guy away for wearing gang colours.  Once you put him away, the gang colours can add some time on to his sentence, depending upon his function within the criminal organization.

Is this correct?

And feel free to qualify "the reason" you think I have to do catch-and-release.

Well, you really answered your own question.  The reason you do "catch-and-release" is because we are constantly releasing.  Incarcerating dangerous criminals for longer periods of time (in a gulag) and executing capital offenders isn't going to eliminate crime (which probably isn't going away anyways, as it is tied to the human condition), as there will always be somebody else who'll violate the law, but it lessens the work load and allows you to work on the new guys when the veteran-felons are up in a camp in Nunavut for 20 years (no parole), no?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not sure if this has actually been tested before a competent court without the commission of an actual offence.  I suppose the basis to detain and release stems from any R&PG relating to the part boldened below:

"criminal organization offence" means

(a) an offence under section 467.1 or an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or

(b) a conspiracy or an attempt to commit, being an accessory after the fact in relation to, or any counselling in relation to, an offence referred to in paragraph (a);

With respect to the words "conspiracy ... to commit"- one can be part of a conspiracy to committ by "knowledge"; "wilful blindness" and perhaps in extremely rare circumstances "reckless disregard."


I note that 467.1(1)(a) requires the crown to prove a mental element along with the other conditions precedent in the 5 year period outlined by Infanteer below. The knowledge requirement raises a significant legal challenge for the crown- the accused does not have to disprove knowledge, the crown must prove knowledge. I think the LEA could provide all kinds of evidence to support that part of the offence, but getting a judge to accept it is not a cake walk. Here is where it really gets interesting- notice it doesn't say "convicted of an indictable offence"  anywhere in the section? It just says "engaged in the commission of a series of ...." Although in theory it could work both ways, I would think that if there haven't been any convictions, it would raise the workload for the crown to prove the knowledge element of the offence.

Second,  notice the condition subsequent in (b) - the accused must be a party to the commission of the offence (very broad language- one can be a party to the commission of an offence without actually committing the offence) at a point in time after developing the knowledge. 

This tells me that arrests leading to charges under 467.1 are generally intended for indictable offences in the advanced planning stage through to points past commission of the offence.

467.1 contains far too many subcomponents and has a very complex web of requirements to act effectively for a general anti-gang law. "Membership" alone should be disentangled from the section and set up as a separate offence. What we really need in Canada is a clearer crown elective charge that would make it illegal to knowingly benefit or be wilfully blind to the source of any benefit from the commission of any offence or series of offences committed by a criminal organization in which only one of the members is convicted for the offence. This would cast a very wide net, and would give the crown an pre-emptive opportunity make examples out of those who think it's cool to be a gangster prior to their own rather predictable involvement in something wicked at a later date.   Of course, 2 immediate impacts would be felt- (1) after recent convictions, a lot of Liberals could end up in jail the next time they steal; and (2) the Charter would kick the shit out of any theory of criminal liability along those lines.       

 

[kcdist]

I challenge you to reasonably prove to me that there is a "crisis" in Toronto.

There were 78 homicides in Toronto in 2005, 52 of which involved a firearm.  I'm not sure what percentage of these 78 homicides were due to gang-violence.  Are you trying to tell me that in a city of 5,000,000 people that 50 some-odd deaths constitutes a crisis?!?  Christ, Dallas and Chicago were each close to 500 homicides in 2005 (IIRC) and I don't see them running to burn the Bill of Rights to solve that problem.

Infanteer,

According to the 2001 census, approximately 150,000 Torontonians were new or first generation Jamaicans. It is generally agreed that the Jamaican community comprises either the victims and the culprits in almost all the shootings this past year.

The national homicide rate for 2003 was 1.73 for every 100,000 citizens in Canada.

Based on attributing 50 of Toronto's 78 homicides in 2005 to the Jamaican community, the homicide rate for that community would be  33.33 for every 100,000.

Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?

I didn't state I thought the entire city of Toronto was in crisis. Unfortunately though, one of it's core communities is.

Now the true callous observer could state that there is still not a crisis, because the homicide rate in Jamaica is 50/100,000 vice only 33.33/100,000 for Jamaicans in Toronto, but that would be true liberalspeak.

Incarcerating dangerous criminals for longer periods of time (in a gulag) and executing capital offenders isn't going to eliminate crime (which probably isn't going away anyways, as it is tied to the human condition), as there will always be somebody else who'll violate the law, but it lessens the work load and allows you to work on the new guys when the veteran-felons are up in a camp in Nunavut for 20 years (no parole), no?

As stated above, major cities in the U.S have homicide rates that put our worse cities to shame. Now, this is only going on personal experience, but one of the wonderful things about Canada is that the huge majority of our citizens are law abiding. If, for example, a Katrina-like disaster happened anywhere in Canada, I think it would be far-fetched to expect the type of lawlessness we all observed in New Orleans.

When I worked as a police officer in Calgary, it was often the same culprits over and over and over again. Perhaps only 0.2% of the population, however, with our revolving system of justice, that was enough to keep an entire Police Service busy. (That, and the mandatory ticket quota.....but I digress)

I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effective.

With the exception of some parts of Winnipeg and Toronto, Canada as a whole doesn't have major breeding grounds for criminals. Once they're gone for good, they aren't coming back.

Bring on the gulags....

 

[pbi]

I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effe

I am equally certain that removing this group would, for a short run, reduce the most violent crime statistics. I would suggest, however, that we incarcerate them forever, deport them, or subject them to internal banishment since I have no faith whatsoever that our prison system would do much to make useful citizens out of them. Maybe, in the best interests of our society, one of my three options might not be a bad idea.

But, in the longer run, what then? How do we get at the root causes of why young men (and, to a very much lesser extent, young women) go this way? Because, if we don't get at those causes, then a new crew will simply step forward to fill the shoes of the first crop we lock up or ship out.

While I tend to sympathize with Infanteer that simply banning a style of clothing probably won't do much, I think that we do have to tackle and neutralize that whole culture that gives rise to the mentality represented by "colours".  This is best done, and perhaps can only be done, through the cultural group that is the home of the problem. But how do you get people to cooperate with the police, to set up Neighborhood Watch groups, to teach their kids respect for authority, for women, for themselves? I really don't know how to go about this, but IMHO if that doesn't get done we (society--all colours and cultures-) can't win this. The police are a part of the solution, just like the military is part of the solution in places like Iraq or Afgh, but the police won't defeat it on their own, just as I don't believe they have defeated it in US cities of comparable size and demographics to Toronto, with far bigger (proportionally speaking) forces and a much more aggressive court system behind them.

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?

I didn't state I thought the entire city of Toronto was in crisis. Unfortunately though, one of it's core communities is.

Now the true callous observer could state that there is still not a crisis, because the homicide rate in Jamaica is 50/100,000 vice only 33.33/100,000 for Jamaicans in Toronto, but that would be true liberalspeak.

I don't know - Ghiglieri in The Dark Side of Man points out that, on average, the murder rate of juvenile US gang members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) is 463/100,000.  This is much higher then anything seen in Canada.  Does it constitute a crisis that demands a suspension of some civil liberties?  I don't think so - as I said, you don't see the Americans running to shred the Bill of Rights to deal with its inner-city crime problems.  This is not an immanent threat to the well being of Canada but rather an indication that there is an acute social problem within a specific community that needs to be addressed.  I don't think you can address social problems with the Emergencies Act.

I strongly believed that with that core group out of the food chain, we would be virtually crime free. There are not hundreds/thousands of wanna-be bad guys in the wings waiting for their chance at crime once the king pins fall. I think a three strike.....heck even a six strike.....law in Canada would be phenomenally effective.

I agree with you here, kcdist.  As I said earlier, this doesn't need any extraordinary measures to be dealt with.  If all these guys who were "known to police" were off the streets, then they wouldn't be out shooting people.

But, in the longer run, what then? How do we get at the root causes of why young men (and, to a very much lesser extent, young women) go this way? Because, if we don't get at those causes, then a new crew will simply step forward to fill the shoes of the first crop we lock up or ship out.

I firmly believe that the cause is rooted in our biology - we aren't going to escape from the fact that some young men will use violence to achieve the goals.  However I agree with you that dealing with the community with measures you indicated is the way to diminish this outbreak of youth violence.  My guess is you need to put the communities destiny in its own hands; they can then drop the ball or run with it.  I guess the question is how does one do this?

 

[3rd Herd]

I think it was W5 recently ran  a show on the number of immigrants that were returning to their homelands, Canada not in reality to what they were told. PHD's doing janitorial work etc. I think allot has to do with cultural values( value of human life for example) and the clash of cultural values. To a certain extent the lack of education plays a part and leads to a frustration of not being able to succeed. Next add in peer pressure, natural leaders and followers. Throw into the mix those who will always try and find the easy way. Add a pinch of approiate role models( here there is a deffinite lack of) and the pot will "boil and bubble"

 

[1feral1]

Take the gang members, from all gangs and ship em up to the great white north. drop em off at some old mine or logging site and tell em that they must depend on each other to survive the full term of their sentences... and visit the site once every 12 months...

For the non-Cdn ones, ie, landed immigrants etc, why not deport them (they do here with applause from the mainsteamers - irregardless of colour - we don't want that type of person in our country)? If they love a violent culture, most come from places where this is a daily routine, so I say ship 'em out. End the gravy boat of dole payments, and won't they have the longest faces you've seen.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Infanteer]

You won't find an argument from me Wes - BC did that with an landed immigrant from India; he had a real bad driving record and ultimately ended up killing an innocent pedestrian in a street race.  Instead of running him through our penal system, he was just sent back to India and told not to bother coming back....

 

[karl28]

Its most definitely time to crack down on these gangs and violent crimes . I say if
your caught with a hand gun in a crime than you should get life no second chances  . If your not a citizen of this country or recent immigrant than deport them . IT sounds harsh I know but something has to give this is getting way out of control.People are not safe anymore no matter where you are .  Just my two cents worth I hope that I didn't offend any one not my intentions

 

[tourwife]

Unfortunetly it's not only Toronto...Edmonton has become just as bad.  The only reason we don't think much about it is because the numbers are lower.  When you look at per capita though, Edmonton and Toronto really are the same, Edmonton if not worse.

 

[3rd Herd]

You won't find an argument from me Wes - BC did that with an landed immigrant from India; he had a real bad driving record and ultimately ended up killing an innocent pedestrian in a street race.  Instead of running him through our penal system, he was just sent back to India and told not to bother coming back....

Indian military was waitting to for him when his plane landed, instant join up. All so several Indian gang members over the years, Bindi Johel for one but not enough

 

[NavComm]

All so several Indian gang members over the years, Bindi Johel for one but not enough

Do you mean Bindy Johal was waiting for this guy or that Bindy Johal was also awaiting deportation before he got killed?

I recall the uproar about Johal (what a media darling he was  : ) because I missed being caught in that crossfire by mere minutes (1994) in what IIRC was the start of the Indo-Canadian gang war over drugs and territory that IIRC ended (that particular war) with Johal's death in 1998.

The guy (it might have been one of the Dosanjh brothers, but I don't remember now) was killed on Kingsway at Fraser - my usual route to work - at the time that I would have normally been going through that intersection, but by the grace of God, I was delayed that day and passed by when the police and paramedics were already at the scene.

We've had lots more gang violence and gun battles with unregistered guns since that time in Vancouver. It seems to go in fits and starts. What is most alarming now though, is that more and more innocent victims are being caught in the crossfire. Rachel Davis, Lee Matasi being two who come to mind, but there are have been many others.

As much as my heart goes out to the families and friends of the innocent victims, I cannot support banning registered hand guns or believe that doing that will have any negative impact on the way criminals operate because:

• They don't pay any attention to the current laws - which are strict already
• When they are caught, they get minimal sentences and are out before you can say "Bob's your uncle".
• Law abiding citizens are the only ones who will suffer yet another law that courts don't enforce
  

.

just my $0.02

 

[midgetcop]

Infanteer,

According to the 2001 census, approximately 150,000 Torontonians were new or first generation Jamaicans. It is generally agreed that the Jamaican community comprises either the victims and the culprits in almost all the shootings this past year.

They are mainly black. But I'd like to see your source indicating that they were mostly recent Jamaican immigrants (you could indeed be correct, but I'd like to know for sure).

The national homicide rate for 2003 was 1.73 for every 100,000 citizens in Canada.

Based on attributing 50 of Toronto's 78 homicides in 2005 to the Jamaican community, the homicide rate for that community would be  33.33 for every 100,000.

Conclusion - Does not a homicide rate of 19 times the national average constitute a crisis?

Depends on whether your first statement is 100% factual. And, IMO it's more a gang/drug-issue, and not one isolated to ethnicity. 

Irregardless, proving that certain types of crimes happen within particular groups doesn't constitute a crisis. That's like saying that since the average suicide-rate amongst Native Canadians is 20 times higher than the national average it constitutes a crisis (then again, maybe it does...).

 

[midgetcop]

Unfortunetly it's not only Toronto...Edmonton has become just as bad.  The only reason we don't think much about it is because the numbers are lower.  When you look at per capita though, Edmonton and Toronto really are the same, Edmonton if not worse.

Toronto's not even 2nd on the list:

"And Toronto's murder rate per capita this year is lower than the rate for Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary."

 

[Infanteer]

Irregardless, proving that certain types of crimes happen within particular groups doesn't constitute a crisis. That's like saying that since the average suicide-rate amongst Native Canadians is 20 times higher than the national average it constitutes a crisis (then again, maybe it does...).

Toronto's not even 2nd on the list:

"And Toronto's murder rate per capita this year is lower than the rate for Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary."

Nice one-two punch.  I think this supports the point that a "crisis" is the work of the media and politicians.