Getting tough on crime no solution

Today I received a ‘fear request card’ from Conservative candidate Jack McClintock, a 25-year police veteran. The headline was “Have you had enough?” and it featured a photograph of police tape sealing off a door.

On the back was a promise to make our streets safer by “getting tough.”

My answer to Jack: Yes, I have had enough ... of scare campaigns targeted at raising our fears in hopes of enacting ineffective policies.

Of the statistics I am aware of, our streets are not unsafe. Yes, street crimes do occur, but is the effective solution to ‘get tough,’ such as by mandatory minimum sentences?

No. You only have to look south of the border to see how well the logic of getting ‘tough on crime’ works — more prisons, more fear, fewer freedoms.

Not all law enforcement professionals ascribe to the ‘get tough’ mentality. In fact, thousands of voices from law enforcement are speaking actively against ‘get tough’ and in favour of ‘getting real.’ They form an organization known as LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which includes current and former police officers, judges, and prosecutors. Their belief, based not on outdated political fear-mongering, but instead on sound science and careful analysis, is that the war on drugs must end.

It doesn’t make sense to offer solutions that have proven not to work. But there is another way, via compassion and understanding. The ‘answer’ to our social ills is here and now. The question is: have we, society, felt enough pain from the laws that reflect our addiction to anger? Are we ready to try another way?

‘Get tough’ must end. We are no safer with it, only more divisive and fearful.

Daniel Tourigny

Victoria

Privatizing lesson to be learned here

Hopefully our governments have become aware from this bail-out in the U.S. that divesting themselves of responsibility by privatizing can never work.

If our ferry fleet went belly up, the government would have to haul in taxpayers’ money to keep it running.

But what’s worse from our point of view is that we have had to give up many needed social services to keep such companies’ taxes low so that these privatized firms could stay afloat, even in good times.

To exacerbate the situation in the U.S., these company’s leaders have been drawing unbelievable salaries and now we see that many of these leaders would have trouble arranging alphabet blocks in an orderly fashion.

Should we not require an intelligence test for these positions? Or at least an Ouija board?

Andy Mulcahy

Victoria

Coalition makes sense for opposition

On Oct. 7, when attending a Victoria all-candidates meeting on the environment, I was disappointed that the Liberal candidate rejected forming a coalition with the NDP in order to stop Harper. It is clear to me that the Liberals are more interested in recapturing power than they are in stopping the most right-wing government in the history of Canada.

I cannot bring myself to vote Liberal, and why should I have to? If the Liberals are serious about stopping Harper, they need to suck it up, find some common ground with the NDP (and anyone else who offers) and form a coalition after the election.

A coalition would be the next best thing to proportional representation, which we can kiss goodbye if the Conservatives win a majority.

Perhaps a clue to the Liberals’ distaste for a coalition lies in the fact that in 2003 they soundly defeated an NDP motion for a national referendum on proportional representation, which would have brought a greater mix of parties to the house — including more NDP MPs.

It appears that the Liberals are more interested in being the ‘natural governing party’ than they are in true democracy.

Freya Keddie

Victoria

Co-op housing a viable alternative

Re: Prioritize affordable housing (column, Oct. 3)

Why does no one these days seem to consider co-operative housing as one viable solution to our housing crisis?

I remember Victoria’s first co-op housing project which grew from a discussion around a kitchen table in 1972 and became a reality in 1974. The concept was new to Victoria and was not well-received by some politicians, but most became eager to claim credit for this wonderful new concept – once it was established as a vote-catcher.

Had governments maintained that level of enthusiasm perhaps today the situation facing thousands of low and middle-income earners and seniors would not exist — or would at least be ameliorated.

Ms. Raits notes that developers are ready and willing to cash in on the influx of people moving here.

And there, of course, is the answer. Greed. The profit motivation that has fuelled the obscene escalation in housing prices.

Instead of striking yet another task force to examine the “problem,” when will governments spend some of our tax money where the need is greatest, rather than give tax breaks to those whose greed is greatest?

In a co-op, the speculation factor is non-existent. It is a non-profit, member-based, participatory democracy with one vote per member. An elected board of directors manages the business of the co-op and volunteer committees make recommendations to guide the board in decision-making.

It is a viable way to provide affordable, decent housing to the thousands of disadvantaged citizens whose lives are being destroyed by government inability to deal with even one basic right of its citizens — adequate shelter.

Val McWilliams

Victoria