What's the common denominator between Bush's proposed plan to halt immigration at the border, and Stephen Harper's decision to neuter the now-mature and successful gun registry?
Simple: Neither man wants to use the tool that would effectively enforce existing laws. In the case of the Bush Republicans, we know that the Republican party can't bring itself to actually take on the real estate developers, meat packers, and plantation owners who profit from illegal immigration. Nonetheless, this doesn't change the facts - forcing businesses to actually verify the identity of their workers would remove one of the biggest incentives for illegal immigration.
Bush's proposal involved everything but forcing Republican donors to actually obey the law. There's a bit about developing new ID, but existing programs would serve this purpose - if the government took it seriously.
Harper, meanwhile, wants to shut down a program that aids in law enforcement every day. I honestly don't understand this - I have to register a car, a pet, a baby, whatever. But God forbid we make gun-toting Conservatives register their guns.
You know, this is a long-held Conservative belief: Enforcing the law is fine, just so long as it doesn't inconvenience us. My favourite example is the Harris Tory government in Ontario which shitcanned photo radar despite the obvious fact that it was a better tool for, you know, enforcing the law.
(Please spare the protests that it did nothing to slow traffic on the 401. I remember the difference as a passenger, and I was too young to drive.)
Similarly, the Harris government (specifically, Mike himself) was admantly opposed to enforcing traffic law within cities as well, standing in the way of municipalities who wanted to put up red-light cameras.
Note the Conservative choice: Faced with either a) obeying and properly enforcing the law, b) changing a law you disagree with, or c) simply stop enforcing the law, the Conservatives chose C. This of course won't stop them from criminalizing gay marriage.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, when it comes to photo radar, I would not consider it acceptable unless they finally increased the 400-Series speed limits to something reasonable (>=120 km/h). The current 100 km/h limit is a double-standard, enforce-when-convenient scenario that should be repaired.
Even then, that does not fix the problem that it's not actually law enforcement -- it's more of a 'speed toll'. (We already have that -- it's called the 407.) It does not help safety in an immediate sense (since they cannot react, pull dangerous vehicles over, etc.); any reductions in speed it brings are localized to wherever the van is at (arguably decreasing safety with sudden slow-downs); it does not hold drivers responsible (only vehicles).
It was not a better tool for enforcing the law. It was a better tool for getting revenue from the law.
You're right. Photo radar as used in Ontario was actually a safety hazard, because everyone suddenly braked when they saw a dark van parked by the side of the road.
The way photo radar is used in European countries, such as Germany, enhances safety and enforces the law. There, cameras are in permanent, highly-visible installations at known road hazards. For example, the speed limit is 100 km/h between towns, but drops to 50 km/h in town. At the entrance of many towns, you'll find a sharp bend in the road to reduce speed and a photo radar installation. On steep sections of the autobahn, you'll see huge warning signs that warn you that a new lower speed-limit is radar enforced.
The point is to use the photo radar where it makes most sense - to enforce speed limits at known hazards. That's the way to improve safety for all.
Post a Comment