Over the past week, Andrew Scheer has been touting his latest pre-election policy plank, which promises to tackle the problem of gang violence – except it really won’t. His proposals are largely unconstitutional and fall into the same pattern of “tough on crime” measures that are largely performative that do nothing substantive about the underlying issues with violent crime, but that shouldn’t be unexpected. The measures go hand-in-hand with their talking point that the government’s current gun control legislation “doesn’t include the word ‘gangs’ even once,” and how they’re just punishing law-abiding gun owners. And while I will agree with the notion that you can’t really do much more to restrict handgun ownership without outright banning them, it needs to be pointed out that the point about the lack of mention of gangs in the bill is predicated on a lie – the Criminal Code doesn’t talk about “gangs” because it uses the language of “criminal organisations,” to which gangs apply (not to mention that you don’t talk about gangs in gun control legislation – they’re separate legal regimes, which they know but are deliberately trying to confuse the issue over.
I have to wonder if the recent focus on gangs as the current problem in gun crime is that they need a convenient scapegoat that’s easy to point a finger at – especially if you ignore the racial overtones of the discussion. Someone pointed out to me that they’re looking for their own MS-13 that they can demonise in the public eye – not for lack of trying, since they focus-tested some MS-13 talking points in Question Period last year at the height of the irregular border-crossing issue when they were concern-trolling that MS-13 was allegedly sending terrorists across our borders among these asylum seekers. The talking points didn’t last beyond a week or two, but you know that they’re looking to try and score some cheap points with it.
With that in mind, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt explaining why Scheer’s latest proposal is a house of lies:
This is full of lies and unconstitutionality. Come and follow me on a journey of discovery…. https://t.co/djcw3s2pXJ
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
And if a "gang member" commits a serious crime – like a firearm offence – there is already a reverse onus for bail. And what if a "gang member" steals a candy bar from a convenience store? Scheer proposes a revers onus? Talk about over broad.
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
Parole: Scheer wants to retroactively revoke parole for gang members. Again, no definition provided but also WAY unconstitutional. Retroactively limiting parole was found by the SCC to violate the Charter – sure as hell completely revoking it will be a violation
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
These last there are just lies. A "gang member" who commits an aggravated assault on behalf of a gang will not revive a fine. Show me one – ONE – case where that has ever happened. pic.twitter.com/Zv1oSG7ON9
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
These last three points are just lies. You are a lying liar. pic.twitter.com/YPkVb3wgPA
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
But most importantly statements like this are the types on misrepresentations and lies that do real harm to the justice system. This is snake oil being settled by a man bereft of real idea. Don't buy his bullshit.
— Michael Spratt (@mspratt) November 10, 2018
Or as another criminal defence lawyer, Dean Embry, puts it, if you’re going to make stuff up on this issue, then why not go all the way?
https://twitter.com/DeanEmbry/status/1062102941123907590