Tres Anos

[Michael Tee]

<<Why is that?
<<Truely I am perplexed.>>

Really?  It's Jewish political pressure plus an absence of any absolute, unconditional Constitutional guarantees of free speech.  Jewish pressure exists everywhere, strong Constitutional guarantees only in the U.S.A.

[Plane]

<<Why is that?
<<Truely I am perplexed.>>

Really?  It's Jewish political pressure plus an absence of any absolute, unconditional Constitutional guarantees of free speech.  Jewish pressure exists everywhere, strong Constitutional guarantees only in the U.S.A.

 I am still perplexed ,maybe moreso.

Is there no public demand for first admendmet sort of rights?

What makes Jewish pressure worse than Wasp influence or Chineese?

[_JS]

I'm not sure I completely agree with that. Canada has a lot of freedoms as well. The problem with Canada that many Americans don't understand is that the country is barely held together. Seriously. It is not the strong union that the United States has had since the Civil War. Canada is a far more federalist nation than the United States has ever been. If you like state's rights, you'll love Canada (but you'll have to call it Federalism).

It isn't just Quebec either (and by the way there are other Francaphone communities outside of Quebec), but the Atlantic Provinces, and Alberta, and sometimes British Columbia. Ask a Canadian about MacDonald or McKenzie (or Trudeau) and you are likely to get responses ranging from seething hatred to affable hero worship.

But Canadian policy is not always geared to indiviuals across the country, they tend to look at specific areas and to what keeps Canada together. It is something akin to a Confederation. I think it is interesting that many of you make Canada out to be some socialist wonder land. It isn't. In general the most left wing party in Canada (NDP) has always been on the fringes. The centrist Liberal party (and it is named Liberal under the European definition, not the modern American definition) has dominated Canadian politics. The Conservatives were mainly similar to the pro-business American Republicans until the Reform party came about and grew in force then the Conservatives became more focused on social policies.

Canadians do have a written Bill of Rights, thanks primarily to the Constitution Act of 1982. This is actually rather bizarre for a Westminster system. Britain, for example, has an uncodified constitution which is preferable, in my opinion, for such a nation.

[Michael Tee]

 <<I am still perplexed ,maybe moreso.

<<Is there no public demand for first admendmet sort of rights?>>

Yeah, sure, among some of the talking heads and the so-called chattering classes.  But I don't think you really understand the placidity of the Canadian people.  We live in a fairly well-run country.  Except for the weather (and that might be changing, please God) we are ten thousand times better off than the average American.  So basically nobody gives a shit except maybe the Indians because they really got fucked.  But nobody listens.

<<What makes Jewish pressure worse than Wasp influence or Chineese?>>

Wasps and Chinese don't really give a shit.  Nobody ever tried to exterminate them as a whole people.  Jews remember stuff like that like it all happened yesterday.  And it did.  It all happened in my lifetime.  So they are understandably concerned that they finally have a well-armed nuclear state and that its interests be protected at all times.  As am I.  I just happen to think they are going about protecting their long-term security in a very bad, bad way.

[Michael Tee]

JS, I agree with a lot of your comments about Canada, but I don't think that Federalism is what makes the difference.  Even before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, none of the Provinces were legally able to get out from whatever egalitarianism and civil rights came with the English common law that underlaid all of them.  "States' rights" never became as big issue in Canada as it is in the U.S.A.  because there was never a regional need to override Constitutionally guaranteed rights (here guaranteed by an "unwritten constitution") to a defined group of citizens.

I trace the persistent lag in guarantees of civil freedoms here not to a stronger federalism, but to the stronger tradition of royal authority now represented by the executive branch and to the corresponding reliance on Parliament as guarantor of independence from the Royal whim.  What is called Parliamentary authority was not some theoretical declaration of the supremacy of "the people" but a very real bulwark against a real and continuing Royal power, still extant here, at least now in theory only, which in the U.S.A. was abolished through the American Revolution.  If in fact, Parliament had to be supreme, then part of that supremacy was not only the giving of civil rights but the ability to take them away.  Thus in the Charter, the Parliamentary power to override basic civil freedoms was preserved.  That to me was a clear residue of British constitutional theory that Parliament (although technically or nominally still "the Sovereign in his Parliament") must be supreme.  And THAT was a consequence IMHO of the lack of a written Constitution such as that of the U.S.A. which they never got around to doing until a few years ago and then proceeded to botch the job.  Morons.

[_JS]

I agree to an extent.

Though, personally I prefer the Westminster system with a sovereign Parliament and an unwritten constitution.

My point was mainly that Americans often criticize Canada without understanding it at all. In fact, I'd easily wager that a far larger percentage of Canadians understand the American system of government more than the percentage of Americans that understand the Canadian system of government. That doesn't even touch on history and politics.

As an example, Toronto is a very large city (roughly 4 and a half million people) but is also far lower in crime than comparable American cities. This is especially true of violent crime. Even cities considered relatively "safe" in America have a much higher crime rate than Toronto. Seattle, for example, had a homicide rate of 4.2, robbery rate of 246, and a break-in rate of 1343 (those are rates per 100,000). Those rates don't even compare to Chicago, L.A., New York, and other major metropolitan areas and indeed Seattle is often considered one of the United States' premier cities in which to reside. Toronto's rates are 1.8, 103, and 449 respectively.

Many Americans chalk up such crimes to the minorities living in those urban areas. Yet, few cities have the diversity and multiculturalism (I like throwing that word in since it causes such ire) as Toronto. It has a high ethnic diversity along with a high religious diversity. Moreover, the cities emergency call services are equipped to handle over 150 languages.Link Yes Sirs, America is asked to provide forms in two languages and scoffs, some countries go far beyond that!

So, I think my point was to highlight some of the major differences for those Americans who simply think of Canada as a "socialist 51st state."

[Amianthus]

As an example, Toronto is a very large city (roughly 4 and a half million people) but is also far lower in crime than comparable American cities.

Yeah, but we don't have violent optometrists in the US. (Mikey should know about this one, for those who don't -> Silverman Helps Feud Ends In ETF Arrest.)

 

However, more on your point, last time I checked (and it has been a while) the violent crime rate in Vancouver is higher than that in Seattle (they're right next to each other and have roughly the same ethnic makeup). In addition, crime rates in the US have been trending down for a long time (over 30 years) while they have been trending up nearly everywhere else in the world. Also, crime rates in rural areas of the US are virtually non-existant - indeed, lower than most of the world for similar population densities. The crime in the US is nearly literally a cities-only problem, while the crime in other countries is more evenly spread across the countryside.

[_JS]

However, more on your point, last time I checked (and it has been a while) the violent crime rate in Vancouver is higher than that in Seattle (they're right next to each other and have roughly the same ethnic makeup).

According to this Vancouver scored well lower in homicide and robbery, and slightly lower in break-ins than Seattle as of 2004. The sources were: Source of Canadian stats: StatsCan 2004 (The Daily, July 21, 2005) & Source of American stats: Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports.

The crime in the US is nearly literally a cities-only problem, while the crime in other countries is more evenly spread across the countryside.

That's a non-point. I compared only cities to cities and I doubt that rural Canada has a massive crime problem. Besides, Europe doesn't have the rural land that the United States has, so the comparison there is moot. It still doesn't answer the question as to why Canadian and European cities are safer, and Toronto debunks the oft-held American myth that crime is directly linked to higher percentages of minority populations.

[Amianthus]

According to this Vancouver scored well lower in homicide and robbery, and slightly lower in break-ins than Seattle as of 2004. The sources were: Source of Canadian stats: StatsCan 2004 (The Daily, July 21, 2005) & Source of American stats: Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reports.

You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.

[_JS]

You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.

I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime.

How does this refute my point that Americans often mischaracterize Canada? Or that Canadian cities are typically safer than U.S. cities?

[sirs]

You're leaving out many violent crimes (rapes and battery, for instance) and break-ins are not violent crimes.

I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime.  How does this refute my point that Americans often mischaracterize Canada? Or that Canadian cities are typically safer than U.S. cities?

Since from an overall violent crime standpoint, as Ami referenced, (not selected ones, as you referenced) they're not.  Nor are they trending downward, like in the U.S.

[_JS]

Since from an overall violent crime standpoint, as Ami referenced, (not selected ones, as you referenced) they're not.

Oh really? Show me a United States city with a comparable population to Toronto that has a lower violent crime rate. Let's see the statistical evidence.

Nor are they trending downward, like in the U.S.

Again, let's see the proof. Trends are fine, but they aren't everything. When you start from a very high rate compared to a very low rate then simply saying "we are trending downward while you are trending upward" is not an impressive statistic.

[Michael Tee]

Canada is also trending downward in violent crime, and we didn't start from the ultra-high levels of the U.S.A.   from Stats Can:

<<Canada's crime rate, based on data reported by police services, fell a marginal 1% last year. While the total violent crime rate declined, the national homicide rate increased 12%.

<<Except for an increase in 2003, the crime rate has generally been falling since 1991 when it peaked. Police reported about 2.6 million offences in 2004, resulting in a crime rate that was 12% lower than a decade ago.>>

It's pointless to drag other violent crimes into the picture unless you have comparative figures - - if you want to drag in rapes, show the rapes per 100,000 in both countries for example.  Half-truths are unhelpful to say the least.  Generally speaking, homicides are probably a better index of violent crime than rape, simply because rape victims can recover and there are varying degrees of rape, some purely statutory.   All things considered, homicide is easily the most violent crime and the only one from which nobody ever recovers.

[Amianthus]

I don't recall saying break-ins were violent crimes. Nor do I recall saying that I included every violent crime.

Perhaps you should go back and look at the point of mine that you were trying to refute.

[_JS]

I decided to do a little investigating of my own, because we know how much Sirs and Ami like to stick to the facts.

So, I checked out official websites and some news articles. Here's what I found.

Crime Rates have trended down in the United States for thirty years: False

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI who keep track of data from 1960 to 2005 the rate of property crimes, violent crimes, and homicides have not been trending downwards for 30 years, nor have the rates of other nations been trending upwards over the same period of time as I'll show with Canada.

The violent crime rate in the United States did not start to trend downwards until 1991, where it reached a national peak of 758.1 violent crimes per 100,000 persons. A very high violent crime rate. It is now around the same rate we had in 1977 (strangely, 30 years ago) of 469.2 violent crimes per 100,000 persons. The Homicide rate has held steady since 1999 and also reached its peak in 1991. The property crime rate has lowered since 1991 as well.

Homicides in Canada fell to 1.9 per 100,000 persons compared to the 5.7 per 100,000 in the United States. Robberies, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon all fell. There is a higher rate of sexual assault in Canada than in the United States.

The only cities that come close to having a similar crime rate to the United States metropolitan areas are Regina and Winnipeg, and even they aren't very close (they fall under the U.S. national average in most categories). A large driver for Canadian crime rates are the western provinces of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.

Finally, New Zealand put together a report that compared violent crime in some English speaking nations and attempted to make all the definitions coincide (as a method of comparing apples to apples, due to each nation's variation in law and what exactly constitutes specific crimes). They came up with these totals for violent crimes per 100,000 for data from 2000:

Australia 121
New Zealand 133
England & Wales 153
Canada 237
United States 506