If you are a regular reader of this column, you know I have very little sympathy for people who commit violent crime; but I do have sympathy for one person this week. His name is Blaine Taypotat. He is a man who killed a conservation officer through impaired driving in 2013. He was given 9-½ years. Meanwhile, Cheyann Peeteetuce was given 6-½ years for killing two teenagers while speeding in a stolen truck and trying to evade police. The known gang member also got to serve her sentence concurrently, which means the judge found her guilty of multiple offenses, but she can do the time grouped together with her other charges. If she had been sentenced to serve consecutively, you would add up the time sentenced and sentencing for the second crime wouldn’t begin until the sentence on the first crime is complete; which is how I feel it should always be.
Let’s pretend a police officer notices you blow a stop sign and then goes after you in pursuit. Along the way, you also happen to get your speed up a little high and he writes you a ticket for speeding. I don’t know what the actual penalties are, but let’s say a stop sign infraction is $100 and speeding is $150. Does it sound right that instead of paying $250, you pay $150 because you are already paying $100 as part of the speeding ticket? That’s what concurrent sentencing is and it’s also something a Saskatchewan Law Professor says is an important part of the system because, without it, sentences can become disproportionate. I have news for her. Read my first paragraph again and I think you will find the concurrent sentence is, exactly, why the penalty given to Taypotat and Peeteetuce are disproportionate.
Sentence lengths don’t bring loved ones back to life, but it’s a slap in the face to think your teenaged son or daughter was barely worth 3 years to a judge, while a conservation officer’s life is worth more than 9. I’m not saying one life is worth more than another, but the reality is that Taypotat made one bad choice (drive while impaired) and it will cost him dearly. Peeteetuce’s bad decisions include joining a gang, stealing a truck, speeding, and evading police. If you read between the lines on some of the rationale in the Peeteetuce matter, a judge will tell you that maybe Taypotat had better parents than Peeteetuce and that’s why his penalty is harsher. It’s true. You can now blame your parents for bringing you up properly if you commit a crime and are given a long sentence. Friends, the system is broken; even amongst the travesties of justice.
Liberal people never fail to surprise me. The Toronto Star’s readers are full of them. Last week, an article was posted regarding a dog eating festival in China. Frankly, the pictures offended me. What I read offended me. I don’t offend easily. Yet, there are liberal people posting about Canadians eating steak and bacon on a regular basis so if Chinese people want to eat the family pet that’s okay with them. You see, I think I have it figured out. Liberal people don’t like to be told there are rules to follow so in an effort to be fair, they don’t like imposing rules on others. So, while the vast majority of liberal Canadians won’t skin or boil a dog to eat; they are uncomfortable with telling a Chinese person this is wrong. They don’t reconcile the fact dogs are meant to be pets while cows and pigs are raised as meat. Sure, there are exceptions, but in cases where a family has a pig as its pet; I’m quite certain they don’t decide to eat it after a certain period of time. In China, there are stories about dogs being stolen and sold before they are slaughtered. There is nothing right about this and the Chinese government is starting to distance itself from it. Hopefully, common sense will prevail at some point and this practice will go the way of the dinosaur. In the meantime, the liberal people in Canada that see no issue with this festival should have to register as folks who are unfit to own a pet.
Sikhs were in the news this past week, saying they should have the right to refuse a search of their turban when boarding an airplane. My first reaction was that if you can make me take off my shoes before I get on a plane, then you should be able to ask me to take off my turban too. Then, I realized a turban is part of their religion, while my shoes are not religion related (but give me a couple of minutes and I can conjure up a pretty good story to make them a religious symbol). So, it’s like comparing apples to oranges. How about then refusing to open my Bible if requested? If certain folks have the right to declare a turban as off-limits from a search, can I then have the same right for my Bible?
Nice person mentions this week to Jered Oystrick, Wade Barton, Trevor Hove, Tanya Benoit, and Krista Ruf.
