TWO BLOGS THAT IS...
PART ONE:
Yesterday, saw the verdict come down for Derek Chauvin who was convicted of the murder of George Floyd which took place a year ago in May.
Chauvin received 22.5 years.
Which was far too high.
First off, he was not guilty of murder but rather manslaughter. And even in the inflated sentences handed down by American Courts he should have received no more than 7 to 8 years.
So why manslaughter and not murder? Despite how reckless Chauvin acted, it happened when he was engaged in his duties. Floyd was accused of trying to pass counterfeit money. And, I cannot believe he intended to kill Floyd but he certainly showed reckless regard for life and hence my full support of the lesser conviction.
So why do I think the Judge imposed such a harsh sentence? The answer is quite simple - the Judge gave into society's rage. In a normal case, the Defence would ask for a Neutral Setting to ensure an impartial venue but, of course, in this particular case no such setting existed throughout the entire United States.
I spoke about America being too tough on crime - here in Canada... it is just the opposite. Judges here tend to deliver much lighter sentences. As an example, a friend, I used to work with, brother was murdered here in Ottawa a number of years ago. The brother was celebrating an income tax return at a local bar and came upon two characters who soon took advantage of his generosity. At 'last call' one of these thugs asked the brother for another drink to which he replied by saying he was tired and wanted to leave.
In their car they all hopped and just a few miles down the road - the thug in the passenger seat in front reached under the seat and pulled out a gun - turned and shot to death the brother who was seated in the back. The killer then turned to the thug driver and announced "that will teach the SOB for not buying me another beer".
So what did his sentence consist of? Life? 25 years? Or even 10 years? No remember we are speaking about the Canadian Criminal Judiciary; four (4) years behind bars seemed adequate punishment for out and murder to our Progressive Judge.
Part Two:
This week too saw Jody Wilson-Raybould write to our Prime Minister urging him to focus on the needs of Canada's Native Population rather than preoccupy himself with planning for an Election pundits expect to occur late this Summer. J W-R request came in light of nearly 1,000 native children bodies being discovered recently in unmarked graves on the grounds of two former Indian Residential Schools located in Western Canada. The M.P herself is aboriginal and recently held the very prestigious position of Justice Minister of Canada. As you can tell, I have much respect for this most honourable person.
Enter Carolyn Bennett, our country's Minister in charge of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who fires off a reply back to J W-R containing but one word ..."Pension".
For anyone reading this from outside of Canada ...a little background:
Our Members of Parliament must serve for a minimum of 6 years before they qualify for a life-time pension. Many current Members - including J W-R, will not qualify for the pension until this coming October. So what Bennett was suggesting in her one word reply was that Wilson-Raybould was not concerned at all about the plight of our natives but rather her main and only concern was to see an Election delayed until the October Pension Deadline had passed.
Hogwash of course and even though I have little regard to Bennett the reaction by our Left Wing Press, the Progressives and of course the Native Spokes-People has been over the top. Here is a sample of what they are saying as a result of Bennett's one word reply:
"With the one word reply you not only decided to perpetuate a damaging racial stereotype that Indigenous peoples are lazy and only financially motivated ..."
Where did that come from ? - To read that into Bennett's one word reply is certainly stretching it. Again, that is not to say I support in any way what she wrote and put it down to shear stupidity. For me, what Bennett was suggesting is that Wilson-Raybould was putting her financial situation ahead of her duty as one of Canada's premier politicians. In fact, there are more than a few who are in it for just that but not J W-R.
It was a wrong thing and Bennett did the right thing by correctly apologizing. But to suggest it was other than a crass comment on her part is another sign of weird times we are living in.
As I See It...
K.D. Galagher
