Phil McColeman: Soft on Hate Crime

Phil McColeman's views on gender and sexual identity rights are clear: he has publicly stated that he opposes same-sex marriage, and was at one point associated with a coalition lobbying to make same-sex marriage illegal.

Phil McColeman's views on crime are also clear: he supports getting "tough on crime".

So how does Phil feel about hate crime against transgendered people? Answer: he doesn't oppose it.

A reader of this blog forwarded us an email exchange that he had with Phil McColeman regarding Bill C-389. That Bill would have strengthened the rights of transgendered individuals, including amending the Criminal Code to include the terms "Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" to the hate crime offences. Getting tough on crime – Phil should love this, right? Wrong.

Phil McColeman opposed Bill C-389, arguing that "Gender Identity" and "Gender Expression" were not "clearly defined".

Well a lot of Criminal Code provisions are not clearly defined, but that doesn't stop the police and courts from enforcing them. For example, "sexual assault" is simply an assault that is "sexual". When the sexual assault provisions were enacted in 1983 nobody had any idea what they meant, but the lawyers and police figured it out anyway. Does Phil think that we should make rape legal just because "sexual assault" is not clearly defined? No way. Phil, as a "tough on crime" nut, understands how the Criminal Code works.

So according to Phil, men who wear a kilt have full protection of the law but men-cum-women who wear dresses don't. It's pathetic, but you know what there are still racist people out there too.

[for the entire text of the reader forwarded email, click here]

Why…

…does Phil focus on "Tough on Crime" instead of issues that really matter?

Why doesn't he talk about land claims? Why does he distract us from talking about the economy?

Phil's focus on "tough on crime" is embarrassing. He has embarrassed not only himself in Ottawa but also his Brant constituents. Phil has behaved like a buffoon talking about "tough on crime" while the crime rate has been dropping for decades.

Study after study has shown that "tough on crime" simply does not work. It is just another tactic designed to distract voters from the real issues. It is also very expensive, an example of the reckless spending that has characterized this Conservative administration.

"Tough on crime" is a joke, a multi-billion dollar joke. Does Phil really think that people in Brant are dumb enough to fall for it?

Who's telling the truth?

The Brantford Expositor asked all the candidates what most voters seem to be worried about. Here's the responses:

• Lloyd St. Amand: Land Claims and Jobs
• Marc Laferriere: Jobs and Healthcare
• Nora Fueten: Healthcare, Partisanship, and Nuclear Power
• Phil McColeman: Cost of an election

Three out of four candidates have something in common with another candidate. Those three also mention REAL policy issues.

And Phil McColeman? This is just more proof that he's living on another planet… or maybe not telling the whole truth.

McColeman Speaks for Harper, Not You

Ever since day one people were worried about Phil McColeman being muzzled. They were worried that his boss Stephen Harper would control everything he said. Well looking at McColeman's voting record, it seems that he is just a puppet controlled by Harper.

McColeman voted 204 times in the House of Parliament since 2008. He dissented from the Harper line twice. That's 2 out of 204 times that McColeman voted differently than the rest of his party.

Is McColeman muzzled? 2 out of 204 is less than 1%. You be the judge.






[Ironically this isn't the first time we've seen Philnoccio the Puppet]