Kates Blog called Small Dead Animals
What About the Victims?
Isn't this just lovely:
Reviled by many, defended by few, Canada's most notorious female inmate won't even be greeted by her family when she is released in less than a month. But CTV News has learned Karla Homolka does have some support in high places.
Homolka made her first public appearance in more than a decade last week at a court hearing in Joliette, Que. After two days of testimony, a Quebec judge imposed restrictions on Homolka's movements for a year after her release from prison.
Liberal Senator Michel Biron, 71, was present in the Joliette, Que. courthouse last week. He sat beside Homolka's lawyer during the hearing in a show of support for the convicted killer.
According to witnesses, Biron exchanged a slight smile with Homolka.
It's a shame that there were no Senators sitting with the
French, Mahaffy, and Doe families to speak out in favour of protecting
their constitutional rights. You know, the right to not be drugged,
raped, sodomized, beaten, and then murdered. But I guess that's not as
important as making sure that the people who do these things don't get
their widdle feelings hurt.
Comment Section:
What about the victims? Do you suggest that they now recieve
financial compensations on top of having the perp pay for their crimes?
Or is it only if they don't recieve the punishment that you percieve
they should have, that they should be further berated on top of, after
their release? That this berating should take place as a lesson to
those who do not yet know that what took place was illegal in the first
place? Will this make the victims feel any better, a lawyer or someone
hired to insult the ex-con upon their release?
Karla got a plea deal, its done all the time to nail bigger fish.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. To me its just a fact of
life. And yes, she will end up found somewhere dead caused by some
lower iq'ed socio-path looking for some noteriety. One
socio/psycho-path killing another.
:) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 01:10 PM
Roger did you even read the post? Sean was commenting on the fact
that a liberal senator was standing in support of a convicted killer.
There were no senators standing up for the victims at the impact
hearings or when they were putting restrictions on Homolka.
It would appear that you feel that Homolka has done her time and as
such, has redeemed herself. One has to wonder if you'd consider having
her live next door to you...Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 01:40 PM
Hi Richard, yes I did read the entire post several times. I asked
what do you want, some government appointed designate to sit with
victims in all Court cases? The Senetors' choice of sitting with the
Perp is his choice and I respect other peoples choices as long as its
not in my backyard. As far as showing support for restrictions on
Homolka, sorry, a plea deal is a plea deal which is a deal. Blame the
Judiciary, not the government for not haveing some designate there to
show support. If the government was serious, they would have reneged on
the deal fought the Courts, disbarred the lawyers and kept her in
prison. Also, I never said Karla is redeemed, only that she has upheld
her end of the deal and now its time for us to uphold are end of the
deal, right or wrong. As far as people being my neighbours, no-one can
control that, so I stay out of their backyard, frontyard, livingroom,
bedroom, garden and they stay out of mine. I also Sean, believe that
Capital Punishment should be part of our Justice system for all
socio/psycho-paths. I hope I have made myself a little clearer :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 02:51 PM
lol
MoonBats say: "Not in my backyard"
Conservatives say: "Not in any backyard"
MoonBats say: "financial compensation"
Conservatives say: "justice"
MoonBats say: "It's all ok, because they made a deal!"
Conservatives say: "BULLSHIT!"Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 03:05 PM
socialist and conservative are diametricly opposed...Moonbats are people who can't figure that out.Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 03:57 PM
Hi Richard, ref your moonbats. Then what is a Conservative - small governmentSocialist - social programsLibertarian - more individual soverigntyAdded up is a moonbat? A person who wants smaller government with same Canadiansocial services with more individual soverignty.Are you saying that a Conservative is against present Canadian social policies. Or do you mean, socialism such as Sweden. If I misslead you above, I am sorry, my socialism just includes present day Canadian social policies. I have read over the Conservatives Montreal Policy Convention and did not find where they are against present day social policies. :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 04:10 PM
Roger; You don't get it and that's amusing. You can't have a smaller
government while maintaining the current programs. That's how they're
diametricaly opposed.
Conservative = smaller government, proven structure, individual rights within said structure
socialist = big government, high taxes, no individual responsibility
rather responsibility to the state, just plain wrong (my own opinion)
libertarian = generally equated with socialisim, no structure,
relitivistic morality, (although the moonbats have tried to change
it,)still associated with anarchy.
None of these things go with the other. Like I said, moonbats are people who can't figure that out.
Re Montreal policy: Policy isin't conservative. Was a centrist
policy put forward in order to eek a few extra votes out of
Ontari-ari-o... They sold out in order to appear to be mainstream
(which in real terms means left leaning)Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 04:50 PM
ahh, so all the Harper Conservative talk about, "less government
means dollar savings that can be passed on to the Provinces for social
ills and lower taxes", is a Harper lie?That Harper and his supporters are confused?
That
the "centralist" Policy Convention was/is just to hide this "hidden
agenda" to fool Ontario?That no savings from a smaller government
can/is to be passed on?
That the Conservatives are not for more individual Rights and therefore
do not want to attract such libertarians looking for such?That this definition of Libertarian is wrong and you are right?
2 entries found for libertarian.
lib·er·tar·i·an Audio pronunciation of "libertarian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2. One who believes in free will.
That one cannot state they are socialistic with the strict meaning
of maintaining ones present social structure with a small conservative
government?
That all Conservatives are against present day social policies that Canada has now?
cheers :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 05:17 PM
As far as the policy goes: It's not a lie. It's completely legit. My
point is that they sold out to the moderates... the truly conservative
policies were left off the platform.Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 06:00 PM
Hello Richard; I am a Libertarian social conservative. I have values
that fit my political desires from different pigeon holed terms as
described above. If you chose to pigeon hole me further that is your
right, but is wrong in describing me personally. The political terms I
use describe me perfectly whether your mind can comprehend that or not.
goodbye till next time sweetie. Now regarding Karla........ someone is
giving her 12 months before she is done in, me I say 6 months. :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 06:10 PM
ike I said: diametricly opposed and moonbats don't get it...
Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 06:40 PM
Apparently Richard is correct in definition only. His actuary brain
might be good for following linear thinking and parroting but heaven
help him if he has to expand his thoughts beyond strict narrow
definitions and answere questions which he has not, as I put many to
him, and since he cannot, he falls back onto his immature name calling
within a narrow strict definition. His comprehension and expansion of
comprehension is lacking to the point where I feel I am dealing with
someone in grade nine who thinks they know everything because they can
parrot a few definitions all the while calling people a made up name if
they do not agree. Richard, did your imagine-fairy friend tell you the
name "moonbat" or did you come up with it all on your own? :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 07:04 PM
Ahh Richard, your forgetting something. You first labeled me through
lack of comprehension in individual diversity after you could not
answere my questions. I only pointed that out, then mentioned your
imaginary friend. I am sorry you cannot understand the multiplicities
of politics. As far as moonbats go, guess who attacked first? Couple
this with your simplistic reasoning and you acted like a cornered
moonbat. Have a good evening :) majerePosted by roger m roeder at June 10, 2005 09:40 PM
Wow, I think tomorrow's going to be a moonbat outreach day. This individual needs to be studied further...Posted by Richard Evans at June 10, 2005 10:44 PM
Without knowing "roger m roeder"'s views, I would guess that he/she
would be classified as a "centrist" by the above quiz, meaning that
they have adopted bits and pieces of each of
socialist/conservative/libertarian but as a whole each is watered down
to such a degree that they can claim all three simultaneously (although
"moderate" would probably be a better term).
And I don't think there are many libertarians that would describe
themselves as "moral relativists" or "anarchists". "Moral relativism"
is something invented by the Left for the purpose of maximizing
collectivism. And "Anarchism" (contrary to common usage) is kind of a
'post-communism' kind of thing. While libertarians tend to be extreme
individualists.Posted by etownie at June 11, 2005 11:08 AM
It's kind of like calling himself a korean/caucasian/negro...Posted by Richard Evans at June 11, 2005 11:37 AM
