Dion, the Liberals and Gun Control

Note: this is an older piece originally posted on can.news. It's apropos with the news that the Ignatieff Liberals will vote against a private member's bill by Tory MP Candice Hoppener that would kill the gun registry. The Liberals allowed a free vote on the bill's first reading but will MPs will be whipped when the bill comes back to the House.

----------------------

 Little Stevie Dion's position on mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is a strange brew of Liberal-Speak.

Over the past year the Liberals have done everything they can to gut the Tory crime legislation and have only come to their senses during the past week when the Tories have applied the threat of an election on this issue.

The Liberals have now even back away from their stance on reverse-onus and bail.

The proposed legislation is far from perfect and needs serious work.  What I do not understand is the paradox between the Liberal's stance on firearm ownership and mandatory sentencing on serious firearm-related offences.

Liberals tell us that the gun-registry is a burden that law-abiding gun owners must bear to help ensure a safe and civil society. It is the Canadian way they tell us. Guns are bad and must be controlled.

But why are the Liberals under Dion balking at mandatory minimum sentencing for serious gun-related crimes? If guns are bad then why not serious punishment for crimes committed with guns? If guns are bad then why not impose stiffer sanctions for gun-related crime?

The Liberals answer is that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter crime.

Here's a news flash Mr Dion, the law and the threat of punishment never deters crime and mandatory minimum sentencing for serious firearm crimes was never about deterrence. It is about punishment. It is also about Canadian values. The Tory legislation views the use of a firearm during a crime as a being a serious act distinct from others and deserving of special treatment during sentencing. Ironically, this position is derived from the same set of values as gun control. In fact it simply extends the logic of gun control to criminal acts.

The Liberals also tell us that the do not wish to impinge the ability of the court to determine appropriate sentencing. In other words murder is murder regardless of the means.

The Tories are saying that the use of a firearm in homicide and rape are a magnitude of order different from other means and that such acts are deserving of special considerations. (This is where the Tory argument is quite weak- sentencing based on differentiating means of violence.). The counter proposal from the Liberals ought to be that the use of a firearm during a criminal act should be considered special circumstances and require more jail time. The Tories do not trust the courts to mete out punishment in these circumstances and their mistrust is justified.

Why would a political leader support strict regulations on lawful firearm ownership, and strict penalties for non-compliance, but wish to avoid imposing strict sentencing guidelines on the use of firearms in crime? It seems that owning a firearm is symbolically more of a crime than actually using one in the Liberal pantheon of values and symbols.

Stevie Dion is telling Canadians that imposing a heavy regulatory burden on law-abiding firearm owners is the Canadian Way. If this is true then mandatory minimum sentencing on serious gun crime is also the Canadian Way.