The inmates are running the asylum
 

Uhm... if he escaped then he technically isn't an inmate any more now is he?! WTF?!

Criminals have rights too http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/angry.gif

Originally posted by Japher
Uhm... if he escaped then he technically isn't an inmate any more now is he?! WTF?! Spot on. I would say he's 'WANTED'. Sack the director and appoint somebody with wit.
If it's a privatized prison, revoke the licence.

It's not like our officials have their heads up their bums all the time. Just most of the time.

From earlier in the week...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper blasted Elections Canada Sunday for going against a parliamentary ruling by allowing Muslim women to wear veils and burkas while voting.

The move goes directly against a unanimous vote in the House of Commons this past spring to make visual identification mandatory when casting a ballot.

"I profoundly disagree with the decision," Harper told reporters in Sydney, Australia where he is attending the APEC conference. "We just adopted this past sitting, in the spring, Bill C-31, a law designed to have the visual identification of voters. That's the purpose of the law.

"That was the law voted virtually unanimously by Parliament and I think that this decision goes in an entirely different direction," he continued.

The Elections Canada ruling was prompted by three upcoming byelections in Quebec on Sept. 17 in ridings that are significantly multi-cultural. The arms-length elections agency has scheduled a news conference on Monday to discuss their decision.

On their website, Elections Canada reiterated their policies on wearing religious face coverings while voting.

It states that if an elector produces an original government-issued photo identification that contains her name and home address then she has the following options:

She may choose to unveil to identify herself
She may produce a second original piece of identification from Chief Electoral Officer of Canada's authorized list of identification
She may come with another elector who is registered in the same polling division and who can provide adequate proof of their own identification to vouch for her identity. They would both need to make a sworn statement under oath.
Harper said Parliament will have to find a way to make sure the House's ruling takes effect.

"The role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws, it's to put into place the laws that Parliament has passed," he said.

Liberal Opposition Leader Stephane Dion agreed with Harper when speaking with reporters in Vancouver on Sunday.

"We disagree with the Elections Canada decision and we ask them to revisit their decision," he said.

He said female officials with Elections Canada could be on hand at polling stations, to identify women behind their veils.

"It's important to identify the person," he said. "It may be done in a very respectful way, but it must be done."

Speaking on CTV's Question Period Sunday morning, a panel of political strategists agreed a compromise has to be made on the issue.

However, NDP President Anne McGrath said Elections Canada is an agency that "knows what it is doing."

"Elections Canada goes around the world helping other countries with their elections," she said. "I think the officials at Elections Canada know how to make sure that the voting is accurate."

Ruling would 'stigmatize' Muslim women

A spokesperson with the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations in Montreal said Muslim women were never consulted on whether they even wanted the exception.

"My jaw dropped. I was very surprised. Muslim women wearing the Niqab, which is the face veil, never made the request to have to keep it on while they vote," said spokeswoman Sarah Elgazzar, speaking to CTV Montreal.

Elgazzar said Elections Canada might have had good intentions but the ruling was "unnecessary."

"It's absolutely unnecessary. Those women wearing a niqab always identify themselves when they need to identify themselves. The photo I.D. they show to people at the ballot box is a photo without a face veil. So people will clearly be seeing their faces," she said.

"This will only stigmatize the women and embroil this debate," she continued. "I think perhaps at Elections Canada there were good intentions but it will certainly not have good consequences."

Even Pierre Cote, who was Quebec's chief electoral officer for 19 years before retiring, told CTV Montreal the ruling is a dangerous one.

"When one is in a polling station, they must be clearly identified or else you run the risk of fraud," he said.

Wear a veil but provide photo ID. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/toofunny.gif

Originally posted by Wezil


Not the Warden's doing - This is Corrections Canada (gov) policy. They are after all only looking out for one of their "clients". Yes, that is what they call them.http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif Fine.
But while the facilty might have reservations revealing the pic, does the police feel the same?
Offcourse the prison was not doing it's job, so they might think on how to minimize their damage done to society.

Originally posted by Wezil
We wouldn't want to trample on his rights now would we?

This country is insane. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/angry.gif And it didn't happen in Quebec http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...danceparty.gif.

It was, ultimately, the police that released the pic.

It's just sad that Corrections Canada doesn't understand how releasing the photo of their 'absent without permission' client might be helpful.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

I could think of many things that are "only natural". http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/shifty.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/stunned.gif

Are we taking tips from you guys? Where else can these ideas be coming from?

Wait what the ****? Vacations?

You guys didnt know about this? http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif


The inmates are running the asylum leftists http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Kuci, it's just a different reality in here when it comes to these things.

I'm not saying it's all bad. I fully support good facilities and things to do like sports, some sort of work etc for inmates. I don't believe in violent prisons, I don't think it should be part of the punishment. I definitely don't believe in ass rape.

I think it is enough to be isolated from the society and that's it. There's no need to make it too cozy, but just ... keep it humane. But this can be taken too far as well. It's not too long ago when inmates trashed this one prison, broke the new TVs and Playstations (not kidding) because of soem reason they weren't happy with. Fortunately the chief of that places simply noted that I guess they didn't need those luxuries since they smashed them, no reason to get new ones at the moment.

And it's not like it's a nice place. The lost freedom is a big deal. Also your neighbours might not be very nice, lots of prison gangsters, like bike gangs that are hardcore, all kinds of big dudes that you would expect in movies as well.

But in the name of "fixing people so they fit society" we should first find the ones that are "broken". If someone stabs another person, I don't consider them to be broken. Maybe a bit anti-social in certain cases, but oh well, that's life. Keep them occupied, give them humane condition and protect their inmate rights, but do not let them on vacations, because that's defeating the damn purpose already.

""We tell all the prisoners that if they escape, they must telephone to let us know they've made it safely to the mainland," Ms Smith says."

This pretty much sums it up. ALso, it is VERY difficult to be sentenced to actually serve time INSIDE of a prison. You realllly really have to **** up, usually multiple times.

Just like this dude who raped a woman didn't go to jail because he would have lots his job. No ****? Of course you lose your job if you have to go to prison, that's pretty common I'd suppose http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...smilies/hm.gif and does it make the crime any lesser? No. Does it help the victim? Definitely no, most likely the opposite.

Now we had this nurse who had murdered like 3 people adn they're digging up graves to find more since they're suspecting the nurse of poisoning bunch of people, so she was caught some time ago in her previous job, she had stole stuff from there, A LOT of stuff. Just a big store, but she stole stuff worth of like 40k during a year. So she got caught, but she cried her eyes out in the court, so they would _reduce_ the sentence she would have gotten because she was "clearly feeling guilty and ashamed". OH, and she only had to pay HALF, 20k back. Because she was sooooo sorry. Then of course she went on to kill bunch of people http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/wink.gif. Then all these legal experts said that wait a minute, it is not OK to not punish someone because they are cute and/or cry. Again, no **** Sherlock?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Wait, since when do government agencies have the authority to directly contravene a law passed by Parliament? The head of Elections Canada is claiming that they are upholding all the various laws that Parliament has passed, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Oh, and the Canada Wheat Board took the government to court because they don't like recent ministerial directions.