Sorry about the interpolations from my delusional buddy, Aaron. He has some serious problems, as you will have noted from the above.

I am quite interested in the issue you’ve raised, and look forward to your response.

DB, You and StageLeft were playing “good cop, bad cop”. You don’t criticize StageLeft’s slurs, therefore you agree with him by default. In fact, I believe you may even be the same person, despite your photographs being wholly different. If that’s the case, then who’s schizophrenic here? I never pretended to be anyone other than myself. Never. I know I’m the same person at all times. You? Who knows?

You may wish to condemn SL’s defamatory statements, though that’d be shocking to witness.

You’re actually, above, de-facto, going out of your way to back up StageLeft’s labelling of Aaron. You know you are. You’re on his side and never distance yourself from his slurs.

Your tactic is a recognizable one, the two of you. Therefore, as you’re effectively a tag team of sorts, you also agree with SL’s false characterization of Aaron.

Clever, but transparent. Not fooling anyone.

You’re right- the stuff you say is just your opinion. And it’s bullshit. But that’s just my opinion. Heh.

FYI, I am an adult. You’re just an elderly teenager with excellent writing skills who likes to delude himself into believing he’s having “adult” “conversations”. Truth is that you’re infantile in your impressive illogic. You also expect everyone to agree with your “points”, as you believe you’re right because anything leftist is always right.

Now you may go back to your Aboriginal supremacism propaganda. Yes, that’s what it is, and this is coming from an adult who’s trying to make you see reality. But I realize it’s futile and am astonished at myself for bothering with you still. A self-discipline issue for me to deal with, is all.

Your own delusions of grandeur (“I am right; you are wrong… just ’cause!”) are glaringly obvious. And only you and Don so far have projected yours onto me.

Ta-ta, D.B. I’m off this thread and won’t be back, so you got the last word. Ain’t that grand, ya virtual precocious little boy with a grey mustache?

Poor, dumb Sentinel.

Scenty? Listen closely. Read my posts above carefully. Okay? Actually read them. I realize there are some big words, but you can skip them.

Now if you actually read what I said, Scenty, you will notice that at no point do I call Aaron “racist”. Or “bigot”. Nor, in fact, do I use any “stupid, hurtful words” in my discussion with him. In fact, because Aaron has been civil to me, I am civil to him.

You see, Scenty, grownups are capable of talking to each other without calling each other “Stupid idiot moonbat poopheads”. That’s what Aaron and I are doing.

Now, you have a different style, and that’s fine. But Aaron and I are trying to have a talk here.

On your site, when someone disagrees with you too articulately, or presents too much embarassing information, you ban them (as you urged Aaron to do to me, above). No problem, that’s your site. To me, that’s the height of intellectual cowardice (especially when you continue to mock them after banning them…kinda like a little Pomeranian yapping at bigger dogs from behind a locked gate): but that’s your right.

But to come to someone else’s site and derail a discussion with the same kind of schizophrenic tirade you practice on your own site is just plain rude. So I gently suggest you stop embarassing yourself and let the grownups talk.

Just my opinion.

I’m just trying to help you, you poor, blabbery old fart. Poor old D.B.

Be advised, everytime I’m told of you going onto peoples’ blogs and calling them, without justification that’d stand up in a court of civil law, “racist”, “bigot” or other stupid, hurtful words, I’ll track you down and explain how they aren’t what you call them and how you are what you project onto others.

Think you understand psychology, DB? That stupid study you did at McGill about the three most common things teens will do upon becoming teens? Laughable! Who’d you interview, a few moonbats and report the predictable findings based on that small, discrete, homogeneous grouping? I hope they didn’t give you a degree for nonsense like that, but then again, universities today teach folks to be moonbats… and here you are being one! Poor old dude… I assume you have a piece of paper that says you basically understand psychology. So, if you do, then you urgently need to get to work on yourself! Yes. Look into the mirror and ask: what the bloody hell’s the matter with you?

“We”?

Heh. So to paranoia, schizophrenia, and delusions of grandeur, Scenty, I can add Multiple Personality Disorder to the list of your symptoms?

Im afraid not, for you raised no worthwhile points, Balbulican. You’re just doing your usual thing, and we know what it is. That’s why we’ve chosen to dismiss you as a simple nutcase with very impressive writing skills.

You’d have made a great Nazi propaganda writer!

Or a great propagandist for Al Qaeda!

The left will be eating out of your hand, for sure!

That’s Balbulican, the great Big-Lie propagandist!

At least he’s better than Scott Reid. Maybe Stephanie Dee should hire this guy to spew malicious lies about the Conservatives? That’s how it works!

– who’s there?

– balbulican

– balbulican who?

– balbulican’t play with aaron

That will demonstrate that he has a mental disorder in which illogic becomes “truth” which must be spread.

Or that he’s a professional propagandist.

Take your pick. This guy just ain’t for real!

I’d also add that “Balbulican” is deeply immersed within “Aboriginal” issues, so I’m afraid his judgement and thinking are potentially clouded. No wonder he’s totally onside with whatever matters favor Aboriginals whilst discriminating against non-Aboriginals. He’s clearly an Aboriginal supremacism propagandist. This makes him an Aboriginal supremacist, a bigot and racist. As far as he’s concerned, Aboriginals are more deserving of all that’s good than are non-Aboriginals. And I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he may claim Aboriginal heritage himself.

“Balbulican”, someone knows who you are, what you look like, what you do. Oh, yes.

You hide your gross incorrectness behind your excellent, professional-grade writing skill, but we see through you.

You are an ideological extremist, nothing more.

Someone disagrees with you, or you disagree with then… therefore they’re a “racist” or “bigot”. Of course. That’s an automatic leftwing response. Shows your stupidity. Great writing skills are just that and cannot necessarily indicate one’s overall intelligence, morality nor ethics.

I know your kind extremely well. Two-faced and ruthless. If you don’t get one’s agreement, you proceed to assassinate their character. That’s your type. That’s the greedy, unethical, immoral, evil left.

Useful idiot, you are, DB.

Word to the wise: cease and desist your propaganda. Your ideology will fail.

Excuse me, Aaron. Just had to say hi to an old friend who bans the people he’s too stupid to debate. Please forgive his interruption. Now to return to our discussion.

“How does it protect society for an aboriginal to get a reduced sentence? How does it enhance the punishment? Are aboriginals more likely to be rehabilitated in a shorter period of time than others?”

That’s not quite the ways it works. I didn’t make my original point clear: bear with me while I try again.

The verdict in a criminal trial is (in theory) almost mechanical. It’s the answer to the question: does the evidence support a specific charge to a specific legal standard?

But sentencing is supposed to accomplish a complex series of social goals, and an individual’s background DOES enter into it.

As I said, I am really limited in my ability to comment meaningfully on this specific case. I don’t know the background of the perp, and I don’t know what evidence and arguments were considered by the appeals court judge.

Homicide. A fifty five year old white middle class stockbroker who kills the man who seduced his wife may be a shit – but he will probably not reoffend. A fifty five year old urban Aboriginal alcoholic which a long list of assault charges and two prior homicide charges probably will. The difference will be reflected in their sentence: the Aboriginal guy is more dangerous, and he will be spending a much longer time in a much toughter joint.

In some cases the fact that one is functioning in an environment with significantly different values and expectations than the one environment one was raised in is judged relevant in sentencing. Sometimes it’s not. Again, I have no idea of the particulars in this case, and why the perp’s Aboriginal ancestry was judged relevant. It isn’t always.

But to return to your specific questions:

“How does it protect society for an aboriginal to get a reduced sentence?”

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve seen many cases where a judge (in Nunavut) decided that sending a young Inuit offender out of the territory for incarceration would increase the likelihood of recidivism, and developed a sentence that combined restitution, community service, and local incarceration. Conversely, I have seen cases where the sentence (by southern standards) was unusually harsh, because the judge decided that a community needed to be protected against a specific abhorrent behaviour. In both instances, judges use their own intelligence and sense of judgement to address all those considerations I talked about earlier.

“How does it enhance the punishment?”

Punishment needs to fit the crime, but also the perpetrator. Some Aboriginal communities now banish sexual offenders, a sentence that wouldn’t mean all that much to your average joe, but one which carries quite a horrific stigma in some cultures.

“Are aboriginals more likely to be rehabilitated in a shorter period of time than others?”

No blanket answer to that questions: but please think about it (without the bloggy argument filter on). Rehabilitation means changing an individual’s attitudes and behaviours. The way in which that happens is very dependent on culture and background (as well as on each individual): culture affects not just WHAT you learn, but HOW you learn.

“Your defense of race-based sentencing is lacking.”

I hope this fills in some of the blanks.

“I get the impression that you and SL reacted to the story emotively and are now trying to piece together an ad-hoc defense of what you said previously (well, at least you are, SL is still bleating “bigot” or whatever).”

You’re mistaken. You’re getting a point of view that’s based on a long career working between and within cultures. Dismiss it if you want, but there’s nothing ad-hoc about it.

“I notice that you’ve substituted “race” for “culture.” But that’s not really what this is about, is it?”

I know what you’re saying, but I personally think that it IS, in fact, more about culture than race.

An Aboriginal person raised in a city (fostered, for instance) without significant links to his/her culture and no residential school experience, is a very different kind of person than someone raised on reserve, or an Inuk just arrived in Montreal from Povungnituk.

Shall we try to keep the civility thing going?

The leftwing propagandists who believe in using race and similar criteria as a basis for treating people differently under and before the law are calling someone a “bigot” for pointing out that this is actually happening and saying it’s wrong?!

Wow! Holy sh*t!

The stupidity and insanity of the left!

So what if the words “free pass” were used?

So what? So what? So what?

That doesn’t make anyone a “bigot”.

The “free pass” is relative, not absolute (a nuance that escapes the zealot leftists herein), and amounts to two years’ reduction of sentence for such an heinous atrocity… because the killer happens to be an “Aboriginal”.

Criticizing this fact doesn’t make one a “bigot” (it wasn’t explained how, it was just asserted by the leftist propagandists). Nor does calling the reduction of the sentence a “free pass” amount to bigotry.

In fact, reducing a sentence simply because one is Aboriginal is bigotry. Because if the next case involved a non-Aboriginal dragging someone to their death in the same manner, the non-Aboriginal wouldn’t get a two-year discount for the murder.

StageLeft and Balbulican are the racists/bigots here.

They go all over the place calling anyone who challenges their racist ideology “racist” and “bigot”.

Only useful idiots will accept their argument. I don’t know why they do this, except that they seem to have a sinister agenda. And they might be under the influence of something far bigger than they.

Only in the disordered matter within the crania of leftwing useful idiots can exposing and criticizing actual, real-life bigotry make one a bigot oneself. If it could, then what of the leftists screaming “bigot” herein? Are they not, therefore, bigots, according to the bizarre illogic they spew?

They will not ever accept reason, logic, nor fact. They’re here to argue and spread their dogmatic ideology.

They’re overzealous, closed-minded, dogmatic, arrogant propagandists/useful idiots.

And Balbulican’s incompetent when it comes to covering up his true identity. But that isn’t a surprise, as he’s a leftist, after all.

In the meantime, I suggest that Balbulican and Stageleft stop going around calling people racists and bigots just for saying something the international socialists won’t tolerate.

SL must have been stoned for that decade where words like “bigot” lost their ability to intimidate.

Have you given any thought at all to either

[a] answering that question I asked you a few days ago, or

[b] taking my suggestion about simply manning, adjusting your package, and admitting to being a bigot

At least someone is trying.

How does it protect society for an aboriginal to get a reduced sentence? How does it enhance the punishment? Are aboriginals more likely to be rehabilitated in a shorter period of time than others?

Your defense of race-based sentencing is lacking. I get the impression that you and SL reacted to the story emotively and are now trying to piece together an ad-hoc defense of what you said previously (well, at least you are, SL is still bleating “bigot” or whatever).

I notice that you’ve substituted “race” for “culture.” But that’s not really what this is about, is it?

Hmm. Well, I’ll try, although frankly your goal seems more to pick a talk-radio style fight than to actually have a discussion.

The entire point of the sentencing procedure is to apply human insight and wisdom to the circumstances of each specific case after a finding of “guilty”, and determine from a wide range of possible sentences which one best serves an equally wide range of needs – protection of society, the potential for rehabilitation, punishment, and many others.

An individual’s culture impacts on every single one of those things, and is therefore an appropriate consideration in sentencing. I haven’t read the testimony in this case, and I suspect you haven’t either, so I can’t comment on its application in this instance.

Whether you intended to show it or not (and I’m inclined to believe that you really are a bigot but didn’t necessarily intend on coming out at this time and in this way) the choice you made in how to discuss the issue tells us a lot.

You thump your chest in self righteous indignation about how people have reacted to your post, you have tried to muddy the waters, and you have tried so very [very] hard to deflect any questions about your bigoted lie about the event and turn questions back on those calling you on your bigotry – all without answering the very simple question I asked in my initial comment.

“Where is the free pass?”

Where is the evidence that an Indian can kill a person and suffer no cost or penalty?

Where is the evidence that an Indian can torture someone to death and get a “free pass”?

As I said earlier, the worst kind of racist is the racist who tries to hide their racism – take my suggest, man up, adjust your package, and be done with it.

Don’t you need the hits Greg? Seriously, that is all Aaron is good for.

What are you talking about?

Mike, take a hike – your comments will be deleted from this point forward.

Only shows what a fool you are, not to mention an ignorant bigot.

Blah, Blah, you got a point to make?

Seriously, you’ve wasted enough of everyone time with your pathetic insults.

As a former corrections worker I can pretty much assure you that you wouldn’t last 7 days in that situation, let alone 7 years. Yeah, its such a “free pass” – that has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard anyone declare.

Only shows what a fool you are, not to mention an ignorant bigot.

Bluster and bluff fall into the same category as attack the individual who calls you on your bigotry Aaron. The question is simple, I’ve asked it a couple of times, and I’ll even try once again – did this guy get a “free ride”? Is it true that an Indian can kill a man, or torture a man, and suffer no penalty or punishment?

Sigh, alright. You’re stupid.

I disagree. The statement “Be an indian, get a free pass to run someone down…” is not a criticism of Indians (other than the one individual who actually committed the crime), it’s a criticism of the justice system. Saying that Mr. Unruh’s statement is bigoted against Indians is like saying that anyone who criticized the verdict of the Rodney King beating trial is bigoted against white people and/or the police. Both are attacks on the system itself, not the people groups who “benefit” from the system.

(I put the word “benefit” in quotes, since I suspect that coddling a group like this is ultimately very harmful to that group in the long run.)

As for the sentence, while seven years in prison (minus parole) technically doesn’t qualify as a “free pass”, it’s a hell of a lot less that what the person actually deserves.