Author Archives: Jay Menard

Appeal Underscores Need for Karla’s Law

2 Replies

By Jason Menard

Karla Homolka can’t help but continue to serve as a source of lessons learned for the Canadian justice system. But now it’s time to learn from those mistakes and take steps to prevent them from ever happening again by creating Karla’s Law.

Again, Homolka has defeated the system at its own game. A Quebec judge ruled in favour of Homolka’s appeal against the strict, court-imposed restrictions placed upon her freedom following her release from prison in July. As our justice system undoubtably learned some painful lessons about the art of making deals thanks to the after-the-fact revelations of Homolka’s involvement in the schoolgirl murders, so too should our justice system learn from the mistakes of this after-the-fact application of restrictions and make post-release conditions mandatory for those convicted of violent crimes in the future.

Despite our general disgust with Homolka and her actions, the fact of the matter was that our judicial system played the game with her and lost big. She made the deal and it is up to us as law-abiding Canadians to uphold the nature and intent of the law. What would it mean in the future if potential informants realized that any deal they cut now could simply be changed depending on the social and political will in the future?

That said, despite being a bitter pill to swallow, the decision is the right one. Now, we must take our medicine and work to find a cure for the system.

While Homolka may have argued that the restrictions placed upon her upon her release may have been harsh, the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what we need to make the norm, not the exception in this country. When a person commits a violent crime, they should no longer be entitled to the same rights and privileges as the rest of us law-abiding Canadians. They have shown that they can’t play our social game, so there should be no problem if we choose to adjust the rules to the players.

Violent crimes aren’t the result of a mistake. Often they are done with some sort of premeditation and almost always with malice. They are not the run-of-the-mill lapse of judgement or careless mistake, so they need to stop being treated – or punished – the same way as common criminals.

If you commit a violent crime: such as rape, murder, or assault with a weapon, then you must pay the price for your action for life. Yes, a stint in prison pays back your debt to society, but it’s time we consider the life-long repercussions as the interest on the principal.

Upon release from prison, violent offenders need to be registered. Their movements need to be tracked for life. If that means monthly check-ins with the local authorities, then so be it. If it means submitting current photos and reporting changes in appearance, then all the better. And if it means restrictions upon where and with whom you’re allowed to associate, that’s no problem.

If a violent criminal is truly reformed then they should have no problem complying with the requests and look at these restrictions as payment for the right to enjoy the same freedoms that the rest of us do.

Is it too much to ask that we know where our rapists, murders, and violent criminals are? Is it too much to expect that they stay away from potentially negative interests when they’ve shown a proclivity towards making the wrong decisions in the past? Are measures designed to reassure the public that much of a price to pay for the right to walk the streets in freedom again?

Best of all, if the knowledge that these strict restrictions are a potential ramification of an action causes just one person to rethink their plans to commit a violent crime, is it not worth the investment?

The case of Karla Homolka has exposed the cracks in our judicial and penal system – now it’s time to introduce Karla’s Law to show that we, as a society, have finally learned from our mistakes.

Unfortunately for the French and Mahaffey families, we can’t change the past. But what we can do to honour the sacrifices their daughters made is take steps to prevent this type of abhorrent crime from ever happening again. And if Karla’s Law is the way in which we need to get tough on violent crime, then perhaps we’ll prove that we’ve finally learned from our mistakes.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

United Left Harper’s Worst Enemy

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Well, that certainly didn’t take long. Not even 24 hours into the federal election campaign and Conservative leader Stephen Harper threw down the first sequined gauntlet, promising to hold an open vote on the question of legal marriage in this country.

Yet, what Harper and both capital and small-c conservatives haven’t figured out yet is that if they want to reach out to the soft middle, the gay issue has to be kept aside. Otherwise, the same ol’ fears that keep Harper out of a Sussex Drive address will continue to flourish – and a polarized left will rise to send the Conservatives to defeat.

At a time when there are so many other topics with which Harper could effectively campaign from, he chooses to bring up an issue that was cooling nicely on the back burner. What’s next? Will Harper advocate a plebiscite on the return of the death penalty? How about introducing a motion to make kids recite the Lord’s Prayer in school? Maybe a little missive on abortion laws, just to keep the conversation going?

Instead of promoting talking points that are inclusionary, he has to choose to turn the heat up on one of the most divisive issues affecting our country. And when you take one side of a polarized issue, it’s only natural that an opposing side will unite to fight back – which is exactly what the Conservatives don’t want.

The Tories best chance at unseating the Grits is to play to the soft centre of Canadian politics. They’ve already wrapped up the right-wing vote – in fact, they’re the only game in that town, so why the need to focus on those polarizing issues that cause anyone that leans a little to the left to run screaming away from his party?

Harper could run a successful campaign simply focusing on the Liberal’s lack of accountability, the need for a new voice in Parliament, and a commitment to fiscal responsibility – which was the hallmark of the Liberal party until its recent string of budgetary/campaign promises running up to the non-confidence vote.

But no, that gay issue obviously is quite the bee in his bonnet. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, he’s decided to grab it by the tail and wave it around. Now, he can only hope that this particular dog doesn’t come back and bite him.

There’s a reason why the Liberal’s 2004 campaign included allusions to a hidden agenda. It’s the same reason why so many left-leaning voters chose to support the Liberals instead of the NDP at the last minute. Rightly or wrongly, a significant number of people believe that the Tories actually do have a secret agenda. And it doesn’t help when lesser issues like gay marriage come to the fore at the first available opportunity.

This election is ripe for the picking. The Tories could have it easily if they just learned to be compassionate conservatives. Canadians want a viable alternative to the Liberal party but they’re also leery of losing what it means to be Canadian. Rightly or wrongly, the Conservative party has been painted as threats to our social programs and our inclusionary culture – and taking on gay marriage doesn’t soften that perception one little bit.

The Conservatives have to stop preaching to the converted and realize that they’re playing right into the Liberal’s hands. Those who lean to the right will support Harper, while those who lean way to the left are going to support Jack Layton. But it’s the majority of us who reside somewhere in the vast middle that will decide this election – and that’s the demographic that the Liberals have been able to leverage so effectively over the past couple of decades.

Harper needs to realize this and stop alienating the soft Liberal. In the end, while he may see a few former Liberal voters come into his camp, his best option is that he prevents the fear-mongering and polarizing effect an “anything-but-Conservative” campaign can produce.

If he stays away from the hot-button points – or at least stops bringing them up on his own – then voters may be lulled into a feeling of security where they feel that they can comfortably cast a vote for the NDP. That way, the Conservatives can split the left and walk up the right lane, uncontested, to assume the mantle of power.

To Harper, a vote for Layton is just as good as a vote for himself. Secure in the knowledge that the Canadian centre-to-right will support his party, as they’re really the only viable option, then his focus has to be on preventing a unified left from rising up to challenge him in this election. And to do that, he doesn’t necessarily have to appeal to left-of-centre voters, but he does have to avoid being demonized.

Unfortunately, he’s already stumbled coming out of the gates and tripping over the relative non-issue of gay marriage. The Tories have to hope that he rights himself and sticks to issues – not opinions – in order to stake their claim on a very winnable election.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Spending Millions For What We Already Have

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Imagine you’ve gone on one of those home renovating shows that dot the television landscape like Tim Hortons locations on a map of Ontario. Now, the twist is that you pay for everything the renovators do, and on the big day, everything is revealed before your eyes.

And it’s exactly the same. Think the censors would let your comments air?

“Yes, the room may appear to be the same, but if you look carefully, we’ve rearranged some of the potted plants. And instead of six calla lilies, we’ve taken two out and put in a pair of tulips. Oh, but we’ve put two new calla lilies in that old bowl of tulips over there, to replace the other two we tossed out.”

You’d be pretty P-Oed, right? Now imagine if the producers then turned around and presented you with a bill for $25,000. Needless to say it would make for some entertaining television.

Now, multiply that $25,000 by a factor 10,000 and you’ll get what the next federal renovation will set the country back. And what will we get for our money? Probably nothing more than a few cosmetic changes and a whole lot of buyers’ regret.

The Conservatives are upset that Alberta premier Ralph Klein said what many of us believe – that the upcoming election will bring more of the same, another Liberal minority. Now, as they say in the sports world, if the games were won on paper we wouldn’t need to play them. But it’s hard to believe that we’re much different than we were back in June 2004, but that’s what we’re going to spend upwards of $250 million to find out.

The opposition parties are treating the election as a game of chance: rolling the dice with our money hoping to strike it big. But the one lesson that any gambler worth his or her salt learns is that although the odds may look stacked in your favour, in the end the house always wins.

The Conservatives, NDP, and, to a lesser extent, the Bloc are gambling that our displeasure over the sponsorship scandal and other political boondoggles will send swing voters rushing to the ballot ready to turf out the long-ruling Liberals. They’re hoping that the electorate will believe that they – the Conservatives especially – are capable of ruling the next Parliament.

Of course, they’re also gambling with the fact that voters will forget that they never learned to play nice and make this government work.

The defining memory of this minority Parliament will not be one of greater accountability, parties negotiating together for the betterment of all Canadians, or the maximizing of a coalition government. No, we’re left with less-than-pleasant memories of implied and expressed desires to grind the wheels of government to a halt, of holding the electorate hostage with threats of forcing another election, and general pettiness and sandbox-mentality fighting in the House of Commons.

And these are the guys and gals we’re supposed to elect in with a minority? I always hated the kids that would only play nice when they held all the cards – do I really want to vote them into power?

Again, we’re stuck at a crossroads in Canada. It seems like years, if ever, where we were actually voting for ideals or picking a candidate that we actually want. More often than not, it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. That’s what we had last time around and the Devils in question are still wearing the same masks.

So, as it appears we’re heading to another minority government, we can only expect more of the same behaviour for however long the next government lasts. If we are saddled with another Liberal minority, do we expect any different behaviour from the opposition? And if the Tories leapfrog the Grits into minority power, should we be surprised if the Liberals try to exact some revenge?

We’re headed to more of the same. And if that’s the case, can any party actual revel in what is essentially a Pyhrric victory at best. All parties can only lose credibility and stature through this process and an already-fatigued electorate will only tire further.

Play the safe hand? Shuffle the deck? Double down? Any way you cut it, the result will be the same – the house always wins, and it’s our money that they’re playing with.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Gorging Ourselves on Media Pop Tarts

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

So, after months of speculative bombardment – headlines shouting from the covers of the magazine racks infiltrating us through osmosis as we wait to pay for groceries – Nick and Jessica have officially split.

But it’s not the glossy celebrity rags or trashy tabloids that are spouting off this news – it’s the respected sites: CBC, CANOE, CNN, and MSNBC that have chosen to feature this minor piece of fluff on their respective front pages. On a day when the gauntlet has been thrown down in order to disband our Canadian minority government and on a day when the U.S. is celebrating Thanksgiving, Nick and Jessica’s breakup is on the marquee.

In fact, why can I comfortably refer to them without their surnames and be reasonably confident that you, the reader, will know who they are? The reason is that we’ve let the banal and trivial become relevant!

All the news that’s fit to print – no matter if the substance is so light that it will blow away with the next gentle breeze. Which all goes to prove that, no matter how fluffy the meal may be – or no matter how full we are — if a meal is wrapped up in a pretty package we’ll gorge ourselves at the buffet of banality and head back for seconds!

Did you hear? Pamela Anderson is now pressuring the Loblaws grocery chain to label which eggs have come from caged chickens, in order to allow shoppers the freedom to choose whether they want to buy their eggs from free range, happy chickens, or continue to support the oppression and cruelty of evil doers who would force these helpless hens to pop them out in sub-standard conditions so that you can enjoy a nice omelette.

Really? Why? With all the people in the world who are eminently more qualified to speak to issues – or even clutter our airwaves – why are we so focused on these vixens of vapid (in Nick’s case he’d be a fox of vapid, but that doesn’t have the same cachet.)?

At least in Anderson’s case, I’d like to think that she’s using her powers for good. With Nick and Jessica, this he-said-she-said, on-again-off-again questioning, reeks of nothing more than a way to keep their names in the headlines for yet another week. Perhaps now we can state ourselves through the holiday season by being regaled with the inevitable reconciliation rumours and next round of spats.

And we buy it, hook, line, and sinker. In both Simpson and Anderson’s cases they’ve translated a paltry amount of talent and an ample bust into relevancy. But they’re not the first and they certainly won’t be the last, because when it comes to cornering the market on being newsworthy for nothing, women corner the market. In fact, although Nick Lachey is often tabloid fodder, it’s more as an appendage to the media machine that is Jessica Simpson (see, they do have last names!). On his own, he can now count down the remaining few ticks of his 15 minutes and start looking back at what was.

Yes, women mount the publicity pedestal and we can’t stop watching. The sex-kitten Madonna begat Whitney Houston and her drug whispers. Houston begat Mariah Carey and her breakdown. Carey begat Jennifer Lopez and her serial marriages. Lopez begat Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Jessica Simpson who moved from chaste, virginal paragons of society to publicity-grabbing, borderline-jailbait, sex objects. This unholy trinity begat the over-exposed — in every sense of the word — Paris Hilton. And this is hardly a comprehensive list: the names Lohan, Doherty, Kournikova, Reid, Jolie, and Aniston have all hog-tied the headlines for nothing more than being themselves.

Guys are few and far between – although what we miss in quantity we certainly make up for in quality (a relative term): Michael Jackson anyone? Paging Mr. Simpson and Mr. Blake – the real killers are waiting.

No, our hunger for banality is only sated with a side order of salaciousness. Our Q&A needs to have a little T&A to have any, uhm, legs. And it’s only going to get worse. The Wired World has opened up new avenues for investigation and insinuation. The advent of 24-hour news means that each and every topic has ample time to be analyzed – and over analyzed – to death.

And with each of these stories, the accompanying images are always as lascivious as standards will allow. With almost every Simpson story, we are greeted with yet another image of her in a bikini taken from her acting debut. Yes, while only a handful of people subjected themselves to the horror of The Dukes of Hazzard, millions more have been exposed – almost fully – to Jessica’s acting assets. These starlets are always shown in various states of undress – as if they’ve never stepped out of their homes in a T-shirt or, perish the thought, a pantsuit.

While the eye candy may be sweet, ultimately it’s unfulfilling. And in the end, when all is said and done we’re left with disposable, fast-food trivia. What do we remember in life: wolfing down drive-through out of a paper bag or the well-prepared meals of substance that take us more time to enjoy?

Both we and our newsmakers decide what we want out of life. Do we want something of substance that takes time to chew over and digest, but allows us to fully enjoy a variety of flavours and textures?

Or do we simply want a Pop Tart?

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Mystery of the One-Way Highway

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If the government of Quebec is looking for a way to save a few bucks, perhaps they could scrimp a little on repairs of Highway 20 west of Montreal because it’s a little-known fact that this stretch of highway only goes one way.

Well, to be honest, it’s a little known fact only to Montrealers. To those of us estranged from our beloved city to locales westward, it’s an all-too-real phenomenon.

OK, it can be a little scary crossing those bridges and heading to the mainland. And, sure, the barren expanse around St. Zotique is almost post-nuclear in its Spartaness. But a little perserverence goes a long way. Maybe it’s a fear similar to what seafarers felt in Christopher Columbus’ day, but I can assure you that you won’t fall off the edge of the Earth – well, maybe off the edge culturally, but certainly not literally. In fact, many successful forays have been made into the Heart of Darkness – also known as Ontario – and several Quebecers have lived to tell the tale.

Sure, family members have been forced to visit us because we have that all important magnet creating an irresistible force drawing them to us – grandchildren. However, when it comes to friends and extended family — that’s a different story.

When we make our frequent pilgrimages back to our home town of Montreal, all of our friends come out of the woodwork, welcoming us with open arms, and peppering us with the same question, “When are you coming back?” Yet, despite this outward expression of concern and affection, a return visit to our domain is never forthcoming.

Lest you think that this is an isolated situation and that we’re the proverbial black sheep of the family, let me assure you that this is a phenomenon shared by many of us now residing in the land of the trillium but with fleur-de-lys growing in our hearts. From my parents, to co-workers, to acquaintances with French roots, it’s too much of a coincidence to believe that we’re all social pariahs condemned to banishment from our birthplace. Since examples of this phenomenon are shared across family lines, then there must be a deeper aversion at foot.

Why is there such an apprehension of crossing this particular border? In fact, the Ottawa-Gatineau border is well traveled, with people from both sides making ventures into a different province and returns to their homes without any long-term emotional scarring. Perhaps it’s Montrealers’ fear of the unknown, prompted by the fact that so many of their friends have disappeared down the 401 never to return. Of course, this migration is usually prompted by the threat or existence of a referendum, but that’s another story.

As our license plates state, Ontario is truly yours to discover. There is more to us than the scourge of Toronto – many of us non-Hog-Town residents hate that city as much as you. We are here, immersed in our Anglo enclaves waiting for your arrival. In fact, a trip to visit relatives in Ontario is no more exotic than a visit to certain parts of the West Island, so don’t fear broadening your horizons.

We have many of the same programs, we have many of the same interests, we use the same currency, and hold the same passport. We even all get SRC, so the comforts of home are all around you! Sure, Montreal has more to offer than most other cities on this planet, and travelling to Ontario locales doesn’t have the same cachet as staying in town – but what Montreal doesn’t have at this moment is us, and friendship and family knows no geographic boundaries.

I can assure you that there is no hidden danger that comes when the 20 turns into the 401. We are not forced to return to our Ontario homes because of the fact that our first-born are being held as collateral by some Orwellian government organization designed to tether us to our shallow Ontario bonds when the lure of our deeper Quebec roots come calling. We come and go as we please – and so should you.

As a Quebecer stuck in Ontario, I beseech you to come visit us! We’ve gone to all extents to make your trip as comfortable as possible. In fact, you’ll notice that we’ve taken the steps to make all the highway markers bilingual – well, at least until you pass Cornwall, and then by that time you’ve made too much of an investment of time to turn back.

Come visit us. Regale us with stories from the old country. And don’t be afraid of the unknown because, despite all appearances and experiences to the contrary, the highway does go both ways.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved