Canadians life expectancy is 80 years, obviously criminals are 40 years

Did Canadian life expectancy all of a sudden drop dramatically to worse than it was during the caveman days? I thought Canadian life expectancy was supposed to be around 80 years or so. Perhaps it is not the actual people that dont have the life expectancy but more the type of life that you live that have the life expectancy.

Perhaps it is this. I live a healthy and free life out of prison and I could live 80 years. If I break the law by doing drugs, rumbling in a gang, buying a gun and participate in gang wars and drive by shootings then suddenly my life expectancy drops down to perhaps 20-30 years of age? Figure either I get shot on the street, OD on the drugs or I go to prison and end up getting knifed by some guy named Bubba cause I refused to spoon with him after dark. Either which way, suddenly my life expectacy drops from 80 years of age to 30 years of age.

My wondering for the day is if that is the case, then how come when the courts decide 'life imprisonment' they are looking at the life span of a criminal and not the life span of a healthy law abiding citizen? I was reading in a news paper article today (http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081211/creba_sentencing_081208/20081211?hub=Toronto) that the crown in the Jane Creba case (the one back in 2005 on Boxing Day where a group went on a shooting spree killing 15 year old Jane Creba and wounding 6 others) are going to seek an adult sentence for the youth that was involved. Not gonna go on a rant about the youth justice act and how you cant name the little welt on society but anyways. I was reading the first line that read "If J.S.R. is sentenced as an adult, he will get life in prison for the murder conviction..." and I was over joyed thinking, "great, lock up this kid for 40-50 years and teach him a lesson and send a message to the other youths in Canada that you can't just go on a shooting spree without consequences". It was the remainder of that sentence that had me re-reading it three times to make sure that I got it right "..with no parole eligibility for seven years." 7 years???? life imprisonment and he could get paroled in 7 years? what the heck is 'life' if you are going to be out on the streets in 7 years?

I know we are to treat people with respect and dignity and give them a chance to rehabilitate and come into society a new person with remorse and repentance...but 7 years????? You break the law at 20 so severly that you get a life sentence, you are going to live for 60 more years (according to statistics), that means even if you were to serve at least 1/3 of your present time in jail you would be in prison for at least 20 years before you can be released. That only leads me to believe that the Canadian justice system thinks that criminals have the life span of 30-40 years. On that case, a 20 year old only has 10-20 years to live in jail on a life sentence, so parole after 1/3 of their time is 3 (for the 10 years) or 7 (for the 20 years) years only. So, I guess this would suggest that the Canadian justice system thinks that criminals only live to 40 years of age.

I hope that this whole coalition and political over throwing ends soon, the Conservatives stay in power and smarten up and strike this whole parole based on a criminals life span and base it on the life span of a normal human being, since it is the normal ones that the criminals seem to like robbing, raping and killing.

relaxed? this is relaxed???

Ok, I had to laugh. Honestly I did. I mean, I read this article online in the news in Singapore:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/373068/1/.html

New rules governing Speakers' Corner commence

I read this part of the article which read "The initiative comes as the Singapore government seeks to open up the space for political engagement in the country." Now, when I read this I figured "WOW, they are relaxing the rules, allowing people to speak their mind and demonstrate without a permit. First they allow for buying and chewing gum (as long as you have a doctors prescription and it is nicorette gum) and now free speech? wow!". Also people I know in Singapore were saying that there is some fear in that with the new relaxed rules that the park will turn into a nesting ground for chaos and disention and that perhaps the park will be held hostage by unruly type people like what is happening in Thailand at the moment.

At the end of the article I read that if you want to read more information about the 'new rules at Speakers Corner' you should go to their website at www.nparks.gov.sg. So, being the curious little Canuck that I am, I thought I would check out these new rules. I was surprised to discover that you have to still register to speak in Speakers Corner. So I went to the registry section, saw that I had to fill in name, NRIC number and all the particulars of what I am going to do (either a speech, performance or demonstration) and then there was a part that said I agree to the terms and conditions. So I clicked on that and was sent to the new rules (at least I think they are the new rules since there are a lot of stipulations). So there are 9 rules only. Let me give you a summary of them now:

1) your event is to be carried out in Speakers Corner at the commissioners permission. They can stop the event at anytime they feel there is a breach in the rules, conduct or feel that the event .."may endanger or cause discomfort or inconvenience to other park users and/or the general public."

Sounds fair. After all, you say you are going to speak about the plight of the common library book of today and you start juggling chain saws why you talk, definitly want to stop that from happening.

2) You have to obey the Parks and Trees Act (Cap. 216) and the Parks and Trees Regulations (Cap. 216, Rg 1).

Couldnt really find anything here but am assuming it is something like "you shall not dig up any trees; you shall not plant any trees; you shall not smoke, urinate, deface or deficate on any trees" and something in that nature. Also probably keep the peace, be of good behavior and dont streak around the park nude.


3) just dont destroy the park, hold your event during the time stated in your permission form and be respectful.

Hey, this isnt a rule, it is just plain good old common sense. Dont destroy public property, dont use a 100,000,000 watt sound system to speak but only a small hand held device, and if you break it you bought it sort of attitude.

4) Approved person takes responsibility for all liabilities that may happen during the performance.

Again, common sense. No company wants to take responsibility for the people there. You cant even get a parkade these days to take responsibilty for watching your car, that you pay to park there, and stop it from getting broken into.

5) you are exempted from the Public Entertainments And Meetings Act (Cap. 257) ('PEMA') only if you obey the rules set in 6-9 in relation to your event.

NOW it gets interesting

6) PUBLIC SPEAKING excempt from the rules if you are approved by the commissioner, you dont talk about religion or about something that may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility, you speak in any of the 4 official languages (or related dialect) and can not display anything of lewd, offensive or violent media.

Yeah, that sure gives a lot of leeway here huh? you can speak freely, just have to be approved before you speak. Good thing we dont have this in Canada since we only have the two official languages of English and French. If this was the case, no German, Italian, Chinese, Polish or even the aboriginals in Canada could protest or speak in public. As for feelings of hatred and ill-will, I thought that is what public speaking is for. YOu speak, people listen and if they like it they stay if they dont they leave. You mean I cant speak on abortion cause someone might have feelings of hatred or ill will against me for my opinion?

7) PERFOMANCE OR EXHIBITION Only Singapore citizens and Permanant Residents can hold a performance or exhibition, everyone in the performance/exhibition obeys the approval of the commissioner, organizer or agent is present at all times, does not deal directly or indirectly with any religious topics, does not have any topic that may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore and the usual no lewd or crude media displayed.

I guess these make sense. Dont want any foreigners coming in and speaking in Singapore. I am sure all places are like that. I can also see why the organizer or agent is there at all times. Have to have someone around to arrest and blame if the performance turns ugly. Definitly dont want the performance to be insulting to a racial group. I mean, I could just imagine the hell that would break lose here in Canada if a group put on a performance extolling good points on Hitler and that he had a good mission and was just misunderstood.

8) DEMONSTRATIONS all Singaporean participants, approved by the commissioner, organizer present at all times, does not deal direct or indirectly with religious matter and will not cause ill will and such and such with other racial groups in Singapore, no lewd and crude media displayed before, during or after the demonstration.

Yeah, same stuff from the previous ones. Nothing really new here huh?

9) Police permit is to be obtained if a PR or foreigner will be participating in any of these events.

Yep, gotta watch us foreigners. Nasty little devil we are. Our only mission in life is to get in and speak evil and nasty words to the good people of Singapore. RIIIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTTT

So those are the terms and conditions. Now, all I really want to know is, if these are the relaxed rules that are now in effect, how anal were they before? I mean, damn! What can you honestly and truly say in Speakers Corner? Supposedly a guy protested that the Singapore gov't encourages people to do business abroad but gives no help when trouble is met. Ok, fairly safe since I dont see anyone really having ill will on that topic. The only feeling you might get out of that demonstration is "stop being a whiner..you tried, you failed, what do you expect the govt to do about it? they wont even help with the rising cost of fuel, electricty and health care and you want them to bail you out of your job venture?"

I also noticed something strangely odd. I may be reading the whole thing wrong and all but if the new rules are to allow for people to talk more freely, then why is it you still need approval? You are excempt from asking for permission to speak but only if you get the approval and permission from the commissioner. Sooooo, I have the freedom to speak freely as long as I have been granted permission to speak? In what MM Lee world does that makes sense?

I think I can honestly say to my friends in Singapore that are worried that the park is going to become a hot spot for disent and become a hot bed of chaos in Singapore...relax. With relaxed rules like this now in effect, you are a long long way from having an open forum for open political discussion and demonstrations.

go green, ride the bus, cause it is too costly to drive

I think the gov't has to learn one little thing when it comes to being greener. If you want people to consider taking pubic transport, now is the time. Since prices are going through the roof on gas people might now start considering being greener and taking public transport. I like how people start considering using public transport not for the good of the Earth or help with the world around them but because it hurts their pocket book to drive a car. Granted, the gas guzzlers on the road these days with the trucks, SUVs and all dont help either.

What I dont get is that now that there is incentive to ride the transport, why doesnt the gov't really push money into that area to help people consider riding the transport. Granted it probably wont help with lowering the gas prices since the less people buy the more the prices will have to go up to meet costs and profits and all.

Unless of course the gov't really has no incentive to help people ride the bus or LRT. After all, the more people ride those services, the less money goes into the purchase of gas, the less money there is for taxes to the gov't cofers on the gas sold, the less big companies there are to give 'campaign contributions' to help get certain people elected. So, perhaps riding the bus and LRT is good for the Earth and people living here but bad for the gov't and politicians. Who wants to bite the hand that feeds them, or at least keeps them in power huh? Pity we cant get some eggheads now to help develope that electric car or cars that run on water or some other type of fuel that wont destroy the ozone layer.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080901/public_transit_080901/20080901?hub=Canada


Lack of public transit hurting Canadian consumers
Updated Mon. Sep. 1 2008 2:52 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Recent record high prices at the gas pumps have consumers looking at public transit as an affordable alternative to driving their own vehicles.

A survey put out by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Urban Transit Association reports consumers want to take public transit, but lack of buses and trains plus long waiting times are acting as a deterrent.

More than 40 per cent of those involved in the survey said they would seriously consider taking local transit if gas prices continue to rise.

The survey, released Monday, compiled answers from 1,100 Canadians and responses suggested a large increase in ridership, which could put a strain on an already over-extended system.

The groups in charge of conducting the survey said the federal government must put more money into these systems.

They also suggested the effect of gas prices on consumers will be on the minds of voters in the event of an election this autumn.

I am a molester at least 20 times a day

Think there might be more to the case that isn't being reported in the news? I mean, does this sound like a case of molestation? 41 year old in a lift with a 15 year old, manuvering a bike and elbow brushes her breast. This is molestation? I have been to Singapore and seen the size of the lifts. You get a bike in there and not matter what you are brushing up against someone.

Granted, it is eerie, it is creepy and it is somewhat uncomfortable to have that happen, but is it worthy of such a high response?

On the other hand, I just wish I knew that Singapore was so tight on the whole brushing and molestation thing. I mean, if all it takes is brushing an elbow up against someones personal area, and I think I should include my butt and groin area here since it is equal to sexuality on a male as the breasts are on a woman, then after having ridden the MRT for 8 months I could have thousands of people charged. I was the victim of at least 10 molestations a day. Also, I am sure that I have been guilty of molesting at least 10-20 people (both men and women alike) a day going to and from work on the MRT. I know what you are saying, 'but the MRT is different'? really? how so? how is it different being crammed into a train with nearly 130 people that is built for perhaps 100 people and being in a lift that is designed for nearly 6 people and you are maneuvering a bike.

Obviously they are not printing the facts that the bike was a tricycle and the man pounced on the poor girl and was fondling her like an octopus. Only way I can think to explain why people would go to such extremes by arresting and charging the man.
Suspected serial molester nabbed
Posted: 14 August 2008 2303 hrs

SINGAPORE : Police have nabbed a 41-year-old man believed to be behind a string of molest cases in the eastern part of Singapore. It was his latest molest attempt, at a housing estate in Tampines on Wednesday, that led to his arrest.

At about 10.45am, the man had followed his 15-year-old victim into a lift and asked her to help him move the bicycle so that the lift door could shut properly. It was then that the girl felt his elbow brush against her breast. She later reported the matter to her parents, who went to the police.

Following investigations, police arrested the suspect at about 2.20pm, and are linking him to a rash of similar cases in housing estates in Tampines, Simei and Pasir Ris. He will be charged on Friday. - CNA/ms

Congratulations Singapore!

I just happened to come across an article online about Singapore and the up coming National Day ceremonies. I couldnt believe my eyes when I read the article and had to re-read it twice till I accepted the truth.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen of Singapore, for a limited time and a limited time only, you can be as wild and crazy as us evil and corrupt North Americans and....are you ready for this?...."may be displayed (the Singaporean flag) on clothes and costumes during the period of National Day celebrations. " As well, hold onto your hats Singaporeans, "..may also be flown on private and commercial vehicles alike during this time. Decals, stickers, posters or other visual images of the flag may also be displayed freely. "

Now, before you start thinking that Singapore has become open minded and *gasp* free, rest assured that this madness is again only for a limited time of July 1st to September 30th. So, break out those flags Singaporeans. Show your patriotic love and dedication by taking advantage of your leaders generosity and love by allowing you to display your flag, the symbol of your own country that most nations have had access and freedom to for centuries, out in the open without fear of punishment or fines.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/361004/1/.html

Canadian gov'ts taking a lesson from the PAP

Looks like the Canadian Liberal government is taking a page from the PAP/Lee government rule book. When you want to win, don't just beat the competition in a political fair fight, but ham string them and take them from the whole race all together. I am impressed that the Liberals are taking the whole sueing into bankruptcy one step farther than the Lee's ever did. Instead of just sueing one of the political people (Chee for example), the Canadian Prime Minister goes for the whole darn political party! Also, instead of going for a pitance amount like $500,000 or something, the Liberals wants $3.5 million! I guess when you are sueing a whole party you gotta up the ante and all.

I think the only problem with taking the PAP strategy is where are the Liberals going to find judges that are scared of the Liberals enough to rule in their favor regardless of the evidence. After all, with the PAP being in power for so long and the 'bare/brass knuckles' attitude that the PAP/Lee takes to government and justice, who is to say that if the judge rules against the PAP that they might not find their career in jeapordy.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080702/harper_liberals_080702/20080702?hub=Canada

Harper adds $1 million to lawsuit against Liberals
Updated Wed. Jul. 2 2008 8:28 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has upped the ante in his $2.5 million defamation suit against the Liberals, claiming an additional $1 million for "misappropriation of personality."


The potential blow to the Liberals' already depleted coffers came to light Wednesday as part of the 2007 annual financial statements filed by all federal political parties with Elections Canada.


The statements underscore just how little the Grits can afford to lose such a costly lawsuit: Harper's Conservatives vacuumed up donations last year at almost four times the rate of the cash-strapped Liberals, drawing on a pool of donors almost five times larger.


Harper launched his $2.5-million lawsuit against the Liberal party last March, after Grit officials refused to apologize for accusations that the prime minister knew about a "Conservative bribery" attempt in the Cadman affair.


The accusations, posted on the Liberal website, stemmed from a book on the late independent MP Chuck Cadman. Author Tom Zytaruk alleged that two Conservative officials offered Cadman, who was dying of cancer, a $1-million life insurance policy if he agreed to vote with the Tories in a crucial 2005 confidence vote.


Sources say Conservative and Liberal officials met in the spring to discuss a possible out-of-court settlement. But negotiations broke down and shortly thereafter, on June 4, Harper added another $1-million claim to the suit.


According to the Liberal financial return, Harper is claiming the additional damages for "misappropriation of personality and injunctive relief." The Liberal party "intends to fully defend this claim."


Conservative party spokesman Ryan Sparrow confirmed the additional claim but declined further comment.


The Tories have also gone to court seeking an injunction to prevent the Liberals from using what they claim is a "doctored" audio tape, recorded by Zytaruk. On it, Harper appears to acknowledge knowing about "an offer" made to Cadman "to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."


Harper has called the Liberals' bribery accusations "despicable" and has predicted the party will "come to regret engaging in this illegal and untruthful behaviour."


The Liberals can ill-afford to lose in court. According to the 2007 financial returns, the party raised just less than $4.5 million last year from 23,442 donors -- miles behind the Tories and just marginally ahead of the NDP, traditionally the poor cousin of the three main national parties.


The Conservatives were awash in cash, raking in almost $17 million from 107,492 donors.


The NDP pulled in almost $4 million from 23,303 contributors and the Bloc Quebecois, which runs only in Quebec, raised $429,971 from 4,486 donors.


The detailed returns show the Tories are an incredibly efficient fundraising machine adept at the art of getting regular, small amounts from thousands of donors. The party spent only $41,000 on fundraising in 2007, meaning it spent less than a penny for every dollar it raised.


"We're a big, member-driven party," said Sparrow.


"People respond to strong leadership and clear ideas."


All that cash enabled the Conservatives to spend $4.2 million on advertising last year -- almost all of it on televised ads attacking Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.


By contrast, the Liberals spent over $600,000 on fundraising -- about 13 cents for every dollar they raised-and could afford to spend only $543,000 on advertising.


Liberal spokesman Daniel Lauzon acknowledged that 2007 was a "challenging year" for the party. It is still struggling to adapt to the ban on corporate donations and restrictions on individual contributions, imposed in 2004 and tightened further by the Tories in 2007.


But Lauzon said Liberals are making the "transition" and starting to show results. As proof, he pointed out that Liberal donations during the first quarter of 2008 were 60 per cent higher than the same period last year, although the Tories still managed to rake in five times more.

Another case of "WTF!??!?!?!?!"

Just read this article. Apparently a teaching assistant went to a psychic, was asked if she worked with a girl with a name that starts with a 'V' and then said that she was being sexually abused by a man between the age of 23 and 26. What is the worst part of this stupid little thing? The teacher reported it and an investigation happened. Why?

"Under the Child and Family Services Act, anyone who works with children and has reasonable grounds to suspect a youngster is being harmed must report it immediately - and the CAS (Children's Aid Society) is obligated to follow up. "

Now, what exactly here is 'reasonable grounds'? Granted they did say that "..a list of behaviours exhibited by her daughter, which taken together with the report from the psychic, formed a theory of abuse. " How exactly does that work? I mean, there are a bunch of behaviors and they are not concerned in the least but when a psychic says "yes, I feel the vibe of abuse" all of a sudden those behaviors now have meaning? Who exactly is more of a whack job here, the teacher assistant for being a complete naive baboon for believing a psychic or the CAS for actually looking into it?

Little things I learned when going to psychology class (after all, this is what the 'theory' is based on, psychology). In my first month of intro psych I had diagnosed my room mate with at least 8 different mental disorders. In the 2nd month I was determined that I had at least 20 psychiatric problems. Why? cause I read what it was an looked for the symptoms.

This is a case of some naive idiots reading about something and looking for the symptoms. The mother or this teacher should not only get an apology from the school board, teacher assistant and CAS but the teacher assistant should be punished for causing a false alarm. I mean, if I went to the police and said "A psychic told me that my room mate has been captured and murdered and he hasnt been home for 2 days therefore it must be so" I think I would be arrested for starting a police inquiry and a false murder claim. Chances are the room mate just went out on a drinking binge with friends and is crashing with a hang over and the only murder that happened was the death of a few thousand of his brain cells.

As well, the CAS should take a look into their policy of '..obligated to start an investigation'. They should add in "..obligated to start an investigation if there is sufficient evidence." If you blindly do something (obligated investigations or mandatory punishments) you create a black and white rule for an incredibly grey world. Common sense, thought, deduction and just plain out simple reason has to take precident over a simple case of black and white.

There are so many more attacks to make on these idiots but I think you will make up your own mind. There will be people saying "yeah, they are complete idiots" and there are others that will say "Oh the psychic is probably correct. I mean, I know of a friend who had a sister that had a psychic say....".

Last note, if psychics are real, why dont they call you up and tell you things or walk to the police and say "this is the description here are the people these are the crimes, now go and find the evidence and put them behind bars"? Instead you have to go to them and answer questions like "tell me do you live in Canada? perhaps Alberta? Edmonton?" and narrow it down to something more pin pointed?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080618/psychic_abuse_080618/20080618?hub=Canada

"what do you mean there was a cell phone beside me? didnt see a thing, lah"

Life span of a cell phone left unattended in Singapore: 30 seconds.

Life span of an umbrella left unattended in Singapore: 20 minutes.

Why is it in the country with the lowest crime rate per capita things go missing so often and people seem to have the prison mentality of witnessing things gone missing or thefts. Why is it unless you actually see them with the item in their hand, or the cell phone is ringing in their pockets, when you are confronting them with whether or not they have the item will Singaporeans fess up and give things back? Why is it when I ask about Singaporeans that have taken seats from others on the MRT, if they would take an unattended handphone (and not return it to the owner) and if they would scream out bloody murder if the waitress charged them twice for a drink but sneak out without a peep if they saw that the waitress forgot to charge them for a main course, Singaporeans always know of people that have stolen seats, hand phones or dinners. Yet when I ask for the good stories I hear scattered stories like "once, when I was in primary school, I gave back a coin that one of my class mates had dropped." but nothing for the present after the age of 7.

Does anyone out there have ANY stories of Singaporeans that actually return a cell phone or report a mistake in a bill that is in their favor? My wife accusses me of being 'too honest' cause I will actually return something that does not belong to me. No wonder I am leaving the safest country in the world with the lowest crime rate per capita to return to the 2nd largest country in the world with drive by shootings and muggings reported in the news every day. I am just too honest for Singapore, but seem to be just right for Canada.