Compliments of the RCMP Website.
Canadian Definition
Within Canadian law enforcement, a legal definition for organized crime has only existed since the late 1990's following the enactment of Bill C-95. Amendments to this area of the Criminal Code have led to the present legal definition found within section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states a "criminal organization" means a group, however organized, that:
(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and,
(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences, that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any one of the persons who constitute the group.
The various components that comprise this legal definition are based on the exclusion of a group of three of more persons that has formed randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.
International Definition
Globally, a consensus on a definition for organized crime was reached in 2002. The UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime, Article 2 defines "organized criminal group" as follows: a group having at least three members, taking some action in concert (i.e., together or in some co-ordinated manner) for the purpose of committing a ‘serious crime’ and for the purpose of obtaining a financial or other benefit. The group must have some internal organization or structure, and exist for some period of time before or after the actual commission of the offence(s) involved.
Most of the major international organized crime groups are active within Canada. These groups include: Asian, Eastern European, Italian, Latin American organizations, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and a variety of domestic groups.
So now you tell me.... Does this not describe what the liberals were doing in Quebec regarding ADSCAM? Sure sounds like it to me, but then again I don't lean to the left and I am no lawyer.
Update:
Please go read the post that Candace has written on this topic. She has come up with a very intriuging theory.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Definition of "Organized Crime"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I really think that this is a great post Tim! I'm going to link this!
Great post... I didn't even know you were here... your on my daily hit list now.
This is my new mantra.
If "the Liberals" are involved with organized crime, then "the Conservatives" want to ban abortion.
'Cause while I'm not surprised that there are corrupt Liberals, I'd bet there are more Tories who want to ban abortion than there are Liberals who are involved in organized crime. So as long as we're going to generalize, it might as well be a two-way street, no?
I'll be interested to see if Tories keep pushing the envelope here because, to me, it sounds a lot like "the Liberals support child pornography", and we all know how well that worked.
Thanks Sycorax for the link.
Welcome to my wacky world ABFreedom. Look forward to your comments in the future.
Lord Kitchener's Own:
The last I heard, Mr. Martin "banned" liberal membership to 14 of its members. Those are just the ones that were specifically named by Gomery. Funny enough it did not include Chretien who was also named. It is not a matter of "they were involved with organized crime" it is and these are my words... they were acting in a way that is defined as "organized crime". Harpers statement does not preclude that they were involved with other "crime organizations". That is just the typical hype and spin the left would like to portray his statement.
On the abortion issue. I as a conservative support "choice" and I know many others that do as well. You are free to have your "mantra" as I am also for free speech. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it just as I am to mine.
Perhaps my point has been missed.
It's not so much the "organized crime" that bothers me, as it is the "they".
"They" were involved in organized crime. "They" acted like a criminal organization.
Well, first of all, even if you take the worst of Gomery to be true (and BTW, all the "organized crime" stuff comes from the testimony at the inquiry, not the judge's report... but then again the judge also fully exonerated Martin, so I understand why your focusing on the testimony, and not the actual report of the objective judge) but anyway, even if the worst of the TESTIMONY is true, then the Liberal party in Quebec was acting like the Mob (and maybe even getting help from the actual Mob). Well, I don't know if you've heard, but apparently the Liberal party has members in every province in the country (and the territories too).
You can continue to paint the ENTIRE PARTY as corrupt from top to bottom, but as I've said, I think that will lead Canadians to say "there go the angry Tories again, foaming at the mouth and exagerating the facts".
It's "The Liberals support Child pornography" all over again.
As for what Harper said, he said that the Liberals were guilty of ""breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec with the help of organized crime". Not "acting like a criminal organization". Actually getting help from "organized crime" to "break every conceivable law in the province of Quebec". That's not spin... it's what he said.
Spin is my vision of Mafia Hitmen driving around Chicoutimi in vans painted with English-only signs making left hand turns on red lights while selling improperly coloured margarine out of the back of the van.
That's spin.
"Well, first of all, even if you take the worst of Gomery to be true"
Should I not believe that Gomery revealed the truth in his report? Are you suggesting he lied and that it is not an accurate account of what happened? Personally I believe his mandate was a little restricted and there is more to this than what has been revealed, but again that is just my opinion.
"so I understand why your focusing on the testimony, and not the actual report of the objective judge)"
Is not Gomery's "report" based upon the "testimony" given?
"even if the worst of the TESTIMONY is true, then the Liberal party in Quebec was acting like the Mob (and maybe even getting help from the actual Mob)"
Well at least we finally have come to some kind of agreement. However I will not go as far as saying that the liberals in Quebec got any help from "the actual mob". They were quite capable of doing this on their own and needed no help.
"Well, I don't know if you've heard, but apparently the Liberal party has members in every province in the country (and the territories too)."
Maybe you did not notice the comment I made at the bottom of my post.
"So now you tell me.... Does this not describe what the liberals were doing in Quebec regarding ADSCAM?" I have not painted all liberals with the same brush as you suggest.
As for Mr. Harpers statement... and I quote..
"a front for massive kickbacks involving organized crime, used by the Liberal party to fill its own election coffers."
Again I stand by my statements that the term "organized crime" is correct as defined in section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Harper could and probably should have specified "Quebec Liberals" but then I don't write his material.
On the same topic of negativity:
"The campaign
According to a report in The Globe and Mail, the Liberals plan to run a negative campaign, with most of the advertising unfolding after the holidays.
They are also planning two separate election campaigns -- one in Quebec and one in the rest of Canada, The Globe reports. The Liberals will emphasize unity and competence in their Quebec campaign, and good governance in the other campaign."
So lets not point the finger at just the conservatives. Looks like the Liberals are on the same track. Negative campaigns have worked in the past. Politicians as a whole use what works. Paint the worst picture of your opponent and may the best of the worst win. Sad but true. I wish it were different and based solely on the people running and their platforms.
Wow! I'm impressed! This was a civilized debate! Usually, (what I consider "lefties") when someone uses actual facts, lefties retort by spewing something completely off topic. You impressed me Lord Kitchener. If only all lefties thought like you. Then maybe we could see a real democratic election, where only the facts are revealed, and we don't have to put up with fear mongering.
I would have to say that some of the "right" could take a lesson here as well. Name calling and other abuses need not be used when bebating issues. We are not in kindergarten or in "Question period" here.
ooooops.... that should be "debating"....not bebating.... someday I will learn to type....
I think the Liberals are getting all pissy about the "organized crime" line because, out of a 15 minute speech condemning their actions (and non-actions), it's the only thing they could conceivably dispute.
Now anyone who is paying attention, is focusing on whether Harper is out of line (on this ONE sentence, thereby painting his entire speech as crap).
Wow. It took me 3 days to figure that out. How long for the rest of the country that aren't reading blogs?
Thanks for the inspiration:
http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/2005/11/challenge-to-all-liberal-supporting-or.html
Quite the observation Candace. I'm not sure how this post inspired that but hey, I'll take credit fot it regardless......lol
Just a couple of points,
First, I DO take Gomery's report to be the truth. My implication otherwise above was merely meant to indicate that not everyone does... but I certainly do.
And yes, Gomery's Report WAS based on the testimony. But the whole point of having a judge is that the judge can objectively decide what testimony is credible, and what testimony is not. Let's not forget that some of the people testifying were under indictment for fraud, so we need a judge to determine where the TRUTH lies.
The problem as I see it is that some of the CPC attacks on the Liberals are based on the raw testimony, and comments at the hearing, and NOT the independent judge's report. So why even have a report, if no one's going to pay attention to it?
Interestingly, Ive searched the 708 page report (the PDF is available online) and, for example, do you know hoe many times the phrase "organized crime" appears in Gomery's Report?
Zero.
You know what does appear in Gomery's Report? This:
"On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet (Ed. note, other than Chretien and Gagliano... the ONLY Federal politicans Gomery finds blameworthy), since they, like all members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve. Mr. Martin, whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct".
Note also that Gomery does not merely absolve Martin and the other cabinet ministers of "misconduct" but also "carelessness". So, while many have said that while Martin may not have known what was going on, that he SHOULD have known nonetheless, the independent judicial inquiry says that's not the case. Gomery says that Martin can't be expected to have known or discovered things which were DELIBERATELY kept from him by the Prime Minister of the country.
So, sometimes I wonder why we even had an independent judicial inquiry look into this, if the opposition is just going to ignore the judges findings when they're inconvenient, and embellish them when they're not quite damaging enough.
It makes me think the message that's really being sent is, NEVER set up an investigation. Because even if you know you're innocent, and you know an independent inquiry will exonerate you of any mismangement or carelessness, that won't be good enough anyway.
Thank you for clairifying your possition regarding Gomery's report.
"So why even have a report, if no one's going to pay attention to it?"
May I add... Why bother having an independant inquiry if it is restrained to what it is allowed to delve into? This also applies to the auditor general. Both should be able to to invistigate any and all area's neccessary in order to discover the truth about our governments dealings. Leagaly, ethically, financially and otherwise.
"do you know hoe many times the phrase "organized crime" appears in Gomery's Report?
Zero."
You are correct. But I don't recall anyone, let alone a CPoC member stating that it did. Mr. Harpers statement regarding "organized crime" did not reflect the Gomery report nor mention it. The report does not negate the fact that some members of the Quebec wing of the liberal party did in fact act in a manner that by definition in our laws in fact was "organized crime".
"It makes me think the message that's really being sent is, NEVER set up an investigation. Because even if you know you're innocent, and you know an independent inquiry will exonerate you of any mismangement or carelessness, that won't be good enough anyway."
This I disagree with whole heartedly with. The problem I have here as I have previously stated is that the scope of the inquiry was limited. By whom? Mr. Martin and the liberal party. That is like having a trial for a murder and asking the accused what evidence he would like the crown to be able to persue during his trial. Pretty rediculous don't you think?
I would not be surprized at all if Chretien tried to keep this a secret from Mr. Martin. I do have troubles believing that with his connections in the party, especially those in the Quebec liberal wing that he had no clue to what was going on. Allan Cutler first brought up his allegations in 1995. Earnst and young did their report in 1996. Chretien did nothing until forced to act in 2002 and even then he wasted more time on the matter. The scathing auditor generals report came out in 2004 and again nothing was done. Where was Mr. Martin all this time? Only when he took the riegns from Chretien did he act, and then with the "limited" Gomery inquiry.
The sponsorship scandal is only the latest in a long line of questionable goings on within the liberal government. The cost of the gun registry, HRDC, HP contract with the military just to name a few. Mismanagement in all cases. This is why I for one cannot support yet another liberal government(not that I ever did before). They have been in power far too long and have lost touch with the public who they are supposed to be representing.
Naturally the money came into the hands of the Quebec Liberals, but it went into the coffers of the entire Liberal party without question, as the party members are funded by the federal party for their representation.
I do agree that only a small number of party members were involved in this, but ignorance of the law has never been a defence in this country, sorry officer, I didn't see the sign never works in the real world. The fact that the first conviction in regards to this netted a whopping house arrest and lecture tour gives a good sense of justice in this country for politicians in an almost hollywood style "diplomatic immunity" sense and is as depressing as hell.
I don't know LKO. Something still doesn't smell right here. During the commission, all the fingers were starting to point right to Martin himself, then "they" started to clamp down on what Gomery could, and couldn't report on. Gomery himself was told that he couldn't assign blame, but only indicate where the problem lied. So the whole thing was nothing more than an exercise in futility it's self, if Gomery couldn't assign blame, or point the finger.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Martin had no idea about how the Quebec chapter, and the Liberal party it's self, were receiving such a large sum of money, and had no idea where it as coming from, or, that it was there, while he was finance minister. When you are doing the budget for your home, and you are used to budgeting on say $700/bi-weekly, and you suddenly find that there is an extra $5000 in your account, you don't just assume that, that is your money to spend. You get a hold of the bank to find out why there is so much extra money in your account. If you didn't do that, and spent all the money, and figured that you were in the clear, because that money was in "your account", then when the bank finds out that it screwed up, you are going to be charged with fraud. The bank isn't going to care less if you didn't stop to think about where all that extra cash came from.
This is what Martin wants you to believe. That as finance minister of Canada, and chairman of the Quebec (Liberal) branch, that he had no idea about $250,000 being funneled into both the Liberal party of Canada's bank account, and the Quebec chapter of the Liberal party of Canada.
So what Martin wants you to believe, is, that while everyone went into heavy debt for an election, he can't explain how or why, he didn't notice that suddenly, the Liberal bank account was suddenly bursting at the seems with extra money, that according to their (political) size in the House of Commons, that it should have taken a lot longer to pay off the debt that they ran up during the election.
(OK... I'm starting to lose track with what I am talking about... kids 'n all. So I'll just leave it at that for now, until they are all sleeping, and I can concentrate better)
I understand everyone's coments about the limits of the Gomery inquiry. But just because he was limited as to how far he could go in assigning criminal responsibility (and let's be fair, you can't assign criminal responsibility to someone without a TRIAL... it's called due process). That doesn't mean he was forced to exonerate anyone either. He could have said nothing at all, if he felt that people did wrong but he was constrained from saying so.
But Gomery isn't silent. He says (emphasis mine):
"... there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet (Ed. note, other than Chretien and Gagliano), since they, like all members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. Pelletier and their funding from the Unity Reserve. Mr. Martin, whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct."
Now, even in some insane universe where Gomery was specifically directed "you can't find Paul Martin guilty or blameworthy of anything" he STILL wouldn't be required to fully exonerate him. And not only does Gomery exonerate Martin and the other members of cabinet (Chretien and Gagliano excepted) of MISCONDUCT, he also exonerates them of CARELESSNESS. In other words, not only did they not do anything wrong, they weren't careless for not discovering the wrongs which OTHERS were doing.
I don't care WHAT limits were put on Gomery's inquiry ( that is, I DO care, but not in this context). There was no reason for him to say that if he didn't belive it was true. And if we can't believe Gomery, then what a waste of money THAT was.
(oh and dazzlindono, you're totally right. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and you can't very well get away with saying "sorry officer, I didn't see the stop sign". But I think the analogy is inprecise. The situation here, is that a judge has determined that the sign was deliberately hidden (by a vandal named Chretien) and so there was no way for anyone to see the sign. "I didn't see the sign" is no excuse. A judge determining that the sign was impossible to see certainly is.)
Post a Comment