Clifford Olson killed eleven people. Karla Homolka participated in the torture and murder of four people. Graham James sexually molested an unknown number of hockey players during his time as a coach.
Yet somehow, to some people, conservatives are always the bad guys. Even if they haven't killed or molested anyone.
That's about the only thing that can be taken away from this most recent dispatch from the most demented of the Chickenwankers.
In a post about the controversies surrounding the pardon of James, the (seemingly) pending pardon of Homolka, and the thousands of dollars in pension funds being paid out to Olson, Sister Sage's Musings proprietor CK insists that an evil conservative conspiracy simply must be afoot:
One doesn't have to be Frank fucking Castle to figure out what's wrong with this picture, and that something needs to be changed.
In fact, that the very idea that changes need to be made to the criteria for the granting of pardons could lead to an accusation of planning to scrap pardons altogether is nothing more than the product of a fertile imagination. No one in the government has ever suggested such a thing.
Likewise with old age pensions. Perhaps the idea that serial murderers serving more life sentences than they could serve if they were cloned multiple times shouldn't receive an old age pension is a revolutionary and subversive idea for CK. Not to those oversensitive to the fact that Olson killed eleven people, two of them children.
Likewise with the notion that cutting old age pensions is on anyone's agenda. No one in the government has so much as spoken of it, so this accusation has basically been invented out of whole cloth.
Her blog alone is proof of that.
But well-earned comments on the dismal intelligence of SSM's principal author aside, it requires a complete lunatic to argue that Graham James sexually molesting young hockey players entrusted to his care is the same thing as the jay walking ticket written out to the 19-year-old down the street, or even the DUI racked up by your neighbourhood drunk.
The latter case in unquestionably cause for condemnation, but it isn't quite on the scale of murdering eleven people, or gleefully filming the pre-murder torture of four.
The average "stupid thing" done by many Canadians doesn't even begin to measure up to the misdeeds -- actual misdeeds, unlike the fictional ones CK is constantly attributing to Stephen Harper -- of these four. Not even in the same ballpark. Not even in the same league.
As for what incentive convicts would have for keeping their noses clean: how about not going back to jail? That would work for the majority of Canadians.
But apparently not for CK.
Another beef CK apparently has is that knowledge of James' pardon became public at all. The notion that knowledge that a multiple child molester has been pardoned for his crimes is actually a matter of public interest has never really occurred to her.
Of course, CK has proven herself remarkably favourable to the suppression of any information that doesn't fit her specific ideological agenda. No one should be surprised.
The truth is that CK's objection to this entire matter is simply so clearly confused that one wonders if she even understands half the objections that she's raising. For example, she accuses Harper of having no empathy for the families of the victims of Olson, James or Homolka...
First off, would the fact that Olson has collected thousands of dollars in pension funds while serving time for the murder of said 11 people and the fact that James has been pardoned, with Homolka apparently set to be pardoned, cause more or less pain to the families of their victims?
Secondly, would the fact that these matters have become nothing but ideological boilerplate to a retarded lunatic like CK cause those families any pain?
Or would they in fact be comforted to learn that the government of Canada actually cares about their pain, and wants to prevent travesties of justice that actually serve to trivialize that pain?
In the minds of anyone but a terminally stupid twit like CK, the answer to this question would be obvious.
But it raises an important question about the mentality of individuals like CK. A couple of days ago, it was noted that CK had seemingly lost the popular left-wing narrative on Canada's Human Rights Commissions. It was pointed out that, contrary to her comments on the matter, Canada's HRCs were never meant to prevent bigotry outright, only to settle cases of discrimination.
But could CK's repeated insistence that things such as changes to Canada's pardon system to prevent the worst of the worst from getting pardons they don't deserve are pretexts for something allegedly ideologically heinous actually be a deeper indication of how CK herself thinks?
Perhaps, in CK's mind, the HRCs are really pretexts for thought-police-like institutions to crack down on ideas she doesn't like; starting with things like bigotry that the overwhelming majority of Canadians oppose, and eventually working its way up to broader anti-conservative thought-policing as societal barriers to such tyranny degrade.
One expects -- one hopes -- that no one actually involved with Canada's HRCs have any such tyranny in mind, and that plans for such tyranny exist only in the mind of CK.
Fortunately, considering that CK is so out of touch with Canadian values that she can't even get a simple matter like heinous criminals don't deserve to be pardoned or paid while in prison right, one is comforted that this is very likely the case.