Could we all take a moment to appreciate the detail in the following letter? Not for its content, but for how it is being grossly misrepresented for political gain and, most importantly, purposely obfuscated and miscited.
bcliberalcaucus.bc.ca/wp-content/upl…
bcliberalcaucus.bc.ca/wp-content/upl…
At its core, it tells you all you'll likely need to know about how the CPC, and Poilievre in particular, are communicating to you and how little of the truth matters when the facts being cited are kept out of reach, even if you make a concerted effort to find it.
At issue is the frequently shared claim that the "BC Union of Mayors" stated in a letter that "40 violent offenders were arrested 6000 times in one year in Vancouver". The only factual statements in that quote are 40, one year and Vancouver. I'll explain
youtube.com/live/0yyM9Tigw…
youtube.com/live/0yyM9Tigw…
First, there is no organization called the "BC Union of Mayors". Just a simple mistake? Only if he keeps making the same simple mistake every time.
bcbusiness.ca/5-things-we-le…
bcbusiness.ca/5-things-we-le…
The letter was, in fact, issued by the BC Urban Mayors' Caucus. Search for the correct name plus letter and it's the second link. Search for the name he attributes this statistic to and you only find references to Poilievre. Now, let's examine the letter.
While it does address the issue of "catch and release" and repeat offenders, bail reform is never mentioned. Bail conditions and delays caused by full disclosure packages required for serious crimes, however, were.
Let's now turn to the statistics. While the collection of prolific offenders were classified as those with at least 30 negative contacts within the previous year, negative contacts are not all arrests (as explained in the document).
For Vancouver, data as far back as 10 years prior was considered in addition to only 10 or more negative contacts in the prior year.
It is also never established during what timeline the summary of related negative contacts for the identified offenders took place. The report contains references to offenses dating back as far as 2016.
While violent crimes are discussed often in this report, it is important to note that the statistics offered clearly relate to repeat "property offenders", not violent crime offenders. We have no way of knowing how many of these negative contacts involved a violent crime.
As for arrests, the table clearly defines a negative contact as a whole host of possible interactions that could lead to a reported interaction. It is clearly stated that the 40 offenders in Vancouver were convicted a total of 2,152 (again, not explicitly limited to one year).
What was this caucus asking for (from the provincial government)?
1) More resources for the timely preparation of court documents
2) Stricter judicial discretion
3) Community courts
4) Complex care housing
1) More resources for the timely preparation of court documents
2) Stricter judicial discretion
3) Community courts
4) Complex care housing
Feel free to argue with my interpretation of the facts within, but at least you now have the facts. If there is another letter Poilievre is referring to, I'd like to see it.
Above all else, I sincerely hope former @cityofkelowna mayor Basran and/or former @CityOfVictoria mayor Lisa Helps, who signed this letter, will help resolve any lingering misconceptions about these findings and recommendations.
Should we care? If he is conflating the findings in this report with rates of violent crime and the consequences of bail reform, definitely. He invokes it constantly in environments where there is little time to question or challenge him.
https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1617657280408817664?s=20&t=xR8zjs7_Si6tUgBztuCDtA
Hopefully someone, ideally a member of the parliamentary press, will ask Poilievre about these wildly inaccurate misstatements before more Canadians accept them as the truth.
As for the rest of us, we need to remain vigilant, uncover and share the truth behind his misstatements and help those less involved in politics on a day-to-day basis appreciate why the truth is consistently not enough to fit the narrative he needs to sell to get their vote.
If there is any lingering doubt about whether this is the letter in question, it seems as if the Western Standard established this no later than Jan 16th, 2023. Would still invite Poilievre to quote a different source if we are both wrong.
https://twitter.com/theoandtheb/status/1626355168747876352
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
