Coun. Isaac Gilbert

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[twobits]

*removed*

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[twobits]

*removed*

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[A Concerned Citizen]

*removed*

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[Corneliousrooster]

If Mr. Gilbert wants to create some anti wandering cat bylaw (by no means do I think any time should be devoted to this endeavour, just playing devils advocate), all the power to him to bring his own motion forward - not vote against something based on his opinion of “lack of scope” - he clearly doesn’t understand his role and what was expected of him within the task at hand.

Take your vehicle to a mechanic and request an oil change - when you go to pick up your car you find out they didn’t do it because they felt your scope was too limited and you should of had a trans flush and your brake pads replaced - focus on your task at hand - you might have a valid point, but imposing it at an inopportune time makes it appear you don’t grasp what was asked of you…..just saying

As for wanting to deny the request for statistics on prison release …. Why not attain that information? Maybe it shows that they are released elsewhere and that is not contributing to our current crime increase - how is sticking your head in the sand on the matter helping anything? I appreciate council trying to get to the bottom of the problem by attempting to acquire some hard data rather than putting priority on tthe “feelings” of some recently released ex convicts. What population do you serve Mr. Gilbert? Hopefully the ex convicts get their crap together and do better- any stigma is deserved and earned by their crappy decisions that got them there in the 1st place - you know…..consequences…. Geez

[bobbyrog]

If Mr. Gilbert wants to create some anti wandering cat bylaw (by no means do I think any time should be devoted to this endeavour, just playing devils advocate), all the power to him to bring his own motion forward - not vote against something based on his opinion of “lack of scope” - he clearly doesn’t understand his role and what was expected of him within the task at hand.

Take your vehicle to a mechanic and request an oil change - when you go to pick up your car you find out they didn’t do it because they felt your scope was too limited and you should of had a trans flush and your brake pads replaced - focus on your task at hand - you might have a valid point, but imposing it at an inopportune time makes it appear you don’t grasp what was asked of you…..just saying

As for wanting to deny the request for statistics on prison release …. Why not attain that information? Maybe it shows that they are released elsewhere and that is not contributing to our current crime increase - how is sticking your head in the sand on the matter helping anything? I appreciate council trying to get to the bottom of the problem by attempting to acquire some hard data rather than putting priority on tthe “feelings” of some recently released ex convicts. What population do you serve Mr. Gilbert? Hopefully the ex convicts get their crap together and do better- any stigma is deserved and earned by their crappy decisions that got them there in the 1st place - you know…..consequences…. Geez

Thank you for actually explaining your thoughts! Very refreshing.

I don't have any rebuttal for your point regarding the cat situation. To say it's being brought up at an inopportune time is a valid point. No argument there from me.

Regarding the prison release data however, you need to keep in mind that not just ex-convicts will be stigmatized. They aren't going to be personally named and shamed, but the cities they reside in will be. Tourism could be impacted, communities will be discriminated against, people won't feel safe in their own cities anymore, and property value will drop. Despite the fact nothing has actually changed, they'll just be more aware of something that has been happening the whole time.

While I'll be making no attempt to justify the actions of ex-convicts, all stigmatizing them does is promote recidivism. If they aren't able to earn a second chance, then there's no point in them entertaining any kind of meaningful growth because they'll always be treated like a criminal.

[Corneliousrooster]

Regarding the prison release data however, you need to keep in mind that not just ex-convicts will be stigmatized. They aren't going to be personally named and shamed, but the cities they reside in will be. Tourism could be impacted, communities will be discriminated against, people won't feel safe in their own cities anymore, and property value will drop. Despite the fact nothing has actually changed, they'll just be more aware of something that has been happening the whole time.

While I'll be making no attempt to justify the actions of ex-convicts, all stigmatizing them does is promote recidivism. If they aren't able to earn a second chance, then there's no point in them entertaining any kind of meaningful growth because they'll always be treated like a criminal.

Tourism is being impacted now, people don’t feel safe here NOW. Everyone without blinders on can see that something has changed, drastically in a very short amount of time. Nobody at this moment is saying it is being caused by the close vicinity to a prison, but the proposal is to question to attain a definitive answer whether or not it’s a direct contributor. This is not creating stigma on individuals - but if a direct correlation is made between release proximity and crime rates, any stigma would be completely justified.

Don’t want to be treated like a criminal - don’t be a criminal. Pretty simple concept the vast majority of the population adhere to.

[bobbyrog]

Regarding the prison release data however, you need to keep in mind that not just ex-convicts will be stigmatized. They aren't going to be personally named and shamed, but the cities they reside in will be. Tourism could be impacted, communities will be discriminated against, people won't feel safe in their own cities anymore, and property value will drop. Despite the fact nothing has actually changed, they'll just be more aware of something that has been happening the whole time.

While I'll be making no attempt to justify the actions of ex-convicts, all stigmatizing them does is promote recidivism. If they aren't able to earn a second chance, then there's no point in them entertaining any kind of meaningful growth because they'll always be treated like a criminal.

Tourism is being impacted now, people don’t feel safe here NOW. Everyone without blinders on can see that something has changed, drastically in a very short amount of time. Nobody at this moment is saying it is being caused by the close vicinity to a prison, but the proposal is to question to attain a definitive answer whether or not it’s a direct contributor. This is not creating stigma on individuals - but if a direct correlation is made between release proximity and crime rates, any stigma would be completely justified.

Don’t want to be treated like a criminal - don’t be a criminal. Pretty simple concept the vast majority of the population adhere to.

The Oliver prison has been operational for six years now. If things have changed drastically in a very short period of time, the prison likely isn't the culprit.

Your "don't be a criminal" statement is pretty odd. For starters, whether or not someone is a criminal in this scenario is irrelevant because they will not be disclosing who is or isn't a criminal. They'd be releasing data which shows which cities criminals move to after being released from prison, which does not identify or discriminate against specific criminals, but instead entire cities of innocent people who aren't involved with said criminals.

Secondly, the vast majority of the population are criminals. Whether it be speeding, time theft, music piracy, copyright infringement, they're crimes all the same. Committing a crime makes you a criminal, so it's can't as black and white as "don't commit crimes if you don't want to be a criminal" unless you just indiscriminately disrespect every person you meet.

[Corneliousrooster]

The Oliver prison has been operational for six years now. If things have changed drastically in a very short period of time, the prison likely isn't the culprit.

Your "don't be a criminal" statement is pretty odd. For starters, whether or not someone is a criminal in this scenario is irrelevant because they will not be disclosing who is or isn't a criminal. They'd be releasing data which shows which cities criminals move to after being released from prison, which does not identify or discriminate against specific criminals, but instead entire cities of innocent people who aren't involved with said criminals.

Secondly, the vast majority of the population are criminals. Whether it be speeding, time theft, music piracy, copyright infringement, they're crimes all the same. Committing a crime makes you a criminal, so it's can't as black and white as "don't commit crimes if you don't want to be a criminal" unless you just indiscriminately disrespect every person you meet.

6 years is a long time? We are potentially witnessing the compound effect of 6 years of releases. Probably don’t notice a significant difference year 1 and 2 - now in year 5 and 6 it becomes pretty obvious - this is not rocket science. The objection to getting the data that can confirm this makes no sense - putting your head in the sand helps how?

Nobody said that the data released would identify criminals - it would identify percentage of released are arriving where…. If the data shows that a high percentage are arriving here - 2 and 2 can be put together and perhaps further data, if required, can be requested.

As for your 3rd paragraph - perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal - there is nobody in prison for speeding violations and time theft - pretty weak analogy. Any way you slice it, if you are adopting criminal behaviour, there are consequences and stigma attached that is well deserved if you have earned it. Your argument is so lost on me - you are condoning behaviour and feel no perceived stigma should be attached because in your world everyone is living lawlessly. Not sure who you are hanging out with but I can assure you the “vast majority of the population” is not embracing the criminal element - might be a fair amount lacking good moral judgement, but there is a difference between criminal and morally deficient.

Now back to Mr. Gilbert and his lack of comprehensive reasoning while voting on council matters…..

[A Concerned Citizen]

.....

As for your 3rd paragraph - perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal - there is nobody in prison for speeding violations and time theft - pretty weak analogy. Any way you slice it, if you are adopting criminal behaviour, there are consequences and stigma attached that is well deserved if you have earned it. Your argument is so lost on me - you are condoning behaviour and feel no perceived stigma should be attached because in your world everyone is living lawlessly. Not sure who you are hanging out with but I can assure you the “vast majority of the population” is not embracing the criminal element - might be a fair amount lacking good moral judgement, but there is a difference between criminal and morally deficient.

Now back to Mr. Gilbert and his lack of comprehensive reasoning while voting on council matters…..

Thank goodness the conversation is coming back to Gilbert and his 'lack of comprehensive reasoning' because it's long overdue and much needed to get past those that have a hard time understanding things no matter how much one may try to explain it to them ...

On Gilbert, he's a park ranger, which is actually a government position isn't it? With that in mind he is in a conflict of interest position and should not be allowed to be at a policy table anymore than James Miller who wants to pretend to be a 'journalist' while also being at the policy table ... both should resign their positions or resign from council.

If they are allowed to hold public positions while being in a conflict of interest position then that is a clear signal that something is wrong and it needs to change. As much as either of them may be offended by comments like this being offended doesn't mean they are right.

[bobbyrog]

The Oliver prison has been operational for six years now. If things have changed drastically in a very short period of time, the prison likely isn't the culprit.

Your "don't be a criminal" statement is pretty odd. For starters, whether or not someone is a criminal in this scenario is irrelevant because they will not be disclosing who is or isn't a criminal. They'd be releasing data which shows which cities criminals move to after being released from prison, which does not identify or discriminate against specific criminals, but instead entire cities of innocent people who aren't involved with said criminals.

Secondly, the vast majority of the population are criminals. Whether it be speeding, time theft, music piracy, copyright infringement, they're crimes all the same. Committing a crime makes you a criminal, so it's can't as black and white as "don't commit crimes if you don't want to be a criminal" unless you just indiscriminately disrespect every person you meet.

6 years is a long time? We are potentially witnessing the compound effect of 6 years of releases. Probably don’t notice a significant difference year 1 and 2 - now in year 5 and 6 it becomes pretty obvious - this is not rocket science. The objection to getting the data that can confirm this makes no sense - putting your head in the sand helps how?

Nobody said that the data released would identify criminals - it would identify percentage of released are arriving where…. If the data shows that a high percentage are arriving here - 2 and 2 can be put together and perhaps further data, if required, can be requested.

As for your 3rd paragraph - perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal - there is nobody in prison for speeding violations and time theft - pretty weak analogy. Any way you slice it, if you are adopting criminal behaviour, there are consequences and stigma attached that is well deserved if you have earned it. Your argument is so lost on me - you are condoning behaviour and feel no perceived stigma should be attached because in your world everyone is living lawlessly. Not sure who you are hanging out with but I can assure you the “vast majority of the population” is not embracing the criminal element - might be a fair amount lacking good moral judgement, but there is a difference between criminal and morally deficient.

Now back to Mr. Gilbert and his lack of comprehensive reasoning while voting on council matters…..

1. "Compound effect of 6 years of releases" - if crime has been steadily increasing in the six years the prison has become operational, that's not a problem with the prison, but rather police not doing their job. What is the prison supposed to do, not release anybody?

2. "The objection to getting the data that can confirm this makes no sense" - Preventing damages to the tourism industry, reduction in property value, and stigmatization of innocent people makes no sense? How would you feel if you were given the nickname "the man from junkie-ville", or someone assumed you were a "junkie", or you were refused a job because you're from "junkie town"?

3. "Nobody said that the data released would identify criminals" - You specifically stated you "appreciate council trying to get to the bottom of the problem by attempting to acquire some hard data rather than putting priority on the “feelings” of some recently released ex convicts". Refusing to release the data isn't to protect the feelings of a few ex-convicts. As I said, no ex-convicts will be named and shamed, but potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be judged and stigmatized for actions they didn't commit.

4. "Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the definition of criminal" - Perhaps you should. Since when did "criminal" mean "someone who has been to jail"? A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Time theft is a crime, speeding is a crime, smoking pot in Canada before 2018 was a crime, etc.

5. "If you are adopting criminal behaviour, there are consequences and stigma attached that is well deserved if you have earned it" - Nobody said otherwise, however as previously stated there are hundreds of thousands of people who will suffer the "consequences and stigma" for actions they did not commit if this data is released. It's like using an atom bomb to clear out a rat infestation in the middle of a city.

6. " You are condoning behaviour and feel no perceived stigma should be attached because in your world everyone is living lawlessly" - That is not even remotely what I have said? Where did you get that? I was pointing out the absurdity of your comment, that "criminals should be treated like criminals". If we're all criminals, should we all be treated like such? No, because it's not that simple.

7. "Not sure who you are hanging out with but I can assure you the “vast majority of the population” is not embracing the criminal element" - No offense, but I'm currently hanging out with you, and you've confessed to ingesting illegal substances on these very forums. You are a criminal, as am I, we all are. That's why we can't just "treat criminals like criminals". Because if you ask me, I don't consider you a criminal. But maybe you would?

On Gilbert, he's a park ranger, which is actually a government position isn't it? With that in mind he is in a conflict of interest position and should not be allowed to be at a policy table anymore than James Miller who wants to pretend to be a 'journalist' while also being at the policy table ... both should resign their positions or resign from council.

Nonsense. He's advertised the fact he was a park ranger every time he's ran. If it was a conflict of interest, he's doing a terrible job hiding it and someone would have caught on a lot earlier than you.

[A Concerned Citizen]

On Gilbert, he's a park ranger, which is actually a government position isn't it? With that in mind he is in a conflict of interest position and should not be allowed to be at a policy table anymore than James Miller who wants to pretend to be a 'journalist' while also being at the policy table ... both should resign their positions or resign from council.

Nonsense. He's advertised the fact he was a park ranger every time he's ran. If it was a conflict of interest, he's doing a terrible job hiding it and someone would have caught on a lot earlier than you.

Problem is those people do it out in the open all the time and then there are those other people that won't call it out and think that because they do it in the open that it's OK.