Coun. Isaac Gilbert

[twobits]

https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/park- ... /vancouver

[Corneliousrooster]

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?

1. This has more to do with the courts and sentencing than the police or prison. Asking for answers to the question of where prisoners are released is a starting point to know where to dig deeper - nothing more. Fumbling around ignorantly is not helping anything.

2. Have you driven down skaha lake rd, down Main Street lake to lake? What do you see? That is what the tourists see. That is what is giving Penticton the reputation of junkieville. Asking for data from the prison is not the problem. Pretty likely a large portion of who you see just got released from their free room and board paid for by the tax payer and are now brazenly setting up their bicycle chop shops in broad daylight on the main concourse through town to support their junkie habits. Oh the stigma! Their not dropping off resumes looking for gainful employment like you portray in your utopian dream world.

3. Hundreds of thousands of people? Exaggerate much? See item 2 for where the stigma is brewing.

4. Miriam Webster is available for free on the internet. I can’t help you. We are discussing criminals and prisons - try to keep up.

5. If there is a surplus of criminals being released into Penticton, the city deserves the stigma - that is why some on council have the foresight to start taking actions to get to the root so that perhaps some forward solutions can be created rather than just sitting by and watching society decay as you are endorsing.

6. If you are guilty and convicted and sentenced, don’t be shocked that a stigma is going to follow you around - and it is deserved! Nobody who fits that shoe should be shocked and neither should you. It is something 1 should consider BEFORE they take a chance and partake in criminal activity. What you are describing is called a pardon - they don’t hand those out like participation badges (I assume you are a product of the participation badge generation, which explains a lot of your perspective)

7. We are not “hanging out” - but thanks for trying to dox me on a castanet forum - geez
We all make choices and should be weighing the consequences of our actions. I assure you, I have never participated in anything that would have me end up in a provincial prison. If I did, any stigma attached to me I am sure would be completely justified.

There is no one in the Oliver prison for time theft, speeding tickets or smoking pot - quit being daft!

I am no longer participating in this circular argument - if you don’t understand why people don’t agree with Mr. Gilbert’s stance on the matter ( he is the 1 rogue vote so it doesn’t really matter anyways) I can’t help you. Unfortunately, I don’t own a pair of rose coloured glasses…

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[A Concerned Citizen]

What gilbert and his supporters don't realize is that big political graves are dug with tiny shovels ... so far in this thread there are two piles of dirt that include inane comments regarding a lack of support to keep criminals off our streets by using a data driven approach and then that catty thing that makes him look like a dupe ...

[bobbyrog]

What gilbert and his supporters don't realize is that big political graves are dug with tiny shovels ... so far in this thread there are two piles of dirt that include inane comments regarding a lack of support to keep criminals off our streets by using a data driven approach and then that catty thing that makes him look like a dupe ...

That's not the case at all? I'm struggling to understand how you came to the conclusion that anybody in this thread doesn't support keeping criminals off the streets by using a data driven approach, unless you didn't read what anybody but yourself said and instead assumed their intentions because they were disagreeing with you.

Obtaining or releasing the data on where ex-convicts go after being released doesn't solve that problem. There are fundamentally two trains of thought I'd love for you to entertain.

1. The data is released, indicating that many ex-convicts move to Penticton. How does knowing this prevent crime in Penticton?
2. The data is released, indicating that ex-convicts moving to Penticton is not an issue. How does knowing this prevent crime in Penticton?

[A Concerned Citizen]

I'm struggling to understand ....

Struggle away because as mentioned before "... all to often no matter how hard one tries to explain things to another person they will never be able to understand it for them" ... gilbert only beat out Jakubeit by 20 votes which is not a stellar showing by any stretch ... gilbert's record will show itself in due course ...

[bobbyrog]

*removed*

[fluffy]

Given that a significant portion of the population leans toward the progressive end of the political spectrum I see nothing wrong with some proportional representation foir that group on local council, that’s the way democracy works. If he can’t generate enough of a following to sway council votes then the system is working, but to deny him a voice because we don’t personally agree with what he is saying goes against democratic principle. He did get elected, and in that aspect he has earned his right to speak his mind.

[Corneliousrooster]

Given that a significant portion of the population leans toward the progressive end of the political spectrum I see nothing wrong with some proportional representation foir that group on local council, that’s the way democracy works. If he can’t generate enough of a following to sway council votes then the system is working, but to deny him a voice because we don’t personally agree with what he is saying goes against democratic principle. He did get elected, and in that aspect he has earned his right to speak his mind.

Nobody is denying him a voice - the issue is he does not seem to understand what is being asked from him and is imposing personal ideals to base his vote that do not fit into the scope of the current motions of issue. They are essentially wasted votes coming from a place of ego. He is a public employee - if my employees couldn’t follow along the task at hand, every right to be critical.

[fluffy]

Nobody is denying him a voice - the issue is he does not seem to understand what is being asked from him and is imposing personal ideals to base his vote that do not fit into the scope of the current motions of issue. They are essentially wasted votes coming from a place of ego. He is a public employee - if my employees couldn’t follow along the task at hand, every right to be critical.

What does he have to go on if not his personal ideals ? Isn’t having a comprehensive range of perspectives on council a good thing ? Ridiculing and applying labels like “social justice wacko” is indeed suppression of opinion. Nobody is being forced to agree with him, quite the contrary, democratic process insures our right to disagree, but there is still a matter of respecting his position as an elected representative and being able to express one’s self in a civil manner.

[Gone_Fishin]

Sounds to me like he's a die-hard Trudeau supporter.

Have to coddle those criminals at all costs, be damned the effect on law-abiding citizens.

The SJW shoe fits, wear it.

[fluffy]

The SJW shoe fits, wear it.

The label might well be accurate in some people’s opinions, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t get a voice. We certainly seem willing these days to give plenty of air time to uninformed, mannerless blowhards, why not the SJWs ?

[A Concerned Citizen]

The SJW shoe fits, wear it.

The label might well be accurate in some people’s opinions, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t get a voice. We certainly seem willing these days to give plenty of air time to uninformed, mannerless blowhards, why not the SJWs ?

The problem is that once elected, many elected officials fail in their ethical duty and responsibility to use their best efforts to be accessible to their constituents. They become "blowhards" that fail to engage all constituents in legislative processes and only cater to those in their echo chamber. They do not consider themselves accountable to constituents and instead of fulfilling their duty to give relevant, complete and truthful answers to legitimate questions put to them by constituents, they push their "SJW" agendas at the expense of exercising stewardship over public resources in a responsible, transparent, participatory and accountable manner.

gilbert can certainly exercise his voice but sadly is well on his way to becoming one of those "uninformed" "blowhards" based on his record so far ...

[fluffy]

The problem is that once elected, many elected officials fail in their ethical duty and responsibility to use their best efforts to be accessible to their constituents. They become "blowhards" that fail to engage all constituents in legislative processes and only cater to those in their echo chamber. They do not consider themselves accountable to constituents and instead of fulfilling their duty to give relevant, complete and truthful answers to legitimate questions put to them by constituents, they push their "SJW" agendas at the expense of exercising stewardship over public resources in a responsible, transparent, participatory and accountable manner.

To me this is the benefit of having multiple members with multiple perspectives on council. The suggestion that once elected a councillor should abandon those voters who share his opinions (he did get elected after all) in favour of a consensus opinion doesn’t quite wash. After the vote he has a responsibilty to concede to the democratic outcome, but leading up to that does he not have some responsibilty to voice a viewpoint that might not even be occurring to the others on council ?
There is a suggestion here that Mr. Gilbert is acting of his own volition, without respect to any voters. That may well not be the truth.

I was once active in a community of like minded people who had been elected to represent their local fellows at larger regional functions. The voting process on any topic always included a couple of questions after the vote had taken place and the results were known. The first question was “Would the minority voice like to speak ?”, and if someone did speak the follow-up question was “Is there anyone who wants to change their vote based on what has just been said ?”. If even one person replied “Yes” to the second question then the vote was retaken. I saw more than one occasion where the results of the second vote overturned the first because someone cared enough to bring up points he/she felt had not been addressed.

In a democracy we do not have to agree with anyone, but we most certainly do not have the right to suppress their voice.

In respect to Mr. Gilbert’s vote against the prison release information, he has a legitimate concern. There is a risk of stereotyping people who have done prison time as destined to offend again. Putting this information in council’s hands might well encourage unwarranted conclusions.

[Corneliousrooster]

This isn't about not having a voice - it is about him using his voice when he clearly didn't grasp the question asked of him - twice!

It's about as smart as voting down the pet motion because it might drive up the cost of pet food- had zero to do with the motion. I picked our 1 type of pet and 1 type of drawback and then voted it down.

For the prison issue he is concerned with the feelings of prisoners - zero to do with release number statistics.

Comprende?