OTTAWA - There is a key thing to remember about those who oppose tough on crime legislation: most of them will never read the Safe Streets and Communities Act, the government's newly released omnibus crime bill.

I can comfortably guess this from the precedence of many debates with the hug-a-thug crowd. Your layman lefty hasn't read criminal justice bills in the past, and I highly doubt they plan on starting now.

Another key thing to remember: most hug-a-thug types will also never suffer the very crimes they want lower sentences for. Neither have I, but I can at least respect the notion that suffering from these crimes offers a dark and sad perspective on them.

The point is this: the opponents of tough on crime just don't get it. They don't understand what is being done, and they don't understand the principles of justice behind it.

The defenders of flexible judicial sentencing often argue that judges should have free reign to determine sentences, in lieu of having their hands tied. That's an acceptable argument if you think judges carry the sole moral authority to determine the appropriateness of certain forms of sentencing.

That is, of course, patent nonsense. We would not even prescribe punishments in the Criminal Code if we felt that judges should have free reign to determine appropriate sentencing. Mandatory minimums allow Canadians to dictate to the judiciary the limits of what is just, society's collective sense of what punishments are worthy of what crimes.

For example: the current minimum sentence for sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation are all currently forty-five days. The Conservatives will be raising that minimum to one year.

This really isn't all that shocking. But to the hug-a-thug crowd, it is. Which boils opposition to tough on crime policies down to one very harsh truth: the notion that forty-five days is a fair minimum sentence for someone convicted of sexual exploitation can be a somewhat embarrassing position when admitted publicly. Hence, why you rarely hear a Liberal or NDP politician publicly say, "I am opposed to tougher punishment for sexual exploitation." I imagine that wouldn't play very well with your average voter.

The list goes on and on.

Dear hug-a-thugs:

Do you oppose a six month minimum sentence for distributing child pornography?

Do you oppose ending house arrest for those convicted of, among other things, manslaughter, kidnapping, the abductions of persons under fourteen, and trafficking in persons?

Do you oppose requiring the Crown to consider an adult sentence should a youth offender be convicted of a serious violent offence, such as murder, attempted murder, or aggravated assault?

If you oppose all of those things, then at least you are being honest about it. I am sure you will feel sorry for your decision when you take it to the Canadian people during election time.

Ordinary Canadians do not view their criminal justice system as a collection of statistics and punishments designed purely based on overall crime rates. What progressives seem to have forgotten is the notion of justice - that an ordinary Canadian doesn't simply want rehabilitation for criminals, but wants to feel the sense that the Crown is punishing them in a manner consistent with their crimes. It is this sense of justice, I believe, which enhances confidence in the Canadian judicial system. Justice simply can't be done with a social program: if there is a crime, there must be a punishment. Fairness demands it.

A well-known television commentator once referred to the "you factor": if it were you suffering a heinous crime of this nature, would you not want to feel satisfied with the resulting punishment? What if it was your child? Your wife? A family member? Justice doesn't come from the knowledge that the bar on a graph has gone up or down. It comes from knowing that a fair punishment is meted when your rights have been violated.

Tough on crime isn't simply a policy. It is a philosophy, rooted firmly in justice and compassion for the victims of crime. For the sake of victims, and for the sake of justice: that is why I believe in tough on crime.