Archive

Archive for January, 2014

Shelly Glover’s Sends Wrong Messages To Canadians Through Her Actions?


Sending bad messages to Canadians through bad actions.

Sending bad messages to Canadians through bad actions.

Shelly Glover, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, has been guilty in my opinion of sending a few wrong messages to Canadians in recent years by her actions when it come to adhering to the laws of Canada and the voicing of her opinion publicly about  what it means to respect of the laws of Canada and the people charged with enforcing them. 

Shelly Glover’s first wrong message as I see it is delivered when she attempts to convince Canadians that, “She is a proud Metis woman and an equally proud law-abiding citizen ” and that the proof to that statement rests on the fact that she is working tirelessly behind the scenes with others to have Louis David Riel who committed treason against the Canadian government twice, exonerated of all wrong doing.  First Louis Riel instigated and led the Red River Rebellion of  1869–1870 in which he declared himself the leader of the provisional government. Then Louis Riel comes out of exile to mount a military confrontation known as the North-West Rebellion of 1885, which ended in his arrest, trial, and execution on a charge of high treason; and I wonder what is misunderstanding that Shelly Glover is talking about that would enable Louis Riel to be seen as anything but a traitor legally under Canadian law, although a folk hero to his people. Does Shelly Glover’ sympathies with the Metis struggle of the past and present have her suggesting somehow that it was okay and justifiable to take up arms against the Canadian government not once but twice to preserve Metis rights and culture within Canada and if so why just for the Metis leader Louis Riel and the Metis and not for other First Nations?

I ask because Shelly Glover is yet another supposedly tough on crime Conservative Party of Canada cabinet minister who seems to think that treason is okay if you think that your cause is justified. The message is not a good one and is not consistent with the negotiate and resolve peaceably through mediation approach which the Canadian government is hoping that the rest of the First Nations of Canada will stick to in the future as they have in the past. There are so many First Nations people who have had everything stolen from them and very little if anything given back, should they too seek the path of Louis Riel, the folk hero of Shelly Glover and the Metis?

On every bill that her government has passed to force First nations to do things that they think unfair, unjust and which rob them of their rights and culture within Canada, Shelly Glover has voted with her political party and against First Nations people in spite of the fact that they have clearly made their unhappiness with the way her government is negotiating clear through protests from coast to coast to coast. Shelly glover through her vote has insisted that First Nations must work within the framework of Canadian law as the Canadian government of the day understands it to mean; so why the difference when it comes to Louis Riel and the Metis? I think that Louis Riel was right and if there had been a lot more leaders such as Louis Riel the First Nations people would not be in the bind that they are now in with the treacherous Canadian government, but I am not a tough on crime Tory MP fighting to make a convicted, tried and executed for treason Louis Riel innocent in the eyes of Canadian jurisprudence, Shelly Glover is. What would make him and does make him a folk hero is that he did go against the law and fight for what was right and sacrificed his life to do it, but under Canadian law both back then and now he is guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing as would be any other Canadian past, present or in the future and so by seeking his exoneration, I believe that Shelly Glover’s wrong message to Canadians is that, “If you cannot get what you want through the legal processes of Canada, then get it by any means necessary as did Louis Riel.”

Secondly Shelly Glover although a police officer for 19 years also has a problem with obeying the laws of Canada as they are written and seems to insist that she be allowed to follow them as she, or her advisors interpret them; I wonder how that worked while she was enforcing the written laws of Canada on others? Did she allow for personal interpretations, or did she do her job according to the written law of Canada as recognized by the justice system of Canada? One only has to look at her argument with Elections Canada to understand that it is Shelly Glover’s and her advisors’ interpretation of the laws of Canada that matter when dealing with legal matters pertaining to her that count, although she expects everyone else to follow the written letter of the law.

Elections Canada accused Shelly Glover of undervaluing permanent election signs so that she could spend more money on her campaign in other ways. They ordered her to correct her spending files, which would put her over the legal spending limits in the Canada Election Act. Shell Glover initially filed a challenge against the agency, but days later, she agreed to correct her spending statements and at the time told CBC she was working with Elections Canada to resolve the issue. After her appointment to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, Shelly Glover told CBC reporter Ryan Hicks, “I did nothing wrong with my expense claims and had a minor disagreement with the tabulation,” said Glover. “I’ve re-submitted my expense claims, and it’s behind me.” At a later date Shelly Glover said this about her troubles with Elections Canada and following the law, “I’m going to do exactly as I did: report my expense diligently and as understood by the rules in place,” Glover said. “I did nothing wrong.” So in essence  What Shelly Glover is saying to the rest of Canadians is, “Everyone else in Canada must abide by the tax laws of Canada as per the expert civil servants’ opinion at Election Canada and the Canadian Tax Revenue Service; those individuals charged with knowing and enforcing the law for the rest of us, but once again not good enough or knowledgeable enough to pass judgment or find wrong doing with Shelly Glover, or hold her accountable under the laws of Canada.” I believe that this is yet  another wrong message that Shelly Glover is sending to Canadians.

Last but not the least in importance. Shelly Glover seems to believe does not have to learn by her mistakes. St. Boniface MP Shelly Glover is under investigation again this time by the federal ethics commissioner. The federal ethics commissioner is investigating whether Shelly Glover broke conflict of interest rules as Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, when she a fundraiser held for her on January 16, 2013, invited members of Winnipeg’s arts community and asked for a $50 donation per person. The invitation reads, “Invitees are primarily members of the cultural community in Winnipeg. Shelly is interested in meeting with you and hearing your views.” Conflict of interest rules say, “Public office holders must not ask for donations from people who might lobby them.” Are we to understand that this is yet another example of the bad advice Shelly Glover seems to be getting from her advisors, or does this tough on crime Tory really feel that the law only applies to other Canadians and that she and her fellow Conservative party of Canada MPs are truly above the laws of Canada, no matter what the charge.

Federal NPD ethics critic Alexandre Boulerice said Glover has no one but herself to blame for putting herself in an inappropriate situation. “If you are a minister, you have to be really careful not to ask money from an organization you have business with,” he said. “It will put them in some kind of conflict of interest. I think that now she is admitting it was a lack of judgment from the beginning.” As always when a federal Tory MP is caught doing something unethical, or illegal, it is always the other people in the office that are at fault and responsible; the blind, deaf and dumb minister in charge declares their innocence as a spokesperson for Shelly Glover did when Mike Storeshaw, Shelly Glover’s director of communications said, “The minister wasn’t personally involved in organizing the event and went on to say that Shell Glover has refunded the money and has written the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and she has instructed her electoral district association which organized the fundraiser not to hold similar events.”

To me it would seem that the only reason Shelly Glover decided to return the donations is that a CTV reporter showed up at the door to question her about the legality and ethical viability of the event which, according to the invite, specifically targeted the Winnipeg “cultural community. Yet another example and message sent to all Canadians from the Shelly Glover and the federal Tories of Canada saying, “We make the law, but we are under no obligation to follow them ourselves; after all we are a strong, stable majority government!” I thing that this is yet another wrong message that Shelly Glover is sending to Canadians.

Advertisements

A Look At Where Conservative MP Scott Reid Stands


Scott Reid of the Conservative Party of Canada thinking "green?"

Scott Reid of the Conservative Party of Canada thinking “green?”

Scott Reid a Conservative Party of Canada MP representing the Ontario riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, has made quite a spectacle of himself of late with his with his aggressive, non-parliamentarian and intentionally insulting verbal attack on Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. In my opinion Scott Reid’s comments amounted to verbal abuse aimed at intimidating and demeaning an invited guest to a parliamentary committee, instead of fact-finding and an honest seeking of reasons for the actions taken, or the finding of a solution the problem that was facing the committee. The verbal onslaught was brought on because Scott Reid thought that Marc Mayrand acted in a non required overly aggressive way by writing a letter to the Speaker of the House advising him that James Bezan, MP for Selkirk-Interlake, Manitoba’s was found to be in non-compliance with the amount he was allowed to spend on his previous election campaign and that one of the required remedies to the situation under the laws of Canada was for James Bezan to be stripped of his parliamentary privileges, such being allowed to sit in the House and his being able to vote; in other words the course of path action that James Bezan chose to take in resolving this matter, (refusing to hand over requested documentation and refusing to fix his tax return to properly indicate the proper figures as did Shelly Glover)has forced Elections Canada to find him in non-compliance and inform the house of his guilt.

I now know where Scott Reid stands when it comes to being tough on crime; I think that Scott Reid stands on the opposite side of it. We can deduce this simply by what we see and hear and what he has written, in his distant past and his not so distant past, his yesterday in particular: His views on legalizing marijuana and his views on when a guilty politician should be punished for election fraud and if at all. Let us start with the facts taken from The Frontenac News, a newspaper in his electoral riding about where Scott Reid position is when it comes to legalizing marijuana and what he has said and done to promote his views:

  • In 2001, as a member of the Canadian Alliance, Reid wrote an essay comparing current marijuana laws to prohibition. “The distinction between legal and illegal substances is clearly arbitrary, and would seem to be based on nothing more substantial than the fact that some drugs have a long history in our culture and therefore are more socially acceptable than others,” Reid wrote.
  • Scott Reid spoke to grade 10 students at Granite Ridge Education Centre on Sept. 17. The students in favor of changing the laws were reportedly asked to sit in one section of the room, while those opposed were asked to sit in another. While the majority of students were strongly opposed, Reid sat with the pro-legalization crowd.
  • Scott Reid told a crowd of people that he views drug policies in North America as illogical and inconsistent. Scott Reid told the same crowd, “I’ve never smoked marijuana, or cigarettes, but I favour legalization.”
  • Scott Reid told the same crowd, “I’ve never smoked marijuana, or cigarettes, but I favour legalization.”
  • Scott Reid told the same crowd, “I’ve never smoked marijuana, or cigarettes, but I favour legalization.” Scott Reid downplayed the idea that marijuana is dangerous by saying, “The most significant gateway drug is cigarettes, and the drug that does the most damage is alcohol, and they are both legal, and should be in my view.” Reid admitted his stance differs from the Conservative Party, which has toughened penalties for pot possession. “I was the only one in my party who voted against that legislation,” he said.

We also now know where Scott Reid stands when it comes to politicians being accountable for their actions when they break the law and what type of person should be allowed to make the laws of this country. We can say with certainty that he feels that politicians are above the law, or should not be dealt with as severely as the rest of the ordinary citizen when they break the law. Scott Reid’s tirade directed at Marc Mayrand amounted to him defending the right of politicians to:

  • Defraud the government and the people of Canada by submitting false tax reports of campaign spending in one election.
  • Refuse to cooperate with Elections Canada, whose duty it is to ensure that elections are run fairly all candidates stick to the letter of the law, by refusing to give to Elections Canada requested documentation of that spending done in their campaign allowing Elections Canada to do their job, get the matter cleared up so that a non-criminal settlement can be reached and handled as an honest mistake without the need for the guilty parliamentarian to lose his or her privileges as an elected MP in the House of Commons and on Committees.
  • Choose to withhold the documentation requested in hopes of somehow delaying being found guilty until he or she is elected again in the next election having done everything right at which point all previously guilty findings should be rendered wiped out.

Scott Reid could never be accused of not doing what his constituents want him to do, because he is following his own personal agenda and I commend him for this. I also give him the thumbs up for what he does with the $20,000 increase that federal politicians gave themselves, while suspending pay raises for most Canadians for over 10 years now and the reasons he states publicly that he does what he does.

  • Reid has held six “constituency referendums” in which he asked his constituents how to vote on an important issue: This includes votes on Anti-Terrorism Act (2001), the Species at Risk Act (2002), the Civil Marriage Act (2005) and a parliamentary motion on re-opening the abortion debate (2012). He has then voted as instructed by constituents. On two of these occasions, this caused him to vote against his party.
  • Each year, Reid donates to charity the proceeds of the $20,000 pay raise that MPs voted themselves in 2001. Each year the money is used to purchase defibrillators for use in hockey rinks, seniors’ centres, and local police forces in his riding. Reid explained his decision to make the donations by saying, “MPs were making $109,000 at the time. If a single guy living in a small town can’t get by on $109,000, he’s not trying too hard.”

Scott Reid describes himself as, more libertarian than conservative, that holds a combination of civil libertarian and socially conservative views.

I have given you a small look at Scott Reid with the help of Wikipedia, CBC News and the Frontenac News. I can see why the people in his riding keep voting him into office, but as a Canadian outside of his riding I think that his stand on crime and legalizing drugs that are now criminal very wrong and very scary.  I think that politicians and anybody else that would push to make it easier for our children to get drugs legally like marijuana, while professing never to have even tried the drug and who know of it dangers and the suffering that they can cause are the most dangerous politicians of all and I have to ask, “What is up Canada?

City Officials Plead With Citizens For Understanding While Police Hand Out Tickets To Pedestrians Forced To Walk In The Street In LaSalle


No sidewalks available, but police in Lasalle Quebec do not care and ticket my granddaughter $42.00 for walking on the street.

No sidewalks available, but police in Lasalle Quebec do not care and ticket my granddaughter $42.00 for walking on the street.

I have brought up my children to trust police even though I have had many run ins with them from a very young age.  As I got older I realized that a lot of the abuse the beatings that they gave me and a lot of the racial slurs that they used when talking to me, although not right and unjustifiable, could have been avoided if I had not chosen to break the law and so as I stopped breaking the law I allowed the past to be the past. I decided to judge the police from the point of view of an honest hard working citizen, who deserved to be treated with respect and dignity and who would treat the police with respect and dignity as well we had reason to be in each other’s company.  I have found since doing this that I have had no negative, or hostile dealings with the police personally.  That being said, I must say that I have noticed that the Montreal police have become increasing more aggressive and abusive when they think that they are dealing with easy targets, such as homeless people, people who are alone in isolated areas and in situations where they (the police) figure that those they are interacting with are without witnesses. The simple fact is that police in Montreal are acting like neighborhood bullies or in the manner you would expect a street gang to act.

Sidewalks are full of ice, but LaSalle Police do not care if you break your neck

Sidewalks are full of ice, but LaSalle Police do not care if you break your neck

What has got me writing about it today is my 18 year old granddaughter was walking home at 1:30 in the morning from a restaurant near her apartment when she noticed she was being followed by the police in a cruiser. Now my granddaughter has never been in trouble with the police and so has no fear of them and because she was doing nothing wrong she just kept on walking home. My granddaughter was walking on the street because Lasalle like the rest of Montreal was just finishing a major snow storm and the sidewalks were very slippery on the side streets and she had twisted her ankle twice that evening.  Not realizing that there was a by-law prohibiting a pedestrian from walking on the street for any reason other than to cross the street or get into one’s car she continued to walk on the street where it was safe to walk in terms of breaking a limb from falling on the ice and this is where her nightmare began.

City asks citizens for understanding and police hand out tickets

City asks citizens for understanding and police hand out tickets

Apparently the local police had been following her to see how long it would take her to get back on the sidewalk and when she did not after a while they decided to have a talk with her; no problem there. They asked her for identification, where she was coming from, where she was going and had she been drinking. She provided the identification, told them she had just finished having coffee with a group of friends and gave them the name of the restaurant, told them she was on her way home and said that the strongest thing she had to drink that evening was a coffee. It was -40 degrees with the wind chill factor that evening and they sat in their cars and questioned her from an open window, asking the same questions over and over again trying to trick her up and intimidate her.  When this tactic did not work and they tired of their little game that was not getting them the excitement I can only assume they were looking for, they got down to telling her why they stopped her in the first place.

LaSalle sidewalks are built on a slant near driveway causing pedestrians to slide into the street when the sidewalks are icy. Streets are level so easier to walk on.

LaSalle sidewalks are built on a slant near driveway causing pedestrians to slide into the street when the sidewalks are icy. Streets are level so easier to walk on.

They told her that she was breaking the law by walking in the street instead of on the side walk and they didn’t care how icy the sidewalk was, or how dangerous it was, she should have stayed on the sidewalk.  They informed her that they were going to give her a $42.00 ticket for walking on the street and proceeded to do so.  My granddaughter was so upset that she began to cry right there and then, but the police did not care.  When she talk to me about it the next day from what I can gather she was more upset about the manner in which they talked to her and their assumption that she had been drinking and the fact that they did not seem to care if she got hurt walking on the sidewalk and seemed to be having bully type fun at her expense. She was almost in tears as she related her story to me and told me that she no longer would feel safe on a street alone with the police ever again, because they were nothing but bullies.  My granddaughter is going to college, is a straight A student and has never been in trouble with the law.  She works at a local Wendy’s as a supervisor to pay her way through school and this experience with the police really left her with a bad taste in her mouth.

Hard to respect police when the prove they are devoid of reason and good judgement.

Hard to respect police when the prove they are devoid of reason and good judgement.

The problem is the police are out in the street making enemies, bullying certain members of the public and using their position and authority as peace officers to get away with it.  I told my granddaughter that she had indeed broken the law and that she would have to pay the ticket, because there is such a by-law. I advised her that she could fight the ticket and there was a remote chance that a judge would see it her way and she would not have to pay, but the cost of time off of work and missing a day at school would be the price she would have to be willing to pay for that right and that principle and it would probably come to more loss in pay than $42.00. I also advised her that she could make a complaint to their superiors for the nasty way they treated her, because that was her right also, but I did not think that much would come of it, because it would be 2 against one and unfortunately it could result in those 2 bully policemen doing God knows what to her the next time they met, or charging her with God knows what for causing them grief.

The street are not much better but they are level and the traffic breaks down most of the ice as you can see here.

The street are not much better but they are level and the traffic breaks down most of the ice as you can see here.

Imagine in this day and age having to warn your grandchildren, or children to be weary of the police and to avoid contact with police lest they cause you harm just for their fun and amusement.  At a time of night when a young lady walking home alone from work or an outing should feel safe that a police car is in back of her, this one will now feel nervous and try to avoid the police as though they were a stranger or suspicious looking person following her.  It would seem that our police officers in Montreal are having a hard time with using common sense when dealing with the public. I would go further and say that they seem to be trying to push youth into violent confrontations with them and seem hell bent on making the lives of the homeless even harder than it is for them already.

This is a city block.  Where does one get back on the sidewalk to avoid a ticket and not break one's neck on the ice?

This is a city block. Where does one get back on the sidewalk to avoid a ticket and not break one’s neck on the ice?

With 90% of Canada under severe winter weather alert and city officials pleading with its citizens to be understanding of the delays in picking up the snow and clearing the sidewalks, one would think that the Montreal police would be trying to be of service and help make it safer for pedestrians who are forced into the street to avoid breaking their necks on the slippery side walks, instead of handing out tickets for it wouldn’t you?  It is hard to teach children to respect police when the police are doing all they can to bully them, abusing them verbally, and throwing their weight around from behind the protection of the badge they wear.  I think that the ticket was a stupid one to give, but she was walking in the street; I am more concerned about the bullying though and the pushing for confrontation by some police, because after a while people push back and when these young people push back they often end up dead at the hands of the police who instigate and provoke the confrontations.  This country is starting to look more and more like a police state with its citizens having zero rights and the police free to abuse its citizens in any manner they like without fear of reprisal and I must ask, “What is up Canada?”

Supreme Court Of Canada Abandons Those Forced Into Prostitution


Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott,  and a third woman, launched the constitutional challenge of Canada's anti-prostitution laws.

Terri-Jean Bedford, left, and Valerie Scott, and a third woman, launched the constitutional challenge of Canada’s anti-prostitution laws.

What is up Canada and what was the supreme court of Canada thinking when it rendered its decision, making most of Canada’s anti prostitution laws invalid in one years time?  The harm for this decision will be felt for years to come by those that are not in it of their own choosing.  This throwing out of most of the laws prohibiting the selling of sex for money and the living off of the avails of it will serve to embolden pimps, gangs and organized crime and will hurt runaway children caught up by pimps and terrorized into prostitution they are often sent to madams where they will be off of the street and out of the eyes of police walking the beat.  Pimps will open up whore houses, because they are a legal way for them to do business and who will be going around to check all of the locations that will be springing up as soon as the laws go down and at what cost and to whom?

“The high court struck down all three prostitution-related prohibitions — against keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and street soliciting — as violations of the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person,” wrote Mike Blanchfield, in The Canadian Press.

The police are already overwhelmed in this country and are facing cuts to their budgets be they city police, provincial or the RCMP so where is the money going to come from to enforce any rules and regulations the government will have to impose on every bawdy house if it is to try to ensure that  the now legal bawdy houses provide a safe environment for their workers and a healthy, disease free staff for their clients to choose from?  I guess the government will want its end of the earnings so I am guessing that these whore houses will be taxed as any other legitimate business is and the government will make money selling the necessary permits to anyone wanting to open a bawdy house and I would guess that the workers will be registered and will be required to pay taxes as well which should raise some pretty interesting questions like are these tax paying sex trade workers eligible for unemployment insurance, welfare and will they be governed by the same laws as any other Canadian worker and entitled to all of labor rights found in the Canadian Constitution?

What of those Canadians who have been imprisoned for living off of the avails of prostitution although we now know that it is not a crime in Canada and has never been a crime in Canada according to the supreme court of Canada will they be made whole for the loss of life they were put behind bars illegally and their criminal record erased and expunged?  Will the possessions of all sex workers that were taken from them be returned to them? (The money, the houses, the jewelry etc.) Does the decision of the supreme court of Canada that strikes down this countries anti-prostitution laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional open the government up to a class action suit from all of the sex trade workers throughout Canadian history who have had their constitutional rights violated willfully and knowingly by the police and the courts? I am not being a wise guy here, but raising a question, because if the court says that Canada has no right and never did to treat selling sex as a crime because it is not illegal to sell sex for money in Canada, than the police, the courts and the country has wronged a group of innocent people for a very long time intentionally and there is nothing in the decision that would stop sex workers from seeking damages from the government, the police, or the courts.

How do we protect the people who are being forced to into selling themselves for money, by pimps and organized crime? Am I to understand that a man or woman will be able to legally buy the sexual services of a child depending on the age requirement in every province for consensual sex legally a year from now, without fear of being arrested by the police and the courts sending him/her to jail? (In Quebec the age for consensual sex is 14 years old)  All that would be needed to have is a signed contract or consent form or perhaps a video taped interview and the pimp and the madam would be able to claim consent and who would be able to prove if the signature was coerced or given freely?

Finally what does this say about Canada as a country and Canadians as a people?  What does it say about us morally, about our values and our ability to see right from wrong, if we say that it is okay to prostitute oneself for money?  Why stop the drug addict from taking dope by making taking dope a crime and the selling of that dope illegal and what is the difference? Why is it legal to intervene in anything that a consenting adult choose to engage in or make a living doing as long as there is informed mutual consent on all sides of the equation?  Does society not have an obligation to protect the weak and more fragile from those who would prey on them and feed off of them, or are we now like the beast in the wild?  Can a society flourish in an atmosphere of anything goes, where there is no moral compass, no value system, no right and wrong and where only constitutional rights count.

What of the rights of those of the majority of Canadians who do not think that prostitution should be legal and do not want a whore house on every block, the majority of Canadians for whom the anti-prostitution laws were put into place for in the first place?  These laws were not arbitrarily put into place at the whim of some politician.  The anti-prostitution laws were hard-fought for and enacted because Canadians thought that:

  • It was immoral to buy sex from a human being whether they wanted to sell themselves or not.
  • It was necessary to protect those who were being forced into selling sex for money by another person or other persons.
  • It was necessary to stop the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases.

If the highest court in the land thought that it was doing the right thing and making it safer for sex trade workers by striking down the anti-prostitution laws all I have to say is that I think they were very wrong; now where there used to be consequences and some means of deterrent and protection under the law in a year there will be none. I have to ask again, “What is up Canada?”