Was there indeed a spy flight over the Six Nations Reseve?

Update [12:45pm on June 30]

I just got off the phone with LCol Reid McBride, responsible for Open Skies working in the Arms Control Verification Directorate of the Strategic Joint Staff in National Defence in Ottawa. With his permission, he is letting me use his name. He assures me with, with 100% certainty, that no Open Skies missions have been conducted in Canada over the last several months. We chatted about some of the finer points of the treaty, including some elements of particular relevance to Caledonia. For example, the treaty puts a limit on resolution for imagery, no better than 30cm. At that resolutuion, you can tell a tank from a truck, but you would find it impossible to evaluate a bunker, for example.

So what flew over the area? He says it could have been a cargo plane in a holding pattern waiting to go to Hamilton. Lots of cargo planes for smaller haulers are flying old DC-8s and 707s.

In other words, in the words of this professional, this was certainly an innocent coincidence.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:28 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1084 words, total size 7 kb.

I have yet another email, also difficult to substantiate, from someone close to the events in Caledonia. As before, I am posting it with a warning that none of the content is confirmed.

This time, the focus is on plans for a violent Canada Day long weekend in Caledonia:

Subject: Friday Night

Just got off the phone with my contact who lives on Thistlemore. Person visited yesterday by a rep. from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Their purpose is to assess the amount of damage and costs incurred by the residents during this "Event". There were 5 questions. The rep took the questions with her but left an overview. My contact is photo copying this and bringing it over tomorrow [ed. I'd like to see it too, if I can].

There is increased activity at DCE. After the removal of the barricades, there were 2 out houses. Yesterday they brought in 5 more. They have been hauling in wood all day yesterday and today. They are stacking them in huge pyres.

Scanners are picking up on-going communication from the Warriors saying that they are going to help the Caledonians celebrate Canada Day festivities. No mention of specifics just continuous excitement over this coming weekend. My uneducated guess is that if they do show up at the dance, they will just stand and watch. Intimidate by presence. They hope that the Caledonians, fuelled with fire water will start the fight. They, the poor, peaceful natives, who only wanted to be part of the celebration will be forced to fight back to protect their women and children. Racist, violent Caledonia will be portrayed as just that.

Sunday night, the Baptist church had organized a church supper and entertainment. They had invited a Native Christian Band to provide the entertainment and felt it would be a sign of open hearts to invite the Mohawk Warriors. They did arrive in full camouflage with scarves. They sat and by the end of the entertainment seemed to be relaxed. After most of the congregation had left and there were only a few stragglers remaining, a warrior went up to the minister and told him what a great evening they had and what a lovely building the church was. He then told the minister that if there was anything that he felt emotionally attached to he should take it because they were going to take over the Church. He then saluted and left. The scanners are also picking up on communications that tells of a plan to immediately take over Notre Dame as soon as it closes. They feel that with most of the Canadian Army being deployed in Afghanistan, the most the army can come up with is 1500. They can beat that number with 1 hand tied behind their back. Also, that idiot, Monty Kwinter [ed. Monte Kwinter is Ontario's Minister of Public Safety and Security in Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government; Kwinter has a degree in fine arts], announcing that all was back to normal in Caledonia not only enraged us, but also enraged the warriors. Almost like a challenge. That's about it. Stay safe.

Stay tuned through this weekend.

Updates:

As I had hoped, I'm starting to get emails from others who are close to the events to help clarify the situation.

A person who attended the concert at the Baptist church has contacted me after contacting the pastor, and tells me that the pastor denies that a threat of a takeover was ever made.

Note that the church is behind the barricade on Argyle Street. Services have been held as worshippers have been let through the barricade.

So this party of the story could be relegated to the fevered imagination pile for now...

That still leaves the question of Notre Dame. The original email expects that people know these names. The Baptist Church is on Argyle Street at the intersection of Braemar Avenue. Notre Dame refers to the Catholic high school on Braemar, just 800 feet west of the Baptist Church.

That would put the school behind the Argyle Street barricade as well.

Today or tomorrow will be the last day of school. I guess we'll see if the takeover of the high school is a real plan.

More updates as I receive them.

Updates:

The church was behind the barricade, but is no longer. The Douglas Creek Estates development was immediately adjacent to the church, to the south and to the east.

The school is also not behind the barricade, but the development borders the school property on the south, and the access road to the development runs along the west side of the school. All the activity, the barricades, the Warrior flags -- everything can be seen from the school. Not good for the children, but perhaps a nice location to control, tactically speaking.

In any case, let's hope the intensity level drops over the next little while.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:41 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 802 words, total size 5 kb.

I've received an interesting email from someone who in turn cannot vouch for the accuracy of the email, other than to say he trusts the source.

Keep that in mind.

We're talking here about events in Caledonia, where native protesters have taken control of a land development. I have written extensively about a potential alternative explanation of why this is happening, something beyond merely a land claim.

I'm posting this email with this warning about accuracy because I can't think of a way to confirm any of the allegations, other than to put it out there and see if I get any response from potential witnesses to these alleged events who are also readers of this blog.

So here goes:

Subject: Trouble At DCE [ed. "DCE" stands for the "Douglas Creek Estates"]

I was at a group discussion this a.m. and I can attest to the reliability of my source, as reliable as one can be without having been actually present at the events I will relate.

Apparently Kenny Hill's HumV was torched and he and his Russian mistress are on the run. "Hill On The Run" to be sung to the tune of "Man On The Run". This can only mean 1 thing. Kenny was funding the DCE from day 1. If he's been torched, it could only have been the Mohawk Warriors. To piss them off, he must have refused further funding.

Drugs, booze and guns are now openly used at DCE. There has been 1 confirmed rape and 3 unconfirmed rapes. There are daily fights. Most recently a huge native woman, perhaps in her 40's, was bitch slapping a younger man and screaming at him to get the "fuck" out of her house. They're fighting over the homes! I love it!

Did any of you notice yesterday a large aircraft, approximately the size of a passenger jet, flying straight over town? That was a USA spy plane specially equipped to take pictures of bunkers, ammunition holdings, well you get the picture. This was not a jet that had taken off or was landing at Mt. Hope [ed. Mount Hope is the location of Hamilton’s international airport]. It made several passes over DCE and then shot up into the sky! It would only be here with permission and permission would only be given if our politicians didn't acknowledge this is not just a warm and fuzzy, peaceful protest by moccasin wearing, bead stringing natives! This is war!

There's a lot there to process. First, the idea that Ken Hill has had a falling out with some violent faction in the reserve. If true, it is speculation about whether it was about further funding, or if some other motive is involved.

That chaos rules behind the barricades does not surprise me, if true. The protest has been about lawlessness in the face of a Liberal government unwilling to impose law and order. I'm not sure what other outcome could be expected.

Spy planes? Well, I have to wonder, if only because there are smaller reconnaissance aircraft that could be used instead of something the size of a passenger jet. But then the person who wrote the email is probably not a trained observer. Still, seems like a bit of a stretch...at least I hope so. The implications are quite scary.

And talking about scary, I received a compliment from my correspondent:

I especially like your Blog, as it doesn't bow to the gods of political correctness, like our mainstream media. Having lived in this area my entire life, I admire you for taking on the likes of Ken Hill, as people around here (and on Six Nations) have not done so in fear of their safety.

In fear of their safety?! Should I be nervous?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:28 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 627 words, total size 4 kb.

I wonder who Brent St Denis is backing?

In case you are not up on your cast of Liberal MPs, Brent St Denis is the member of parliament for Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. He has been an MP since 1993.

As far as I can tell he has not indicated which candidate for the Liberal leadership he is supporting.

You might wonder why I should care. Well, the reason I'm wondering is because it looks like one of his staffers was the one who created the "pubnight" PDF file announcing the Stephane Dion fundraiser that has been a topic of discussion.

The staffer is stdenb0@parl.gc.ca (the MP's account is StDenB, and his staffers are assigned the numbered email addresses 0 through 9, which is the standard way email addresses are created on the Hill, as far as I can figure).

The author of the PDF file is "stdenb0" -- there really is no other interpretation of that name.

Of course, individual Liberals can support whoever they choose. But if Mr St Denis is supporting, say, Michael Ignatieff over Stephane Dion, he might prefer that his staffers do their work on the Dion campaign more discreetly. It wouldn't do to have "StDenB" attached to Dion material.

On the other hand, Mr St Denis might be an undeclared Dion supporter. In that case, having his staff scribble up posters to help out Bryon Wilfert's staffer with the spam email and the big shindig fundraiser would be appropriate. Remember that Wilfert is a declared member of the Dion leadership team.

Yes, that would be entirely appropriate.

Well, except for the whole spam thing. And using government resources for fundraising.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:36 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

Jason Cherniak defends the parliamentary assistant and the use of a government email account to send out invitations to a fundraising even for Stephane Dion:

Email is free people!

Tonight was the Dion fundraiser in Toronto. It is the first time that I have been involved in organizing such a thing and I was quite happy with the result. Dion did well, we had great attendance and I enjoyed the celebration that followed. I even learned that a former cabinet minister in attendance (not Dion) used to babysit my mother!

At the moment, though, I am pissed off. It is because I just read this crock of $#!@. I am sick and tired of politically minded people pretending to be "Angry" because of completely meaningless tripe. Who the hell cares if an Ottawa staffer sends a political email from a Parliamentary account. For godssake; they work for POLITICIANS. Of course they are going to send political emails!

[Note that the fundraiser Jason attended is different from the one refered to in the email being debated here. Thanks to Jason for the correction.]

If you recall, I opened my post with a comment that I am also not concerned about a trivial email here or there.

But there's more:

For the record, I have not discussed this with my MP and he will make his own decision of what to do. However, if I were an MP I would insist that staffers use their parliamentary accounts for all political emails. I would then go out and defend this policy against those who are inane enough to complain.

In my posting, I left out the "To" list because I wasn't interested in where the email was going, just where it was coming from. But maybe that was a mistake.

This was not an email to one or two or a dozen people, each of them a personal acquaintance of the staffer in question, each being asked if they had planned to go to the event, so maybe they should meet somewhere and head out together, ya-da ya-da.

This was an email sent to a series of official distributions lists containing literally hundreds of names:

To: - SEN SENATORS' OFF/BUR. SENATEURS
To: - BQ DePUTeS/MEMBERS
To: - BQ: ADJOINTS
To: - CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANTS CONSERVATEURS
To: - CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS/DePUTeS CONSERVATEURS
To: - INDEPENDENT MEMBERS/DePUTeS INDePENDANTS
To: - LIBERAL ASSISTANTS
To: - LIBERAL MEMBERS/DePUTeS
To: - NDP MEMBERS/DePUTeS NPD
To: - NDP/NPD ASSISTANTS

Every MP. Every Senator. Every assistant. Every party was tagged.

Hundreds and hundreds of emails. Each with a 50KB PDF file attached.

Each received an impersonal email from someone almost all of them did not know, asking them to give money (it did not explicitly say that, but it did say it was identified as a leadership campaign event).

There is a name for this sort of email. It's called spam. Even if you accept that parliamentary accounts could be used for partisan purposes (and I have no problems with individual and personal communications), it should not be used to spam Parliament Hill. It's not just in poor taste, it could be considered illegal.

In retrospect, maybe I needed to be clearer on this. I did say everybody got this email, but then I wasn't all that precise.

I mean everybody got this email.

Spam should not be tolerated. Partisan political spam originating from inside the government itself especially.

Jason thinks this should not just be tolerated, but encouraged! That is wrong. It has the potentially of dramatically decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of intergovernmental communications. Valuable messages are missed in the clutter as Liberal leadership candidates spam away. The more moribund the candidate, the more frantic the spamming. Angry recipients demanding their names be removed from official distribution lists. Network slowdowns, especially if someone does a mass mailing of a huge PDF or graphics image. Viruses inadvertantly being delivered to every account. Email might be free to the person sending it, Jason, but there is a cost to deal with spam for those who are inundated by it.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:39 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 5 kb.

The debate continues, with Jason Cherniak defending the email, and my response.

I'll be the first to say that I sometimes wonder if something as innocuous as an email is really something to get upset about. But the rules are clear, and while one email might seem like nothing, it could easily become hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of emails -- so I suppose the rules make sense.

The rule I'm talking about is the one that forbids government employees from using their email accounts for political partisan reasons. A typical government email address is "@parl.gc.ca". These addresses are assigned to MPs and their assistants and are to be used to help in their work on behalf of their constituents.

Bryon Wilfert is the Liberal MP for Richmond Hill. He is also the caucus liason for Stephane Dion, one of the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party. One of Wilfert's assistants sent this email out using his or her parliamentary email account:

From: Wilfert, Bryon - Assistant 1
Sent: June 27, 2006 1:46 PM
To: ...

Subject: THUNDEROUS THURSDAY

Please join the Stephane Dion Campaign for an evening of fun at The Brig Pub (23 York St. - ByWard Market) this Thursday, June 29th from 5pm- 7pm. Our special guest will be the Hon. Don Boudria.

We're calling it: "Your Boss is Away… Come out to Play!"

I've cut out the "To" field because I don't think it's fair for people to be drawn into this just because they received an email. Suffice it to say, however, that just about everybody got this email.

So "Thunderous Thursday" is not a party hosted by Stephane Dion. It is being hosted by the Stephane Dion Campaign. That's important. This is a partisan Liberal leadership event. Don Boudria is a former Liberal MP who is now a senior associate at the public relations agency Hill & Knowlton. He is also a senior member of the Stephane Dion leadership committee.

And check out the flyer. See the big Stephane Dion logo? You'll see it in the upper right-hand corner of every page of Stephane Dion's leadership website.

This is not the first time this has happened, as we see in this story from Stephen Taylor. In that case, very similar to this one, the staffer apologized (sort of).

You might think this isn't a big deal. But this was a mass mailing for a leadership campaign event. It sure seems like Stephane Dion is letting his caucus liason MP Bryon Wilfert use his taxpayer-funded parliamentary resources (both the assistant and the email account) as Dion's personal fundraising tools.

I guess the Liberal leadership candidates really are hard up for cash. So much so that they're willing to do really dumb things to get their hands on any.

[And in case you were wondering, I got this information via a recipient, who in turn got in touch with me via a personal non-government account. He understands the rules.]

Update: Literally moments after posting, I received word that this assistant had sent out a "recall" message. Uh, too late. I think we deserve an explanation about how the rules apply to Stephane Dion's campaign.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:41 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.

From the Hamilton Spectator (June :

First Nations chiefs from across Ontario pledged their support to Caledonia protesters yesterday, and warned governments to expect more occupations if native land claims aren't settled.

The 100 chiefs arrived at Douglas Creek Estates on the eve of today's 100th day of the occupation.

They were bused in to provide moral support to protesters and to urge the federal and provincial governments to exercise caution.

Chiefs took turns issuing veiled threats of violence. However, the presence of the Chiefs was a coincidence:

The Caledonia dispute wasn't on the chiefs' agenda, but their hosts invited the delegates to visit the site. They were driven there in two large passenger buses.

With a colour party of flag bearers in military fatigues, the Ontario chiefs were led across the survey to the entrance of Douglas Creek Estates, for the impromptu press conference.

So what were the Chiefs doing on this reserve at this time if it was not to take part in paramilitary parades?

The Ontario chiefs had been attending a two-day conference at the Six Nations reserve, where they discussed the distribution of proceeds from Casino Rama.

Casino Rama is the Native-owned and -operated commercial casino near Orillia, Ontario.

The distribution of the proceeds to First Nations people is managed by the Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership. I saw a familiar name on the list of directors of the OFNLP:

Steve Williams --- Independent Director, Vice President

Steve Williams is also the name of the former chief of the Six Nations. That Steve Williams was also a member the Six Nations Council Gaming Commission, until he was fired for help business partners Ken Hill, Jerry Montour, and Art Montour set up an internet gaming licensing enterprise running out of the offices of their cigarette firm, Grand River Enterprises, behind the back of the Council firmly in opposition of the legally questionable operation.

I can't be sure it is the same Steve Williams, but my gut tells me it is. So on June 8, the chiefs come to discuss splitting up gambling profits. Coincidently they take a tour of the land the Ontario government is about to buy for the Six Nations as a response to violent protests and barricades. The vice president of the partnership in charge of managing those profits the chiefs were discussing just happens to be one of the main backers of having gambling on the Six Nations reserve. His business partner, also part of the same pro-gambling team, is on the barricades and gets arrested for assault, defending the land claim that was the subject of the chiefs' military parade.

But maybe it's all just a coincidence.

Just one more thing. The Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership has its address in Hagersville, Ontario. You might think they would be located near Casino Rama, near Orillia. But Orillia is almost three hours away. Find Hagersville on the map, and you find yet another amazing coincidence. Both Caledonia and Hagersville are on the borders of the Six Nations Reserve. It's about a 15 minute drive Route 6 to Caledonia from Hagersville -- a mere 10 miles apart. Hagersville butts up the southern corner of the reserve, while Caledonia butts up against the north-east corner. That's why I think we're dealing with the same Steve Williams. And that's another reason to wonder just how much gambling interests are connected to the events in and around the Six Nations reserve.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:18 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

The more I delve into the history of gambling on the Six Nations Reserve in Caledonia, the more I think there are issues behind the Caledonia land dispute that have nothing to do with land.

Imagine this scenario. You are a successful businessman. You want to expand into gambling, but you are being harassed by a local council that is worried about laws that you don't think apply. You try to do an end run around them, they fight back, you persist -- and in all of this, you are wondering just how can you get these troubling people out of the way. You know that gambling is not popular with the voters. If you can somehow swing the voters to your side, you can cut the council off at the legs and get what you want. You are the largest employer in the area, but that doesn't seem to be enough. You are respected, but the people aren't going to give you a blank cheque just because you run a local factory. You need to be a hero! What better way than to put it all on the line, take on forces larger than yourself in a classic David-vs-Goliath battle, and if you're lucky, get yourself roughed up, just a little. Now the people don't just respect you, they adore you. Those cowards on the local council know you have the people behind you, and realize that they will need to pay a price to keep their jobs. That price is to give what you wanted in the first place -- the sole right to managed a lucrative gambling interest without interference or resistance.

Is this Ken Hill's plan?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:22 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1723 words, total size 11 kb.

From a reader who calls himself awhitemansworstnightmare (aka "Six Nations Resident, and Pround as hell to be native"), who posted this comment on June 24, 2006 at 3:46 PM:

I read alot of the stuff you creeps have on this website. Is this a KKK website? Of all the artcles and comments i read, not one had nething good to say about natives.

First things first. Thanks for coming by. I'm glad I'm being read by both sides in this conflict. I hope you keep coming back, and that you participate in the discussions.

Moving on, I'm not sure why you think you are the "white man's worst nightmare". As a man with children, my worst nightmare is probably very similar to the worst nightmare of all fathers regardless of their race or creed. If you are thinking of some lesser nightmare that is somehow a function of my skin colour, I suppose the worst nightmare of the white man is the same as the worst nightmare of the black man or the red man (I'm keeping with the colour motif, even though "redskin" has falling out of favour in modern parlance, and thankfully so). That is to be punished for something he can't help -- the colour of his skin.

Is that who you are? A person who seeks out and hurts white people just for being white? I suppose that would make you a white man's worst nightmare. Must keep you pretty busy, though. So many white men, women, and children out there...but then you said "white man's nightmare", so perhaps you have limits. Or maybe you just thought "white person's nightmare" sounded clumsy and therefore not as threatening (and you'd be right).

But back to the question of punishment. I don't mind being punished for something I have done. I would like to the see the protesters punished for the things they have done. But I don't want anyone punished just because they are white, or aboriginal.

And the same goes in the other direction. I don't want anyone to avoid punishment just because they are white, or aboriginal.

As for whether this is a Klan site, I can assure you the Klan would not have me. As a Polish Catholic, I would be no more welcome in their ranks than you, anti-Catholicism being a founding principle of the Klan.

But I suppose when you want to make a critical point, it always helps to toss out the accusation of racism. Trying to get the other guy to start apologizing and backtracking just to avoid the label, eh?

Ain't going to happen here. I know I'm not a racist. Just harshly critical of criminal behaviour, especially when it appears to be institutionalized.

Don't confuse harshly critical with racism. When you equate the two, you shut down criticism. Shutting down criticism is the mark of the Fascist.

[And some friendly advice. Drop the "creeps". It doesn't bother me -- name-calling rarely does -- which makes it a wasted effort on your part. It also makes you look petty, which means that should you decide to contribute something substantive to the discussion, people might ignore you, and that would be a shame. But hey, if that's your style and it works for you, carry on.]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:27 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

The Ontario branch of CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, fancies itself a mover and shaker in international affairs. Recently, it passed a resolution calling on a boycott of Israel:

May, 27 2006 Resolution:

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.

2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self- determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution194.

3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

BECAUSE:

• The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law.
• Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid;
• CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.

Al-Awda - Right of Return Coalition, an international grassroots organization, argues that Palestinian refugees have the right to return “to their original homes and villages” which existed prior to the founding of Israel, and that they should be paid restitution for their losses. Al-Awda supports the intifada and the establishment of a Palestinian state over all the territory west of the Jordan River, including Israel. Al-Awda has organized large protests with the International Action Center and its anti-war affiliate, ANSWER. It has also been active in several anti-Israel boycott campaigns. Al-Awda considers its advocacy on behalf of Palestinians as being at the center of a global struggle against Zionism and American foreign policy. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Yale University professor and an Al-Awda founder and leader, has called for supporting the “Iraqi resistance” against the pro-Israel “cabal” in Washington: “Only by awakening the US public and linking it to resistance movements from within the world community (including the Iraqi resistance), will this pathway to destruction be avoided.”

The website shows an Al Awda T-shirt with the phrase "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" -- I guess that counts as the ultimate divestment of Israel.

Notice that ADL mentions that Al Awda has been active in anti-Israel boycott campaigns. One wonders if they were involved with CUPE Ontario and their leader Sid Ryan.

In any case, the resolution is tearing the union apart:

CUPE Ontario's decision to support a boycott against Israel has created "an unprecedented crisis" within the provincial union, according to the president of its largest single local.

In a letter dated June 20 and addressed to Ontario president Sid Ryan and national president Paul Moist, the head of the chapter representing 18,000 City of Toronto municipal workers says that the boycott has raised a host of problems that the Canadian Union of Public Employees could have avoided.

"As a result, much damage has been done to CUPE's reputation in the eyes of the members and the public," said Ann Dembinski, head of Local 79 in Toronto.

The unit represents about 10 per cent of the Ontario's wing's total membership.

Sid Ryan says what's done is done, and nothing can change it anytime soon:

In an interview, Mr. Ryan said the resolution was approved almost unanimously at the May meeting, which 20 members of Local 79 attended.

He said the decision could be reversed only at next year's annual meeting.

Of course, this is nonsense. The union executive can do whatever it wants if the survival of the union is being threatened.

In any case, with cheerleaders like Al Awda (and no doubt more sinister and less public organizations), it's not wonder that CUPE members are upset.

And one more thing. Did you notice that in the text of the resolution, CUPE keeps refering to Israel as "the Israeli state". Just once is the country named as "Israel". The rest of the time resolution avoids naming the "entity". Or should I say "Zionist entity"?

Nice bunch of guys, Sid Ryan and his clique. Next they'll pass a resolution demanding that the Protocols of Zion be made mandatory reading in Ontario classrooms.

[Hat tip to reader J]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:35 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 6 kb.

The latest from Caledonia has the police leaving residents to the tender mercies of criminals:

Amid concerns over lack of police action in Caledonia, the Ontario Provincial Police have turned over part of their policing responsibility on the outskirts of the town to Six Nations officers, the force confirmed yesterday.

OPP officers will no longer respond to calls from non-native home and property owners who live on the 6th Line, a county road running along the southwest border of a housing development occupied by native protesters — a move that has some residents feeling helpless and sick with worry.

"Residents are fully aware. We went door-to-door," OPP spokesman Const. Dennis Harwood told the Toronto Star yesterday.

This is just the latest twist involving the OPP that has many people — including a former OPP officer — questioning what the provincial force is doing. "They can't do that. People pay their taxes for policing by the OPP," said the former senior officer, who asked not to be identified.

People didn't just pay taxes. The County paid extra for a contract:

[Haldimand County Police Service] consist of several components. First is the actual delivery of policing which has been contracted out to the Ontario Provincial Police, second is Haldimand County Community Policing and thirdly is the Haldimand County Police Services Board. All detachments are required by provincial legislation to have a Police Services Board. The traditional policing functions are carried out under the auspices of a contract between the O.P.P and Haldimand County.

How much money was squandered on the OPP?

Protections to Persons & Property:
2005 YTD Actuals: $8,141,546

The people of Haldimand people spend $8 million for police protection, and when it really mattered, they got nothing. On the other hand, the protesters are virtually ignored by the police despite threats, robberies, and assaults, and they are rewarded with land bought at twice the amount the people of Haldimand County paid for the privilege of living under the rule of law:

Meanwhile, the developer who currently owns the land will get $12.3 million in an "interim agreement" with the province to cover the market value of the subdivision land "as is," with more money to come later, said Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay.

That land bought at $12 million (and probably much more) will be handed to the protesters sooner or later.

And it was paid for in part by the taxpayers of Haldimand County who have just wasted $8 million on nonexistent policing.

You know, fear fades with time. One day, when these events have receded into the past and daily life has settled into a new pattern, the people of Haldimand Country will wake up and they won't be afraid any more. But I bet they will feel humiliated by all this. And the thing about humiliation is that, unlike fear, the sting of it has a way of being felt as keenly as when it was fresh. You never quite shake humiliation -- it stays with you for the rest of your life.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:48 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 4 kb.

The Conservatives are moving ahead on yet another promise:

The Conservative government introduced a bill on Thursday that would raise the age of sexual consent by two years to 16.

If passed, the new law would mean most adults who have sex with girls or boys aged 14 or 15 could face criminal charges.

"Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers," said Justice Minister Vic Toews, who said the bill will rename the Age of Consent law to the Age of Protection law.

Teen sex is not outlawed, though:

The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."

So a 40-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old will now face criminal charges.

Not everyone is happy. Egale Canada, a gay-rights advocacy group, is against it:

Egale Canada supports the current general age of consent to sexual activity of 14 because: the current Criminal Code already protects 14- and 15-year-olds from exploitive sexual activity and internet predators; the evidence does not demonstrate that increasing the age of consent will do anything other than criminalize non-harmful sexual activity; the prospect of legal sanction and third-party disclosure could discourage young people from accessing preventive and therapeutic health services and other forms of information and assistance. This effectively drives sex underground, isolates 14- and 15-year-olds, and thereby makes them more vulnerable to sexual predators.

Now note that the only sexual activity being criminalized is that between a 14- or 15-year-old teen and someone 20 or older. Sex between teens is still fine.

Egale Canada (and other gay advocacy groups against this law, such as Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario) say that teens will not seek therapeutic health services.

Like buying condoms? Obviously not. Egale mentions "information and assistance". Again, what exactly are they not going to be able to find out on the internet or from friends?

Teens having sex with teens will be legal, as it is now. Nothing has changed.

The only thing that is different is that 14- and 15-year-olds are off limits to adults.

And then it stuck me. Is this what the gay lobby is really upset about?

Are gay relationships skewed more heavily towards adults having sex with young teens? Is this law really discriminatory, in that the majority of heterosexual relationships are not going to be affected, but a significant portion of homosexual ones will?

I was leery of putting this up until I saw this post on rabble:

Gay men and lesbian women seldom grow up in queer or even queer-friendly families. In my experience, for many of us, one of the first steps in coming to terms with who we are is through a relationship with someone older and more experienced who can share her or his experience and insights and help us deal with all the homophobic bullshit that we absorb from less than friendly families and communities.

Is this how adult homosexuals who have sex with teens see themselves? Helping children "find" themselves?

What's the rush? If a teen doesn't have gay sex by the time he or she is 16, he or she might go straight? That's silly.

What about young Catholic girls? If they are following the rules put down by the non-progressive Church, they are waiting until they get married. But then they aren't finding themselves sexually either. Should middle-aged men be allowed lurk near Catholic all-girl high schools so that they too can help these girls deal with the "Catholic bullshit" that they have to absorb from their "less than friendly families"?

Do these people even realize what they sound like? Look, a confused 14-year-old boy. If it weren't for the law, I could help him understand his feelings. It'll only take a few minutes...just let me get this belt...stupid thing is stuck...no wait, don't run away...I'm here to help you...damn belt....

[I patiently wait for the furious condemnations of my patently obvious homophobia. For what it's worth, I don't like to see homosexual teens being taken advantage of by predacious adults any more than seeing it happen to heterosexual teens.]

Update: I should point out that Planned Parenthood (now called the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health in many cities) is also against the change in the age of consent. Planned Parenthood is clearly not a gay advocacy group (though the group does have a major "anti-oppression" program aimed at high schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth). Planned Parenthood is primarily a pro-abortion group. You would think that any law that could have the effect of discouraging some teens from having sex and so cut down on unwanted pregnancies is something Planned Parenthood would applaud. The negative reaction (also wrapped in the nonsense that kids would still be having sex but less likely to talk about it) can be traced to the fact that anything the reduces the number of abortions in the country is something Planned Parenthood will fight vigourously against. If every pregnancy was planned by responsible and mature adults, what would Planned Parenthood have left to do? More frighteningly, how would Planned Parenthood be able to justify the $2.3 million of funding they receive each year from Ottawa? That's 80% of their budget, for crying out loud. If unwanted teen pregnancies were to decrease, some bright bulb in the government might tell Planned Parenthood that they should try to raise their money privately, assuming they are seen to provide a service perceived as valuable by their clients.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:30 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

1 You are treading dangerous ground here, Steve. I would bet that you will not see this mentioned in the MSM. It may be interesting to take note of which groups have problems with this legislation. enough

Posted by: enough at June 22, 2006 07:53 PM (6sAMe)

2 Steve, please try to remember that it's not homophobia... that word was coined by the homosexual lobbies to disparage those who oppose homosexuality, it's used as in "what are you afraid of?". The correct term should be a variant of homoanathema, anathema meaning something intensely disliked or loathed as in "country music is anathema to opera aficionados"

Posted by: Andrew Spencer at June 22, 2006 08:33 PM (p1agh)

3 Better run for cover! The human rights commission is gonna come gunnin' for you after this post! Those "equality" groups seem to wield more power than us common folk. I'm thinking they have past equality and have zoomed ahead. SSM's,"sensitivity" classes in schools, sexual orientation in the charter, what more do they need or want? Like I've said, "they've won". For now!!!

Posted by: Dave at June 22, 2006 08:40 PM (xoXVY)

4 I don't have a problem with homosexuals but these excuses to have sex with children are just sick and don't represent the homosexuals I know.

Posted by: philanthropist at June 22, 2006 09:02 PM (7pBiD)

5 Steve you made a comment that just triggered something in me. What's the rush? If a teen doesn't have gay sex by the time he or she is 16, he or she might go straight? That's silly. Gays should be for this legislation because they have been railing for decades that you are born gay. i.e. if these teens do not have gay sex before they are 16 they should still end up being gay. It is in nature and not nurture. The harder Egale pushes against this legislation the more pressure they put on their nature vs. nurture argument.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at June 22, 2006 09:04 PM (Xiqvi)

6 Raising the age of sexual consent to protect young people from sexual perverts is the right thing to do. Many teens are confused and vulnerable thus can be taken down what could be the wrong path for them.It's a rotten society when a minority within it can dictate what it's people can talk about or write about without being called phobic this or phobic that. Frankly some segments of society scare the bejabbers out of a lot of folks. Many, perhaps most people feel the anatomy of a sexual relationship between a man and a young boy to be repugnant and rightly so. Raising the age of consent to sixteen is a good thing.

Posted by: Old Biddy at June 22, 2006 09:12 PM (ZyKRd)

7 Homosexual activists have been publicly denying many ugly facts about their sexual practices, but have been especially vehement about denying the general approval and practice of pederasty amongst themselves. They simply don't see what's wrong with grown men buggering teenage boys. It's how many of them "discovered their sexuality", as it were.

Posted by: Loyalist at June 22, 2006 09:22 PM (TwKSE)

8 Steve, I thank you making this post. I too have thought the very same thing after see the list of groups who do not support the raising of the age limit. I wish the MSM would point this out about the gay lobby. I do not understand why anyone in the country would not support the tories on this. It makes me feel 'yucky" just think about a plus 20 year old have sex with a 14 year old. But maybe that is because I have a daughter.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:20 PM (EljCX)

9 I am willing to acknowledge that pederasts might be attempting to hide behind gay groups to borrow some respectability. If so, we should be hearing from legitimate gay groups supporting this more protective legislation. Right? I'm listening really loud here. The interesting conclusion one might draw is that these people don't believe that sexual orientation is fixed and genetic. Whatever they may believe retrospectively about their own orientation, their actions indicate that they believe the issue may be in doubt for young men, and early "intervention" is important to secure their prey. They may be deluding themselves in this, of course. Orientation may be fixed and the adults may be simply rationalizing their preference for younger males by telling themselves they are aiding their development in some way. But the gentleman's story quoted above is more consonant with the idea of some homosexual tendency in youth which was solidified by his pleasurable sexual experiences. It doesn't matter whether I think (or society thinks) the issue of his orientation was in doubt: he himself seems to think so, though he would deny it. People can't have this both ways. One cannot simultaneously maintain that orientation is immutable while simultaneously claiming that youthful initiation is developmentally important.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at June 22, 2006 10:22 PM (EabgM)

10 Steve, please watch out. The human rights police are watching and you are very close to the edge....this Canada...some people's rights are way more important than yours.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:22 PM (EljCX)

11 Ever hear of NAMBLA - the 'North American Man-Boy Love Association'? Just Google that one and dig a bit if you want to see the connections Steve is hinting at here. Here's one link (and another) to get you started, as well as a story on why the ACLU supports NAMBLA (like that's a shocker, huh?), and a recent MSM story about a member's wife. Keep digging, Steve.

Posted by: Linda at June 22, 2006 10:37 PM (nl0zz)

12 Is it because gays generally do not have sons and daughters? I do not think any parent would not agree to a raise in the age.

Posted by: Political Correct at June 22, 2006 10:46 PM (EljCX)

13 I believe you will find far more 'straight' adults who prey on children than 'gay' ones, just based on probability, populations and police reports, not that there is anything 'straight' about molesting children. I think 16 is still quite young but certainly better than 14, for heaven's sake. I'm actually in favour of raising the age of majority back to 21, so I'm probably a bit too conservative for most people.

Posted by: Caveat at June 22, 2006 11:22 PM (kJGJ6)

14 Steve, I admire your courage to point out some obvious facts. What's the chance that the janice kennedys (feminazi writer for the Ottawa petfinder) won't go apeshit if this discussion ever went mainstream. Tread lightly my friend... Here is another fact. The average ages between juvenile and predator is 14 and 29 respectively. That is wrong regardless of the sex of the participants. The time has come for a bit of truth surrounding these issues. Expect those afraid of the truth to attack you... we all know how intolerant the left is in this country. This is something I have noticed and I wonder if others have also. The interim leader of the lieberals has been "outed" by a T.O. mag as someone who would be charged if the proposed legislation was in place. We have 3 declared homosexuals in the lieberal leadership race, Brison, Kennedy and Dion, with 3 others having undetermined sexual preferences. Guess what the official left wing position will be. Is there a pattern here? Just asking....

Posted by: Leslie at June 23, 2006 12:04 AM (bpzvk)

15 "Gays should be for this legislation because they have been railing for decades that you are born gay." This may be the undoing of the gay community itself. For if true that "you are born gay" there will be a specific gene that can be tested for.(just read there are hundreds of different DNA Tests) I'm sure MOST prosective parents, upon finding out that there fetus has the "gay" gene will be looking seriously at an abortion. And suddenly, I'm in favor of abortions unter certain circumstance. Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at June 23, 2006 12:41 AM (4fYv9)

16 "in favor yoMaf abortions" if the kid will be gay? Get a grip! I suppose you would be in favour of abortioons if the kid will be black cuz the mother happened to have had an affair with the black milkman!! Sheeesh!

Posted by: The Guest at June 23, 2006 01:28 AM (wEUe/)

17 Typos galore, that's what u get when upset.

Posted by: The Guest at June 23, 2006 01:30 AM (wEUe/)

18 These gay groups being against the proposed law make no sense! Why are they against it? One thing this law will do is increase the number of female offenders: This because the second cohort for female on male sex assault is the 14 to 16 age group. We're not at all ready to deal with having more females arrested. We're not even a tiny bit ready to have more females arrested. We're NOT even a little bit ready (or willing) to deal with male sex assault survivors/victims. Canada is the worst in the first world in our treatment/policy for male survivors. Hah! Many countries in the third world do a better job!

Posted by: jw at June 23, 2006 03:30 AM (OfyVr)

19 I love watching the unknown none@hotmail email from The Guest fighting someone like HornyToad who has put up a legitimate email. Horny Toad, thanks for quoting me. I guess you and Assisstant Village Idiot see my point on this argument and how it puts gay and lesbian groups in a catch 22. I really am interested now in looking into the genome map to see if anything addresses this subject. The Guest, get a grip. Typos happen when you get flustered, frustrated and angry and start pounding the keyboard.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at June 23, 2006 07:16 AM (Xiqvi)

20 The proposed change still doesn't go far enough. Any time the subject has previously come up in conversation one simple thought has always come to mind... as a 32 year old man I can't take dirty pictures of a 14 year old girl, but I can f**k her (my apologies but the crudeness seems appropriate given the contect). Changing the age to 16 does nothing to alter that obvious absurdity. I would have to question the motives of anyone, gay or straight, opposed to the change since protecting our youth doesn't seem to be their greatest priority.

Posted by: PB at June 23, 2006 07:18 AM (tTqIy)

21 Thank You Steve. I've been flogging this horse ever since I started blogging and it's nice to see that someone else has finally picked up on it. To take your suspicions a step further, the current law has the age of consent for sodomous practices at 16 already so that won't change. Your friends at EGALE however have been petitioning to have that age reduced to 14 to gain pairity with the age of heterosexual consent. Here's an old link: "From Eagle Canada Survey: http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=102&item=408 12. Age of Consent The Criminal Code provides different ages of consent for different types of sexual activity. The age of consent for vaginal intercourse is four years younger than the age of consent for anal intercourse. Canadian Courts have ruled that unequal age of consent laws are unconstitutional and actually undermine education efforts about the spread of HIV by driving behaviour underground and impeding young people”s access to information which could save their lives. Q. 12: Do you support reducing the age of consent for anal intercourse to ensure an equal age of consent for all sexual activity?" EGALE has been pushing for "equality" and now they've gotten it. Only it wasn't the equality they wanted so now they're pissed. In regards to pedophiles thinking that they're doing something wholesome for the kids, you're exactly right. check out the comments in this thread: http://www.northamericanpatriot.com/a_north_american_patriot/2006/04/carnival_of_ped.html Not really, it's more about enabling children, when children are given the knowledge, they have the power. I don't want to be enabling child molestors, I simply don't want to alienate and persecute people who just like kids, that's it. Some people just like to be around kids, maybe there's no sexual component involved, maybe just being around kids it's the kids that start acting sexual because they're young and experimenting and so forth. But of course an adult will tell them how to properly express their sexuality around others. With restraint, compassion and maintainance of dignity...many things adults simply can't do." Anyway, thanks again Angry. It's good to put this stuff out there...

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 07:39 AM (pyVpk)

22 Richard, You raise a good point, but the age of consent for anal intercourse is 18, not 16. Irregardless, it's rather disturbing that these groups are pushing for equalization by lowering the age, rather than raising...

Posted by: RL at June 23, 2006 10:01 AM (MQJmo)

23 You're right RL, thanks for the correction.

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 10:17 AM (pyVpk)

24 Great post, I can't wait to see what Bill Graham says

Posted by: Darcey at June 23, 2006 10:42 AM (BVJ3o)

25 WRT the connection between homosexuality and pedophelia: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Posted by: Paul Buller at June 23, 2006 12:46 PM (oBKGy)

26 Since the age for anal sex is 18 but for vaginal it is 16, it is understandable that Egale is still fighting for parity. Whether on suppports that position (pun unintended!) is another matter, but it does explain why the gay rights lobby is fighting the move. Not some nepharious, pedophilia-related reason. Personally, I agree with Egale equality is important and believe Harper should have raised the age of consent to 18 for all forms of sex (anal, oral or vaginal.)

Posted by: Kathryn in Canada at June 23, 2006 01:49 PM (gYe3t)

27 The bit that caught my eye was the fact that Planned Parenthood gets $2.3M or 80% of its budget from the Feds. I don't have a problem that groups like this exist, but why do they have to be suckling at the public teat for their own purposes. first thing that I'd like to see from a majority conservative government would be to stop funding for all "public interest" groups. If there's really a public interest, then they can do their own fundraising from the portion of the public that's really interested. If it really needs it, then I'd even consent to making donations to these groups tax deductible. But please, no more tax dollars direct to unaccountable radicals.

Posted by: SPare at June 23, 2006 01:54 PM (djUiP)

28 This is feel-good legislation. Nothing more. It also has the added bonus of putting more people in jail and reducing freedom. Everything a social "conservative" could hope for.

Posted by: Greater Toronto Area Conservative at June 23, 2006 02:49 PM (0TygJ)

29 Horny Toad: Some in the homosexual community have already recognized the fact that if a 'gay gene' were isolated, then selective abortions could (and likely would) be used to eliminate homosexuality. http://www.plagal.org/op-ed/1-20-97a.html

Posted by: MSYB at June 23, 2006 04:27 PM (O+ACo)

30 Hey, Steve, thanks for lancing the boil on the dexter side of the body politic. Feel better now? There's something creepy here, all right, but it isn't "gay groups." Your over-emphasis on gay sexuality is telling, even with your passing reference to middle-aged men hanging around outside Catholic high schools. EGALE's arguments aren't hot air--they make a lot of sense, actually, for both gay and straight sexual relationships. This is superfluous law, akin to the War on Street-Racing nonsense. It's playing to the gallery. What--no comment about the different age limits for anal and vaginal sex? No mention of the fact that the age of consent is only being raised by two years? That it was fourteen up to now--and so much for references to NAMBLA and the whole Phelps-like panoply of hatred you've managed to extract? But for a light touch, there's this. Thanks for the late-week laugh: Anything the [sic] reduces the number of abortions in the country is something Planned Parenthood will fight vigourously [sic] against. If every pregnancy was [sic] planned by responsible and mature adults, what would Planned Parenthood have left to do? Yup. That's why the medical establishment has had the cure for cancer for years. Don't want to put all those high-paid doctors out of business, now do we? What would oncologists have to justify their exorbitant claims on provincial health care plans?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 23, 2006 06:43 PM (2cg9c)

31 And, of course, no mention of the brave soldier who raped a 13-year-old girl and got off because a judge felt sorry for him. What, no criticism of bleeding-heart judges? No outrage? Why, of course. It would be downright unpatriotic, criticizing one of our military. What did that kid ever do for her country? Besides, the soldier was straight.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 23, 2006 07:14 PM (2cg9c)

32 Wow dog, you sure seem to want to maintain the statusquo... Anything you'd like to share with the group?

Posted by: Richard Evans at June 23, 2006 07:21 PM (pyVpk)

33 Dawg: Anything that smacks of common sence or marality offends you. So--as an evil, redneck conservative american, I can only be glad that your up there! Let me use analogy: I really like to slap the piss out of fools, poltroons and disingenuous liberals, but it is morally wrong for me to do so. I can be punished for such things. Rightfully. I refrain. Is rapeing children for the benifit of their personal development somehow exempt from morality? Or is marality and common sence just too outdated a concept?

Posted by: Redneck American at June 24, 2006 01:04 PM (CO+Wi)

34 The 'gay' agenda's greatest success has been to get the media and hence the public to buy into the homosexual activists' vocabulary to describe themselves and their concerns. Hence the word gay should go back to homosexual. The human tendency to prefer short words for long is another reason, and so the short version 'homo' is both accurately descriptive (without prejudice) and short. So it should be referred to as the 'homo agenda'. The homo agenda has also been successful in that it has managed to take over institutions such as BCTF in BC for example, and some say the CBC, by acting like a very focussed special interest group working together to advance in positions and preferencial hiring. One should note, in regard to the age of consent and the pedophilic spreading of this agenda, that as soon as a homosexual became a Minister of Tony Blairs cabinet, his desire was expressed to lower the age of consent for homosexuals to 14.

Posted by: hoff at June 24, 2006 11:49 PM (e/acA)

35 Listen, if Planned Parenthood were successful (remember, 80% of their funding comes from us suckered Canadian taxpayers) they'd be out of business and in no more need of millions of dollars from the government, which means their workers would be unemployed. By not looking out for the protection of sexually active teens, they forever ensure their "usefulness" in the Canadian landscape and the continuing employment of their employees. 'Talk about useful idiots. The sad thing is the cost to our young people in their health and human lives. (The STD, Human Papilloma Virus, HPV, as one example, is the leading cause of cervical cancer, which is a leading killer of Canadian women.) Teen sex is an industry in Canada, an industry that has very little to do with the actual protection of our young people. It's a "therapeutic industry" whose propaganda alleges concern and help for our young people when, in reality, it tends to aid and abet their being sexually active, which then leads to disease and dysfunction, which then leads them straight into the arms of "therapeutic" agencies such as Planned Parenthood, public health units, etc. Gaydom is right in there, aiding and abetting sexual activity in younger and younger people, sometimes referred to as "chicken" by older members of the fraternity. Rosalie Abella is the judge who lowered the age of consensual sex from 16 to 14 in Ontario, and in her defence of the change, she specifically named the gay community as a 'recipient' of the largesse of her judgment. It is astonishing that for three per cent (3%) of our population (Alfred Kinsey's 10% was an outright fabrication, his stats and documentation having long ago been proven to be bogus) there have been so many accommodations made in our society. Most of these accommodations, including the lowering of consensual sex to 14 (a law which, hopefully, now is going to be changed), Gay Pride Week and parades, the legalization of same-sex marriage, gay picture books in elementary schools, hate speech legislation which discriminates against anyone who would make even substantiated negative claims against the gay community, do nothing to help young people live more healthy lives. Gay sex leads to not just HIV and AIDs but to at least 50 other opportunistic diseases, and the hard reality is, that the life span of a sexually active Canadian gay man is 49 years, whereas the life span of a Canadian male not involved in gay sex is 76. Is this a lifestyle that we want to encourage our sons, nephews, and brothers to be a part of? It's as though our moral universe has been turned upside down: Those encouraging sexual activity only inside marriage or, at the very least, not until one’s late teens are considered wrongheaded and retrograde, whereas those encouraging earlier and kinkier sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, are considered progressive and enlightened. "Progressive" and "enlightened" sexuality leads to nothing but disease and heartache for our young people which should be enough for our society to encourage putting an end to it, something all past generations attempted to do. But it's not going to happen anytime soon, because entrenched and everything-to-lose special interest groups like Planned Parenthood, therapeutic agencies, and the gay lobby will see to it that anyone who proposes protection of our young people from engaging in teenaged sex is labelled "homophobic," "bigoted," "overly protective," "prudish," etc. Canadians need to wake up to the reality many of their kids are facing. Parents, in particular, need to be vigilant of the sex ed. programs their children are subjected to in their schools and to speak up about some of the very unhealthy suggestions being made to them. It’s not comfortable to be a watchdog—that’s how I found out about what is really going on in our schools, by monitoring the sex ed. materials handed out in my children’s classrooms—but your child(ren)’s present and future health depends on it.

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 10:53 AM (Bjar7)

36 Here's what Leonard Cohen has to say about times like these, from his song "The Future": ...Give me crack and anal sex Take the only tree that's left and stuff it up the hole of your culture Give me back the Berlin Wall Give me Stalin and St. Paul I've seen the future, brother: it is murder. Things are going to slide, slide in all directions Won't be nothing Nothing you can measure anymore The blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold and it's overturned the order of the soul When they said REPENT I wonder what they meant When they said REPENT I wonder what they meant When they said REPENT I wonder what they meant... (CD: "The Future," Columbia, 1992)

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 11:17 AM (Bjar7)

37 This one's better: The Second Coming Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 25, 2006 11:31 AM (2cg9c)

38 It's usual, Dr. Dawg, to acknowledge the author of such eloquent lines, in this case William Butler Yeats. As to which one is "better," that's in the eye of the beholder... Certainly some rough beast, if not many, is slouching towards Bethlehem, and any way you look at the future, it's murder...

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 25, 2006 11:44 AM (Bjar7)

39 I thought everybody knew who wrote that poem. Damned socialist education these days...

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at June 25, 2006 01:35 PM (2cg9c)

40 The government had better define the laws on the protection of children from all forms of sexual abuse. There seems to be a lot of confusion out there. The new law states age of sexual consent is 16. The law for sodomy, anatomically, anal intercourse is supposedly 18. Unbelievably there are people saying these laws are against human rights, who's human rights ? It sure isn't against the children's human rights so we know where that cry is coming from......Perverts, pedophiles and the likes of recruiters like EGALE. Sickening.

Posted by: Liz Jackson at June 25, 2006 07:22 PM (Eoxl8)

41 With institutions like the 'Liberal' appointed courts and education unions and academic departments under the effective power of the 'sexual identity' groups, it is an uphill battle to return so some semblance of social sanity in Canada. Consider 'Gale BC' (check the website) and that any educator crossing this lobby will be persecuted, and government does nothing to protect such a teacher's presumably enshrined human rights, consider the millions wasted by the Surrey School Bd and the amounts BCTF spent forcing the BD to do so, and you will appreciate that this agenda is not a sideline, but is a leading part of the 'Liberal' mindset and social engineering affecting the transformation of the canada we once knew and thought our own. When Gale BC through their people in both administration and union break the law, the law cannot be enforced because the union retains the 'sole representation power' over all teachers in BC. Canada is not a democracy where essential human rights of due process are followed and unions are not held to their fiduciary duties by the state. Canada is a scam made for Gale BC etc to hold ultimate powers over ordinary normal people.

Posted by: hoff at June 25, 2006 11:09 PM (e/acA)

42 From the inside, I can tell you that teachers' unions exist only for the comforts and 'privileges' of the teachers. I haven't heard one thing, once, at a union meeting, about the needs of our children/students. Just the incessant whining that we don't have enough prep time, equity with such and such a board, yada, yada, yada. Teachers' unions are mouthpieces for the beast that is slouching/lurching towards Bethlehem, for the social engineers in the Librano Party, the Dippers, the feminists, the gay lobby, you fill in the blanks. Canada is a Banana Republic, and one can only hope that PMSH and the CPC aren't too late to turn the whole sorry mess around. As Yeats put it so well: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Canada's problem is not so much that the majority wants to see this social engineering become the norm; the majority doesn't. Our problem is that we have been so cowed by political correctness and so bullied by "the powers that be" (the academic, political, and media elites) that we've become a nation of wimps. Wimps of Canada arise. You've nothing to lose but your chains. If you don't stand up NOW, your children and grandchildren are doomed to a life of servitude. Is this what our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers fought for in the two World Wars?

Posted by: new kid on the block at June 26, 2006 04:22 PM (Bjar7)

43 Yes, "new kid", they do not represent the majority. Our quasi-democratic electoral system ensures that. Most 'one party state' 'Liberal' governments are elected by 40 percent of actual voters. Many are not on voters list. Of those who are on list, 60 percent have given up after a century of one party rule. Hence, all these 'social engineering from on high' policies skewing our country are passed by a 'majority' representing perhaps 20 to 25 percent of potential voters. Like most virtual one party states, Canada has a state media organ, the CBC, that skews the information in often subtle, and when in crisis, not so subtle ways. The way Preston Manning was mocked by the CBC as a caricature of himself over ten years is but one example. Stirring up false conflicts that allow the 'Liberals' to emerge as 'the reasonable middle ground' is another. A Byzantine bureaucratic and official ruling caste does not rule a country like Canada or Mexico for so long without having some expertise and some institutional levers in its favour. Undemocratic one party states and attendant ruling castes with control of the Justice system always use 'stability' and self-identification with 'the national identity' to justify their undemocratic and manipulative strategies and tactics. Also, they alway extract an incredible price in terms of wasted billions spent on their caste.

Posted by: hoff at June 27, 2006 02:37 PM (e/acA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This is too subtle for me to understand:

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a judgment sure to spark political controversy, has refused to boost the sentence of one day in jail for a Winnipeg teenager who beat a man to death with a billiard ball wrapped in a sock.

In a 7-0 ruling Thursday, the court said the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as currently written, doesn't allow for increasing a sentence just to send a get-tough message to the public.

That seems to be true. The YCJA is not there to protect society, because society doesn't need to be protected from children:

The YCJA sets out distinct sentencing provisions for young persons which are different in important respects from the sentencing provisions for adults in the Criminal Code. Denunciation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, and incapacitation, which are sentencing objectives for adults under the Criminal Code, are not sentencing objectives under the YCJA.

In particular, the provisions under 718 of the criminal code do not apply to young offenders. For example, 718.1 reads:

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

So for a young offender, a sentence need not have any relation to the gravity of the offense, at least inasmuch as 718.1 is concerned.

There is one exception, 718.2(e), which deals with sentencing adult aboriginal offenders. This one portion of the sentencing guidelines in the Criminal Code is supposed to be considered when sentencing young aboriginal offenders. It's the section that reads "No jail!":

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

So if you are a young aboriginal who deliberately beats a man to death with a stick, you will not be subject to sentencing in proportion to the gravity of the offence, and in particular, the judge is required, by virtue of your aboriginal status, to make a concerted effort to come up with any sort of punishment that doesn't include imprisonment.

And yes, the case in front of the Supreme Court involved a 15-year-old aboriginal. A drunken young aboriginal who killed his victim slowly:

After exchanging heated words on a downtown doorstep in August 2002, the teen, who cannot be named, followed Chya Raup Saleh, 22, to his car. He smashed one of Saleh's car windows with the hidden billiard ball before using the makeshift weapon to strike Saleh in the head.

Saleh managed to drive himself back to his apartment where he was later found dead. An autopsy showed the cause of death to be blunt trauma to the head.

The teen, now 17, pleaded guilty to manslaughter even though he said he doesn't recall committing the crime because he was too drunk. He was sentenced to 15 months community service and one day in prison.

And what was the argument about?

[Saleh] apparently looked at the killer's sister the wrong way.

What? They weren't fighting about an ancient land claim? Colour me shocked.

Saleh was trying to earn enough money to bring his wife and parents to Canada from Iraq.

Anyone want to take bets on whether this young offender, being given the gift he has by the criminal justice system, will use his second chance, a chance denied to Saleh and the family that depended on him, to turn his life around and become yet another success story for the Youth Criminal Justice Act?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:18 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

The major media has finally reported Ken Hill's identity, weeks after the arrest warrant was issued:

Prominent Six Nations businessman Ken Hill has been arrested and charged with two counts of assault in connection with a fracas on a Caledonia street June 4.

Hill, 47, senior supply and marketing officer and 10 per cent shareholder in Ohsweken-based cigarette manufacturer Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd., was arrested by the OPP in Cayuga yesterday morning without incident.

He will appear in Cayuga court July 19.

Hill is one of six people named in a batch of warrants issued for various charges by the OPP following three violent incidents around the native-occupied Douglas Creek Estates June 9.

An OPP spokesman said yesterday the charges against Hill relate to a pushing and shoving incident on Braemar Avenue between native protesters and Caledonia residents the night of June 4. There were no injuries.

The altercation at the barricade was sparked when an OPP vehicle which made a wrong turn onto the Sixth Line -- an agreed upon no-go zone for police -- was surrounded by natives and the officers inside were ticketed for trespassing.

Caledonia residents rushed to their side of the barricades and an altercation followed.

OPP spokesman Constable Dennis Harwood said Hill was arrested "at a Cayuga business" just after 7 a.m.

The report says Hill was arrested at a business location, while I was told it was a wedding. I doubt it matters much which.

Curious what business is open at 7am, though. Maybe he was picking up a pack of GRE smokes at the local 24-hour convenience store.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

On the topic of Ken Hill, there has been quite a bit of discussion. There is a Ken Hill in the Six Nations reserve who, with Jerry and Art Montour, runs Grand River Enterprises, a cigarette concern. They seem to run "the gambling commission" on the reserve (internet gambling via the Six Nations Network) out of the GRE offices. Art Montour is also a leader of the Mohawk Warriors.

One question has centered on the identity of the Ken Hill wanted by the OPP on two counts of assault. I've been fielding a lot of emails from people who think I have different Ken Hills confused.

They point out that it seems unlikely that a major businessman, even one involved in less than wholesome businesses such as smoking and gambling, would be rioting at a barricade.

I voice the same doubts. But at the same time, I pointed out that if the real motive behind the Caledonia protest is to get their hands on partially developed land (at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer) to use as a site for a real bricks-and-mortar casino, then it seems reasonable to assume that Ken Hill might very well be on-site to protect his investment.

The link to Mohawk Warrior Art Montour via business partner Jerry Montour (all three made a joint donation to the Cruz Bustamante election campaign in California in 2003) helped bolster that theory. The Mohawk Warriors are known to be deeply involved in gambling interests (as well as the drug trade and cigarette smuggling), and are of course driving the protest.

I've been in touch with several people who assure me that this is indeed the same Ken Hill. One is based on a family link, the other via a recreational association. For now, I am happy to proceed with my original reasoning.

With that in mind, we have news of Ken Hill's arrest:

(Caledonia, ONT.) On June 21, 2006, the Ontario Provincial Police made an arrest related to an incident, which occurred in Caledonia on June 4, 2006 at approximately 9:45pm.

Charged with two counts of Assault is Ken Hill, age 47 of Ohsweken, Ontario.

The charges relate to an incident involving an alleged confrontation between the “occupiers” and Caledonia citizens near a barricade at the end of Braemar Ave. An investigation followed resulting in an arrest warrant being issued for Ken Hill. The accused was arrested at approximately 7:05am in Cayuga, Haldimand County without incident.

Ken Hill will appear in Cayuga court on July 16, 2006 to answer to the charges.

My sources tell me he was attending a wedding when he was picked up. Apparently, he was in the presence of members of the Six Nations Police, but the OPP came to execute the arrest warrant. It is not clear if the Six Nations Police helped or hindered justice in this case. They may indeed have brokered a deal to allow Hill to be picked up.

That deal might have included his subsequent release from custody. There is no report of a bond being posted. It might be that he is seen as an upstanding citizen who poses little flight risk.

That would surprise me. He is a member of the Six Nations Reserve and can cross the Canada-US border at will (the reserve spans the border), and so exit the reserve into US territory.

My mistake. The reserve does not span the border. I had a map of the Quebec reserves that figured in the news a fews back in my head. Sorry about that.

On the other hand, he might want to stay close to the site to oversee the archaeological dig.

Archaeological dig?

Another email to me says that large construction equipment has been moved onto the disputed land by the protesters. Apparently, it is for an archaeological dig.

Maybe they expect to uncover a casino!

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:09 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 4 kb.

The North Koreans and the US are might be getting ready to start shooting at each other, after a fashion:

The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act."

Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday.

The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.

One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors.

Imagine if this plays out. If the Americans miss, the Pentagon will have to put up with a lot of abuse from Democrats on Capital Hill about the useless boondoggle that is ballistic missile defense. But I think the Pentagon is willing to ride out that storm for a chance at a real live test.

And the generals and admirals must be pretty confident to take the gamble.

Now imagine if the North Korean missile gets knocked down.

First, a lot of naysayers will have to rework their criticisms. And the Pentagon will have a lot of new friends willing to fund more missile work and other weapons systems.

But the real effect will be on North Korea.

There will be the loss of face when the missile is lost. Of course, the North Korean government will never admit to a failure to their own people, but other governments will know what happened.

Loss of face is one thing. Loss of revenue is something else. When potential customers for this missile see it blasted out of the sky by the American destroyers, you can be sure they will wonder if their defence dollars would be best spent on fighter jets from France. For North Korea and its moribund economy, a loss of hard currency from missile sales could be disastrous.

In fact, I wonder just how bad it could be. Could the loss of revenue destabilize the government? If Kim Jong Il perceives a real threat to his power if the missile is destroyed, what would he do?

Delay the test? More loss of face. And fewer sales could still result if potential customers see Kim Jr step back from taking on American missile defence.

Stop the Americans? How? Send a Romeo- or Whiskey-class submarine after the Aegis destroyers? The Romeos date from the 50s; the Whiskeys from the 1970s. The Whiskeys might not even work anymore (the North Koreans only had 4, compared to over 20 Romeos). In any case, it seems unlikely that the old subs would pose a real threat, especially if a modern American attack sub is lurking near the Aegis destroyers to defend against such an attack.

Maybe the North Koreans will have a better chance sending a squadron of their missile boats. A launch of multiple SS-N-2 Styx missiles would give even an Aegis destroyer reason to be worried. I doubt many of the patrol boats would survive to return to home port, but then Kim would lose little sleep over that.

Even an unsuccessful attack might disrupt a launch of the anti-missile missiles. Not likely, but the North Koreans have few options.

And that's really the problem. The North Koreans have few options about anything. Belligerence is the only language they can use, because they saw what happened when the Soviet Union opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev. And North Korea is in far worse shape today than the Soviet Union was in the 80s. They insist on pushing and pushing, because they know if they stop, they'll collapse. But even as they push, they are egging on others to push back. So far, most have resisted the temptation to push as hard they are capable of pushing, knowing that pushing too hard could ignite a war on the peninsula. But the North Koreans just keep on pushing.

Update: Looks like the North Koreans are trying to find a way not to fire the missile:

North Korea said Wednesday it wants direct talks with the United States over its apparent plans to test-fire a long-range missile, a day after the country issued a bristling statement in which it declared its right to carry out the launch.

Tensions in the region have soared following intelligence reports that the North was fueling a ballistic missile believed capable of reaching U.S. territory. The United States and Japan have said they could consider sanctions against the impoverished state and push the U.N. Security Council for retaliatory action should the launch go ahead.

North Korea said in comments published Wednesday that its self-imposed moratorium on testing long-range missiles from 1999 no longer applies because it's not in direct dialogue with Washington, suggesting it would hold off on any launch if the U.S. agreed to new talks.

I don't think the sanctions worry the North Koreans too much. The fact is that sanctions can be busted, especially when there are governments out there more than happy to do anything that messes with US policy. Yeah, Iran, I'm looking at you. But having the missile knocked out of the sky by an American defence system? And a relatively immature fefence system at that? Kim Jong Il might simply be unwilling to take that risk, and is looking for a way out.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:00 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 6 kb.

Does Stephane Dion's executive assistant know something about the suckiness of Stephane Dion that he plans to share with us one day? Or is he protecting his boss from charges of suckiness he expects to be leveled against Stephane Dion in the near future?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 6 kb.

Remember Audra Ann Taillefer, the woman from Victoria, BC, an exp-prostitute, whose goal in life was to be a positive role model for aboriginal youth?

She had decided that inducing heart attacks in elederly white males constituted a positive example.

She was one of the seven people wanted in relation to the violence in Caledonia. Well, she was picked up:

(Caledonia, ONT.) On Friday, June 16, 2006, Six Nations Police acting on an arrest warrant has made an arrest relating to a June 9th incident. The Six Nations Police transferred custody of the accused to the Haldimand County OPP Detachment.

Charged with Intimidation and Robbery is Audra Ann Taillefer, age 45 of Victoria, British Columbia.

The charges are in relation to an incident that took place before noon involving an elderly couple from Simcoe who were visiting the Caledonia area. An altercation occurred between themselves and the “occupiers” resulting in an elderly male victim being taken to West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville as a precaution.

Audra Ann Taillefer will appear in Cayuga Court to answer to her charges.

No word on whether she was spotted by police, she turned herself in, or if someone ratted her out.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:21 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like the Liberals are starting to settle into the long-term role of opposition:

Joe Volpe is spoiling to be the bad boy of the otherwise polite and low-key Liberal leadership race, now accusing his rival Michael Ignatieff of sharing the same politics as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

At the second leadership debate, in Moncton yesterday, Volpe pointedly singled out Ignatieff in his opening remarks, waving a newspaper headline about his views on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and arguing that only Harper would agree with the former Harvard law professor.

Volpe did it deliberately and unapologetically, declaring to reporters later about Ignatieff's debate performance: "I only heard Harper's narrative."

Volpe doesn't have to agree with Ignatieff. I'd be surprised if the two of them agreed on much of anything. But when you measure the validity of the other's position only by how much it resembles someone else's, then it follows that you don't have any arguments of your own. For Volpe, Stephen Harper is Volpe's argument.

And that puts Stephen Harper in control, at least inasmuch as Volpe is concerned.

Remember the first Liberal budget after the 2004 election? The Conservatives voted in support of it because it contained enough elements that they agreed with. That it was from Paul Martin did not change that fact. After Martin changed the budget as the price for NDP support, many of those elements were removed, and the Conservatives withdrew their support. Again, consistent with the objective reality of the budget document. Stephen Harper kept his emotional reaction, his distaste for the Liberal Party and whatever personal animosity that he held for Paul Martin, in check.

Joe Volpe, on the other hand, seems to have been reduced to nothing but emotional reactions.

I'm not the only one who has noticed:

Other leadership candidates don't seem pleased about Volpe's performance or even his presence in the race.

Former public health minister Carolyn Bennett, also among 11 vying for the leadership title, said her views fall smack in the middle of rival Bob Rae, a former Ontario premier, and Ignatieff on the question of Afghanistan.

But on Volpe's provocation, she is unequivocal, saying he is becoming a problem for the contest and the party's reputation overall.

"I'm concerned that this is not what this (contest) is supposed to be about," she said, arguing Volpe was already tarred enough by the controversy over accepting $5,400 contributions from teenagers.

On the question of Volpe being a problem for the party's reputation, it has to be said that he isn't making things worse. The Liberal repution is already in tatters. He is delaying the recovery, perhaps, but then that might be giving Volpe too much credit.

What I do think is significant is that for Volpe and an unknown number of Liberal supporters, the notion that "Conservative = Bad" is an attractive one. It requires minimal mental calculation to come to a conclusion, it lends itself to a standard template for insults, and it is emotionally satisfying.

It is also useless, since any voter who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal will wonder whether the Liberals have anything more to offer than Conservative-bashing. If Volpe or someone like him wins, it will be a while before the Liberals do.

That's fine by me.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:25 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 557 words, total size 4 kb.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have an opportunity here:

The GST cut is not coming to City of Toronto facilities, programs, parking lots or cabs.

Everything from golf courses to dance classes, recycling boxes to museum admissions will not be cheaper when the GST falls to 6% from 7% on July 1.

Instead, the city will pocket the extra cash.

That's because city staffers are recommending that reducing the GST isn't worth the change.

"Unbelievable," John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said yesterday. "This is meant to be a tax cut that benefits all taxpayers across the country, not go into the pockets of governments."

To reduce the GST, the city would have to change billing systems, websites and printed publications to reflect the new, slightly lower fees, staff reported.

It might also force an amendment to the municipal code or other bylaws.

OK, so even though the Conservative government in Ottawa will charge only 6% for the GST, Toronto will continue to levy a 7% surcharge, send 6% to Ottawa, and keep the 1% for itself.

Now this brings up some interesting questions.

Will the receipts be changed to show this breakdown? I doubt it. The complaint seems to be that it would be too difficult to change things. So I suppose when the City of Toronto bills you for a service, it will still show 7% GST.

Is that a case of fraudulent billing? In principle, I could charge 20% GST, blaming Ottawa, and secretly keep 14% for myself. Of course, no one would fall for that, but then Mayor David Miller expects us to fall for exactly this sort of chicanery.

Doesn't the principle of transparency in government require the City of Toronto to explain exactly how the taxes are being charged? Shouldn't they be honest about which taxes are which, and even more important, report them accurately on paperwork? Such as on receipts printed by billing systems, on websites, and on printed publications?

Is this even legal? The City cannot levy a general sales tax -- it is not within the taxation power. The City can set property taxes, and charge municipal taxes on alcohol served restaurants and bars, and on movie and entertainment tickets. Those powers are granted by the provincial government. A general sales tax can only be levied by the federal and provincial governments. But by not changing the tax collected, the City has essentially created a 1% goods and services tax for itself.

That's just wrong.

Can 1% have an effect? This from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association on the issue of the alcohol tax:

In the City of Toronto alone, it is estimated that licensee sales will decrease by $2.95 million for every 1% of municipal sales tax applied to liquor.

Of course, the CRFA has a particular point of view, but it seems pretty obvious that not lowering the tax on city goods and services eliminates a major area for city-wide savings for businesses and residents. Those businesses, of course, will not be able to pass on the full force of the GST cut to consumers as long as they are shouldering the old tax rate on anything they get from the City.

I think the City of Toronto has no choice but to recalculate the taxes being charged. If it wants to increase the base price of all goods and services it provides by 1%, it certainly can do that, but then it must explain to the voters why it is doing that. And that to me seems no less difficult than lowering the tax charged by 1%.

How can this be stopped? A business can try to take on City Hall in court, but then that business would shoulder the cost of fighting for a benefit everyone, including competitors, would enjoy. So I don't think any would be quick to volunteer.

But I know who can take on City Hall on behalf of all Toronto residents. The federal government. If the City continues to print materials and hand out receipts claiming that Ottawa is charging 7% GST, and is pocketing the 1% difference, the federal government certainly has an interest in correcting the situation, for three good reasons.

First, the City is attributing a higher tax rate to Ottawa than Ottawa is actually charging, and that can be construed as libel.

Second, the City is effectively levying a goods and services tax, which is not in its power to do. Other levels of government have an interest in making an example of Mayor David Miller and his administration. It sends a message to other municipalities to play by the rules and to be honest.

Third, and perhaps most important, the Conservatives have a wonderful opportunity to show voters in Toronto, who elected no Conservatives in the last election, that the Conservatives care about them. What better way than to fight for lower taxes on their behalf. Might result in a few seats the next time around.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:13 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 844 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Great post! I am certainly going to check out how they structure their billing on July 1st. If they are still charging a 7% GST, that must be against the law, and if they are not, their arguament - that they don't want to waste the time changing their systems - is obviously a fraud.

Posted by: Andrew Smith at June 17, 2006 12:43 PM (BPIr2)

2 that is highly ellegal that is like me not paying my incometax at the end of the year except in bigger portions. they can solve this problem bye raising there provincial tax and keeping the gst at 1 percent then there putting more into the province. but if I were to avoid paying my taxes on something I am buying I would go to jail.

Posted by: Roy Elsworth at June 17, 2006 01:00 PM (cqLEk)

3 Is anyone surprised by this? Each and every place that includes GST in the price, government or private business, will not lower their prices. For example, I guarantee you that movie theatre pricess will remain unchanged. Gov't, business. It doesn't matter. They want as much money as they can get their hands on. Screw the consumer. I'm a pro-business Tory but even I'm starting to get sick of getting screwed around.

Posted by: sean at June 17, 2006 01:09 PM (z8naz)

4 Steve, I will be getting my 1% back either in payment or in legal fees. I intent to visit a museum this summer and if the City of Toronto policy does not change, I will be suing them in small claims court. It's cheap and easy for me to do and the city has to defend itself or pay up. I urge anyone who wants to stop Miller and his idiots at Toronto City Hall to join me. Let's Officially Screw them back!!!! Visit my site to join the fight!

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at June 17, 2006 02:57 PM (Xiqvi)

5 You know there are many people who do busness with small mom and pop operations. GST and PST Tax is often optional at those places depending on whether or not you pay cash. I think it's time to do as much of your business as possible with those places to offset some of the government tax gouge that we have endured for too long. Go Underground Economy Go! Try it ... it's small revenge and I am told it really feels good.

Posted by: Duke at June 17, 2006 03:43 PM (kMQ/N)

6 "that a case of fraudulent billing?" I believe it is and if it is then is it not also a criminal offense for a group of people to be planning to keep out an act of fraud? I do not believe City Hall is above the criminal code so when they vote to keep the extra 1% then should they not all be charged by the police - not OPP (they appear unable to lay criminal charges)? By the way, it cost $75 for anyone to file small claims against the City for the 1%. Yes it is more than what you will receive back but is it not important for governments to learn that people will not accept these things anymore? You could also sue for $500 to recover 1% GST and lost wages due to time in court. You will never win the lost wages but I am sure the City will not paid $10,000+ to argue in court that they own only $1.20 - they will settle out of court for a few hundred (less than one hour of lawyers' fees to the city). No court will uphold the City's right to charge the wrong GST rate.

Posted by: Gary McHale at June 17, 2006 03:53 PM (CdxYW)

7 Duke states we all should get involved in the Underground Economy. Although I understand the reason for it, to suggest to people to take part in criminal activities as a way to get back at the government appears to me to be immoral - the very thing people like Duke say they are against when government do these types of things. And if Duke believes it is okay for people to be involved in criminal activities because of whatever reason then why a government employee cannot be justified in lying and stealing from us because he has a reason that sound correct to him?

Posted by: Gary McHale at June 17, 2006 03:59 PM (CdxYW)

8 I'm a little hazy on the details, but some people are telling me that the "City of Toronto Act" that McGuinty passed (without notice or consent of course) somehow gives the city the right to levy a sales tax. Can anyone comment on that? If that's true, my thoughts would be that the Province of Ontario has no legal standing to bestow that right upon any city; the Federal government may have delegated the right to levy a sales tax to Provincial governments, but I don't think that right would be transferrable. Anyway, maybe I'm wrong about the CoT act in which case it's a moot point. But if not, then Harper will be the *only* person who can put a stop to this, because municipal and provincial courts will follow the letter of provincial law. Also, people are saying that businesses aren't going to lower the prices, but that doesn't really make sense. The list prices of goods don't include GST - that's added on later. Unless those people are suggesting that businesses all intend to RAISE the list prices of their goods and services by 1%, you *will* pay less as a customer. And I doubt that every business will raise their prices, because unlike with governments, consumers have the option to take their business elsewhere.

Posted by: Aaron G at June 17, 2006 05:14 PM (1xiB4)

9 I look forward to the sound of silence emanating from Toronto city hall when the topic of a "deal for cities" is discussed. The room has been created, they kept it, now some of the excuses are gone. It is now up to the citizens of Toronto to find a responsible council and mayor

Posted by: Stephen at June 17, 2006 06:17 PM (upnxu)

10 More Whining From Bigots Much pantspissing and whining in blogosphere this week about the failure to indict. I speak, of course, of More Whining From Bigots Much pantspissing and whining in blogosphere this week about the failure to indict. I speak, of course, of "Captain" Ed Morrisey, who, blogging from his hospital bed, applies his double-digit i.q. to the case of Representative Cynthia McKinney. First, the story: A grand jury has declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia for allegedly striking a Capitol police officer in March, the federal prosecutor announced Friday. The decision ends a case against the DeKalb County Democrat that has been rife with political and racial tensions. "It is right, just and appropriate," McKinney's attorney, William Moffitt, said of the decision, which he learned about from reporters. "I'm ecstatic." McKinney, arriving Friday night for the Boost Mobile Rock Corps concert at Atlanta's Fox Theatre, entered without responding to reporters's [sic] questions. The decision comes more than two months after the Washington Superior Court grand jury was first given the case. U.S. Attorney Ken Wainstein called the investigation by his office and Capitol police "extensive and thorough." "We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," Wainstein said in a statement. Now, the bloated blogger (warning -- link to an idiot): In the meantime, someone should get a copy of the dictionary to the grand jury and a Toastmasters club membershio [sic] for the US attorney. If someone hits a police officer with a cell phone while he is performing his duties, and witnesses and even the suspect confirms it, how can that not rise to the level of "probable cause"? How? Let me count the ways: Accident, lack of intent, self-defense, reasonable self-defense. Poor, stupid dumbfuck. He simply can't understand that the unverified crap he reads on NewsMax and Instacracker and the drivellings of his commenters isn't a substitute for actual evidence. Of course, Special Ed wasn't present at the incident, doesn't know what evidence was presented and doesn't know what the grand jury knew or thought. But that doesn't stop the dumbfuck from suggesting the grand jury was too Negroid to understand the law and the facts: "Race baiting was the only defense McKinney could offer," says the dishonest seaman stain. Of course, Ed's commenters take the hint and join in the hate parade: I think James Joyner at OTB hit the nail on the head, reminding us that, "his is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice." ---------------------- And they wonder why we don't treat them with respect. I doubt "they" wonder that at all. p.s. to doubleplus dumbfuck James Joyner: Marion Berry is a U.S. Representative from Arkansas, not the former Mayor of D.C. And I won't even bother to point out all the other inaccuracies in the single sentence, "This is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice. "Captain" Ed Morrisey, who, blogging from his hospital bed, applies his double-digit i.q. to the case of Representative Cynthia McKinney. First, the story: A grand jury has declined to indict Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia for allegedly striking a Capitol police officer in March, the federal prosecutor announced Friday. The decision ends a case against the DeKalb County Democrat that has been rife with political and racial tensions. "It is right, just and appropriate," McKinney's attorney, William Moffitt, said of the decision, which he learned about from reporters. "I'm ecstatic." McKinney, arriving Friday night for the Boost Mobile Rock Corps concert at Atlanta's Fox Theatre, entered without responding to reporters's [sic] questions. The decision comes more than two months after the Washington Superior Court grand jury was first given the case. U.S. Attorney Ken Wainstein called the investigation by his office and Capitol police "extensive and thorough." "We respect the decision of the grand jury in this difficult matter," Wainstein said in a statement. Now, the bloated blogger (warning -- link to an idiot): In the meantime, someone should get a copy of the dictionary to the grand jury and a Toastmasters club membershio [sic] for the US attorney. If someone hits a police officer with a cell phone while he is performing his duties, and witnesses and even the suspect confirms it, how can that not rise to the level of "probable cause"? How? Let me count the ways: Accident, lack of intent, self-defense, reasonable self-defense. Poor, stupid dumbfuck. He simply can't understand that the unverified crap he reads on NewsMax and Instacracker and the drivellings of his commenters isn't a substitute for actual evidence. Of course, Special Ed wasn't present at the incident, doesn't know what evidence was presented and doesn't know what the grand jury knew or thought. But that doesn't stop the dumbfuck from suggesting the grand jury was too Negroid to understand the law and the facts: "Race baiting was the only defense McKinney could offer," says the dishonest seaman stain. Of course, Ed's commenters take the hint and join in the hate parade: I think James Joyner at OTB hit the nail on the head, reminding us that, "his is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice." ---------------------- And they wonder why we don't treat them with respect. I doubt "they" wonder that at all. p.s. to doubleplus dumbfuck James Joyner: Marion Berry is a U.S. Representative from Arkansas, not the former Mayor of D.C. And I won't even bother to point out all the other inaccuracies in the single sentence, "This is the same jury pool that acquitted Marion Berry on two sets of felony charges and then reelected him twice."

Posted by: at June 17, 2006 06:25 PM (/elzC)

11 Calgary is doing the same thing, ass boys. http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2006/06/toronto-and-calgary-will-keep-proceeds.html Probably alot of other municipalities will follow their lead.

Posted by: bigcitylib at June 17, 2006 07:17 PM (zfDNY)

12 Bronconnier, the mayor of Calgary, is a Liberal--so he probably feels he is helping the Liberal cause along--of course--I didn't know the Liberals had a cause other than filling their own pockets. This is the Liberals in action pure and simple--I can hardly wait for someone with the smarts to take the respective cities on--this should be illegal in any decent world--when will we say enough is enough? This is a tax break for everyone, albeit a small one--it is a federal tax, not a provincial or municipal one so by rights the cities should have no say in continuing it.

Posted by: George at June 17, 2006 08:05 PM (FJzXT)

13 BigCityLib, you are such a fucking homophobe.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe at June 17, 2006 09:56 PM (sATGg)

14 A 1% money grab is nothing. Municipal government services are probably at least 80% waste and corruption, with the remaining 20% or so of actual services inevitably delivered late, of low quality or not even needed. The salaries and benefits are too high. The contracts are padded and the selection process is corrupt. The services are designed to win special-interest votes and secure political donations and campaign workers, and not to do anything that the average taxpayer wants. The results that are achieved are usually the opposite to the intended results, partly because of sheer, collective and unanswerable stupidity, but also because when a government program makes things worse, this opens the door to raising taxes, raising spending, raising salaries, and getting even more of one's friends onto the municipal payroll. Dithering about a 1% tax grab is like complaining that the elephant sitting on your chest has bad breath. The issue is not "how much GST are they charging on their services", it is "how did we get sucked in so badly to this disgraceful and corrupt socialist miasma, and how can we possibly get out again?"

Posted by: at June 17, 2006 10:29 PM (a0Sy/)

15 This only applies to the remainder of 2006. In 2007 the city will make the adjustments. Miller added the refund is only a problem this year because the cut in the GST comes halfway through the fiscal year. Next year, he said, city fees will be recalculated to reflect the new rate. http://www.insidetoronto.ca/to/scarborough/story/3552353p-4104012c.html?loc=scarborough

Posted by: Robert McClelland at June 17, 2006 10:30 PM (Akj8G)

16 cheat cheat and cheat this what i doing and elet them find ....and they never do so cheat every time ...buy cigs an reserve, buy beer in us and cheat always but if you stupid.....pay

Posted by: george at June 18, 2006 01:01 AM (nHj8W)

17 It's a small point but since the GST is charged at point of sale, reducing the actual GST to 6% but charging 7% is also defrauding the Federal Government. The value of the goods has in effect gone up 1%, so the amount of GST should be ((x) + (x*.01))*.06, not ((x)*.07)-((x)*.01). We also need to keep in mind that this is just the first installment of the Conservative plan. So the municipalities and other institutions are going to follow this "lazy" route from now on? Talk about equilization by another name.

Posted by: john at June 18, 2006 05:50 AM (3usbu)

18 My point is that the 1% not remitted to the Federal Government is itself subject to GST, thereby increasing taxes. A tax cut that raises taxes. Only a Liberal could be that devious! The Toronto Parking Commission has stated that by not changing the GST it charges, they will pick up $80000. They will now owe an additional $480 to the Feds.

Posted by: john at June 18, 2006 06:00 AM (3usbu)

19 I do have some sympathy for places like Tim Horton's. Many of their prices are calculated to make life at the drive-thru simpler so that the price with tax ends up being say, $1.25. What are they to do? Charge $1.24 and have pennies flying all over the place?

Posted by: Tom at June 18, 2006 06:47 AM (SXfde)

20 I have no problem with the City keeping the extra, just as I dont have trouble with the federal government reducing taxes to create room and the provinces taking the "tax room". That is a more honest way of taxing the citizenry rather than the sheel game of equalization, then you know who is taxing you and you can figure out if they really are delivering. Now the debate over the right levels of taxation are a different matter. So once again, Mr Miller and his band of merry mayors can stop going cap in hand to the federal government. Along with the lack of accountability that brings it is also jumping the cue, municipalities are creatures of the provinces and arent even recognized constitutionally....of course sir john a referred to the provinces as glorified municipalities....but that is another story.

Posted by: Stephen at June 18, 2006 07:17 AM (upnxu)

21 quote: to suggest to people to take part in criminal activities as a way to get back at the government appears to me to be immoral Gary Paying cash for services is NOT criminal activity. Stop being such a sheep with your life. Don't believe what government tells you. Income tax and others taxes is a BIG FRAUD A LIE put upon our country to pay for their unions and fat cat politicians and to have control over your 100 year existance on earth. ( less if they manage to kill you before you reach 100!) There is no income tax act in canada. If there is then show it to me ! Gary is symptomatic of our brainwashed propagandized mind set here in Canada. Getting screwed by all levels of government will not end today or tomorrow BUT if people wake up and fight back a bit instead of rolling over like pansies then just maybe there is hope. I tend to think we've already lost the fight when you have close to 50% of voters ready to toss their life and money away by voting for more taxation and more union power. We basically pay taxes so all these chumps can get their 2,5% whatever increase yearly like clock work and everyone else has suck muck. Wake up Gary

Posted by: banjotom at June 18, 2006 07:54 AM (h+um8)

22 If the Fed. Gov. were to raise the tax from 7% to 8% you could be sure the cities would have it raised overnight. They have had some time allready to have some staffer make the change notice (affective July 1...). It is disrespect of the citizen that they feel it is to dificult and time consuming to do. Civil servants will only do as little as the have to do, extra is to "stressful".

Posted by: Cal at June 18, 2006 09:24 AM (TnqMl)

23 It's never 'too difficult to change things' when they're RAISING the taxes, though...is it? Having said that...it's better that the Torontonians have to suffer for Toronto than trying to leech it from the rest of us, so suffer on ya begs D

Posted by: David Lockwood at June 18, 2006 10:22 AM (7JfpS)

24 Seems to me this is a simple case of graft. The municipal government of Toronto is illegitimately realizing financial gain from monies which are rightfully the consumers'. Toronto must be a great place to be these days. A racist provincial government tacitly recognizing a native version of sharia law on its reserves and a municipal government stealing its citizens' money. People used to hate Toronto because they were jealous. Now it's just pathetic. What happened to you guys?

Posted by: potato at June 18, 2006 09:23 PM (QTyEg)

25 Edmonton announced this morning that they too will be keeping the extra 1% 'cause the amount is so small-$300,000- that they can't be bothered. If i, as a business owner kept the gst i charged you can bet that the government would not consider it too small to bother with even if it was only $300.

Posted by: lynda at June 19, 2006 12:35 PM (LJlof)

26 Ahem....pardon me.....Had your beloved CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT not introduced the GST in the first place (after raising many other taxes just to justify introducing the GST)this discussion would not be taking place.Or do you folks simply wish to stick your heads in the sand and scream Liberal inaction? WAKE UP !!

Posted by: at June 20, 2006 09:11 PM (pFDZ2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment