Saturday, November 29, 2008

Mike Pearson, John Diefenbaker and my parents' old tv

The recent uproar in Ottawa got me thinking of my earliest memory of Canadian politics.



John Diefenbaker lost the 1963 federal election to Mike Pearson and the Liberals. The defeat was followed by another defeat in 1965 but in both cases the Liberals obtained minority governments.



My memory dates to just before the 1965 election when it was becoming clear the government would fall and an election be called.



I remember my parents sitting watching what was to me then incredibly boring television. Pearson was being interviewed by someone from CBC (we only got CBC) and saying there had to be an election. Diefenbaker then came on a started thundering, as he did, and I recall being a bit frightened by this angry man. He seemed even scarier in black and white.



Of course after the 1965 election Diefenbaker was forced out by Dalton Camp and the world moved on to Trudeau. But part of the reason Trudeau had his success was because after he left the Tory leadership, Diefenbaker persisted in fighting old battles in parliamentary circles, and was a thorn in the side of Stanfield.



Liberals would do well to remember that the Stanfield/Diefenbaker divide kept the Conservative out of office for years. A divided party cannot unite a nation.



It seems that the Conservatives are slowly (and gracelessly) backing away from causing and election. That said, an election will be soon and we need to be ready.

The future of journalism?

Mumbai crisis put 'citizen journalists' in spotlight



When gunfire erupted in Mumbai earlier this week, blogger Arun Shanbhag switched on his computer, grabbed his camera and hit the streets.

"Mumbai Blasts: Taj Hotel is a block from my house! Hostages still inside; still burning; smoke is pouring from windows; pics later," he wrote on his Twitter blog moments after gunmen stormed the historic Taj hotel.


Within half an hour, as security forces scrambled to gain control of the quickly-escalating emergency, Shanbhag was live-blogging the crisis and uploading photos to his website.


"OMG (oh my god)!" he twittered on Wednesday night. "One of the domes of the Taj is on fire ... It is burning like a bonfire! I can actually see the structs/frameworks (sic) under the tiles in full blaze. OMG! NO! This can't be happening!"


While traditional media outlets were quick to broadcast breaking news developments, a small army of citizen journalists were uploading photos on websites like Flickr and posting up-to-the-minute information in real time on their blogs.



Story here: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081128%2fMumbai_Blogs_081129

Canadian winter


Letter to Thornhill Liberals

Letter to Thornhill Liberals:


Thornhill Liberal Friends,


Quite unexpectedly we are facing a Conservative created constitutional crisis. An election may be just around the corner or a coalition government is possible. Even if the Conservatives cling to power there is little doubt we will have an election sooner rather than later. In the current economy such political uncertainty is dangerous.

At best, the Conservatives have ruined any prospect of a functional Parliament.
This showdown is an unnecessary and unforgivable breach of the trust voters bestowed on Mr. Harper. He was elected to lead a minority government with a spirit of co-operation. Instead he has ignored the economic meltdown engulfing the country and focused on short term political gain.

Here’s a very telling piece from today’s Globe:

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail


Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election to secure a majority, and failed to get one.

This week, he created a completely unnecessary crisis that now threatens his government's very survival. And they call Mr. Harper a great strategist and superior tactician?

Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.

Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his.


Instead of reaching out, as leader of a minority government and as president-elect Barack Obama is doing by talking to moderate Republicans, he smacked his opponents in the chops. Instead of heeding the advice of economists everywhere that the economy needs stimulus, he got his Minister of Finance to present a budget that offered cutbacks and tiny surpluses that absolutely no one believes will be realized.



The economic statement was wrongly conceived on every front.

It misdiagnosed what the economy needs, and offered a completely bogus explanation.

Said the government: We have already injected $31-billion of stimulus in the economy through tax cuts since 2006. As if tax cuts in 2006 were designed for stimulus in 2009. No one believes that.



The government also gratuitously set off a political firestorm that will damage the Conservative Party.

Taxpayer subsidies for political parties exist everywhere around the world, even in the United States, where Mr. Obama refused them because he was raising so much private money. The subsidies exist, there as here, as a quid pro quo for eliminating corporate and union contributions. As such, they help parties finance themselves, do their work, and therefore contribute to democracy.

But since the Conservatives have mastered soliciting contributions from individuals better than their opponents, they now propose to eliminate the public subsidy that amounts to a tiny sum relative to total government spending. Nothing the Conservatives have done has been so malevolently partisan as this.

Finally, the government created a potential constitutional situation in which it could be defeated and replaced, quite properly under constitutional convention, by a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Late yesterday, Mr. Harper refused to modify his economic statement, put off confidence votes for a week to buy himself some time, and in effect dared the Governor-General, should it come to this, not to exercise her proper constitutional authority to ask another party to try to form a government without bringing on an election.

He argued that if his government were to be defeated, there would have to be an election, which is not consistent with constitutional convention. He was really threatening a possible constitutional crisis that, again, would be of his own making and that he would hope to turn to his partisan advantage.

The miscalculations have been stunning. Mr. Harper's strategy has accomplished already the near-impossible: to bring the Liberals and NDP together.

He had so many other, less partisan options at a time of economic crisis and grave national concern. That he acted in this fashion, at this time, was enormously revealing. And very sad.

Story here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcosimp29/BNStory/politics/home


James Morton
Riding President

Wilbaer contemplates another election


Don Martin: Harper has no one to blame but himself

Interesting piece in the Post -- it may be that the Prime Minister has been too clever by half.

Don Martin: Harper has no one to blame but himself


This Conservative government’s apparent death wish is propelling Canada toward two possible, and equally unthinkable, outcomes: The second federal election inside of two months, or a Liberal-led coalition that includes New Democrat cabinet ministers and a separatist component.


Jittery Canadians and business leaders will tolerate none of the above, so Stephen Harper called a time out last night to give his government another week to avert the crisis.


And yet the Prime Minister showed no intention of changing the circumstances that have put his government in such deep trouble and set up Parliament for a possible handover to untested leadership when a solid, experienced hand is so urgently needed.


No one knows who might blink as the Conservatives fearlessly and foolishly bait their opponents, seemingly eager to be dragged down to defeat over their plan to eliminate a $1.95-per-vote annual tax subsidy for political parties. The plan would all but cripple the opposition, while saving the treasury a paltry $30-million.

...


Notions and motions are floating about that would create a Parliament controlled by Liberals — likely under leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff or, on an interim basis, his rival Bob Rae — linked to New Democrats and kept afloat by the Bloc Québécois on a vote-by-vote basis.




The cause of all this lunacy is the damndest thing. The Conservatives never once mentioned cutting political subsidies during last month’s election campaign; the Prime Minister never raised it during his consultations with rival party leaders three weeks ago; and it was conveniently omitted from a Throne Speech that passed late Thursday night in the Commons.


Now this proposal has been elevated into a matter of such consequence that it’s the hill this government has chosen to die on — unless saner minds prevail.


That’s why Stephen Harper has to wear this political mess himself. He personally ordered the incendiary paragraph inserted into Thursday’s fiscal update, ignored warnings from his own MPs who felt it was a lousy idea and clearly under-estimated his opponents’ resolve to defend their cash at any political price.


And let there be no doubt: this is all about money, not a lofty political principle. Without the taxpayer’s per-vote subsidy, the financially stressed opposition parties lose offices, staff and leader travel benefits. It could take years to make up the lost financial ground by revamping their lazy and unimaginative fundraising operations.




At best, the Conservatives have ruined any prospect of a functional Parliament. At worst, they’ve given us — shudder — Prime Minister Stéphane Dion or one of his replacements with an unwieldy gaggle of bi-party cabinet ministers unprepared to govern in difficult times.


Either way, that makes this showdown an unforgivable breach of the trust voters bestowed on Mr. Harper. He was elected to lead a minority government with a spirit of co-operation.


He thought he had set a deadly trap for his opponents. He may well find himself as the victim.

Story here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/11/28/don-martin-harper-has-no-one-to-blame-but-himself.aspx

Friday, November 28, 2008

Oops! Harper hesitated but didn't back down

I was wrong -- or rather the radio reports that Harper had backed off were premature. I can't believe we are going through a potential election for something not campaigned on , that was left out of the Throne Speech and which is clearly just a political ploy to hurt the Liberals. Oh well, Harper rolls the dice -- maybe he'll win big -- or maybe he's Joe Clark redux...

Conservatives back down

The news from Ottawa is that the Conservatives have backed down on their plan to strip the Opposition of funding. This means that an election is off the table, at least for a while.

But for how long?

Parliament is now revealed as a game of chicken and the trouble with chicken is that it's damn dangerous.

I expected we wouldn't see an election till spring 2010 but now I can imagine it far sooner.

The Liberals have found their voice and that means the Conservatives will have to compromise or face an election. They made the right choice today -- but some time soon the situation won't be resolved so easily.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Snowy day

Breaking news

Opposition consider motion to defeat Tories

Liberals, NDP discuss possibility of forming two-party coalition

Meagan Fitzpatrick and Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News Service

Published: Friday, November 28, 2008

OTTAWA - Opposition parties are plotting a possible defeat of the minority Conservative government Monday with a Liberal motion calling for measures to stimulate the economy.

The plan was hatched on Friday as Liberal and New Democratic Party officials discussed the possibility of forming a two-party coalition. In addition they would be supported through an accord with the Bloc Quebecois and offer an alternative government representing the majority of MPs in the House of Commons.

The motion on which the government might be defeated reads:

"That, in light of the Conservatives' failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada's economic situation, and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy and to help workers and businesses in hard-pressed sectors such as manufacturing, the automotive industry and forestry, this House has lost confidence in this government, and is of the opinion that a viable alternative government can be formed within the present House of Commons."

The move would be designed to deprive Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his newly elected government from arguing that the opposition parties want to defeat them only to retain millions of dollars in political party finances the government proposes to abolish.

The Opposition motion would mean the government would fall before a scheduled early Monday evening vote on a confidence motion to implement some of the measures the government announced in the fiscal update Thursday.

MPs appeared determined to hold their ground Friday even though Harper's spokesman Kory Teneycke said that while the government won't back down on the controversial proposal to eliminate subsidies for federal political parties, the measure will not be part of the confidence vote on Monday.

Liberal and NDP officials laid out the possible scenario in the corridors of Parliament Hill as MPs from all three opposition parties emphasized their outrage at the government is over the lack of measures to stimulate the economy as the recession sets in.

"There's no stimulus package," said deputy NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. "Yes, there are some parts of it that could always be brought back that would help some people but overall, a total lack of vision and failure to stimulate the economy, unlike every other major nation or entity in the world that has realized that there is a serious economic problem."

The Liberals, following question period Friday morning, said unless they see some more action from the Conservatives on the economy, they too will not support them.

"This is not about politics, it's about people and until Stephen Harper presents a proposal to Parliament that helps people during these tough economic times, we won't support him," Scott Brison said.

If the opposition parties are successful in defeating the government, they could ask the Governor General to allow them to form a coalition government.

Liberal John McCallum would not comment on that prospect even though party officials have confirmed talks are ongoing.

"We are not going to speculate beyond to say that we will vote against and beyond saying that the political funding issue is not essential to our concerns," he said.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=1005475

Chabad House murders

The terrorists storm a synagogue and kill the Rabbi, his wife and some visitors. In India. Not a nation where there can be even a suggestion that there is any significant Jewish population. Those killed at the Chabad centre were killed because they were Jews. It seems almost beyond belief that in 2008 and Jews would be killed because they are Jews -- but as a post earlier this week noted,

“The bitch that bore him is on heat again”, as Brecht has his closing speaker say about Hitler at the curtain of The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. The next nightmare will not take the same shape or form, but it will be sure to emit the same plain and unmistakable warnings....

Oddly, it seems the nightmare takes roughly the same form everytime "
Mort au juif !"


Mumbai Jewish Center Hostages Die; 200 Others Freed (Update3)


By Vipin Nair, Chitra Somayaji and Anil Varma

Nov. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Five hostages and two terrorists died at a Jewish center in Mumbai that was stormed by Indian commandos, who also freed more than 200 people from the city’s five-star Oberoi-Trident hotel, officials said.

“There were two gunmen and five hostages” lying dead in Nariman House, site of the Chabad-Lubavitch Center, Motti Bukchin, a spokesman for the Israeli emergency-response organization Zaka, said today in a telephone interview from Jerusalem. A New York-raised orthodox rabbi and his wife were killed. Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, and his wife Rivka, 28, were confirmed dead in the attacks, the movement said on its Web site.

A Pleading Motion is not a Trial or a Motion for Summary Judgment

Today’s Court of Appeal decision in Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 ONCA 799 provides a very important restatement of the principle that pleadings motions ought not to be used in place of motions for judgment.  The Court writes:

 

A Pleading Motion is not a Trial or a Motion for Summary Judgment

 

[19]          In any event, the motion judge erred in the approach he took to the disposition of the proceeding.

 

[20]          The principles to be applied on a motion of this nature were summarized in Miguna No. 1, at para. 9:

 

On a motion to strike a pleading pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure the facts as pleaded in the statement of claim must be taken to be true, although allegations of assumptions and speculation need not be accepted as such: see Operation Dismantle v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 at 455.  Where malice is alleged, full particulars must be provided : Rule 25.06(8).  For a claim to be struck, it must be “plain and obvious” that no cause of action is disclosed: Hunt v. Carey, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959.

 

[21]          When it is sought to strike out a claim on the basis that it is frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court, the court will only do so in the clearest of cases where it is plain and obvious that the case cannot succeed: Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 at para 3; Temilini v. Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 664 (C.A.).  In Temilini, Grange J.A. put it this way at p. 668:

 

The plaintiff has pleaded all the essentials to establish his case.  It is true that he is woefully short of evidence to prove his case but that is not, and in my view should not be, the test.  The test, which has been articulated time and time again, and recently in Nelles v. Ontario [citations omitted], is that the rule should be exercised only in the clearest cases.  Where a case cannot succeed because the law forbids it, the rule brings a salutary end to the proceedings.  In cases depending on the facts, however, the court should be very loath to determine those issues in a summary fashion.  When the case appears only to lack evidence, so long as the gaps may be filled, either by discovery or the revelation of evidence at trial, the case should be allowed to proceed.  Trials are notoriously unpredictable.  Many a case apparently hopeless on the facts has been transformed into a winner by an unexpected turn of events in the form of either a surprise witness or a witness giving surprising evidence. [Emphasis added.]

 

[22]          The motion judge recognized these principles.  At para. 11 of his reasons he said:

 

It is not disputed that on a motion to strike the test is whether it is plain and obvious on the facts pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff cannot succeed.  The facts relied on by the Plaintiff must be properly pleaded.  In applying the test, the Court is to assume that properly pleaded facts are true.

 

[23]          Respectfully, however, he did not apply those principles.  The error into which the motion judge fell is captured in the following observations of Carthy J.A. (McKinlay J.A., concurring) in Prete v. Ontario (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 161 ( C.A. ),[4] at pp. 168-169:

 

It is now necessary to deal with the alternative argument of the respondents that the statement of claim should be struck under Rule 21 or Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194… [I]n my view, at this stage of the proceedings, the facts alleged in the statement of claim should be taken as true for the purpose of determining whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action.  To do otherwise is to effectively conduct a summary judgment proceeding under Rule 20 without having the sworn evidence of the parties to this litigation as a basis for determining whether there is a genuine issue for trial.

 

 

In Nelles Lamer J. … put aside concerns expressed by other courts that such actions have an intimidating effect upon those who administer justice, observing that there are safe-guards in the rules for the early disposition of spurious claims.  It is easy to infer from these comments that the court should, at the earliest stage of an action of this type, assess the reality of success and eliminate those cases that lack promise of success.  In the present case, I have no hesitation in concluding that, on the basis of the entire record presented to us, the action is not likely to succeed.  In fact, there is nothing to indicate that it will succeed, except the allegations in the pleading. But that is a very significant exception, and we should not depart from the rule that the pleadings must be taken as factually true simply because the allegations are serious and the case appears hopeless. [Emphasis added]

 

[24]          The same error is reflected in the reasons of the motion judge.  At para. 19, he said:

 

The Court should, at the earliest stage of a malicious prosecution action, assess the reality of success and eliminate those cases that lack any chance of success. … The Court [in Nelles] articulated the view that actions for malicious prosecution should receive special judicial scrutiny at an early stage and that the “rules of civil procedure should not act as obstacles to a just and expeditious resolution of a case.” [Emphasis added]

 

[25]          He then cited the oft-quoted passage from the reasons of Lamer J. in Nelles:

 

In his conclusion, Lamer J., at paragraph 56, underlined the importance of being able to strike meritless actions for malicious prosecution at an early stage:

 

In my view the inherent difficulty in proving a case of malicious prosecution combined with the mechanisms available within the system of civil procedure to weed out meritless claims is sufficient to ensure that the Attorney General and Crown Attorneys will not be hindered in the proper execution of their important public duties.

 

[26]          Courts need to scrutinize claims of this nature carefully.  Like Carthy J.A. in Prete, however, I do not read Lamer J.’s comments as mandating an aggressive attempt by judges to weed out malicious prosecution actions at the early pleading stage by effectively turning motions to strike under Rules 21 and 25 into motions for summary judgment or a trial.  I read them as pointing out, simply, that the concerns about a possible chilling effect on the administration of justice if such actions are permitted to proceed are at least partly met by the fact that a procedure for striking out meritless claims exists.  Lamer J. was only reminding the profession of the existence of the procedure; he was not advocating that it be transformed into something else.

 

Irresponsable, M. Harper!

Now is not the time for an election; but if the Conservatives force one we will be back at the polls shortly. (Or maybe a Liberal/NDP alliance government? Hard to imagine but who knows?)

Irresponsable, M. Harper!

Pratte, André

Moins de deux mois après avoir été reporté au pouvoir, Stephen Harper vient de trahir la confiance que les Canadiens avaient placée en lui. L'électorat lui avait confié le mandat de gérer la crise économique; le premier ministre préfère profiter de cette crise pour se livrer à de basses manoeuvres partisanes.

M. Harper risque ainsi de plonger le pays dans une impasse politique que seul un scrutin ou une intervention de la gouverneure générale pourra dénouer. Il s'agit d'un des gestes les plus irresponsables de l'histoire politique canadienne.

La conjoncture exige vision et sagesse. L'énoncé économique présenté hier par le ministre des Finances ne contient ni l'une ni l'autre. Au lieu de proposer des mesures qui limiteraient l'impact de la turbulence internationale sur le Canada, M. Flaherty annonce des décisions destinées à satisfaire les caprices idéologiques de son parti, par exemple l'abolition du programme d'équité salariale.

Pire que tout, M. Flaherty a décrété la fin de la subvention versée aux partis politiques. Cette subvention - 1,75$ par vote obtenu - s'ajoute au système de remboursement des dépenses électorales et au crédit d'impôt pour contribution aux partis politiques. Depuis qu'il est interdit aux personnes morales de verser des dons aux partis, ces derniers comptent sur la subvention pour financer leurs activités. Seuls les conservateurs pourraient s'en passer grâce au redoutable système de financement populaire qu'ils ont mis en place.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

An election?

Oh I hope not!!!

National Post Published: Friday, November 28, 2008

Most political "wars" are a tempest in a teapot. Removing all party federal funding is not. In the short term, it helps the Conservatives, but in the long term it hurts all parties and all Canadians. Donation and spending caps are justified, perhaps, by government funding of political parties.

This funding, based on popular votes, has the effect of making political organizing somewhat less wealth-driven. But keeping the caps and removing the funding makes political organizing almost impossible. I am neither free to spend my money as I wish, nor able to get government money to allow political organizing. Everyone, rich and poor, is disenfranchised.

If funding is withdrawn, the spending caps must go, too. Keeping the caps and withdrawing the funding stifles Canadian politics.

James Morton, Thornhill federal Liberal riding president, Toronto.

Chabad house seized

There is zero strategic value to a Chabad house -- it is a purely religious institution. By seizing it these terrorists make a clear statement. They are, beyond being murders, old fashion Jew haters.


MUMBAI, India — Indian commandos slid down ropes from a hovering army helicopter Friday morning as they stormed a Jewish community center that had been seized by terrorists during bloody and widespread attacks on Mumbai, India's commercial capital.

More than a hundred shots were heard from inside Nariman House, home to the Orthodox Jewish group Chabad Lubavitch, after a number of the blue-uniformed commandos landed on the roof and then made their way inside at 9:20 a.m.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Where are the Indian terrorists from?

If the terrorists are from outside India, where are they from? And who funded them?

Indian commandos fought Islamic militants for control of two Bombay hotels tonight to save dozens of foreigners trapped or being held hostage inside. Guests and workers rescued from the hotels said that bodies were littering the corridors, suggesting that the final death toll from the al-Qaeda-style terror attacks could continue to climb.

...

As the country's Prime Minister blamed forces "outside the country" for last night's co-ordinated attacks, the Indian Navy boarded and searched a cargo ship recently arrived off Bombay from Pakistan.

Police said 125 people have been killed in the attacks, including at least six foreigners. ... The gunmen slipped into the city on two small boats last night, mooring near the Gateway of India monument before fanning out across the southern part of India's financial capital. Carrying assault rifles, hand grenades and explosives, they hit targets including a hospital and a bar popular with backpackers and tourists.

Story here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5246197.ece

Politics 400 years ago -- not so unfamiliar

CBC had an interesting program tonight on Francis Bacon and his frustrated political ambitions.



Politics under the first Elizabeth differed from politics today under our Elizabeth -- it's unlikely I'll be beheaded should the Conservatives win a majority next time -- but some things, specifically allegiance to great men, remain the same.



Bacon was a follower or friend of Essex, unlike many of Essex's men who were paid and paid well by Essex.



As a result when Essex fell Bacon fell with him and got no benefit -- he neither achieved office nor fame nor even pay for services.



Had Essex succeeded Bacon would have triumphed. Since Essex failed Bacon's ambitions merely looked absurd; but absurdity is a result of failure only. Who would reasonably have viewed Obama as a credible candidate early on?



To rise politically one must commit to a team -- should the team succeed success follows -- should the team fail failure is just as certain.

Sentencing of aboriginal offenders

In general terms when sentencing aboriginal offenders the Court will employ a different process than when sentencing others.  The special process must always be employed when an aboriginal offender is before the Court (quaere -- bail court?). That said, the result may well be the same whether the offender is aboriginal or not.
 
Today's decision in R. v. Whiskeyjack, 2008 ONCA 800 makes this last point clear.  The Court holds:

[28]          The appellant also submits that the sentencing judge held that the Gladue principles had little or no bearing on the sentence since the appellant had committed an offence involving serious violence.  The appellant submits that in so holding, the sentencing judge erred.  She focuses on the following passage from the sentencing judge's oral reasons:
The issue here, as indicated in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of R. v. Cudmore, [[1972] 1 O.R. 812] is about denunciation and general deterrence and the importance of protecting children who cannot protect themselves.  Although I have considered the Gladue component here, I accept the position in R. v. Wells [[2000] 1 S.C.R. 207] that as a practical matter, particularly violent and serious offences will result in imprisonment for aboriginal offenders as well as for non-aboriginal offenders.  Therefore, while rehabilitation of the mother must be considered, general deterrence and denunciation must be the primary consideration.

[29]          I agree with the appellant that the Gladue principles, which provide a framework for interpreting s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, must be considered when sentencing an aboriginal offender who has committed an offence involving serious violence.  This issue was fully canvassed by this court in R. v. Kakekagamick (2006), 81 O.R. (3d) 664.  There, LaForme J.A. held that "regardless of the seriousness of the offence, the analysis set out in Gladue will nevertheless apply in all cases where the offender is an Aboriginal person."  At para. 56 he added:
[W]here a sentencing judge does not properly take into account the circumstances of the Aboriginal offender as required by s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, and fails to properly and adequately conduct the inquiry set out in Gladue, it amounts to an error justifying appellate intervention.

[30]          However, at para. 36, LaForme J.A. also made clear that s. 718.2(e) and the principles in Gladue mandate "a different methodology for assessing a fit sentence for an Aboriginal offender" but "not necessarily… a different result."  As set out in Gladue, at para. 66, the different methodology requires the sentencing judge to consider:
(A) The unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and
(B) The types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection.

[31]          The Gladue methodology can and should yield information that is capable of influencing the sentencing judge's determination of the appropriate type and length of sentence to be imposed.  However, at the end of the day, it remains for the sentencing judge to consider the case as a whole.  The task of the sentencing judge is to weigh the aboriginal offender's circumstances and his or her interest in rehabilitation or restorative justice with the community's interests in deterrence, denunciation, and the need for social protection.  In the case of serious and violent offences, even for aboriginal offenders, the balance will often tilt in favour of the latter interests.  In Gladue, Cory and Iacobucci JJ. stated at para. 79:
Generally, the more violent and serious the offence the more likely it is as a practical reality that the terms of the imprisonment for aboriginals and non-aboriginals will be close to each other or the same, even taking into account their different concepts of sentencing.

[32]          The same principle was referred to by LaForme J.A. in Kakekagamick, at para. 43.

[33]          Iacobucci J. elaborated on this point in the following passage from R. v. Wells, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207, at para 42, which was referred to and paraphrased by the sentencing judge in her reasons:
Notwithstanding what may well be different approaches to sentencing as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal conceptions of sentencing, it is reasonable to assume that for some aboriginal offenders, and depending upon the nature of the offence, the goals of denunciation and deterrence are fundamentally relevant to the offender's community.  As held in Gladue, at para. 79, to the extent that generalizations may be made, the more violent and serious the offence, the more likely as a practical matter that the appropriate sentence will not differ as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders, given that in these circumstances, the goals of denunciation and deterrence are accorded increasing significance.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Mayhem in Mumbai – Innocents are the Victims

Ottawa (November 27, 2008) – The World Sikh Organization (WSO) condemns the recent violent attacks in Mumbai, India.  These reprehensible acts of violence against innocent people are an attack on peace loving peoples across the world. 
 
Gurpreet Singh Bal, President of the WSO said, "On behalf of the over 500,000 Sikhs across Canada, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of all victims of these tragic events.  The indescribable horror, death and destruction unleashed on hundreds of innocent people is an affront to democracy and the rule of law." 
 
The WSO urges the Indian authorities to undertake detailed investigations and arrive at definitive conclusions before taking any action against the perpetrators of this violence. Gian Singh Sandhu, Senior Policy Advisor of the WSO said, "India is a tinderbox which can ignite into sectarian violence at any time.  We commend the restraint shown thus far by Indian authorities and leaders in not pointing any accusatory fingers until solid evidence has been gathered about the identity of the perpetrators. We urge the Government of India to act carefully to ensure that further tragedy does not occur, by unleashing a storm of ill will, hatred and violence amongst the diverse groups living in India. A knee jerk reaction must be avoided at all costs." 
 
The World Sikh Organization of Canada is a non-profit human rights organization. It was founded in 1984 with a mandate to promote and protect the interests of the Sikh Diaspora, as well as to promote and advocate for the protection of human rights for all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, gender, ethnicity, social and economic status.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

TELEGRAM FOR ATTACKS IN MUMBAI

VATICAN CITY, 27 NOV 2008 (VIS) - Given below is the text of a telegram sent by Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B., in the Holy Father's name, to Cardinal Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Bombay, India, for the recent terrorist attacks in the city which have left more than 100 people
dead and 300 injured:

"Deeply concerned about the outbreak of violence in Mumbai, the Holy Father asks you kindly to convey his heartfelt condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in these brutal attacks, and to assure the public authorities, citizens, and all those affected of his spiritual closeness. His Holiness urgently appeals for an end to all acts of terrorism, which gravely offend the human family and severely destabilise the peace and solidarity needed to build a civilisation worthy of mankind's noble vocation to love God and neighbour. The Holy Father prays for the
repose of the souls of the victims and implores God's gift of strength and
comfort for those who are injured and in mourning".

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Delay delay delay. Maybe a solution?

A young man got in a fist fight with another young man about a year ago. It was over a woman -- what a surprise! Both young men got black eyes.

A generation ago that would be the end of it.

Today charges were laid for assault.

Maybe that's a good thing -- violence ought to be discouraged.

But then the criminal justice system kicked in. Four court attendances later, at huges cost to society for the Crown, Justice of the Peace, police and assorted clerks etc, we are almost in a position to have a judicial pretrial which would allow everyone to agree on a guilty plea resulting in little more than a promise not to have any more fist fights.

This is a foolish waste of society's resources. (Oh, and my client's money because I get paid too).

What can be done?

Here's a radical idea -- and I don't think it's soft on crime.

Take the minor crime (low level assault, drug possession, perhaps Over 80 where, say, under 120) out of the criminal system altogether. Have a fixed scale of punishments imposed administratively. No judges, lawyers, clerks -- fast and cheap.

It would lead to some wrongful convictions -- but that happens sometimes now. The punishments would have to be fairly light -- significant imprisonment couldn't work. But people don't go to prison for these offences anyway. There would be constitutional issues but they could be worked out.

Take the minor stuff out of the system and there'd be time for the real cases. And delay that exists now would be gone for good.

Maybe too radical a step? Worth a thought.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Snow storm in Germany -- two more Flockes, errh, snow flakes

Flocke ponders life after a snowstorm (and the birth of two siblings!)

Law Society of Upper Canada unveiling of portrait of Gavin MacKenzieacKenzie


Gavin was a fine Treasurer and a leader at the Bar -- he will long be remembered and missed!

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Cut federal funding to political parties? Ok, if the donation limits are removed

The news that the Conservatives want to cut the political party payments is hardly a surprise. It would emasculate the parties other than the Conservatives.

It's also a direct attack on freedom of speech.

How?

Well, the (I say foolish) deal is that campaign donations will be limited to a very modest amount but that won't limit politics because the Federal Government will make up the shortfall. So yes, the freedom to organise and speak your mind through politics is limited but the limit is reasonable.

My view is that anyone should be able to contribute whatever they choose. Forget federal funding.

But if donations are limited and federal funding is cut off, then the freedom to organise and speak through politics is cut off too. And only the Conservatives benefit.

The savings are trifling -- and clearly politically based. End the subsidies, ok, but then lift the donation caps personal and corporate.


James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Video of Vera and her two new polar bear cubs

http://blog.br-online.de/eisbaer/index.php?/archives/426-Die-Zwillinge-koennen-SCHREIEN!.html#extended

Variation of conditional sentences

Who has jurisdiction to vary the terms of a conditional sentence? The trial court or the Court of Appeal?

Both do but the trial court is generally more appropriate. See R. v. Barrett, 2008 NLCA 50 (CanLII):

[9]              The Court of Appeal and the trial court have concurrent jurisdiction to hear an application to vary a condition of a conditional sentence ... .  The general rule is that such an application should be made in the trial court. ...
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Statement from Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bryon Wilfert on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India:

Like all Canadians, I am shocked by the series of terrorist attacks that have occurred in Mumbai, India, where as many as 80 people have been reported killed and as many as 250 others injured.

No matter where it occurs in the world, the global community must continue to come together to condemn terrorism. There is no justification for these horrific acts that serve only to prey upon innocent civilians.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, my condolences go out to all the family and friends of those killed, and I wish a speedy recovery for those injured.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Endorsements in the Court of Appeal

Endorsements have limited precedential value.  As explained in Timminco (2001), O.J. No. 1443 (Ont.C.A), at para. 36, they are mainly directed to the immediate parties, and should not be construed to support broad overarching principles that have not been specifically addressed in them:

 

[36]          Reasons of this court given by “endorsement” are mainly directed to the immediate parties.  Endorsements, like all judgments of this court, have precedential value but they should not be construed to support broad overarching principles which are not specifically addressed in them.  Thus, this court’s judgment in Grant Paving should be taken as authority only for the proposition that the appeal judge erred in not deferring to the trial judge’s finding of fact that there was no evidence that Grant Paving’s employee was exposed to a hazard.  Grant Paving has no further precedential value.

Newest shot of Rocky from ZooAtlanta


Man who faked suicide appears in N.L. court without wig

This reminds me of Superman and Clark Kent. It is amazing how the slightest change in appearance makes someone disappear. Change your hair colour and nobody recognises you?


Man who faked suicide appears in N.L. court without wigBruce Leyte appeared in a Corner Brook, N.L., courtroom for a bail hearing on Tuesday, alive and well, and without the wig he was wearing at the time of his arrest.

Leyte, 57, was arrested by members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary at a residence in St. John's, N.L. on Sunday morning two years after he was presumed dead.

At the time of his arrest, Leyte was sporting a full-head of hair in stark contrast to the physical description the RCMP had been working with -- that he had been bald for years.
As it turned out, his hair had not grown back.

Corner Brook RCMP Const. Duncan Chisholm told CTV.ca on Tuesday that Leyte had been wearing a wig that was a completely different shade than his natural hair colour.

Full story here: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Home/ContentPosting?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081125%2ffaked_suicide_081125&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

Breaking news -- Flocke has siblings


News from Germany -- Vera, Flocke's mother, gave birth to twins. (See photo).

The chances for survival of the two newborn cubs are uncertain but there is cautious optimism they will both survive.

The new anti-Semitism? How ancient prejudice and outright hostility have re-emerged since the Nuremberg Trials: Christopher Hitchens

From this week's TLS --

full article here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5186954.ece

I was once introduced, in the Cosmos Club in Washington, to Willis Carto of the Liberty Lobby, a group frequently accused of being insufficiently philo-Semitic. Mr Carto unburdened himself of quite a long burst about the power of finance capital, whereupon our host, to lighten the atmosphere, said, “Come on Willis, you’re sounding like Ezra Pound”. “Ezra Pound!” exclaimed Mr Carto. “Why, I love that man’s work. Except for all that goddam poetry!”

I thought then that if one ever needed a working definition of an anti-Semite, it might perhaps be an individual who esteemed everything about Ezra Pound except his Cantos
....

The overt expression of anti-Semitic views has been extremely muted since the Nuremberg Trials, and the somewhat later decision of the Roman Catholic Church to withdraw its historic charge of “deicide” against the Jewish people as a whole. But the Labour MP Denis MacShane, who chaired an all-party commission of inquiry into the subject, argues that this most ancient and fierce of hatreds is undergoing a worldwide recrudescence
....

I would propose to begin more economically, by separating anti-Semitism from other forms of prejudice. One might certainly begin by distinguishing it from any too obvious stratification: MacShane likes to put the word “upper-class” in front of his main noun, but it was the great German socialist August Bebel who characterized anti-Jewish ranting as “the socialism of fools” and identified it as a perverted form of class resentment. This may have been slightly reductionist, as if to place a creepy and occult belief on all fours with more ordinary styles of xenophobia.

British people who dislike Pakistanis, say, or Sinhalese who dislike Tamils, or Ulstermen who look down on Gaels, will tend to express themselves in fairly vulgar terms. The disliked ones are dirty and lazy, and have over-large families and a generally low cultural level.Anti-Semitism, by contrast, has something almost vicariously admiring about it. The targeted and hated tribe is believed to have awesome secret power and a positive genius for finance, as well as an ability to infiltrate and annex large swathes of professional life, such as the law and medicine. Not only this, but the Jew is seen as so protean as to have been – in the course of the past century alone – the covert engineer of both capitalism and Bolshevism

....

In point of fact, there is only one area of the world where pure, old-fashioned undiluted Jew-hatred is preached from the pulpit, broadcast on the official airwaves, given high-level state sanction and taught in the schools. All across the Muslim Middle East and well into Muslim Asia, the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion are freely available, often disseminated by ruling circles as well as by insurgent and now quasi-government movements such as Hamas and Hizbollah

....

When he does turn his attention to this region, however, MacShane’s treatment of the lucubrations of Tariq Ramadan and Sayyid Qtub is fairly comprehensive. Not everybody will agree with his generally lenient approach to the state of Israel, but he does argue convincingly, with some telling quotations, that resentment at Israel’s occupation of the West Bank simply cannot explain some of the more lurid formulations of Arab and Muslim propaganda.The fairly temperate Ghada Karmi, for example, speaks of Israel “encircling the Arab world”

...

While regional self-pity – a natural sibling of self-hatred by the way, as is self-righteousness – often blames all the ills of a backward and benighted region on arcane Jewish manipulations.The relatively recent history of Europe shows how fantastically dangerous such delusions can be, and MacShane is right to stress the comparison as well as the implications. When all this is taken into account, though, I am not sure that he is correct in so often using the prefix “neo” to describe the resurgent phenomenon.

The pseudo-intellectual and superstitious tropes of Judaeophobia are very much the same as they ever were. They involve the hatred of the countryside for the urban (and the urbane), the hatred of the provinces for the capital (and for capital), the disdain of the settled establishment for the subversive, and the visceral loathing of the tradition-minded “organic” community for the rootless and the cosmopolitan

....

“You catch it on the edge of a remark”, as Harold Isaacs phrases it in Chariots of Fire. I have felt myself “catching” it quite a few times of late, as when chaps from the BBC insisted despite repeated correction on saying Paul “Vulfovitz” with a special emphasis, instead of pronouncing the name correctly the first time round, as the BBC used to train people to do. Writing about the same person, the American isolationist and Charles Lindbergh admirer Patrick J. Buchanan referred to him as playing Fagin to George Bush’s Oliver Twist which, an arresting image as it certainly is, makes rather the same point in an only somewhat different way.

And meanwhile I would never expect to read the sort of criticism of Pakistan that I read every day about Israel. Yet of these two states, born at almost the same moment at the close of Britain’s imperium, can it really be said that Israel is so much the greater offender in terms of democratic rights for citizens, invasions of neighbours like Afghanistan, oppressions of non-Punjabi minority inhabitants, massacres of co-religionists as in Bangladesh, and illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons?

One can just about picture a worldwide campaign to redress the injustices of Pakistan, in which unions of British teachers and journalists would join with their own courageous boycotts, but I confess to a slight difficulty in picturing the same level of enthusiasm and commitment. There is some sense in which any challenge to what can be viewed as specifically Jewish power is more exciting and possibly more “transgressive”, and we might be more honest if we admitted as much.Here’s a thought experiment: you get an email telling you that all the Anglo-Saxons left the World Trade Center just an hour before the planes hit (not having merely stayed away with all the benefit of their advance warning, but having actually gone to all the trouble of turning up at 8 a.m. and trustingly assuming that the terror-strike would take place just on schedule and thus give them time to check their Rolexes for an orderly and early departure).

See what I mean? It’s just not such a thrilling hypothesis. When directed at the Jews, however, it at least adds insult to injury, and the true bigot knows that every little helps.

“The bitch that bore him is on heat again”, as Brecht has his closing speaker say about Hitler at the curtain of The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. The next nightmare will not take the same shape or form, but it will be sure to emit the same plain and unmistakable warnings....

Denis MacShane
GLOBALISING HATRED
The new antisemitism
188pp. Orion. £12.99. 978 0 297 84473 0

USA Bailout perspective

USA Bailout perspective

The bailout so far has cost 4.3 Trillion


That's :
the Marshall plan
the Louisiana purchase
the Race to the Moon
the S&L Crisis
the Korean War

the Whole New Deal
the Iraq war
the War in Vietnam
NASA's budget to date for its entire life...


COMBINED.


And the kicker...
that's adjusted for inflation.

Faith and works; our acts reveal our true self.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone: James 2:24

This is a widely misinterprested verse, and I am hardly going to end the debate over faith and works (contrast "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28) with " . . . so also faith without works is dead," (James 2:26)). In a Christian religious sense salvation comes from faith but faith is shown through works. In the broader sense, our acts reveal our true nature. (Of course, in other traditions, works are more central and their fulfilment shows faith).

Put otherwise faith is made manifest by works: if you claim to have faith there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."

So, in religion, and if life more broadly, "Ye shall know them by their fruits". What we believe is unknown to the outside world but what we do can be seen by all; our acts must be the outward reflection of our inner self.

BCE leveraged buyout in doubt

The firm said that BCE would not meet the solvency test as defined by its buyout agreement under the current conditions and the amount of debt involved in the buyout financing, according to a statement from BCE.

Story here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081126/business/cbusiness_us_bce

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The Aga Khan is a force for peaceful diversity in the world; his praise of Canada is a good thing


Ismaili Muslim leader says Canada's diversity is a model for the world

VANCOUVER, B.C. - The leader of the world's 15 million Ismaili Muslims says Canada's pluralism is a model to the world.

The Aga Khan thanked Canada for welcoming Ismailis, a moderate group within the Shia wing of Islam, who were forced to flee persecution and conflict in their own countries over the years.

"Canada has been the country which has been most generous, most thoughtful, most helpful in bringing people to Canada from these difficult backgrounds, offering them a new opportunity ... to live in a society which is pluralist, which is conscious of quality, which is conscious of human development and human values," he told a luncheon group Tuesday.

The Aga Khan, who assumed the title from his grandfather in 1957 at age 20, was in Vancouver on Tuesday to cap a four-city tour of Canada celebrating the 50th anniversary of his position as the community's 49th Imam.

Full story: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081125/national/aga_khan

Briton jailed for raping his daughters, fathering their children

This story is about as awful as I have ever seen; all child abuse is dreadful but where it is sexual abuse by a parent the horro is multiplied. A curious point is that the abuse seems to have started before the parents split up but the children stayed with the father; quaere what did the mother know.



What is surprising, at least to me, is how common abuse of daughters by fathers and step fathers is. Granted, because of my job as a lawyer I see the depraved side of life more than others, but my sense is (and this is an educated guess) perhaps one in 50 women are sexually abused by a parental figure. This abuse is only rarely conducted over an extended period, and often takes place no more than once or twice, but it is enough to cause lifelong harm.



Sadly, the reality of such abuse is sometimes misused to make false claims of abuse for collateral purposes usually in family law cases. And here, the mere allegation is often enough (even where false) to harm the daughter alleged to have been abused.



Of course, sexual abuse is not limited to daughters but I have not run across parental abuse of sons very often -- abuse of young boys does occur but from what I have seen usually by other family members (uncles or cousins) or people with access to the boy but from outside the family.



Briton jailed for raping his daughters, fathering their children


LONDON (AFP) - A British man who fathered seven children by raping his two daughters was jailed for life on Tuesday in a case described by the judge as the worst he had ever seen.



The 56-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, made his daughters pregnant 19 times over a 25-year period of abuse.


He was jailed for life at Sheffield Crown Court in northern England and must serve a minimum of 19 and a half years.


In court last month, the Sheffield man admitted 25 rapes and four indecent assaults.


He made his elder daughter pregnant seven times, fathering two surviving children by her. Two other babies died the day they were born. He made his younger daughter pregnant 12 times.



She has five surviving children.


...





The sexual abuse started in 1981, when the girls were between eight and 10 years old, but they only realised the other was also being abused when they fell pregnant some years later, the court heard.


The man's wife left her husband during the early 1990s, but the girls and their brother continued to live with him.


...


Judge Alan Goldsack said: "I can say that in nearly 40 years of dealing with criminal cases and 14 as a family judge, the combination of aggravating circumstances here is the worst I have come across.


"I have little doubt that many members of the public hearing the facts of this case will consider either you should never be released from prison or only when you are old and infirm. I agree with that view."

Polar bear cubs wrestling


Michael and Bob as young bears???

Air of reality

Yesterday's decision in  R. v. Ribic, 2008 ONCA 790 deals with the issue of when a defence can go to a jury. There must be an 'air of reality' to a defence before a jury can consider it.

The Court wrote:

[38]          The air of reality test contemplates that an accused is entitled to have all defences put to the jury that are realistically available on the evidence.  However, "a defence should be put to a jury if and only if there is an evidential foundation for it": R. v. Cinous, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 50, per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache J.  See also R. v. Gunning, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 627, at para. 29, per Charron J.  Indeed, "[a] trial judge has a positive duty to keep from the jury defences lacking an evidential foundation": Cinous at para. 51, per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache J.  The air of reality test applies to all defences (Cinous at paras. 57 and 82) and to all requisite elements of a defence.  Thus, if evidential support for a necessary element of a defence is lacking, the air of reality test will not be met.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

George Bush -- not a conservative?

Today's Post has an interesting piece by Jonathan Kay suggesting George Bush is not a real conservative.

Kay's thesis is that the treatment of prisoners by President Bush's administration has been the antithesis of a conservative position which, according to Kay, is for small government promoting liberty. (I over simplify the argument but that's its drift).

Certainly President Bush's actions has not been high on the liberty scale. But the label, conservative, is as slippery as the label liberal.

If by conservative we mean a supporter of maximising liberty and minimising government intrusion on the lives of citizens well, I'm a conservative. If we mean by liberal a supporter of maximising liberty and making sure all citizens have a fair shot at a self sufficient life regardless of their circumstances well, I'm a liberal. But if we use the terms to reflect social values -- say gay marriage -- I'm a liberal. If we use the terms to reflect criminal policy, at least as relates to crime with clear victims, I'm a conservative.

My point is not to say that conservative or liberal are without meaning but rather that the terms have too many meanings; we must define what it is they mean before using them.

In Canada having the two main political Parties named Liberal and Conservative confuses matters even more. A Liberal can be a social conservative and a Conservative can be a social liberal.

Perhaps the best thing is to recognise there is a divide between those who believe in state control of individuals and those who prefer individual controlling the State. State control supporters can be seen as radically leftist (enforced political correctness) or on the far right (mandatory military service). Individual control supporters can be on the right (free market fans) or the left (legalise weed now!!!).

I prefer individual control of the State. Absent some good cause (basically direct harm to others) I don't want there to be laws telling me what to say, do or whom to be with. People in both the Conservative and Liberal Parties are individual control supporters. And there are State control supporters in both Parties too.

George Bush is clearly on the State control side. And so whether he is a conservative or not, I disagree with his actions.
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Rae always ready for his close-up

This piece is pretty harsh, especially from a former aid to Rae; still it’s worth a read.  Rae would be a fine leader and whoever wins needs the Party to rally around them;  I see Rae has serious issues in Ontario but that doesn’t mean he could not lead us to victory.  But he is coming to the race from a deficit position and the economy is a weakness for him.

 

The Toronto Star

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Page: AA06

Section: Opinion

Byline: Rob Mitchell

Source: Special to The Star

 

There's a brilliant scene in the final act of John Osborne's The Entertainer, magnificently played by Laurence Olivier in the film, where the central character, Archie Rice, cannot leave the stage even when the spotlight is slowly, inevitably contracting around him and the audience has long gone.

 

The curtain just rose on what could be the last act of Bob Rae's political career with the official announcement of his candidacy for the leadership of the federal Liberal party. It's his second run at the gilded prize he hopes will refashion his legacy in triumph and give him a place in history as Canada's 23rd prime minister.

 

There are few men as driven as Rae. He seems possessed of an insatiable need for attention and recognition. He positively thrives in the public eye. His commitment to public life has always been couched in altruism that he has chronicled over the course of three books and countless op-ed articles and essays.

 

After enduring a brutal tenure as Ontario's only NDP premier and the scorn of not only the electorate, but the trade union movement he was once thought to champion, one might logically conclude this man of independent wealth would seek the quiet tranquility of anonymity.

 

Not so. His post-Queen's Park years have been crammed with an astonishing array of commitments to the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, the Leukemia Research Foundation, the Red Cross, the fishery crisis in Burnt Church, N.B., the Air India inquiry, chairing the International Forum of Federations, the Rae report on post secondary education for the McGuinty government, the Giller Awards and a professorship at his alma mater, the University of Toronto.

 

It could be said he harbours a compulsive need to be front and centre in the public domain, anxious to avail himself of any reputable cause that might afford a media interview, a headline, a television news clip, or simply a stage and an audience.

 

Sometimes his judgment is questionable: dancing in the Caribana parade, flogging his songwriting to perplexed record labels, performing treacly compositions such as We're in the Same Boat Now for MuchMusic, skinny dipping with Rick Mercer on national television.

 

It takes an indomitable force of will to project yourself so fearlessly upon the world.

 

Rae's tenure as premier has been ruthlessly dissected. It is a crippling yoke he must carry into this race from which he cannot detach himself and is valiantly trying to turn to his advantage.

 

If Rae is glorious in his self-determination, he's not been so gracious in defeat. This was evident in his loss on the convention floor to Stephane Dion two years ago in Montreal. The cameras captured not disappointment on his face, but anger.

 

That side of his personality emerged recently following a closed-door meeting with riding association presidents in Mississauga that Rae chose to boycott. His motives were understandable. Michael Ignatieff is the perceived front-runner and as such is seeking to run a low-bridge, risk-free campaign. Ignatieff didn't want the media interloping on a post-mortem of the last election for which he might shoulder some criticism.

 

Rae sought to draw a distinction between himself and his rival by declaring his campaign would be open to all in the party, the media and the public. His gambit backfired and the front pages of all four Toronto dailies depicted a sullen, grumpy and petulant Rae skulking off to a waiting car. Probably not the performance he intended.

 

Still, this is just the first act; we're a long way from last curtain in the twilight drama of Bob Rae.

 

Rob Mitchell was a senior aide to former premiers Bob Rae and Ernie Eves. His column appears every other week.

 

Get up!



Time to get up!

A lawyer's lament

I am in the midst of a minor proceeding that follows a major trial.

The trial took six weeks and had a lead up of three years intense legal work by top Canadian lawyers.

The net result was a carefully written judgment that analysed the law fully.

Oh, and both parties to the lawsuit went bankrupt.

Voltaire is supposed to have said 'I was ruined twice. Once when I lost a lawsuit. The other time when I won a lawsuit'.

It seems the legal system has been a bad way to resolve disputes for a long time -- witness Bleak House.

There has to be a better way to deal with problems in society. I appreciate the law puts bread on my table but it seems to seldom do society as a whole much good.

Yes, there are great triumphs of liberty that come from lawsuits. The Persons Case, where women were recognised as full Canadian citizens, is an obvious example. But those cases seem to follow society's lead -- desegregation was coming to America regardless of Brown v Board of Education. And how often are lawsuits tools of oppression by the powerful over the poor or just middle class (I have seen it -- it's not so uncommon)?

Perhaps I am overly bleak but I wonder, isn't there something we can do to make the justice system work better?
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

U.K. temporarily cuts sales tax to stimulate spending

This seems wrongheaded.

A cut in the VAT (a GST like tax) may have a brief impact on spending but it will not encourage investment or infrastructure development. A better approach would be a cut in income taxes -- but the UK government is increasing income tax.

Well, at the least it shows the seriousness of the economic situation -- and maybe we need to think about some ideas that just a few months ago would not seem right (although in fairness Harper did cut the GST -- I still think that's why we have a deficit now but maybe he was on to something?).


U.K. temporarily cuts sales tax to stimulate spending

In an effort to get consumers spending again, the British government has unveiled plans to temporarily cut the country's standard sales tax from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent.

The reduction of the value-added tax (VAT) will only be in place for 13 months, Treasury chief Alistair Darling announced Monday.

The reduction in tax is expected to put about US$18.7 billion back into the pockets of consumers -- about 200 pounds (US$300) per person.

"If we did nothing we would have a deeper and longer recession that would cost the country more in the long term," Darling told MPs in his pre-budget report, according to the BBC.
The tax pullback is part of a $20 billion pound (US$30 billion) economic stimulus plan.

Additionally, Darling said the top tax rate for those earning more than 150,000 pounds (US$225,000) will jump from 40 per cent to 45 per cent in 2011.

Story: http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20081124%2fVAT_budget_081124

Monday, November 24, 2008

Ho ho ho


Possible listeria exposure in

If listeria is in jails it is in hospitals and school and other institutional settings.

Possible listeria exposure in Ontario jails

Prisoners at several correctional institutions across Ontario may have been exposed to listeria, health officials are warning.

The operator of Eurest Dining Services, which produces and supplies food to Ontario correctional facilities, informed the Halton Regional Health Department on Friday that samples taken during routine surveillance at its food-production facility had tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

The positive tests are connected to food that may have been consumed between Nov. 13 and Nov. 16 at seven Ontario facilities:

* Maplehurst and the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton.
* Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishene.
* Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay.
* Ottawa-Carleton Correctional Centre.
* St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre and the Brockville Jail in Brockville.

So far, there have been no reported cases of listeriosis among prisoners.

"Although there have been no cases, I am asking individuals who were present at these seven correctional institutions between the dates of Nov. 13 and 16, 2008 to seek medical attention if they develop symptoms of listeriosis," said Dr. David Williams, the province's acting chief medical officer of health, said in a news release Saturday.

James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4

Costs submissions

Sometimes a Court makes a costs decision, at least as to scale, at the end of a judgment without giving the parties a chance to make submissions.

This is an error: see today's appeal decision in Réno-Dépôt Inc. v. Wonderland Commercial Centre Inc., 2008 ONCA 786:

[9]               In respect of the costs appeal, we begin by noting that it is an error in law to fail to provide counsel with the opportunity to make submissions regarding the scale of costs before deciding that matter: see Metzler  v. Shier, [2002] O.J. No. 3609 (C.A.).
James Morton
1100 - 5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4