By way of balance to the OpEd from the Post, here's something from the Star.
I'm not sure I agree with this analysis either -- but I do think the unionized workers are being given too harsh public treatment for exercising their rights, especially when, in Toronto, the City has given good deals to some and not to others:
In a crisis, bash the workers
TheStar.com
Sid Ryan
President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees-Ontario
In tough times, diehard free market disciples can be relied on to do two things: revert to divisive hard-right talk and scapegoat. The poor, unionized workers and those on the margins are common targets for attacks that pander to a base of support and baser emotions, rather than seeking solutions that are best for all people.
So it's hardly surprising that those who benefited most from the economic boom are now, in the throes of a recession, taking advantage of the nasty public mood and pointing an accusing finger at unionized working men and women.
What's unique in this recession is how many people, from municipal mayors to a newly minted Ontario political party leader to the usual business lobbyists, want in on the worker-bashing. The chorus is now gaining fever pitch.
It began in earnest following the beginning of the recent legal strike in Toronto by CUPE Locals 416 and 79, but this particular dispute is just the largest and highest-profile of several underway across the province involving public- and private-sector workers.
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/659087
Saturday, July 4, 2009
845 years for fraud
Interesting piece from the New York Times today on the sentencing in Madoff. Clyde Haberman points out Sholam Weiss got 845 years for stealing less money -- but to my mind sentences of more than, say, 25 years for anything are merely symbolic. I suppose, and many readers commented, that symbolism is important. Still, will this sentence reduce white collar crime or help any of the victims? I doubt it... .
Full story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/nyregion/03nyc.html?_r=1
...
For that matter, what about a sentence of 150 years? It, too, can never be fully served. The reference, of course, is to the century and a half in prison to which Bernard L. Madoff was condemned this week by a federal judge in Manhattan, Denny Chin.
James A. Cohen, a Fordham University law professor, is among those who have a problem with sentences that are on their face impossible. “It prompts in some people a lack of respect for the system,” Professor Cohen said. “Somebody has to be asking, ‘What is that about? What are we really thinking?’ ”
“It’s putting out something that is obviously false and fake to everybody,” he added, “and why are we doing that?”
Obviously, his is not a universally shared opinion. A more popular view is probably that 150 years in prison is too good for the likes of Mr. Madoff. That is reflected in victims’ comments and in the “boil him in oil” tone of much of the news coverage.
But at some point the Madoff case may be examined with more dispassion. Any analysis would have to include the reasonableness of the sentence ordered by Judge Chin, a widely admired jurist. Acknowledging the symbolic nature of those 150 years, the judge cited a need for deterrence, retribution and justice for the victims.
Deterrence, however, is often an elusive goal. It is mentioned by some as a reason, for example, to preserve capital punishment. Yet the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, analyzing federal crime statistics, has found that the 10 states with the highest murder rates all have capital punishment on their books. Among the 10 states with the lowest murder rates, 6 get by without the death penalty.
With financial crime, are we to take as a given that a grifter will be deterred by sentences that, besides being unrealistic, seem to wander all over the lot? Mr. Weiss got 845 years for ripping off a few hundred million dollars. Mr. Madoff got a mere 150 years for a swindle put at $65 billion. What gives?
The dollar value is “a dangerous factor to focus on in many cases,” said Dan Markel, a law professor at Florida State University. “It introduces a variable that is highly contingent on luck and fortuity to drive sentences,” he said, and it may steer the courts away from “considered assessments” of blame and punishment.
RETRIBUTION?
Mr. Madoff is 71. The odds are against his making it to 100. A 30-year sentence would have provided the same degree of retribution as one of 150 years.
As for the victims’ desires, there can be a fine line between justice and pandering. Douglas A. Berman, an expert on sentencing law at Ohio State University, expressed concern about “a tone and culture that says, ‘Hey, if the victims are really ticked, let’s give them their due.’ ”
...
Full story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/nyregion/03nyc.html?_r=1
...
For that matter, what about a sentence of 150 years? It, too, can never be fully served. The reference, of course, is to the century and a half in prison to which Bernard L. Madoff was condemned this week by a federal judge in Manhattan, Denny Chin.
James A. Cohen, a Fordham University law professor, is among those who have a problem with sentences that are on their face impossible. “It prompts in some people a lack of respect for the system,” Professor Cohen said. “Somebody has to be asking, ‘What is that about? What are we really thinking?’ ”
“It’s putting out something that is obviously false and fake to everybody,” he added, “and why are we doing that?”
Obviously, his is not a universally shared opinion. A more popular view is probably that 150 years in prison is too good for the likes of Mr. Madoff. That is reflected in victims’ comments and in the “boil him in oil” tone of much of the news coverage.
But at some point the Madoff case may be examined with more dispassion. Any analysis would have to include the reasonableness of the sentence ordered by Judge Chin, a widely admired jurist. Acknowledging the symbolic nature of those 150 years, the judge cited a need for deterrence, retribution and justice for the victims.
Deterrence, however, is often an elusive goal. It is mentioned by some as a reason, for example, to preserve capital punishment. Yet the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, analyzing federal crime statistics, has found that the 10 states with the highest murder rates all have capital punishment on their books. Among the 10 states with the lowest murder rates, 6 get by without the death penalty.
With financial crime, are we to take as a given that a grifter will be deterred by sentences that, besides being unrealistic, seem to wander all over the lot? Mr. Weiss got 845 years for ripping off a few hundred million dollars. Mr. Madoff got a mere 150 years for a swindle put at $65 billion. What gives?
The dollar value is “a dangerous factor to focus on in many cases,” said Dan Markel, a law professor at Florida State University. “It introduces a variable that is highly contingent on luck and fortuity to drive sentences,” he said, and it may steer the courts away from “considered assessments” of blame and punishment.
RETRIBUTION?
Mr. Madoff is 71. The odds are against his making it to 100. A 30-year sentence would have provided the same degree of retribution as one of 150 years.
As for the victims’ desires, there can be a fine line between justice and pandering. Douglas A. Berman, an expert on sentencing law at Ohio State University, expressed concern about “a tone and culture that says, ‘Hey, if the victims are really ticked, let’s give them their due.’ ”
...
Palin quits
When I first saw this I thought it was a joke -- I wonder if we'll ever learn the rest of the story?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, July 3 (Reuters) - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's vice presidential candidate in 2008, said on Friday she will resign this month, an unexpected move that could signal a run for higher office.
Palin took no questions after a brief news conference in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, members of her state Cabinet by her side. She gave no indication of her future plans.
"I'm not seeking re-election" in 2010, Palin said, adding she would transfer authority to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell on July 26.
Palin, Arizona Sen. John McCain's surprise pick as his running-mate in the 2008 presidential race, rallied the party's conservative base but alienated others who believed she did not have the experience to be vice president.
She has been mentioned as one of the top three Republicans who could vie for the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Those mentioned most often include Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
"We are not retreating, we are advancing in a different direction," Palin said. "We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time."
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, July 3 (Reuters) - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Party's vice presidential candidate in 2008, said on Friday she will resign this month, an unexpected move that could signal a run for higher office.
Palin took no questions after a brief news conference in her hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, members of her state Cabinet by her side. She gave no indication of her future plans.
"I'm not seeking re-election" in 2010, Palin said, adding she would transfer authority to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell on July 26.
Palin, Arizona Sen. John McCain's surprise pick as his running-mate in the 2008 presidential race, rallied the party's conservative base but alienated others who believed she did not have the experience to be vice president.
She has been mentioned as one of the top three Republicans who could vie for the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Those mentioned most often include Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
"We are not retreating, we are advancing in a different direction," Palin said. "We know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time."
Friday, July 3, 2009
Left-wing principles aren't to blame for the Toronto civic strike
I'm not too sure that progressive politics always lead to "nothing works". But certainly things are not doing well in Toronto presently. As I see it the real problem isn't the general drift of Toronto civic politics -- the problem is that raises were given to some and others were asked to take haircuts. And that was obviously not fair. That said, the piece below, from the Post, is worth a read:
Toronto at the moment is a shining example of a major city operating along left-wing principles. Nothing works.
It's a workers' paradise, paradise in this case being a place where you no longer have to do your job. The services that two million people have paid for aren't being delivered, because two city unions can't get what they want and are on strike. The interests of the majority are subverted to the demands of a small, privileged minority. It's the Family Compact in reverse. The unions, ultra-conservative in their left-wing zeal, resist change at all costs. They want a world that remains forever unchanging, if change requires acceptance of fewer personal privileges. The state, according to the striking city workers, is them. The rest of us are supplicants.
Toronto has ceased functioning. The daycares aren't open. The community centres are closed. The pools don't operate. City-run camps are shut. Parks aren't maintained.
Families that counted on services to help amuse the kids over the summer are out of luck. Working families -- the sort the left is supposed to care about, more than hard-hearted right-wingers -- are on their own, forced to juggle jobs, in a recession, with unexpected and unnecessary childcare complications. Small businesses, the kind that fuel the economy and employ the sort of people unions champion, are suffering. The normally left-friendly Toronto Star reported on Sam Sinnthurai, a restaurant owner who spent $7,000 adding an outdoor patio for customers, but now can't open it because he can't get fire and safety approvals from the city. (Why you'd need a fire or safety inspection for a concrete slab surrounded my a metal fence is another issue). "I'm a hardworking man and we're losing business," he complains.
Do the city unions care? Nope. Because unions, despite their rhetoric, care only about themselves, public sector unions in particular. Private sector labour groups have had to concede the reality of the recession, contributing to the survival of their jobs. Air Canada, Chrysler, GM -- even Globe and Mail employees agreed to concessions Thursday to avoid a strike. But the city can't go bankrupt, and the strikers jobs are safe whatever the case, so there's no such pressure on Toronto workers. All the pressure is on the politicians, and in Mayor David Miller Toronto's unions have an unusually vulnerable opponent.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
A change in the law relating to similar fact or bad acts evidence?
Today's decision in R. v. Cudjoe, 2009 ONCA 543 seemingly simplifies that law relating to similar fact evidence.
The Court seems to suggest that evidence of bad acts will be admitted, regardless of similarity or exclusion of coincidence, if "the probative value of the evidence on a fact in issue exceeds its prejudicial effect".
If this reading of the case is correct (and it related to a tragic domestic situation and so it may be the breadth of language should be read down?) it could have wide reaching effects. The Court holds:
[63] As a general but not unyielding rule, the prosecutor is not entitled to introduce, as part of the prosecution's case in-chief, evidence of an accused's bad acts, other than those charged, to support an inference of guilt from general bad character. We generally bar the introduction of evidence of other bad acts because it invites propensity reasoning – a finding of guilt based on character not conduct: R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 ( C.A. ), at para. 100. Evidence of bad acts of an accused, other than the acts charged, may be admitted as an exception to the general rule, however, when the probative value of the evidence on a fact in issue exceeds its prejudicial effect: Batte at para. 90.
[64] In a prosecution for a crime of unlawful homicide, such as murder, evidence of an accused's prior abuse of the deceased may illuminate the nature of the relationship between the principals, demonstrate animus and establish a motive for the killing. This circumstantial evidence, used prospectantly, may assist in proving complicity in an unlawful killing and in establishing the state of mind that accompanied it: R. v. F. (D.S.) (1999), 43 O.R. (3d) 609 (C.A.), at p. 616; R. v. Jackson (1980), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 154 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 167; R. v. Misir (2001), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 70 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 17; Plomp v. R. (1963), 110 C.L.R. 234 (H.C.).
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
The Court seems to suggest that evidence of bad acts will be admitted, regardless of similarity or exclusion of coincidence, if "the probative value of the evidence on a fact in issue exceeds its prejudicial effect".
If this reading of the case is correct (and it related to a tragic domestic situation and so it may be the breadth of language should be read down?) it could have wide reaching effects. The Court holds:
[63] As a general but not unyielding rule, the prosecutor is not entitled to introduce, as part of the prosecution's case in-chief, evidence of an accused's bad acts, other than those charged, to support an inference of guilt from general bad character. We generally bar the introduction of evidence of other bad acts because it invites propensity reasoning – a finding of guilt based on character not conduct: R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 ( C.A. ), at para. 100. Evidence of bad acts of an accused, other than the acts charged, may be admitted as an exception to the general rule, however, when the probative value of the evidence on a fact in issue exceeds its prejudicial effect: Batte at para. 90.
[64] In a prosecution for a crime of unlawful homicide, such as murder, evidence of an accused's prior abuse of the deceased may illuminate the nature of the relationship between the principals, demonstrate animus and establish a motive for the killing. This circumstantial evidence, used prospectantly, may assist in proving complicity in an unlawful killing and in establishing the state of mind that accompanied it: R. v. F. (D.S.) (1999), 43 O.R. (3d) 609 (C.A.), at p. 616; R. v. Jackson (1980), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 154 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 167; R. v. Misir (2001), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 70 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 17; Plomp v. R. (1963), 110 C.L.R. 234 (H.C.).
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Conservatives lawlessness
This clip from the Globe shows two things.
First, the Conservatives have no respect for the law and second the Conservatives have no respect for the law.
Challenging minimum sentences is not "soft on crime" any more than suggesting there are problems with the medical system suggests being "soft on disease". The Bloc may be wrong but they are not child molsters or supporters of child molesting. They hold a position in good faith and it is worth debate on the merits. The law (and the justice system) deserves a substantive discussion -- the Conservatives have too little respect for the justice system to do that.
I had considerable respect for the Conservative justice program initially -- perhaps I didn't agree with it but it was a serious attempt to revisit a broken system and I was ready to be convinced it was right, or worth a try. That respect is gone.
Second, the ten percenters. What an outrage! When I worked with a Liberal MP in a held riding we were very very careful not to cross a line into political material. Maybe there were Liberals who were less careful but this stuff is Conservative Party mailings at the expense of tax dollars. The contempt for the law shown by this behavior is breathtaking.
A pervert in a plaid shirt is luring a child in a park, but the Bloc Québécois will not do anything to stop him, the Conservative Party says in a new round of attack ads.
The message, which was sent at taxpayers' expense in every single Bloc riding, features a blurry picture of a small boy leaving a park with an older man. The two are walking hand-in-hand, and a nearby kiddy swing is empty.
“Your Bloc MP has voted against the protection of children,” the tag line states.
Controversial Conservative ad blasting the Bloc Quebecois position on crime
The hard-hitting Conservative campaign aims to highlight the fact the Bloc was the only party last April that voted against a bill imposing minimum sentences for the trafficking of children, in matters such as prostitution rings.
“The Bloc prefers sweet deals for criminals. That's unacceptable,” the Conservative campaign states.
Law-and-order issues are rarely at the centre of political debate in Quebec, but the Conservatives argue that Quebeckers are as concerned as other Canadians about crimes against children.
“What we are denouncing is the fact that the Bloc is voting against the values of Quebeckers,” Conservative MP Steven Blaney said in an interview. He represents a riding just south of Quebec City.
The Conservative Party used a controversial method to distribute the ads, relying on each MP's ability to send out free mail to 10 per cent of the addresses in a riding.
The rules state that the pamphlet's contents must relate to parliamentary functions and cannot refer to coming elections. But the Conservatives have raised eyebrows in Parliament by issuing hard-hitting partisan pamphlets in opposition ridings.
In this case, the carpet-bombing of the 48 Bloc ridings was sponsored by Conservative MPs in and outside Quebec.
Bill C-268 proposes “minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years,” and has been championed by Conservative MP Joy Smith. It was approved at second reading in April by a vote of 232-47, and will now be studied by the justice committee of the House.
The Bloc explains that it voted against Bill C-268 because it prevents judges from exercising their discretion.
“Minimum sentences have no dissuasive effect,” said Bloc MP and whip Michel Guimond.
Mr. Guimond said the use of parliamentary resources to send out the ads is despicable. “It's just unbelievable, saying that we are against the protection of children … and are almost condoning these types of abuses,” he said.
The Conservatives defended the practice and the content of the ads, saying that it was a reflection of a clear vote in Parliament.
First, the Conservatives have no respect for the law and second the Conservatives have no respect for the law.
Challenging minimum sentences is not "soft on crime" any more than suggesting there are problems with the medical system suggests being "soft on disease". The Bloc may be wrong but they are not child molsters or supporters of child molesting. They hold a position in good faith and it is worth debate on the merits. The law (and the justice system) deserves a substantive discussion -- the Conservatives have too little respect for the justice system to do that.
I had considerable respect for the Conservative justice program initially -- perhaps I didn't agree with it but it was a serious attempt to revisit a broken system and I was ready to be convinced it was right, or worth a try. That respect is gone.
Second, the ten percenters. What an outrage! When I worked with a Liberal MP in a held riding we were very very careful not to cross a line into political material. Maybe there were Liberals who were less careful but this stuff is Conservative Party mailings at the expense of tax dollars. The contempt for the law shown by this behavior is breathtaking.
A pervert in a plaid shirt is luring a child in a park, but the Bloc Québécois will not do anything to stop him, the Conservative Party says in a new round of attack ads.
The message, which was sent at taxpayers' expense in every single Bloc riding, features a blurry picture of a small boy leaving a park with an older man. The two are walking hand-in-hand, and a nearby kiddy swing is empty.
“Your Bloc MP has voted against the protection of children,” the tag line states.
Controversial Conservative ad blasting the Bloc Quebecois position on crime
The hard-hitting Conservative campaign aims to highlight the fact the Bloc was the only party last April that voted against a bill imposing minimum sentences for the trafficking of children, in matters such as prostitution rings.
“The Bloc prefers sweet deals for criminals. That's unacceptable,” the Conservative campaign states.
Law-and-order issues are rarely at the centre of political debate in Quebec, but the Conservatives argue that Quebeckers are as concerned as other Canadians about crimes against children.
“What we are denouncing is the fact that the Bloc is voting against the values of Quebeckers,” Conservative MP Steven Blaney said in an interview. He represents a riding just south of Quebec City.
The Conservative Party used a controversial method to distribute the ads, relying on each MP's ability to send out free mail to 10 per cent of the addresses in a riding.
The rules state that the pamphlet's contents must relate to parliamentary functions and cannot refer to coming elections. But the Conservatives have raised eyebrows in Parliament by issuing hard-hitting partisan pamphlets in opposition ridings.
In this case, the carpet-bombing of the 48 Bloc ridings was sponsored by Conservative MPs in and outside Quebec.
Bill C-268 proposes “minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years,” and has been championed by Conservative MP Joy Smith. It was approved at second reading in April by a vote of 232-47, and will now be studied by the justice committee of the House.
The Bloc explains that it voted against Bill C-268 because it prevents judges from exercising their discretion.
“Minimum sentences have no dissuasive effect,” said Bloc MP and whip Michel Guimond.
Mr. Guimond said the use of parliamentary resources to send out the ads is despicable. “It's just unbelievable, saying that we are against the protection of children … and are almost condoning these types of abuses,” he said.
The Conservatives defended the practice and the content of the ads, saying that it was a reflection of a clear vote in Parliament.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Liberals regain slim lead, poll finds
Jul 02, 2009
Reuters News Agency
Reuters News Agency
OTTAWA - The opposition Liberal Party has regained its slender lead in public support, thanks largely to a sharp dip in backing for the ruling Conservatives, according to a poll released Thursday.
A weekly Ekos survey for the Canadian Broadcasting Corp put the Liberals at 32.2 per cent, down from 32.6 per cent last week. The Conservatives dropped to 31.0 per cent from 34.8 per cent while the left-leaning New Democratic Party was at 16.2 per cent, up from 14.3 per cent.
Ekos said the Conservatives had lost the short-term advantage they gained the previous week after the Liberals effectively backed down from a threat to bring down the government over the way it was tackling the economic crisis.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Gay sex now legal in India
The Indian court was able to make this decision without any reference to consitutional law or human rights because the statute merely banned "sex against the law of nature" and since that was not precise, a mere reconsideration of what is natural was required. Apparently the law will no be used only in non-consensual situations.
NEW DELHI -- An Indian court on Thursday ruled gay sex was not a crime, a verdict that will bolster demands by gay and health groups that the government scrap a British colonial law which bans homosexual sex.
In a country where public hugging and kissing even among heterosexuals invites lewd remarks and sometimes beatings, gay sex has been a taboo, leaving the government unsure how conservative Indians would react if the law was repealed.
The Delhi High Court's ruling that homosexual sex among consenting adults is not a crime is expected to boost an increasingly vocal pro-gay lobby in India that says the British-era law was a violation of human rights.
The current law bans "sex against the order of nature," and is widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex in India.
NEW DELHI -- An Indian court on Thursday ruled gay sex was not a crime, a verdict that will bolster demands by gay and health groups that the government scrap a British colonial law which bans homosexual sex.
In a country where public hugging and kissing even among heterosexuals invites lewd remarks and sometimes beatings, gay sex has been a taboo, leaving the government unsure how conservative Indians would react if the law was repealed.
The Delhi High Court's ruling that homosexual sex among consenting adults is not a crime is expected to boost an increasingly vocal pro-gay lobby in India that says the British-era law was a violation of human rights.
The current law bans "sex against the order of nature," and is widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex in India.
Context matters
Some years ago I wrote an article where I quoted some vile sexist drivel for the purpose of showing how vile it was. Sure enough, the drivel showed up as a "quote" of mine.
I learned a lesson and no longer repeat nasty material I am holding up to ridicule.
That's what is happening in the story below:
EDMONTON - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says comments he wrote about Ukrainians 15 years ago have been misinterpreted by the federal Conservatives.
He told reporters after a town hall meeting in Edmonton on Tuesday night that some of the terminology he used was derogatory, but said it was done in an "ironic" manner to describe some of the prejudices about Ukrainian people.
Earlier this month, Treasury Board President Vic Toews sent a pamphlet to constituents in his riding of Provencher, southeast of Winnipeg.
The pamphlet contained excerpts from Ignatieff's 1993 book Blood and Belonging, in which Ignatieff referred to Ukrainians as "little Russians."
Ignatieff also wrote that Ukrainian independence would for some conjure up images of "phoney cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites."
The same words angered some members of Toronto's Ukrainian community in 2005, when Ignatieff first ran for office. They protested outside party headquarters in Toronto.
Ignatieff said at the time that his comments had been taken out of context.
On Tuesday, he said he has always "felt the deepest affection and respect" for Ukrainian people.
"I used those terms - and they are derogatory terms, with which I wish to disassociate myself - I use them in an ironic manner to describe some of the illusions and prejudices that people have about Ukrainians, and they're wrong," Ignatieff said.
"I've never believed them, I've never supported them, I reject them absolutely. Because some of my own family ancestors are buried in the Ukraine, I owe the fact that those graves have been protected and honoured to anonymous Ukrainians. And that means a great deal to me emotionally."
About 550 people turned out for the town hall meeting, which Ignatieff said was encouraging.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Canadian-made HIV vaccine close to human trial
Canada has a proud history of medical breakthroughs. Look at diabetes. One can only hope this story will be another triumph:
Linda Nguyen , National Post
It has been 20 years in the making but researchers at the University of Western Ontario say they're confident their HIV vaccine is only months away from being approved for human trials.
Lead researcher Dr. Chil-Yong Kang said Thursday the approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can come as soon as two or three months.
"We've been working on the HIV virus since 1987. This is a very important day for us," Dr. Kang said while attending a conference in South Korea. "It is a very important milestone for us, this vaccine."
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Assault in prison costs
This decision may seem absurd but perhaps it makes sense. Prisons should be safe -- and they are not. Assault is widespread and such "inside" crime makes rehabilitation even less likely. If prisons are "fined" for assault maybe they will take steps to stop it?
Inmate's $12K reward for buttocks injury upheld
Natalie Alcoba, National Post
A former inmate who claimed he suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after a fellow prisoner stabbed him in the buttock with a plastic weapon should receive the $12,000 he was awarded in damages, a federal judge has ruled.
Crown lawyers had appealed a decision made late last year by Federal Court prothonotary Martha Milczynski, who found Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) had "inadequate" security measures that contributed to a "breach of the duty of care" of Barry Carr, a 38-year-old who was attacked in 2005 by an unidentified prisoner in Millhaven Institution in Bath, Ont.
She said corrections officers did not heed the signs of a possible violent confrontation, and ordered the federal government to pay Mr. Carr's court costs, plus the damages.
A Federal Court Justice has upheld her ruling.
In his judgment of June 2, Justice James Russell acknowledged that while it is possible to take issue with the findings, he "cannot find that Prothonotary Milczynski committed a palpable and overriding error."
The judge dismissed the appeal, and in doing so set a precedent for future cases involving CSC's liability of inmate safety, said John Hill, who represented Mr. Carr in the lawsuit against the federal government.
His client claimed that CSC was negligent because it failed to monitor the movements and actions of inmates, failed to notice signs of the impending assault, and did not act quickly enough to suppress it.
"Now, instead of saying it's up to the inmate to report damage that may occur to him, what they're saying is you have procedures in place to prevent this, if you don't use them properly and harm befalls the inmate, you're going to pay," Mr. Hill said in an interview yesterday.
Inmate's $12K reward for buttocks injury upheld
Natalie Alcoba, National Post
A former inmate who claimed he suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after a fellow prisoner stabbed him in the buttock with a plastic weapon should receive the $12,000 he was awarded in damages, a federal judge has ruled.
Crown lawyers had appealed a decision made late last year by Federal Court prothonotary Martha Milczynski, who found Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) had "inadequate" security measures that contributed to a "breach of the duty of care" of Barry Carr, a 38-year-old who was attacked in 2005 by an unidentified prisoner in Millhaven Institution in Bath, Ont.
She said corrections officers did not heed the signs of a possible violent confrontation, and ordered the federal government to pay Mr. Carr's court costs, plus the damages.
A Federal Court Justice has upheld her ruling.
In his judgment of June 2, Justice James Russell acknowledged that while it is possible to take issue with the findings, he "cannot find that Prothonotary Milczynski committed a palpable and overriding error."
The judge dismissed the appeal, and in doing so set a precedent for future cases involving CSC's liability of inmate safety, said John Hill, who represented Mr. Carr in the lawsuit against the federal government.
His client claimed that CSC was negligent because it failed to monitor the movements and actions of inmates, failed to notice signs of the impending assault, and did not act quickly enough to suppress it.
"Now, instead of saying it's up to the inmate to report damage that may occur to him, what they're saying is you have procedures in place to prevent this, if you don't use them properly and harm befalls the inmate, you're going to pay," Mr. Hill said in an interview yesterday.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Clerical error???
This is a very weird story from the Law Times indeed. The announcement was obviously correctly done -- they had the chap's resume. So what happened? Was there a consideration at Cabinet and the appointees listed wrongly? Was there a political change of mind? Newton is a senior and well respected lawyer -- he would be a fine judge.
So, it was an ‘unfortunate clerical error?’
By Robert Todd Publication Date: Monday, 29 June 2009
The federal Department of Justice was left red-faced — and a press secretary short on words — after releasing an announcement wrongly naming a Thunder Bay lawyer a new judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
Carrel & Partners LLP lawyer Danial Newton was wrongly included on the lengthy list of new appointments from across the country that was released June 19 at 4:39 p.m.
The announcement stated that Newton would be replacing Thunder Bay Justice T.A. Platana “who elected to become a supernumerary judge.”
Three hours later, at 7:30 p.m., the department issued a corrected list of new appointments with the following notice: “An earlier version of this press release erroneously referred to the appointment of W. Danial Newton to the Superior Court of Ontario in Thunder Bay.
...
It was an unfortunate clerical error and we issued an apology to Mr. Newton as soon as we found out about it,” says Eke.
How was the “clerical error” made?
“Again, it was an unfortunate clerical error,” replies Eke.
How was the mistake discovered?“Again, as soon as we found out about it we issued an apology,” says Eke. “Again, I’m not going to get into any details.”What’s the status of the judicial vacancy in Thunder Bay that Newton was wrongly slated to fill?“Again, I’m not going to comment any further. What occurred on Friday was an unfortunate clerical error,” he says. ...
The announcement regarding Newton went on to outline his credentials, including a BA from the University of Toronto in 1979 and a LLB from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1982. The civil litigation specialist was called to the bar in 1984 and “was a partner at Carrel & Partners LLP from 1984 to 2009,” stated the announcement.
Newton did not respond to Law Times’ requests for comment.
So, it was an ‘unfortunate clerical error?’
By Robert Todd Publication Date: Monday, 29 June 2009
The federal Department of Justice was left red-faced — and a press secretary short on words — after releasing an announcement wrongly naming a Thunder Bay lawyer a new judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
Carrel & Partners LLP lawyer Danial Newton was wrongly included on the lengthy list of new appointments from across the country that was released June 19 at 4:39 p.m.
The announcement stated that Newton would be replacing Thunder Bay Justice T.A. Platana “who elected to become a supernumerary judge.”
Three hours later, at 7:30 p.m., the department issued a corrected list of new appointments with the following notice: “An earlier version of this press release erroneously referred to the appointment of W. Danial Newton to the Superior Court of Ontario in Thunder Bay.
...
It was an unfortunate clerical error and we issued an apology to Mr. Newton as soon as we found out about it,” says Eke.
How was the “clerical error” made?
“Again, it was an unfortunate clerical error,” replies Eke.
How was the mistake discovered?“Again, as soon as we found out about it we issued an apology,” says Eke. “Again, I’m not going to get into any details.”What’s the status of the judicial vacancy in Thunder Bay that Newton was wrongly slated to fill?“Again, I’m not going to comment any further. What occurred on Friday was an unfortunate clerical error,” he says. ...
The announcement regarding Newton went on to outline his credentials, including a BA from the University of Toronto in 1979 and a LLB from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1982. The civil litigation specialist was called to the bar in 1984 and “was a partner at Carrel & Partners LLP from 1984 to 2009,” stated the announcement.
Newton did not respond to Law Times’ requests for comment.
HAPPY CANADA DAY!!!
Before 1982 Canada Day had been known as Dominion Day, First of July, Confederation Day, and July the First.
Canada Day celebrates the events that occurred on July 1, 1867, when the British North America Act created the Canadian federal government. The BNA Act proclaimed "one Dominion under the name of Canada," hence the original title of the holiday, "Dominion Day." Dominion Day was officially renamed "Canada Day" by an Act of Parliament on October 27, 1982. This change reflected the policy of successive governments to down play Canada's colonial origins.
Canada's national celebration is always observed on July 1, unless that date falls on a Sunday, in which case it is observed the following day.
Suicide -- preventable death
Suicide is far more common than most people realize (see here for StatsCan figures: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/hlth66a-eng.htm).
Suicide in Canada is the leading cause of death for men aged 25 to 29 and 40 to 44, and for women aged 30 to 34. It is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 15 to 24. For each completed suicide there are 100 attempts, and over 23,000 Canadians are hospitalised each year for a suicide attempt.
The National Safety Council points out:
"Suicides are not sudden and unpredictable. They are rarely the result of a single painful experience or loss. About 80 per cent of victims give signals that they are suicidal before taking their own life, although few make a direct plea for help.
Mental health conditions, sometimes very well-hidden, are usually a factor. Over 90 per cent of suicide victims have a psychiatric illness, most often depression, at the time of their death, in many cases undiagnosed, untreated or both. One in 10 people living with schizophrenia dies by suicide."
Usually when a person who tries to kill themselves is prevented from doing so they do not try again. Suicide can be avoided and people with suicidal thoughts ought not to hide them out of fear of stigma -- they should not hide symptoms of illness (does it make sense to hide symptoms of, say, bone disease? No, so why should suicide be different?).
I have personally known a number of otherwise healthy young people who killed themselves. I have known others who tried to kill themselves. They were all productive competent people who, on the surface, had acceptable lives (creature comforts and health). They were ill -- and some of them died of their illness.
The story below shows how suicide impacts even high achievers. (I considered deleting the name of the deceased from the story but decided not to. When a high profile person dies of, say, a heart attack people look to preventing heart disease -- we have to look to suicide the same way).
From today's Globe:
Former Sask. MP Batters commits suicide
Bill Curry
The Globe and Mail
Former Conservative MP Dave Batters committed suicide on Monday following a personal struggle with anxiety, depression and an addiction to prescription drugs.
Mr. Batters, 39, was a well-liked MP on Parliament Hill who represented the Saskatchewan riding of Palliser from 2004 to 2008. He cited his mental-health and addiction issues as the reason for not running in the last election.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Truth in sentencing
So Madoff got 150 years for massive investment fraud.
What an absurd sentence -- realistically anything over 10 years is a sentence for life.
A long sentence is appropriate -- this was an amazing crime spree -- but 150 years makes a joke of sentencing.
By comparison, Desire Munyaneza, 42, found guilty of seven counts by a Quebec Superior Court for acts committed in southern Rwanda from April to July 1994 under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act stands to get a maximum of 25 years before possible parole. And for another comparator, in the Einsatzgruppen Nazi war crimes case, United States v. Otto Ohlendorf, et al. , all the surviving defendants were released within eleven years of conviction.
What an absurd sentence -- realistically anything over 10 years is a sentence for life.
A long sentence is appropriate -- this was an amazing crime spree -- but 150 years makes a joke of sentencing.
By comparison, Desire Munyaneza, 42, found guilty of seven counts by a Quebec Superior Court for acts committed in southern Rwanda from April to July 1994 under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act stands to get a maximum of 25 years before possible parole. And for another comparator, in the Einsatzgruppen Nazi war crimes case, United States v. Otto Ohlendorf, et al. , all the surviving defendants were released within eleven years of conviction.
Criminal Code ban on association with a criminal organisation constitutional
Today's Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Lindsay, 2009 ONCA 532 finds the criminal associations provisions of the Criminal Code are not unconstitutional as being over broad or vague.
The Court holds:
18] The appellants contend that ss. 467.1 and 467.12 are both vague and overbroad. They single out "the facilitation" in s. 467.1 and "in association with" in s. 467.12 as phrases that trigger vagueness and overbreadth concerns. They submit that the effect of these words is that s. 467.12 of the Code creates "a fundamentally standardless offence."
[19] For several reasons, I do not accept this submission.
[20] First, it is important not to exaggerate the role of the vagueness and overbreadth principles in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. They exist, they are regularly invoked by litigants unhappy with certain laws, but the reality is that they are rarely applied by the courts to invalidate federal or provincial laws. The reason for this is the careful and narrow way these principles have been defined in the case law.
[21] Thus, overbreadth exists only if the adverse effect of legislation on individuals subject to it is grossly disproportionate to the state interest the legislation seeks to protect or achieve: see R. v. Malmo-Levine (2003), 179 C.C.C. (3d) 417 (S.C.C.) at para. 143. This test, as Sharpe J.A. noted recently, "clearly incorporates a substantial measure of deference to the legislature's assessment of the risk to public safety and the need for the impugned law": Cochrane v. Ontario (2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 321 ( C.A. ) at para. 31.
[22] Similarly, a law should be declared impermissibly vague only if it does not provide a "basis for legal debate and coherent judicial interpretation.…[i]f judicial interpretation is possible, then an impugned law is not vague": R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1995), 99 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.) at para. 79. It follows that there is "a relatively high threshold" for potential application of the vagueness principle to an impugned law: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at para. 68
Troubling story from Afghanistan
My friends in the Forces have been saying for some time that the mission is "problematic" at best. This story from the Post, a brief passage below, supports that concern:
The fighting displaced families. Local farmers who remained complained that they lacked water for their crops. Closer to the provincial capital, factories were closing thanks to a scarcity of electrical power. But there was a sense of optimism. The Canadians were promising change.
Last year, one could feel a shift. Most of the fighting had stopped, the Taliban having turned almost exclusively to so-called asymmetrical tactics such as suicide attacks and remote bombings. Crime was on the rise. Kidnappings for ransom were all too frequent and police were said to be complicit in them.
Businessmen who had arrived from exile in America with hard- earned cash expressed fear and dismay. The Taliban carried out gruesome assaults on schoolgirls.
This year, girls don't attend schools. The same businessmen and their families with whom I spoke have left, for Kabul, for Dubai, for the West. The lights are still out. And now, elected officials have no place to meet and do their work.
Story here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1737628
The fighting displaced families. Local farmers who remained complained that they lacked water for their crops. Closer to the provincial capital, factories were closing thanks to a scarcity of electrical power. But there was a sense of optimism. The Canadians were promising change.
Last year, one could feel a shift. Most of the fighting had stopped, the Taliban having turned almost exclusively to so-called asymmetrical tactics such as suicide attacks and remote bombings. Crime was on the rise. Kidnappings for ransom were all too frequent and police were said to be complicit in them.
Businessmen who had arrived from exile in America with hard- earned cash expressed fear and dismay. The Taliban carried out gruesome assaults on schoolgirls.
This year, girls don't attend schools. The same businessmen and their families with whom I spoke have left, for Kabul, for Dubai, for the West. The lights are still out. And now, elected officials have no place to meet and do their work.
Story here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1737628
Monday, June 29, 2009
Be of brave heart - a marathon and not a sprint
There is an amazing amount of nonsense floating around the internet saying that the Liberals "blew it", or worse, with the failure to bring down the government.
There is no doubt a summer election would be extremely unpopular.
Michael Ignatieff was quite right to seek a compromise to make Parliament work, as best it can, at least until the fall. That compromise left both the Conservatives and the Liberals feeling a bit let down -- but that is the nature of a compromise.
More important, and the polls did dip, is to recognize that we are in a marathon and not a sprint.
Even if we had an election next Wednesday, and we won, we would still have work ahead. We need to have Liberals across the country.
We need rural and city Liberals, Liberals from the east and the west. And after the next election we won't have that spread -- we will be better but we won't be there. This is a task to take a generation.
Michael Ignatieff will take us to a place where we can envision the Liberal Party elected in all of Canada; perhaps he will take us further. But the day to day ups and downs do not matter -- the goal is there.
There the LORD showed him the whole land—from Gilead to Dan, all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar.
There is no doubt a summer election would be extremely unpopular.
Michael Ignatieff was quite right to seek a compromise to make Parliament work, as best it can, at least until the fall. That compromise left both the Conservatives and the Liberals feeling a bit let down -- but that is the nature of a compromise.
More important, and the polls did dip, is to recognize that we are in a marathon and not a sprint.
Even if we had an election next Wednesday, and we won, we would still have work ahead. We need to have Liberals across the country.
We need rural and city Liberals, Liberals from the east and the west. And after the next election we won't have that spread -- we will be better but we won't be there. This is a task to take a generation.
Michael Ignatieff will take us to a place where we can envision the Liberal Party elected in all of Canada; perhaps he will take us further. But the day to day ups and downs do not matter -- the goal is there.
There the LORD showed him the whole land—from Gilead to Dan, all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar.
Wallace and Keays
The two critical cases in bad faith and employment law are Wallace and Keays.
Most counsel believe that Keays cut back on Wallace although a minority (myself included) believe Keays greatly expanded the scope for Wallace like bad faith damages.
Regardless, the Court of Appeal has avoided deciding the impact of Keays on several occasions. Employment lawyers anxiously await the Court's guidance.
Today's decision in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, 2009 ONCA 526 continues this trend. The Court writes:
Most counsel believe that Keays cut back on Wallace although a minority (myself included) believe Keays greatly expanded the scope for Wallace like bad faith damages.
Regardless, the Court of Appeal has avoided deciding the impact of Keays on several occasions. Employment lawyers anxiously await the Court's guidance.
Today's decision in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, 2009 ONCA 526 continues this trend. The Court writes:
[5] In the third ground of appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in awarding Wallace damages in an amount equivalent to two months' pay to each of the respondents. With respect to the respondent, Slepenkova, we see no error. The trial judge made a specific finding that the appellant's pager message to other agents informing them "that [Slepenkova] failed to adequately perform her duties was unfounded and damaging to her reputation". In our view, this finding of fact was sufficient to sustain the Wallace award, even in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays (2008) S.C.J. No. 40, which was rendered after the trial judge's decision in this case.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (29 June 1900—31 July 1944)
Today is the birthday of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (29 June 1900—31 July 1944) .
He is most famous for his novella The Little Prince, and is also well known for his books about aviation adventures, including Night Flight and Wind, Sand and Stars.
Here is a link to the text (in English) of The Little Prince:
Racial bias in jury pools
Selwyn Pieters is a leading lawyer and a pretty good guy -- he fights the good fight. Maybe we should get the police to try to find out who is bias when setting up the jury panels? (That is a joke in case it wasn't obvious).
Racial bias runs surprisingly deep
The Toronto Star , June 27, 2009
In a Hamilton courtroom recently, a mistrial was declared - in large part -because too many potential jurors declared themselves to be intrinsicallybiased against the black defendants.
There were no blacks in the jury pool and only two individuals of a visibleminority.
The question posed to them all, at the insistence of a defence lawyer, wasthis: "Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias orprejudice be affected by the fact the accused persons are black men or non-white men?"
Out of a jury pool of 72, 25 were let go in one day because they answered"yes." That left too few to proceed with jury selection."It was very disheartening," says Selwyn Pieters, who represents one of theaccused, Richard Steele - a black man, before the courts not for the firsttime, who also happens to be the son of prominent black activist ValarieSteele.
Racial bias runs surprisingly deep
The Toronto Star , June 27, 2009
In a Hamilton courtroom recently, a mistrial was declared - in large part -because too many potential jurors declared themselves to be intrinsicallybiased against the black defendants.
There were no blacks in the jury pool and only two individuals of a visibleminority.
The question posed to them all, at the insistence of a defence lawyer, wasthis: "Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias orprejudice be affected by the fact the accused persons are black men or non-white men?"
Out of a jury pool of 72, 25 were let go in one day because they answered"yes." That left too few to proceed with jury selection."It was very disheartening," says Selwyn Pieters, who represents one of theaccused, Richard Steele - a black man, before the courts not for the firsttime, who also happens to be the son of prominent black activist ValarieSteele.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
A new Mayor for Toronto -- John Tory?
John Tory would make a fine mayor and he would offer a real alternative the Mayor Miller:
Is John Tory aiming for mayor's chair, as he slams 'unnecessary' strike?
John Tory is sounding like a Toronto mayoralty candidate for 2010, taking a shot at David Miller's handling of the civic workers' strike and issuing a mea culpa for his own mistakes as former leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservatives.
"I think this entire chapter is so unnecessary," Tory said at yesterday's Conservative leadership convention, where MPP Tim Hudak was elected as his successor.
"What it reflects is both sides involved, those who serve the public as employees and those who serve as leaders, have forgotten they are public servants.
"We did not have to have it happen this way."
Is John Tory aiming for mayor's chair, as he slams 'unnecessary' strike?
John Tory is sounding like a Toronto mayoralty candidate for 2010, taking a shot at David Miller's handling of the civic workers' strike and issuing a mea culpa for his own mistakes as former leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservatives.
"I think this entire chapter is so unnecessary," Tory said at yesterday's Conservative leadership convention, where MPP Tim Hudak was elected as his successor.
"What it reflects is both sides involved, those who serve the public as employees and those who serve as leaders, have forgotten they are public servants.
"We did not have to have it happen this way."
Eradication of drugs not possible
New from Afghanistan has it that the USA will stop trying to eradicate opium and will focus on education and treatment instead. The US envoy is quoted as saying "eradication has proven to be a waste of time".
Pity that realization seems to be limited to Afghanistan... .
Pity that realization seems to be limited to Afghanistan... .
I'm not sure I wanted to know this ...
From Yahoo -- 13 things a waiter won't tell you. I don't agree with them all; for example I often order "off menu". A restuarant that cannot go "off menu" has precooked the food and is likely no good. As for the rest, well, we all get sick and one day will die so, stop worrying and eat up!!!
1. Avoid eating out on holidays and Saturday nights. The sheer volume of customers guarantees that most kitchens will be pushed beyond their ability to produce a high-quality dish.
2. There are almost never any sick days in the restaurant business. A busboy with a kid to support isn't going to stay home and miss out on $100 because he's got strep throat. And these are the people handling your food.
3. When customers' dissatisfaction devolves into personal attacks, adulterating food or drink is a convenient way for servers to exact covert vengeance. Some waiters can and do spit in people's food.
4. Never say "I'm friends with the owner." Restaurant owners don't have friends. This marks you as a clueless poseur the moment you walk in the door.
5. Treat others as you want to be treated. (Yes, people need to be reminded of this.)
6. Don't snap your fingers to get our attention. Remember, we have shears that cut through bone in the kitchen.
7. Don't order meals that aren't on the menu. You're forcing the chef to cook something he doesn't make on a regular basis. If he makes the same entrée 10,000 times a month, the odds are good that the dish will be a home run every time.
8. Splitting entrées is okay, but don't ask for water, lemon, and sugar so you can make your own lemonade. What's next, grapes so you can press your own wine?
9. If you find a waiter you like, always ask to be seated in his or her section. Tell all your friends so they'll start asking for that server as well. You've just made that waiter look indispensable to the owner. The server will be grateful and take good care of you.
10. If you can't afford to leave a tip, you can't afford to eat in the restaurant. Servers could be giving 20 to 40 percent to the busboys, bartenders, maître d', or hostess.
11. Always examine the check. Sometimes large parties are unaware that a gratuity has been added to the bill, so they tip on top of it. Waiters "facilitate" this error. It's dishonest, it's wrong-and I did it all the time.
12. If you want to hang out, that's fine. But increase the tip to make up for money the server would have made if he or she had had another seating at that table.
13. Never, ever come in 15 minutes before closing time. The cooks are tired and will cook your dinner right away. So while you're chitchatting over salads, your entrées will be languishing under the heat lamp while the dishwasher is spraying industrial-strength, carcinogenic cleaning solvents in their immediate vicinity.
1. Avoid eating out on holidays and Saturday nights. The sheer volume of customers guarantees that most kitchens will be pushed beyond their ability to produce a high-quality dish.
2. There are almost never any sick days in the restaurant business. A busboy with a kid to support isn't going to stay home and miss out on $100 because he's got strep throat. And these are the people handling your food.
3. When customers' dissatisfaction devolves into personal attacks, adulterating food or drink is a convenient way for servers to exact covert vengeance. Some waiters can and do spit in people's food.
4. Never say "I'm friends with the owner." Restaurant owners don't have friends. This marks you as a clueless poseur the moment you walk in the door.
5. Treat others as you want to be treated. (Yes, people need to be reminded of this.)
6. Don't snap your fingers to get our attention. Remember, we have shears that cut through bone in the kitchen.
7. Don't order meals that aren't on the menu. You're forcing the chef to cook something he doesn't make on a regular basis. If he makes the same entrée 10,000 times a month, the odds are good that the dish will be a home run every time.
8. Splitting entrées is okay, but don't ask for water, lemon, and sugar so you can make your own lemonade. What's next, grapes so you can press your own wine?
9. If you find a waiter you like, always ask to be seated in his or her section. Tell all your friends so they'll start asking for that server as well. You've just made that waiter look indispensable to the owner. The server will be grateful and take good care of you.
10. If you can't afford to leave a tip, you can't afford to eat in the restaurant. Servers could be giving 20 to 40 percent to the busboys, bartenders, maître d', or hostess.
11. Always examine the check. Sometimes large parties are unaware that a gratuity has been added to the bill, so they tip on top of it. Waiters "facilitate" this error. It's dishonest, it's wrong-and I did it all the time.
12. If you want to hang out, that's fine. But increase the tip to make up for money the server would have made if he or she had had another seating at that table.
13. Never, ever come in 15 minutes before closing time. The cooks are tired and will cook your dinner right away. So while you're chitchatting over salads, your entrées will be languishing under the heat lamp while the dishwasher is spraying industrial-strength, carcinogenic cleaning solvents in their immediate vicinity.
Clear choices for Ontario
At least there is a clear choice -- no more two Liberal parties. I thought Elliott would win based on being very election friendly but, despite his policies, Hudak is a good campaigner. Still, I think the PC's just gave us at least one more term of Liberal government in Ontario.
Hudak is new Tory leader
Election is seen as move back toward Harris era, away from Tory's centrism
Robert Benzie, Rob Ferguson, Tanya Talaga Queen's Park Bureau
Progressive Conservatives today elected Niagara-area MPP Tim Hudak as their new leader, charting a new right-wing course for a party that has struggled while moored in the political centre for the past seven years.
In a third-ballot victory at the PC convention in Markham, Hudak, 41, bested MPP Frank Klees, 58, (Newmarket-Aurora), winning 5,606 of 10,250 electoral votes cast in 107 ridings in the preferential-ballot contest.
The married father of a toddler won by securing the second-choice votes of also-ran MPPs Christine Elliott, 54, (Whitby-Oshawa) and Randy Hillier, 51, (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington).
He will lead the Tories to battle against Premier Dalton McGuinty Liberals in the 2011 election.
Heir apparent to former premier Mike Harris, who governed Ontario from 1995 until 2002, Hudak plans to steer the party back to the right following politically unsuccessful forays to the centre by former premier Ernie Eves, leader from 2002 to 2004, and John Tory, who led from 2004 until his surprise defeat in a March 5 by-election in Haliburton.
Hudak is new Tory leader
Election is seen as move back toward Harris era, away from Tory's centrism
Robert Benzie, Rob Ferguson, Tanya Talaga Queen's Park Bureau
Progressive Conservatives today elected Niagara-area MPP Tim Hudak as their new leader, charting a new right-wing course for a party that has struggled while moored in the political centre for the past seven years.
In a third-ballot victory at the PC convention in Markham, Hudak, 41, bested MPP Frank Klees, 58, (Newmarket-Aurora), winning 5,606 of 10,250 electoral votes cast in 107 ridings in the preferential-ballot contest.
The married father of a toddler won by securing the second-choice votes of also-ran MPPs Christine Elliott, 54, (Whitby-Oshawa) and Randy Hillier, 51, (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington).
He will lead the Tories to battle against Premier Dalton McGuinty Liberals in the 2011 election.
Heir apparent to former premier Mike Harris, who governed Ontario from 1995 until 2002, Hudak plans to steer the party back to the right following politically unsuccessful forays to the centre by former premier Ernie Eves, leader from 2002 to 2004, and John Tory, who led from 2004 until his surprise defeat in a March 5 by-election in Haliburton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)