Here’s a tip for Elmasry.
Bill C-51 sounds a lot like C-68. Mike Brock is fed up. (Memory suggests this bill had its genesis under the Liberals. Does anyone out there know more about this?)
“I hope that clears things up for you.”
Your tips in the comments.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation, here’s a triple-banjo arrangement of Steve Martin’s The Crow, performed by Tony Trischka, with guests Steve Martin and Béla Fleck, from Tony Trischka’s album Double Banjo Bluegrass Spectacular, as seen on The Late Show with David Letterman last year. This piece also features Michael Daves on guitar, Brittany Haas on fiddle, and Skip Ward on bass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhenZCbUb_g
the entire world is being pushed in the same direction. loss of freedom, and no one is willing to speak the unspeakable for fear they will be the only one. a revolution will be necessary. unfortunately sheep don’t revolt.
I will post the same thing I did to Mike Brock’s page. This section of the act he references is taken directly from C-68, and like C-68, is patently unconstitutional.
“While its easy to rag on about the CPC in this matter, what you’re seeing is the Liberal agenda still at work. The libs built a fortress-like bureaucracy within the civil service, devolved authority to it, and its still running the show in many departments. The only solution to this and many other problems is a CPC majority, necessary to make fundamental legislative changes in the structure of government to reverse much of the devolution of authority the liberals created to prevent parliamentary oversight. Exercise your franchise – bitch long and loud to cabinet about what’s wrong with government today.
The scale of the problem is beyond the ability of most ministers to be able to see without focused guidance from the constituency. Don’t forget, the CPC is surrounded by career bureaucrats who will insist on telling him what they want him to know, not what he needs to. Often the first clue a minister gets thats there’s a problem, comes from his constituency, not from his bureaucracy. Government is highly technical. Its easy to overwhelm a minister, and the bureaucracy knows it.
These administrative seizure sections have arisen for two reasons: the frequent ruling of the SCC against non-warranted search and seizures, and the high cost to a department to enforce legislation where a warrant becomes necessary. Its not that the action may not pass judicial scrutiny, its that the cost of the process is very slow, very expensive to the department, very public (which in and of itself is not a bad thing, but because agencies can’t move quickly in these cases, tends to drive true criminal activity deeper underground by its public exposure. Its hard to find a balance). I know this because I do fed law enforcement for a living. Prosecution for criminality is now onerous with charter protections (and that’s fair), but the investigative process to determine if criminality exists has become very difficult. Canada doesn’t have misdemeanor law like the US. A substantial slap on the wrist rather than a full blown criminal investigation is difficult to achieve.
Many of these sections will not pass a challenge at the SCC, but the road to there is long and twisting. In the meantime, the depts will achieve some program success until they’re told to shut it down. If the actions surround some activities which have a high judicial “fear factor”, like guns and drugs, the agencies will get some support from the judiciary. Not much scares the bejeesus out of a judge, but a drug crazed whacko with a gun and revenge on his mind does, so your civil liberties will suffer for his personal security.
Rather than abandoning the CPC, yell long and loud to them about the problem. If the liberals get back in, the previous 13 years will seem like nirvana. The extent to which the liberals removed parliamentary oversight from govt was unprecedented (in my own agency, the minister is powerless to change the direction of the agency. He can only report to parliament what the board of commissioners tell him to say). Give the libs another run, and Canada will quickly become a democratic state in name only. Its very close to losing it now.”
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “Students are entitled [of course] to privacy in school . . . entering a school does not amount to crossing the border.” ([In]Justice Louis LeBel. What an idiot.] This was reported in the National Post this morning.
I am incensed: I wish a gun carrying youth would enter the SCC and do his thing. It would serve these hypocritical and self-serving elitists right. (Most send their kids to private schools and live in alarm protected homes in the best parts of town.)
But, of course this won’t happen: the bloody judges jealously protect their own authority and the safety of their physical person, while leaving the teachers of this country totally vulnerable to the depredations of the critical mass of hooligans and thugs now roaming the corridors of too many schools.
E.g., When one enters even traffic court, one is funnelled—auxiliary staircases are closed off—through to court officers with wands and x-ray machines. One empties the contents of one’s purse or backpack and gets frisked with the wand. Yes, one has crossed “the border”—the border between “outside” and the administration of the rule of law. (In LeBels’ court, that would be the MISrule of law.)
And, yes, even though LeBel J. is too dense to discern this, when a student goes into a school, he or she has, indeed, “cross[ed] the border” between “outside” and a learning environment, where the first requirement is that the teacher be able to establish and maintain authority.
Judge LeBel and his unelected, unaccountable cronies, who rule the lives of us proles, have just made the already extremely difficult job of teaching entitled, bullying, brat-to-criminal students even more difficult, dangerous, and unappealing. Who in his or her right mind would now teach in one of our more dangerous schools?
I have an idea: how about we send in the SCC judges, who made this despicable ruling, to staff a school where teachers refuse to teach? As I tap this out, I know of a particularly difficult special ed. class, where the teacher is on leave: no surprise. With the entitled thugs he’s been expected to cosset and wheedle to behave—administration has the same mindset as the judges—it’s a wonder the beleaguered teacher didn’t leave long ago. Now, guess what? The school can find no teacher willing to take on the class. It looked like maybe a member of the administration might have to be sent in. (I’d love to see that! ‘Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.)
If the judges were expected to establish and maintain order and actually TEACH in a dangerous school—in fact, in any school—they’d be an abject failure. Judges are so cosseted—“Yes, m’Lord, no m’Lord, ‘leave to speak, m’Lord . . . ”, that, in the schools, which are further deprived, BY THEM, of the AUTHORITY they rigidly enforce in their own space, they wouldn’t know what hit them. The “entitled”—you said so, LeBel—and thuggish students would completely bulldoze these pampered poodles in a matter of minutes: I’m not kidding. These judges are living on another planet.
We’re all going to pay . . . and pay . . . and pay . . . Kyrie eleison.
“The scale of the problem is beyond the ability of most ministers to be able to see without focused guidance from the constituency. Don’t forget, the CPC is surrounded by career bureaucrats who will insist on telling him what they want him to know, not what he needs to. Often the first clue a minister gets thats there’s a problem, comes from his constituency, not from his bureaucracy. Government is highly technical. Its easy to overwhelm a minister, and the bureaucracy knows it.”
Skip…you are so right about this. People who do not work for the federal government in Ottawa have no idea how perverse and insiduous the bureaucracy is and how much they can hide from their minister. And how hard it is to change things. I’m actually astounded at how much this government has done in their short time. At least they know how to make decisions….I believe now it’s a question of making the right decisions with ALL the relevant information.
I really hope idiots don’t start spraying stuff in the air to “stop global warming.”
CHICAGO (Reuters) – A proposed solution to reverse the effects of global warming by spraying sulfate particles into Earth’s stratosphere could make matters much worse, climate researchers said on Thursday.
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN2435161220080424
Words Matter (from Israpundit)
“It has long been my opinion that what we call things makes a difference in the way we see them. The Arab world has long understood this and has taken the liberty of establishing a vocabulary that has been adopted by US and western news media, and even many if not most American Jews. In my view we need to be careful of how we use this vocabulary.
“For example:
“West BankM: This is the name the King of Transjordan gave to Judea and Samaria when he conquered the territory in 1948. It has no historical meaning but the world continues to use it. The proper terms are Judea and Samaria referring to the biblical names of the territories.
“Palestinians or Palestinian people: This term was first used to describe Jewish volunteers in the British army during WW I. It was co-opted by Yasir Arafat in 1964 and used to describe a fictitious lineage between the ancient Canaanites and the modern Arabs who live in the disputed territories. The proper terms is the Arabs of Judea and Samaria.
“Occupied territory: This term is often used by the Arabs to describe Judea and Samaria. The proper term is disputed territory or more recently liberated territory. This territory was conquered by the Transjordanians and Egyptians in 1948 with the help of the Syrians, the Saudis and the Iraqis. It was made completely Judenrein, i.e. free of Jews during the period from 1949 -1967 and was liberated by the IDF in 1967. Any compromise over the ownership of the disputed territory must be by mutual agreement, not by Arab fiat.
“Al Quds: Although this hasn’t caught on in America it is the Arab name for Jerusalem, which they also think they own.
“Settlers: This generic term used to mean people willing to sink roots in virgin land. Now it is a pejorative for Jews who have built towns and villages on disputed land. The connotation is of grasping Jews who take what isn’t theirs.
“Apartheid: The term used in South Africa to describe the forced separation of black and whites according to race. The Arabs of Israel including those of Judea and Samaria enjoy freedoms unheard anywhere in the Arab world and are not separated by race or religion. The separation barriers are to keep bombers out, not for any racial purpose. To be accused of racial segregation by people who will not permit Jews to live among them is pure hypocrisy. The penalty for an Arab to sell land to a Jew in Judea is death by order of the PA.
“When Jews build communities in Judea or Samaria the Arabs claim that they own the land and it must be part of their state to come. Therefore any Jewish use of the land is to divide it, hence the apartheid reference. This also gave rise to the phrase “viable and contiguous” state. This implies that anything less that all of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza district would be unviable. Contiguous is interesting since it implies a road from Gaza to Judea, cutting Israel in half.
lookout: I’ve printed the NP piece for later reading. Just to say, that’s a hell of post! It really, really is true: the clueless SCC judges live in cosy, cosseted cocoons well protected from the depredations they insist the public school be exposed to.
Sort of related: one of my ex-friends, a life-long NDPer, environMENTAList, warm-monger, anti-free-market, anti-property rights BUT successful businessman, got downright vicious with me over my support for education vouchers. The argument went back and forth until I realized that he sent his own two sons to private school. Like our SCC judges, no clue about the urban school war zone. Woeful ignorance, olympian hypocrisy.
When I myself was in the trenches I was of the firm view that school administrators should teach at least ONE class.
Vis-a-vis the civil service and the furthering of agendas; Who here was not aware that the humour in “Yes, Minister” lay in the truths exposed, not in any fiction?
I would agree with those who extol the virtues of continuing communication with your MP. Often it is a constituent who raises an issue they may not be aware of. Your MP is only as good as the information they receive.
Mark Steyn on the chickenfeedhawks destroying the world:
http://tinyurl.com/6528p2
Skip at April 26, 2008 7:38 AM
Skip you make a valid observation. The CPC can’t change institutional flaws without the support of society. The Canadian system seems to be at odds with its self. The SC (Court) makes charter rulings (law of the land) in some cases, but avoid charter issues when a bureaucracy is involved. It is my opinion that SC rulings are not a desirable feature in a democracy, and that the lower courts should be making MOST charter decisions.
The US Court System Vs Congress/executive operates in shades of gray. If all the laws passed by State or Federal Government went through strict Constitutional scrutiny (like Canada) we would be paralyzed. This less strict scrutiny results in laws that favor society, in the short term, but may rightly be found unconstitutional in the lower Court appellate level. It is only when the Government or Justice system becomes oppressive that a case reaches the US SC level. Every SC ruling removes tools from society, good & bad.
We, in the US, expect some Laws may be found unconstitutional. In Canada you expect all laws passes by parliament to pass muster. It’s a paradox
Caledonia is again under the control of the Indians. Highway 6 north and southbound has been closed as a “safety precaution” by the OPP as natives block the road in protest with their brothers in Deseronto Ontario.
When’s it ever going to end?
skip and valencia – many thanks for your succinct exposure of our Canadian civil service. They are indeed an isolate, cocooned world-unto-themselves. They are answerable and accountable to no-one, and firmly established in their Liberal socialist ideology, since most were appointed by Liberals.
Their hostility to Harper and the CPC is obvious; their alignment with the Liberal MSM (CBC, CTV, Press Gang etc) is well-established (eg, Elections Canada’s vendetta against Harper).
It’s a serious problem within a government system where the ratio of appointed to elected authority is ten to one in favour of the appointees. And remember, the appointed aren’t around for limited terms; they essentially are in our govt for life.
A current example of the ideological and authoritative control over both the CPC and we citizens, is the HRC. Take a look at the link provided by kate ‘I hope that clears things up for you’. It’s essentially a powerpoint outline of the HRC-Islamic case against Mark Steyn and Macleans. The images of the HRC commissars are perfect, just perfect.
These HRCs, like the rest of the bureaucrats, are appointees, are all socialist demagogues and above all, reject the ability and right of the citizen to think. Only these HRC commissars can think; they control what we peasants are allowed to do.
I commend ‘phantom observer.com’ for the response to C-51, and we are challenged to get in touch with MP’s, but Brock’s re-action is a bit much…and making it worse is Mclelland’s snickering on the sidelines.
ET
It’s not just the Liberal appointees. It’s the culture of the Federal public service…and partly the nature of bureaucracy.
Decision making is “spread” out…no one person is really in charge of a file. That way no one can be really be held responsible, of course. That took me about 2 years to figure out.
Information is filtered as it goes up the chain. When I worked in a hospital, if I wanted to, I could make an appointment with the CEO and, based on my issue/complaint, would be able to see him/her. And there are over 5,000 people who worked for this hospital. In my agency with about 130 people, there is NO WAY, I, a lowly grunt (tho I am fairly well known in my field outside of government), can ever hope to see the Executive Director directly and unfiltered. And hospitals are pretty bureaucratic too.
Most upper level civil servants have been working there for a long time and don’t know how a private sector works. No idea. No knowledge of markets or even of human nature. Even if they have been working in that area for a long time. They truly are isolated in their own little world.
And IMHO, policy is seen as the be all end all of the bureaucracy. Operations are second fiddle. Policy is written but then cannot be operationalized because no one has a clue how the real world works. I think CRA and Stats Canada are some of the better working departments but that is IMHO because they are primarily an operations branch, they actually produce a product all of us use and understand(ie our tax returns and information). But most bureaucrats who write the policy HAVE NEVER done the operation for which the policy is supposed to address.
Well that is my take on it. And this doesn’t address the human resource management issues, how managers are trained and who gets promoted etc.
Mr. McGuinty, when are you going to stand up and be a man and protect the people of Caledonia? From an email I received from Caledonia:
It has just been reported that the SN natives have started a huge fire under the by-pass with black billowing smoke, possibly tires. Environmentally this is unconscionable as it presents a health hazard to all in the area.”
The OPP are continuing to operate as a Native Protester Protection force -these officers should face criminal charges. Thanks to Mr. Bryant this
week for telling the people in Haldimand County that the law should be set aside when dealing with Native People… the message to Natives – don’t
worry because the Ontario Government control the OPP and they have been told not to enforce the laws of Canada.
Just great! Here is another thing for me to fret about that I cannot control in any way.
“Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh”
So says Phil Chapman in The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Ok, I know that this is nothing new here at SDA, but this article states the case in a rather concise and alarming way. It brings into focus the level of risk, and handily dismisses the global warming bunkum.
Last week the always right Craig Oliver noted that people are once again remembering Trudeau for the great man he was. It seems that someone showed their feelings all over his tomb.
I can state for a fact c-51’s search seizure and compliance standards for “inspectors” mirrors the inspection powers of police in the firearms act..”EXACTLY”! Particularly the part about being forced unconstitutionally to incriminate yourself or assist in your prosecution.
Now what are REAL conservatives and the libertarians, populists and democratic reformers in the CPC “big tent” going to do about it???
I’ve already told the CPC that my donations have ceased until they repeal long gun registration and section 13 of the CHR act.
Next stop is a pledge to stay away from the polls when they need me most…just like the CPC, I intend not to be there when they need me most…just as they abandoned their conservative core for Quebecois socialism when we needed them.
Unless they start acting like democratically and constitutionally responsible primncipled Conservatives instead of sleazy Quebec syndicalists.
“Canada and the United States renew defence transportation treaty
OTTAWA – Canadian and American officials today renewed the defence transportation treaty on Integrated Lines of Communications (ILOC). Originally established in 1979, the ILOC agreement allows Canada and the United States to share military transportation resources when the operational requirements of both nations converge. For example, on various occasions since 2001, the ILOC agreement has allowed for both the transportation of Canadian troops, equipment and supplies to Afghanistan by American aircraft, and for the re-supply of US forces using Canadian aircraft.
“This renewed agreement reflects our Government’s commitment to build upon our history of defence cooperation with the United States and to explore new and effective ways to work together towards international security,” said the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. “This exchange strengthens Canada’s ability to respond to security threats by enhancing the capability of the Canadian Forces to quickly deploy when and where needed.”
“The renewal of the ILOC agreement is indicative of the mutually beneficial defence relationship that Canada and the United States have long shared,” said the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs. “Cooperation of Canadian and American forces contributes to the protection of the security of Canadians at home and to the advancement of Canadian interests abroad.””
http://tinyurl.com/6jrawz (dnd)
“Skip…you are so right about this. People who do not work for the federal government in Ottawa have no idea how perverse and insiduous the bureaucracy is and how much they can hide from their minister. And how hard it is to change things. I’m actually astounded at how much this government has done in their short time. At least they know how to make decisions….I believe now it’s a question of making the right decisions with ALL the relevant information.”
I’d buy that if I didn’t have one parliamentary staffer leaking me information, and another who is highly politically connected telling me very frightening things. Both individuals being Conservatives.
My impression (from the inside) is that the Minister of Health knows EXACTLY what this bill says, and so does the PMO. And the full weight of the PMO is behind getting this pushed up the agenda.
You’ll forgive me for the “the ministers are so busy, they don’t even know what they’re tabling” doesn’t fly with me, especially after getting leaks from Conservative insiders who are equally concerned.
Is it wrong to mark Trudeau’s tomb with the word “traitor” even if it is the truth???
I realize that, in my post of 8:16 a.m., I didn’t give the context for the Supreme Court’s (SCC) latest looney tune judgement that I was railing against. Here’s the background:
In 2000, a Sarnia principal had reason to believe students were dealing drugs on school property. So, he asked the police to bring sniffer dogs to his school, without letting the kids know. They were kept in their classrooms while the dogs sniffed—and found—a backpack with enough drugs for trafficking. The student who had the drugs is the instigator of this case.
The SCC has ruled that the action of the principal and police is an unjustifiable invasion of students’ privacy. This ruling is INSANE! The court has brought itself into disrepute and has proven that “the law is an ass”.
Me No Dhimmi, ‘nice to hear from you: I appreciate your comments. As you mention, there’s an article about this case in today’s National Post. And I hear you re your lefty friend: I still have a few like that myself. Honestly, I used to think that claiming leftism is a mental illness was an exaggeration. But, when I look at my well to do lefty friends, who are really “intelligent” and have all the mod cons, but support the most depraved dispensations for everyone else—by using pretzel “thinking”—I begin to think mental illness an apt label. My topics of conversation with these people are severely truncated, as one might imagine.
Thank God, literally, for SDA.
The government of Canada operates in three, only somewhat related, arenas. Parliament, and all its trappings, politicos, hangers-on and other flotsam and jetsam that exist for the media and John Q to rail about, the “mandarin” bureaucracy who has the closest ear of government, and who’s allegiance is as variable as the wind, and the vast civil service, which, for most Canadians, is the real government. If the latter doesn’t care for the policies of the other two, they won’t fly very far or very high.
Most of what you will hear from parliamentary staffers has little to do with what happens at the pointy end. Since the liberals took office in 93, increasing little that Parliament says or does, happens on the ground. My dept, now an agency, treats the minister as a nuisance – the ugly cousin you have bring to the family gathering, smile when he says nice things about Mother from the card you gave him, and point him to the door when he keeps asking for steak and won’t eat his tofu. You take him home for bed as soon as you can.
There are at least 25 people who have more administrative say in the running of the dept than the minister. The minister will be told by Justice and RCMP what they want to fix a certain problem. Justice will craft the legislation to get the job done the most efficient way and with the highest level of success before the case gets to higher courts. Its one of the reasons why you are seeing an increase in over-the-top administrative authority being written into statutes. Justice and the dept knows that eventually it will go to court. Justice also knows that the SCC has widely held that administrative search and seizure provisions are an acceptable way to enforce legislation unless, at the outset, the investigation is criminal. Then, charter procedures take precedence. Justice also discovered, with certain public topics like drugs and guns, there is a high public tolerance for the suspension of charter rights and the parallel criminalization of administrative statutes by re-writing the Criminal Code. This is what occurred with C68. It gives the state unprecedented administrative powers, and criminalizes the citizens ability to protest. It is Draconian legislation of the highest order, and the Liberal Justice dept’s answer to end-running the charter. This is what makes the charter worthless. There is no protection in the charter from bankruptcy by the machinery of the state.
I re-iterate what I said in the first post: get vocal with your MP and the minister involved. Make enough noise and you will re-shape policy. The end-game for any politician is to get re-elected.
This country has been under the hand of liberals for so much of it’s existence, the thinking and expectations are entrenched in it’s population’s conscience, as are the laws that were made and will still be made, because Conservatives are really quite Liberal (by osmosis). So such proposed laws are no surprise to me, this is Canada you see. It is Trudeauopia, we’ve all lived it for so long. No wonder. We made our own bed, but let’s be sure to blame Harper exclusively for all of it, some 40 years hence.
Skip, your posts here are fascinating. Many thanks. And poor us.
You write, “Justice also discovered, with certain public topics like drugs and guns, there is a high public tolerance for the suspension of charter rights and the parallel criminalization of administrative statutes by re-writing the Criminal Code.”
But, in the case I’ve described, the SCC has, apparently, upheld a student’s right to conceal illegal substances and weapons. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
Lookout, the SCC has upheld many times, the concept that if a criminal investigation is to be undertaken from which criminal charges may ensue, there are firm, charter sanctioned, procedures to be followed to ensure that the accused bears the full benefit of the law, because the consequences to the accused are severe. There is nothing wrong with this concept. This is the heart of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
In the case you cited and in the rebuke from the SCC, actions were taken by the police on the advice of an individual(the principal) without appropriate judicial authority or oversight. The principal does not have that authority (nor does, in fact, any citizen). The police erred because they understood the principal to have an authority he does not have, and acted on that basis. This never would have been an issue if the principal has sworn an information and the police obtained a proper warrant for the search. Detention of the students is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish here.
In a presumption of innocence before being proven guilty the presence of the drugs is circumstantial to the fact of the guilt or not of the individual, and this is where the charter kicks in. There is a lot wrong with the way this went down, notwithstanding the “higher moral purpose” used to justify it.
The moxargon guy claims Peter Elliot Waterhole was responsible for bringing the HRCs into being. Yes, turdeau may have been the father of much of Canadian moonbattery, but he can’t take all the credit. Yes, the CHRC was ditch delivered by a drab under his tutelage in 1977. But many of the provincial HRCs were already busy hacking at our freedoms before the turdeau government came into being or before it could have had meaningful influence on their establishment: Ontario (1961); New Brunswick (1967); British Columbia (1969); Manitoba (1970).
Turdeau may well have been the single most malign influence in 20th century Canada, but he didn’t do it all alone. The self-loathers were busy before he got there.
Skip, you write, “In the case you cited and in the rebuke from the SCC, actions were taken by the police on the advice of an individual(the principal) without appropriate judicial authority or oversight. The principal does not have that authority (nor does, in fact, any citizen). The police erred because they understood the principal to have an authority he does not have, and acted on that basis.”
You may be right. However, I know that, under the Education Act, principals have wide latitude to protect the health and safety of their students. (Not that, in most schools, judging from the appeasement tactics of most administrators, one would know this.) I’ll check into that. I do know that principals have many more rights to exercise their considerable authority in their schools than John Q. Citizen in the public square.
Lookout, the connecting link here is that the search is part of criminal investigation, because the offence is covered by the criminal code. This is an area where the charter is on firm ground, again because of the consequences of a criminal conviction (principally, denial of liberty).
There are likely all sorts of areas where the principal has authorities under education acts (some of which may not sustain charter scrutiny), but I think you’ll find dealing with criminality isn’t one of them. If the principal knew who the student was, he could have apprehended him under S494 (citizen’s arrest) and handed him over to the police.
He could have invited the police into the building for a general overview of the school, but when they came in for the specific purpose of ferreting out criminal activity of specific, but unnamed, individuals, by examination of unrelated third parties, without a warrant, is the point where the wheels fell off.
Re the principal’s authority: I’ve just spoken to a principal.
Apparently, if the principal has reason to believe that unlawful actions are occuring in his/her school, (s)he not only has the authority, but the responsibility to call the police.
I think this is more observed in the breach than not: “What, MY school? I don’t see any major problems here.” Think C. W. Jeffrys School, where Jordan Manners was murdered.)
I take my hat off to the principal in Sarnia for doing his duty. I can only imagine how he’s feeling today. If he’s not already retitred, I’ll bet he’s seriously thinking about throwing in the towel. The students–usually the worst ones–have more rights than the adults who have responsibility for them. It’s a bloody mess.
Skip, your explanation may well be correct in law. If so, the law’s an ass and needs to be changed–or interpreted differently.
Seeing as, according to your information, the public has a high tolerance for the suspension of certain rights when weapons or drugs are concerned, I hope the law will be changed. My view, however, is that the law is far too often misinterprted by activist, pea-brained, ideological, Liberal appointed judges, who are causing irreparable damage to the fabric of a once stable and responsible society.
As I said, the present situation’s a bloody mess.
Skip, it’s a sad fact majority of Canadians haven’t a clue how their government functions. They incorrectly believe the Prime Minister and cabinet run government when in actual fact it’s mandarins and bureaucracy that control the levers of power and if they want to decapitate a Minister it’s easily done especially in a minority government.
IMHO the American system is much better because a new administration brings in new like minded people to occupy the senior posts of government.
I’ve always thought it must be dam tough to go to work everyday as a CPC Minister knowing full well senior bureaucracy in your ministry are not only NOT onside with Conservative objectives but some are working to undermine everything you as a minister attempt to accomplish. Talk about a rat’s nest or den of vipers.
A Globe and Mail Poll going horribly right!
Globe Poll
Should immigrants have to choose between becoming Canadian citizens and leaving the country?
Caledonia: Six Nations used their radios to call for backup about 20 minutes ago.
Now about 50 cars line 6th line.
A group of residents have moved from the Canadian Tire and have passed
the church toward DCE.
OPP have about 20 officers on the scene and are heard radioing for backup.
Indian activists
Terrorists more