Van Loan 'erred' in prison transfer requests
The Federal Court has ruled that former public safety minister Peter Van Loan erred in not allowing two Canadians back into the country to serve out their U.S. prison sentences. (Eugene Hoshiko/Associated Press) The Federal Court has ruled that former public safety minister Peter Van Loan erred in not allowing two Canadians back into the country to serve their U.S. prison sentences.
Both men are currently incarcerated for drug offences committed in the United States.
The rulings by Justice John O'Keefe question Van Loan's denials for transfer and contend that he committed a "key error" in one of the cases. Van Loan, who is now international trade minister, refused the transfers to Canada in May 2009, based on ministerial "opinion" that the offender will commit a "criminal organization" offence.
In the case of Brent James Curtis , serving 57 months for his part in a 100-kilogram cocaine operation in 2007, O'Keefe ruled "there is little in the way of evidence to support" the denial and that "a key error was made in the analysis."
Curtis had been described as a "transporter" of cocaine by U.S. justice officials. When he was public safety minister, Van Loan refused Curtis's application for transfer back to Canada because "the offence may have been committed for financial gain" and his role was that of the "money man."
In his letter to Curtis, Van Loan wrote that the convict's actions indicated deliberate planning of drug trafficking and demonstrated that he was "several steps down the road towards involvement in criminal organization offence."
O'Keefe disagreed, writing that Van Loan committed a "key error in coming to the conclusion." He emphasized that U.S. justice documents stated that Curtis's colleague indicated he was the money man and referred to Curtis as a transporter.
U.S. Department of Justice officials approved Curtis's transfer to Canada, and the Correctional Service of Canada indicated it had no reason to believe the applicant had links to organized crime, wrote O'Keefe, who concluded that Van Loan's decision was "unreasonable and ought to be reconsidered."
Canadians and Americans held in prisons can request transfers back to their home nations under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, a 30 year-old treaty meant to allow for the rehabilitation of non-violent offenders. If approved, a convict can return to their home nation and enter the domestic prison system.
Second case
The second Federal Court ruling dealt with the case of Michael Dudas, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import marijuana into the U.S. He was sentenced to 60 months in prison in September 2008. Dudas had purchased a helicopter and hired pilots to fly B.C. marijuana into the state of Washington.
Though the U.S. Justice Department had approved his transfer, the Correctional Service of Canada indicated that its Regional Security Intelligence believed Dudas had links to organized crime.
Van Loan denied Dudas's transfer saying, "I believe he may, after the transfer, commit a criminal organization offence."
O'Keefe ruled that Van Loan had not sufficiently "expressed which purpose or purposes were most crucially relied on in coming to his ultimate conclusion."
While he did not question the ministerial prerogative, O'Keefe wrote that the courts "cannot condone nor accept completely unstructured discretion. In circumstances where a decision has such a dramatic effect on the citizen in question, the law requires a complete explanation, however short, for the decision."
If you have more information on this story, or other story tips, please email investigations@cbc.ca
O'Keefe has referred the decisions back to Vic Toews, the current public safety minister, who now has 44 days to reconsider. There was no comment from Public Safety Canada and no mention of Tuesday's ruling on the government website.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/22/federal-court-rulings.html#ixzz10K2me6Un
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
G20 ringleader' re-arrested
G20 protest 'ringleader' re-arrested over 'simple' discussion
Protester Alex Hundert tries to talk his way past the police and into the Chateau Montebello. Day 2 at Chateau Montebello, where the North American leaders (Harper/Bush/Calderon) are meeting.Photograph by: Mike Carroccetto, Ottawa CitizenDoes participating in a panel discussion on a university campus constitute an act of public demonstration?
That's the question activists are asking after the arrest last Friday of Alex Hundert, one of the alleged ringleaders of the G20 Summit protests, following a panel discussion at Ryerson University in Toronto.
Police allege that Hundert's participation in the event — dubbed "Strengthening Our Resolve: Movement Building and Ongoing Resistance to the G20 Agenda" — constituted a breach of one of his bail conditions that he not take part in a public demonstration.
"When you're out on bail, you sign a document that you agree to meet certain conditions. Whatever those conditions are, you're obliged to follow those conditions until your matter is heard in court," said Sgt. Pierre Chamberland, a spokesman for Ontario Provincial Police, which carried out the arrest with the assistance of Toronto police.
John Norris, Hundert's lawyer, said Tuesday his client was speaking publicly about matters of public interest — but not in a manner that could be interpreted as a public demonstration.
Participating in a university panel discussion is "not what the bail was meant to prohibit," Norris said.
"By taking such a broad interpretation of the bail order, the real concern of the police seems to be the content of the expression," as opposed to the manner in which it was expressed, he said. "They really are criminalizing dissent."
Panel participant Judy Rebick, an instructor of politics at Ryerson, said she's organized hundreds of protests in her life, but this was not one of them.
She characterized the event as merely a bunch of "talking heads" representing labour, anti-poverty and sexual-orientation groups discussing lessons learned from the G20. More than 200 people jammed a lecture hall for the event and not a single person raised his or her voice, she said.
"This was a simple discussion among activists about where we go from here. No one can interpret it as a protest," she said.
Rebick said police are clearly just trying to harass Hundert.
They're using the "slimmest excuse" to re-arrest him, she said. "It's very upsetting."
Hundert, 30, was arrested on June 26 — the first day of the G20 summit in Toronto — and charged with conspiring or counselling to commit mischief to property, obstruct police and assault police.
He was released on $100,000 bail after agreeing to several bail conditions, including house arrest, appearing in public only with his sureties, and not organizing or attending any public demonstrations.
Because of the alleged breach of his bail order last week, Hundert must remain in detention until his next bail hearing Oct. 6.
Protester Alex Hundert tries to talk his way past the police and into the Chateau Montebello. Day 2 at Chateau Montebello, where the North American leaders (Harper/Bush/Calderon) are meeting.Photograph by: Mike Carroccetto, Ottawa CitizenDoes participating in a panel discussion on a university campus constitute an act of public demonstration?
That's the question activists are asking after the arrest last Friday of Alex Hundert, one of the alleged ringleaders of the G20 Summit protests, following a panel discussion at Ryerson University in Toronto.
Police allege that Hundert's participation in the event — dubbed "Strengthening Our Resolve: Movement Building and Ongoing Resistance to the G20 Agenda" — constituted a breach of one of his bail conditions that he not take part in a public demonstration.
"When you're out on bail, you sign a document that you agree to meet certain conditions. Whatever those conditions are, you're obliged to follow those conditions until your matter is heard in court," said Sgt. Pierre Chamberland, a spokesman for Ontario Provincial Police, which carried out the arrest with the assistance of Toronto police.
John Norris, Hundert's lawyer, said Tuesday his client was speaking publicly about matters of public interest — but not in a manner that could be interpreted as a public demonstration.
Participating in a university panel discussion is "not what the bail was meant to prohibit," Norris said.
"By taking such a broad interpretation of the bail order, the real concern of the police seems to be the content of the expression," as opposed to the manner in which it was expressed, he said. "They really are criminalizing dissent."
Panel participant Judy Rebick, an instructor of politics at Ryerson, said she's organized hundreds of protests in her life, but this was not one of them.
She characterized the event as merely a bunch of "talking heads" representing labour, anti-poverty and sexual-orientation groups discussing lessons learned from the G20. More than 200 people jammed a lecture hall for the event and not a single person raised his or her voice, she said.
"This was a simple discussion among activists about where we go from here. No one can interpret it as a protest," she said.
Rebick said police are clearly just trying to harass Hundert.
They're using the "slimmest excuse" to re-arrest him, she said. "It's very upsetting."
Hundert, 30, was arrested on June 26 — the first day of the G20 summit in Toronto — and charged with conspiring or counselling to commit mischief to property, obstruct police and assault police.
He was released on $100,000 bail after agreeing to several bail conditions, including house arrest, appearing in public only with his sureties, and not organizing or attending any public demonstrations.
Because of the alleged breach of his bail order last week, Hundert must remain in detention until his next bail hearing Oct. 6.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Pierre Poilievre Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary denies knowing gun adviser.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary says he has never heard of a spokesman for a Canadian gun advocacy group who boasts of ties to the U.S. National Rifle Association and is also a government adviser on the long-gun registry.
On Tuesday, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre dismissed notions the government is linked to or influenced by the NRA, the powerful U.S. lobbying group that advocates fewer gun controls.
This followed CBC News reports that the NRA has been involved for years in efforts to abolish Canada's long-gun registry.
Poilievre added that he is "not familiar" with Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, who has said that while the NRA doesn't give his organization money, it "freely gives us anything else."
Four years ago, the Harper government appointed Bernardo to the National Firearms Advisory group.
In a letter to his constituents, Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz drew attention to the makeup of the panel, including several firearms experts and dealers. Last May, Bernardo also testified against the registry in front of a Commons committee.
Denial issued
Bernardo, who is in Australia, emailed CBC News late Tuesday insisting the "NRA is not assisting in the long-gun debate in any way."
Earlier Tuesday, Liberal House Leader David McGuinty accused Harper's Conservatives of playing "the worst of right-wing Republican wedge politics" in an attempt to "pick off eight or 10 ridings" on the gun registry issue.
McGuinty also called on the prime minister to disclose details of what he called a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink relationship" between the NRA and current and former Conservative MPs, staffers and party members.
But speaking to supporters Tuesday night in Edwards, Ont., Harper rejected the claims.
"Today I listened to the Liberals claiming that people who oppose the long-gun registry are just a bunch of U.S. gun lobbyists," Harper said. "Now this, friends, is typical of the arrogant, intellectual contempt in which the Liberal Party holds so many people, especially in rural Canada."
A vote is scheduled next week on a Tory private member's bill to kill the registry. NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday enough members of his party will vote to defeat the bill.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/14/nra-gun-registry.html#ixzz108WLRrL3
On Tuesday, Tory MP Pierre Poilievre dismissed notions the government is linked to or influenced by the NRA, the powerful U.S. lobbying group that advocates fewer gun controls.
This followed CBC News reports that the NRA has been involved for years in efforts to abolish Canada's long-gun registry.
Poilievre added that he is "not familiar" with Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, who has said that while the NRA doesn't give his organization money, it "freely gives us anything else."
Four years ago, the Harper government appointed Bernardo to the National Firearms Advisory group.
In a letter to his constituents, Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz drew attention to the makeup of the panel, including several firearms experts and dealers. Last May, Bernardo also testified against the registry in front of a Commons committee.
Denial issued
Bernardo, who is in Australia, emailed CBC News late Tuesday insisting the "NRA is not assisting in the long-gun debate in any way."
Earlier Tuesday, Liberal House Leader David McGuinty accused Harper's Conservatives of playing "the worst of right-wing Republican wedge politics" in an attempt to "pick off eight or 10 ridings" on the gun registry issue.
McGuinty also called on the prime minister to disclose details of what he called a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink relationship" between the NRA and current and former Conservative MPs, staffers and party members.
But speaking to supporters Tuesday night in Edwards, Ont., Harper rejected the claims.
"Today I listened to the Liberals claiming that people who oppose the long-gun registry are just a bunch of U.S. gun lobbyists," Harper said. "Now this, friends, is typical of the arrogant, intellectual contempt in which the Liberal Party holds so many people, especially in rural Canada."
A vote is scheduled next week on a Tory private member's bill to kill the registry. NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday enough members of his party will vote to defeat the bill.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/14/nra-gun-registry.html#ixzz108WLRrL3
Monday, September 20, 2010
Blind woman says federal websites discriminate.
Donna Jodhan was one of the first blind people in Canada to earn an MBA, in 1981, and one of the first in the world to obtain technical certifications from software companies Microsoft and Novell.
So the Toronto accessibility consultant was shocked in 2004 when she had trouble applying for a position posted on the federal government’s jobs website.
Despite her considerable technical expertise — she has won four accessibility design awards from IBM — Jodhan couldn’t get Ottawa’s online job application to work, even after repeated calls to the government helpline.
When Ottawa offered residents the option of filling out the 2006 Census online, Jodhan was thwarted once again.
“The Internet is something that is liberating to everybody — but not to blind and visually impaired Canadians,” she said in an interview. “Canada used to be at the top when it came to accessibility 10 years ago. It’s way down the list now.”
On Tuesday, Jodhan will argue in federal court that her inability to apply for a position on the federal jobs website or complete the online version of the 2006 Census breached her equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
She will also argue that this violation and her ongoing inability to access the government’s online information and services constitute a breach against all blind and partially sighted Canadians, said Jodhan’s lawyer David Baker.
About 3 million Canadians have visual or other impairments that make it difficult to access the Internet.
“It is just so frustrating that (the visually impaired) can’t access government information, can’t apply for government jobs — can’t use the Internet. That’s what this case is about,” Baker said in an interview.
Blind people visit websites using screen reader software which converts text to speech. But the software can’t work unless a web page includes special coding, Baker said.
American and European governments have adopted the latest international web accessibility standards for their websites as have Canadian banks and many businesses, he said. But the Canadian government has not — even though the changes would not be difficult or expensive to implement, he said.
Jodhan, who launched her case in 2006 under the now defunct Court Challenges program which helped fund equality rights cases, wants the court to order Ottawa to upgrade its websites to the latest accessibility standards within 12 months and monitor compliance.
In its written defence, the federal government argues that the Charter’s goal of providing “substantive equality” and “reasonable accommodation” to Jodhan were met through telephone help lines, by mail and in person.
Internet access to government services and information is not a right guaranteed in law, the government says in its written submission to the court.
“Alternative channels available did allow (Jodhan) to access services and information independently, in a manner that respected her privacy and dignity,” it says.
With more than 120 government departments and agencies and more than 23 million web pages, “it is unlikely that the government’s web presence will ever be perfectly accessible to all,” it adds.
A spokesperson for the federal government said Ottawa is working to make its online information as accessible as possible.
Ontario lawyer and disability rights activist David Lepofsky is waging a battle to make the provincial government’s websites and services accessible.
Lepofsky, who is blind, is particularly upset that the province’s new Presto electronic transit card is not accessible to the visually impaired and others.
Ontario is offering to adopt the most current international web accessibility standards, but Queen’s Park is giving itself up to 2018 and even longer for other organizations to get started, he noted.
“This is ridiculous,” Lepofsky said in an interview. “When it comes to creating new technology, experts have shown that there is . . . no significant added burden on organizations to adopt the latest standards for full accessibility. Moreover, accessibility for us usually helps lots of people, including those with no disability.
“There is absolutely no reason why any government in this country isn’t now complying with the latest international standards,” he added.
So the Toronto accessibility consultant was shocked in 2004 when she had trouble applying for a position posted on the federal government’s jobs website.
Despite her considerable technical expertise — she has won four accessibility design awards from IBM — Jodhan couldn’t get Ottawa’s online job application to work, even after repeated calls to the government helpline.
When Ottawa offered residents the option of filling out the 2006 Census online, Jodhan was thwarted once again.
“The Internet is something that is liberating to everybody — but not to blind and visually impaired Canadians,” she said in an interview. “Canada used to be at the top when it came to accessibility 10 years ago. It’s way down the list now.”
On Tuesday, Jodhan will argue in federal court that her inability to apply for a position on the federal jobs website or complete the online version of the 2006 Census breached her equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
She will also argue that this violation and her ongoing inability to access the government’s online information and services constitute a breach against all blind and partially sighted Canadians, said Jodhan’s lawyer David Baker.
About 3 million Canadians have visual or other impairments that make it difficult to access the Internet.
“It is just so frustrating that (the visually impaired) can’t access government information, can’t apply for government jobs — can’t use the Internet. That’s what this case is about,” Baker said in an interview.
Blind people visit websites using screen reader software which converts text to speech. But the software can’t work unless a web page includes special coding, Baker said.
American and European governments have adopted the latest international web accessibility standards for their websites as have Canadian banks and many businesses, he said. But the Canadian government has not — even though the changes would not be difficult or expensive to implement, he said.
Jodhan, who launched her case in 2006 under the now defunct Court Challenges program which helped fund equality rights cases, wants the court to order Ottawa to upgrade its websites to the latest accessibility standards within 12 months and monitor compliance.
In its written defence, the federal government argues that the Charter’s goal of providing “substantive equality” and “reasonable accommodation” to Jodhan were met through telephone help lines, by mail and in person.
Internet access to government services and information is not a right guaranteed in law, the government says in its written submission to the court.
“Alternative channels available did allow (Jodhan) to access services and information independently, in a manner that respected her privacy and dignity,” it says.
With more than 120 government departments and agencies and more than 23 million web pages, “it is unlikely that the government’s web presence will ever be perfectly accessible to all,” it adds.
A spokesperson for the federal government said Ottawa is working to make its online information as accessible as possible.
Ontario lawyer and disability rights activist David Lepofsky is waging a battle to make the provincial government’s websites and services accessible.
Lepofsky, who is blind, is particularly upset that the province’s new Presto electronic transit card is not accessible to the visually impaired and others.
Ontario is offering to adopt the most current international web accessibility standards, but Queen’s Park is giving itself up to 2018 and even longer for other organizations to get started, he noted.
“This is ridiculous,” Lepofsky said in an interview. “When it comes to creating new technology, experts have shown that there is . . . no significant added burden on organizations to adopt the latest standards for full accessibility. Moreover, accessibility for us usually helps lots of people, including those with no disability.
“There is absolutely no reason why any government in this country isn’t now complying with the latest international standards,” he added.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Ford keeping low profile.
If it wasn’t for being sued, September would be the quietest month for Rob Ford.
The Etobicoke councillor was at the heart of every twist and turn in the civic election over the summer, storming to the lead in the race over heavily favoured opposition.
But since Labour Day, the point most pundits picked as the kickoff to serious campaigning, Ford has stepped back from the limelight.
He’s released little in the way of policy, fielded fewer calls from newspaper reporters and shied away from scrums, sticking instead to television interviews and debate appearances.
The one campaign plank he has put out — his transportation platform — was released via YouTube in the dead of night with no press conference and only limited availability afterward.
“It’s normal for frontrunners to keep their profile lower than it would be if they were running back of the pack,” U of T political science prof Nelson Wiseman said.
“That’s just standard fare. Over the summer (then race-leader George) Smitherman had a lower profile.
“During the presidential election in the U.S., Obama basically in the last couple of days really laid low because there’s a danger you’re going to get tripped. And there’s more and more focus, particularly critical focus, on a frontrunner.”
Ford might have kept out of the papers even more had he not been the target of a threatened lawsuit by Boardwalk Pub owner George Foulidis, whose demand for an apology from Ford for allegations of corruption in the awarding of a city contract has so far been denied.
Ford’s opponents meanwhile, are picking up the intensity of their campaigning — with the trio of Rocco Rossi, Sarah Thomson and George Smitherman in particular all making frequent policy announcements and holding events each week on everything from transit to construction to accountability to even a City Hall suggestion box.
Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone has been quieter on the policy front — not surprising since he’s proposing to change little from the outgoing administration of Mayor David Miller — but he’s still chasing headlines and courting the media at every turn.
Ford though has played coy.
Beat reporters at City Hall are finding him markedly less available and phone calls are increasingly not returned or answered by campaign staff instead.
And he has yet to schedule time for a feature-length interview with the Toronto Sun, something the other four candidates all checked off weeks ago.
It’s something his opponents have noticed as well, Smitherman has been deriding Ford as the “boy in the bubble” and is still waiting for his opponent to agree to a once-promised one-on-one debate.
“Maybe we’re not all awake at 2 o’clock in the morning when he (Ford) seems to be doing most of his work, by way of YouTube and such,” Smitherman said, referring to the transportation announcement.
“It’s the peekaboo candidacy. If you look at it he’s just trying to ride out a stream of anecdotes and rhetoric and hope that the bubble doesn’t burst on his credibility. I think as we get more into discussion of details, the whole campaign becomes much more challenging for him.”
Ford campaign spokesman Adrienne Batra denied the frontrunner has made a strategic decision to shift into neutral but confirmed Ford will not debate Smitherman.
“We’ve got policy that we were planning to release (last) week (but) unfortunately it didn’t fit in our schedule,” she said. “He’s certainly made himself available as much as possible. He has made a commitment to these kids to coach football and that takes up a few hours every day.”
Ford’s still attending as many debates as possible, she said, and will announce more features of his taxpayer protection plan on Monday before unveiling his fully costed fiscal platform at the end of the month or early October.
“It’s unfortunate that some of the other candidates feel the need to have Rob Ford as their punching bag,” Batra said.
“We’re getting three to four calls everyday. Maybe it’s not the mainstream but we’re still getting lots of calls, he’s still doing lots of interviews.”
Pantalone said in an interview he doubts Ford’s low profile is strategic.
“It’s simply he’s run out of steam,” Pantalone said.
“I don’t think he’s doing it on purpose, The growth in his support, I believe has not only stalled, but perhaps reversed. I say that because he’s come under close scrutiny.”
Slowing down on purpose when you’re winning a race is a strange decision, he said.
“Usually what you want to do is build a bigger margin between you and your opponent,” Pantalone said.
“Once you slow down, you may lose momentum.”
Bernie Morton, a spokesman for the Rossi campaign, says while Ford “has peaked and plateaued,” his candidate is picking up speed.
“It (the campaign) is really long and very tiring and you need to be in it for the long run. And you need to be able to pace yourself,” Morton said.
“Out of all the candidates, Rocco is by far the fittest.
“Whether or not Rob Ford is fit to finish, I don’t know. He’s looking extremely tired and they seem to have lost some of their steam.”
But Wiseman says the low profile frontrunner is a frequent pattern of political campaigns because it works.
“I’m sure the advice being given to him is you minimize contact. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper does the same thing, if you’re in the lead,” Wiseman said.
“The polls decide whether you can or not. Smitherman all of a sudden became more aggressive. When the polls switch, then you switch.
“Can he play goal for two months? If he keeps a lead of 10-12%, why shouldn’t he?”
The Etobicoke councillor was at the heart of every twist and turn in the civic election over the summer, storming to the lead in the race over heavily favoured opposition.
But since Labour Day, the point most pundits picked as the kickoff to serious campaigning, Ford has stepped back from the limelight.
He’s released little in the way of policy, fielded fewer calls from newspaper reporters and shied away from scrums, sticking instead to television interviews and debate appearances.
The one campaign plank he has put out — his transportation platform — was released via YouTube in the dead of night with no press conference and only limited availability afterward.
“It’s normal for frontrunners to keep their profile lower than it would be if they were running back of the pack,” U of T political science prof Nelson Wiseman said.
“That’s just standard fare. Over the summer (then race-leader George) Smitherman had a lower profile.
“During the presidential election in the U.S., Obama basically in the last couple of days really laid low because there’s a danger you’re going to get tripped. And there’s more and more focus, particularly critical focus, on a frontrunner.”
Ford might have kept out of the papers even more had he not been the target of a threatened lawsuit by Boardwalk Pub owner George Foulidis, whose demand for an apology from Ford for allegations of corruption in the awarding of a city contract has so far been denied.
Ford’s opponents meanwhile, are picking up the intensity of their campaigning — with the trio of Rocco Rossi, Sarah Thomson and George Smitherman in particular all making frequent policy announcements and holding events each week on everything from transit to construction to accountability to even a City Hall suggestion box.
Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone has been quieter on the policy front — not surprising since he’s proposing to change little from the outgoing administration of Mayor David Miller — but he’s still chasing headlines and courting the media at every turn.
Ford though has played coy.
Beat reporters at City Hall are finding him markedly less available and phone calls are increasingly not returned or answered by campaign staff instead.
And he has yet to schedule time for a feature-length interview with the Toronto Sun, something the other four candidates all checked off weeks ago.
It’s something his opponents have noticed as well, Smitherman has been deriding Ford as the “boy in the bubble” and is still waiting for his opponent to agree to a once-promised one-on-one debate.
“Maybe we’re not all awake at 2 o’clock in the morning when he (Ford) seems to be doing most of his work, by way of YouTube and such,” Smitherman said, referring to the transportation announcement.
“It’s the peekaboo candidacy. If you look at it he’s just trying to ride out a stream of anecdotes and rhetoric and hope that the bubble doesn’t burst on his credibility. I think as we get more into discussion of details, the whole campaign becomes much more challenging for him.”
Ford campaign spokesman Adrienne Batra denied the frontrunner has made a strategic decision to shift into neutral but confirmed Ford will not debate Smitherman.
“We’ve got policy that we were planning to release (last) week (but) unfortunately it didn’t fit in our schedule,” she said. “He’s certainly made himself available as much as possible. He has made a commitment to these kids to coach football and that takes up a few hours every day.”
Ford’s still attending as many debates as possible, she said, and will announce more features of his taxpayer protection plan on Monday before unveiling his fully costed fiscal platform at the end of the month or early October.
“It’s unfortunate that some of the other candidates feel the need to have Rob Ford as their punching bag,” Batra said.
“We’re getting three to four calls everyday. Maybe it’s not the mainstream but we’re still getting lots of calls, he’s still doing lots of interviews.”
Pantalone said in an interview he doubts Ford’s low profile is strategic.
“It’s simply he’s run out of steam,” Pantalone said.
“I don’t think he’s doing it on purpose, The growth in his support, I believe has not only stalled, but perhaps reversed. I say that because he’s come under close scrutiny.”
Slowing down on purpose when you’re winning a race is a strange decision, he said.
“Usually what you want to do is build a bigger margin between you and your opponent,” Pantalone said.
“Once you slow down, you may lose momentum.”
Bernie Morton, a spokesman for the Rossi campaign, says while Ford “has peaked and plateaued,” his candidate is picking up speed.
“It (the campaign) is really long and very tiring and you need to be in it for the long run. And you need to be able to pace yourself,” Morton said.
“Out of all the candidates, Rocco is by far the fittest.
“Whether or not Rob Ford is fit to finish, I don’t know. He’s looking extremely tired and they seem to have lost some of their steam.”
But Wiseman says the low profile frontrunner is a frequent pattern of political campaigns because it works.
“I’m sure the advice being given to him is you minimize contact. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper does the same thing, if you’re in the lead,” Wiseman said.
“The polls decide whether you can or not. Smitherman all of a sudden became more aggressive. When the polls switch, then you switch.
“Can he play goal for two months? If he keeps a lead of 10-12%, why shouldn’t he?”
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Canada court frees four detained Tamil migrants Friday's ruling is a defeat for Canada's government, : love it!!!!.
VANCOUVER — Canada's Federal Court ordered the release of four women out of nearly 500 Tamils from Sri Lanka, who arrived via a cargo ship in Western Canada last month and claimed refugee status.
The Friday's ruling is a defeat for Canada's government, which asked the court to overturn decisions by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to release some of the migrants under conditions to ensure they report for future hearings.
Border officials detained all 380 men and 63 women who arrived August 13 aboard the rickety ship the MV Sun Sea. They were accompanied by 49 children, who were allowed to stay with the migrants in jail or were placed with social services.
Canadian government and Sri Lankan officials allege the migrants included members of the Tamil Tigers, banned in Canada as a terrorist organization. The Tigers were key players in Sri Lanka?s lengthy civil war before their defeat last year by the government.
Citing the case of one of the women, the Federal Court Friday acknowledged the government's concerns as "no doubt real," but upheld the release order from the IRB, including conditions.
"Deprivation of liberty ranks no doubt as one of the harshest measures that may be visited upon an individual in a democratic state," noted the court.
Border officials have mostly argued at IRB hearings that the migrants should be held either because their identities are not yet proved or in at least one case because a migrant poses a security risk.
As of Friday the government had appealed all but one release order -- for a heavily-pregnant woman who was recently freed and is reportedly being cared for by a local refugee agency here.
Immigration hearings and court rulings are continuing on a daily basis.
The mass arrival has swamped local legal services and on Thursday the provincial legal aid organization appealed to the governments of British Columbia and Canada for more money to pay lawyers.
There is a publication ban on the migrant's names and any identifying details.
The Friday's ruling is a defeat for Canada's government, which asked the court to overturn decisions by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to release some of the migrants under conditions to ensure they report for future hearings.
Border officials detained all 380 men and 63 women who arrived August 13 aboard the rickety ship the MV Sun Sea. They were accompanied by 49 children, who were allowed to stay with the migrants in jail or were placed with social services.
Canadian government and Sri Lankan officials allege the migrants included members of the Tamil Tigers, banned in Canada as a terrorist organization. The Tigers were key players in Sri Lanka?s lengthy civil war before their defeat last year by the government.
Citing the case of one of the women, the Federal Court Friday acknowledged the government's concerns as "no doubt real," but upheld the release order from the IRB, including conditions.
"Deprivation of liberty ranks no doubt as one of the harshest measures that may be visited upon an individual in a democratic state," noted the court.
Border officials have mostly argued at IRB hearings that the migrants should be held either because their identities are not yet proved or in at least one case because a migrant poses a security risk.
As of Friday the government had appealed all but one release order -- for a heavily-pregnant woman who was recently freed and is reportedly being cared for by a local refugee agency here.
Immigration hearings and court rulings are continuing on a daily basis.
The mass arrival has swamped local legal services and on Thursday the provincial legal aid organization appealed to the governments of British Columbia and Canada for more money to pay lawyers.
There is a publication ban on the migrant's names and any identifying details.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Ford off the mark
Rob Ford styles himself as the decent, straight-shooting little guy who cuts through the guff down at city hall. But before you fall for that line and vote Mr. Ford for mayor, answer this: Does a nice guy smear the reputation of a hard-working local businessman? Does an honourable man throw around unfounded charges of corruption? Does a decent man refuse to say he is sorry when he has gone too far? For that is exactly what Mr. Ford has done in the case of George Foulidis and the Boardwalk Pub.
Mr. Foulidis’s family came to Canada from Greece in the 1960s and ran a restaurant in Stouffville. In 1986 they won a city competition to set up a restaurant at Woodbine Beach. Mr. Foulidis’s whole family was involved – his father, his brother, his uncle – and they put heart and soul into the business.
When the end of his 20-year contract with the city approached, Mr. Foulidis made a proposal: extend our lease and we will spend our own money to upgrade. Local councillor Sandra Bussin supported him. On May 12, after more than three years of talks, council approved a deal that will see the Foulidis’s Tuggs Inc. pay $4.7-million in rent to the city in a contract that goes to 2028.
That should have been the end of the story, but this is an election year, and Mr. Ford has jumped to a lead by bashing city hall. He says the Tuggs deal “stinks to high heaven.” When an outraged Mayor David Miller demanded that he produce proof, he insisted “I think it was corruption.”
Suddenly, Mr. Foulidis found his reputation under a shadow. His kids (aged 10, 11 and 14) asked him: “Why are they saying those things, daddy? Did we do something wrong?” Some long-time customers stopped coming to the Boardwalk Pub. Protesters picketed the restaurant. A Bussin rival held a news conference outside to denounce the terms of the Tuggs deal.
On Thursday, an aggrieved Mr. Foulidis fought back, threatening to sue Mr. Ford for defamation unless he apologizes. “Mr. Ford has accused our business and family of corruption,” he told reporters. “Those are very serious allegations; they are irresponsible and reckless; they are false, they are lies and with a political agenda.”
It is hard not to feel for him. Mr. Ford has blackened Mr. Foulidis’s good name without producing a crumb of evidence. After news of Mr. Foulidis’s lawsuit on Thursday, he refused to do the right thing and offer an apology, leaving a cloud over the businessman and his family.
Far from being a corrupt arrangement, the Tuggs deal appears to be a pretty good one for the city. Tuggs will pay $2.2-million more than it did in the last 20-year contract. The $4.7-million total is $1-million less than Tuggs’s original offer, but mainly because the city refused to go along with Tuggs’s pitch for greater advertising and sponsorship rights. The city will get to own the building at the end of the contract. In the meantime Tuggs will invest in landscaping and other improvements. How many tenants renovate their home for the landlord?
Critics have denounced the city for declining to seek other bids for the boardwalk concession, but if Tuggs was doing a reasonable job and the city could renew the deal for higher rent, why not? As for Mr. Ford’s charge of backroom dealing, the whole Tuggs affair has been debated extensively at city council. Only a final session was held in camera, and then only because council is legally prohibited from discussing some contractual matters in public.
Even if you think the Tuggs deal was a bad bargain for the city – and some councillors do – that doesn’t make it corrupt. Mr. Foulidis admits contributing to one of Ms. Bussin’s past election campaigns (though not this one), but calls that his democratic right. He was contributing to his local councillor, not passing envelopes of cash around city hall.
Mr. Ford himself accepted a $200 contribution in 2006 from Woodbine Entertainment. He later spoke out for the company’s Woodbine Live development in northwest Toronto. Does that make him corrupt?
Mr. Ford would be furious at the charge, yet he refuses to withdraw the slur on Mr. Foulidis. Is this the work of a straight shooter?
Mr. Foulidis’s family came to Canada from Greece in the 1960s and ran a restaurant in Stouffville. In 1986 they won a city competition to set up a restaurant at Woodbine Beach. Mr. Foulidis’s whole family was involved – his father, his brother, his uncle – and they put heart and soul into the business.
When the end of his 20-year contract with the city approached, Mr. Foulidis made a proposal: extend our lease and we will spend our own money to upgrade. Local councillor Sandra Bussin supported him. On May 12, after more than three years of talks, council approved a deal that will see the Foulidis’s Tuggs Inc. pay $4.7-million in rent to the city in a contract that goes to 2028.
That should have been the end of the story, but this is an election year, and Mr. Ford has jumped to a lead by bashing city hall. He says the Tuggs deal “stinks to high heaven.” When an outraged Mayor David Miller demanded that he produce proof, he insisted “I think it was corruption.”
Suddenly, Mr. Foulidis found his reputation under a shadow. His kids (aged 10, 11 and 14) asked him: “Why are they saying those things, daddy? Did we do something wrong?” Some long-time customers stopped coming to the Boardwalk Pub. Protesters picketed the restaurant. A Bussin rival held a news conference outside to denounce the terms of the Tuggs deal.
On Thursday, an aggrieved Mr. Foulidis fought back, threatening to sue Mr. Ford for defamation unless he apologizes. “Mr. Ford has accused our business and family of corruption,” he told reporters. “Those are very serious allegations; they are irresponsible and reckless; they are false, they are lies and with a political agenda.”
It is hard not to feel for him. Mr. Ford has blackened Mr. Foulidis’s good name without producing a crumb of evidence. After news of Mr. Foulidis’s lawsuit on Thursday, he refused to do the right thing and offer an apology, leaving a cloud over the businessman and his family.
Far from being a corrupt arrangement, the Tuggs deal appears to be a pretty good one for the city. Tuggs will pay $2.2-million more than it did in the last 20-year contract. The $4.7-million total is $1-million less than Tuggs’s original offer, but mainly because the city refused to go along with Tuggs’s pitch for greater advertising and sponsorship rights. The city will get to own the building at the end of the contract. In the meantime Tuggs will invest in landscaping and other improvements. How many tenants renovate their home for the landlord?
Critics have denounced the city for declining to seek other bids for the boardwalk concession, but if Tuggs was doing a reasonable job and the city could renew the deal for higher rent, why not? As for Mr. Ford’s charge of backroom dealing, the whole Tuggs affair has been debated extensively at city council. Only a final session was held in camera, and then only because council is legally prohibited from discussing some contractual matters in public.
Even if you think the Tuggs deal was a bad bargain for the city – and some councillors do – that doesn’t make it corrupt. Mr. Foulidis admits contributing to one of Ms. Bussin’s past election campaigns (though not this one), but calls that his democratic right. He was contributing to his local councillor, not passing envelopes of cash around city hall.
Mr. Ford himself accepted a $200 contribution in 2006 from Woodbine Entertainment. He later spoke out for the company’s Woodbine Live development in northwest Toronto. Does that make him corrupt?
Mr. Ford would be furious at the charge, yet he refuses to withdraw the slur on Mr. Foulidis. Is this the work of a straight shooter?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)