I guess white people, and males are not as important as everyone else?
Is it any wonder so many of our politicans are stupid? When we have student groups like this as the training ground?
All people are important. White, black, green, plaid. As are both sex's. God....get past race, religion and gender folks, it's not that hard.
Students fire back in CF charity flap
By AEDAN HELMER, SUN MEDIA
The Ottawa Sun
Carleton University student Marissa Hofteizer, center, walks with Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Regional Director, Nadine Imbleau-Redman, right, while participating in a fundraising demonstration on campus one day after the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) overturned a decision to cancel the Shinerama fundraising campaign which benefits Cystic Fibrosis, Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008.
OTTAWA -- When the Carleton University Students' Association voted to scrap a popular cystic fibrosis fundraiser because the disease "only affect(s) white people, and primarily men," Christine Skobe was shocked.
But the Carleton student, who was diagnosed with the degenerative disease when she was 12, isn't getting mad. She's trying to get even.
Skobe and 25 other students marched through campus yesterday, collecting donations for the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CCFF) in an impromptu fundraiser.
"As a person who has cystic fibrosis, it's unacceptable for my school to be like this," said Skobe.
"I can honestly say that the donations that have come from Shinerama and other CF fundraisers have improved my quality of life, and it's terrible that my school wants to stop supporting that because it's helping me live."
Nadine Imbleau-Redman, regional director with CCFF, said the widespread media coverage "hasn't been all that bad for CF."
"It's given us an opportunity to re-educate the public to allow people to truly understand how devastating a disease it is, how widespread it is and that it is the most common fatal genetic disease among young Canadians," she said.
But as CUSA moves into full damage-control mode, a student coalition is forming on campus to impeach CUSA president Brittany Smyth and councillor Donnie Northrup, the student who wrote the controversial motion to scrap Shinerama in favour of "a new broad-reaching charity."
Coun. Kailey Gervais circulated a petition calling for Smyth and Northrup's resignations, and collected more than 500 signatures in two hours.
According to CUSA policy, 1,250 signatures are needed to impeach Smyth, while 90 science students are required to sign the petition to force Northrup, who represents the faculty of science, from office.
"If the students feel they need to remove two people from office to show the world that we are responsible and that the students can take action and be heard, then that's what needs to be done," said Gervais.
Gervais also wants to reform the political process at council, saying the motion tabled by Northrup allowed "no time for research and no time for consultation."
"Because we did not talk to our constituency, we acted unilaterally at that table and that's incorrect for council," said Gervais.
Do provinces have a right to ill-gotten gains?
This is such crap. On suspicion only, the government can take your assets????
Do provinces have a right to ill-gotten gains?
KIRK MAKIN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
November 8, 2008 at 12:06 AM EST
When Toronto police officers pulled over Robin Chatterjee's car on March 27, 2003, they detected the reek of fresh marijuana – but couldn't find a trace of it.
Aside from $29,020 in cash, an exhaust fan and a light ballast, there was a dearth of even circumstantial evidence to link Mr. Chatterjee to a marijuana grow operation. The Carleton University student was freed without charges.
But that was not the end of Mr. Chatterjee's troubles. Provincial prosecutors moved in swiftly and seized the cash and the contents of his car under a controversial forfeiture law that will be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada next week.
Because Mr. Chatterjee could not explain the source of the money, and the equipment was the type frequently used in grow-ops, the law allowed them to be deemed to be connected to crime.
The stakes in the case are enormous: Future forfeitures are expected to bring in tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
James Diamond, a lawyer for Mr. Chatterjee, said that his client's case is a perfect vehicle “to expose the shortcomings in the legislation. There were absolutely no drugs whatsoever found anywhere. The file was closed, and that was the end of the investigation.”
Yet it is not the Draconian elements of the law that will be under challenge. Instead, the case will focus on whether the provinces have any right to seize the proceeds of unlawful conduct.
Mr. Diamond alleges that Ontario's Civil Remedies Act is criminal legislation that has been cunningly disguised to look as if it pertains to property and civil rights – valid areas of provincial jurisdiction.
“But the act cuts and pastes the entire Criminal Code – along with every other piece of federal legislation which may create offences, from the Customs Act to the Income Tax Act,” Mr. Diamond said in an interview.
Under the Civil Remedies Act, an Ontario Superior Court judge must decide, on “a balance of probabilities,” that an item was obtained by unlawful conduct.
(The provision is entirely distinct from federal criminal forfeiture laws, which are part of the criminal sentencing process, and widely conceded to be constitutional.) Since 2002, Ontario has seized or launched forfeiture proceedings involving almost $16-million in property; 73 per cent of it was from drug-related cases.
B.C. has seized $4.5-million under its own provision since 2006. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Quebec have created forfeiture laws, but have delayed using them until the Supreme Court rules. The remaining provinces are almost sure to pass their own laws should the Supreme Court rule in their favour.
In a brief to the court, Ontario prosecutors Robin Basu and James McKeachie argue that deterring the creation of grow operations is linked directly to civil rights and property because grow-ops consume inordinate amounts of electricity and are potentially dangerous.
They also emphasized that the civil remedies law does not penalize or punish individuals, it merely seeks to retrieve property that did not rightfully belong to the owner.
B.C. prosecutors J. Gareth Morley and Bryant Mackey bolstered that point in their brief, adding: “If a child takes a cookie that she is not allowed to take and is required to return the cookie, she is not ‘punished.' “A bank robber who repays the stolen funds is, likewise, not punished,” they added. “Assuming, as this Court must, that Mr. Chatterjee obtained the $29,020 from the illegal drug trade, it would abuse the English language to say that he has been ‘punished' simply because he can no longer use his ill-gotten gains.”
Mr. Diamond warned that, while the provinces have been careful to restrain their greed pending the court's ruling, the floodgates could quickly open to a court-sanctioned plundering of homes, property and bank accounts based on nothing more than suspicion.
He also warned that potentially innocent third parties are bound to fall prey to forfeitures, such as a pair of Barrie, Ont., landlords he represents whose buildings are being seized because some tenants sold crack cocaine there.
Mr. Diamond noted that the province originally marketed its forfeiture legislation as a method of defeating organized crime while helping victims obtain compensation.
In reality, he said, only about 15 per cent of the seizures have gone to victims, and a great many of those targeted for forfeiture had no organized crime connections.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a legal intervenor in the case, said that the act is so broadly worded that Ontario can plow the proceeds of forfeitures into police budgets.
In a moderate surprise, the federal government has thrown its support behind Ontario: “Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime is an important part of society's response to the various kinds of harm that profit-driven crime visits on individuals and communities at the local, national and international level,” said a federal brief by prosecutor Cheryl Tobias.
Do provinces have a right to ill-gotten gains?
KIRK MAKIN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
November 8, 2008 at 12:06 AM EST
When Toronto police officers pulled over Robin Chatterjee's car on March 27, 2003, they detected the reek of fresh marijuana – but couldn't find a trace of it.
Aside from $29,020 in cash, an exhaust fan and a light ballast, there was a dearth of even circumstantial evidence to link Mr. Chatterjee to a marijuana grow operation. The Carleton University student was freed without charges.
But that was not the end of Mr. Chatterjee's troubles. Provincial prosecutors moved in swiftly and seized the cash and the contents of his car under a controversial forfeiture law that will be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada next week.
Because Mr. Chatterjee could not explain the source of the money, and the equipment was the type frequently used in grow-ops, the law allowed them to be deemed to be connected to crime.
The stakes in the case are enormous: Future forfeitures are expected to bring in tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
James Diamond, a lawyer for Mr. Chatterjee, said that his client's case is a perfect vehicle “to expose the shortcomings in the legislation. There were absolutely no drugs whatsoever found anywhere. The file was closed, and that was the end of the investigation.”
Yet it is not the Draconian elements of the law that will be under challenge. Instead, the case will focus on whether the provinces have any right to seize the proceeds of unlawful conduct.
Mr. Diamond alleges that Ontario's Civil Remedies Act is criminal legislation that has been cunningly disguised to look as if it pertains to property and civil rights – valid areas of provincial jurisdiction.
“But the act cuts and pastes the entire Criminal Code – along with every other piece of federal legislation which may create offences, from the Customs Act to the Income Tax Act,” Mr. Diamond said in an interview.
Under the Civil Remedies Act, an Ontario Superior Court judge must decide, on “a balance of probabilities,” that an item was obtained by unlawful conduct.
(The provision is entirely distinct from federal criminal forfeiture laws, which are part of the criminal sentencing process, and widely conceded to be constitutional.) Since 2002, Ontario has seized or launched forfeiture proceedings involving almost $16-million in property; 73 per cent of it was from drug-related cases.
B.C. has seized $4.5-million under its own provision since 2006. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Quebec have created forfeiture laws, but have delayed using them until the Supreme Court rules. The remaining provinces are almost sure to pass their own laws should the Supreme Court rule in their favour.
In a brief to the court, Ontario prosecutors Robin Basu and James McKeachie argue that deterring the creation of grow operations is linked directly to civil rights and property because grow-ops consume inordinate amounts of electricity and are potentially dangerous.
They also emphasized that the civil remedies law does not penalize or punish individuals, it merely seeks to retrieve property that did not rightfully belong to the owner.
B.C. prosecutors J. Gareth Morley and Bryant Mackey bolstered that point in their brief, adding: “If a child takes a cookie that she is not allowed to take and is required to return the cookie, she is not ‘punished.' “A bank robber who repays the stolen funds is, likewise, not punished,” they added. “Assuming, as this Court must, that Mr. Chatterjee obtained the $29,020 from the illegal drug trade, it would abuse the English language to say that he has been ‘punished' simply because he can no longer use his ill-gotten gains.”
Mr. Diamond warned that, while the provinces have been careful to restrain their greed pending the court's ruling, the floodgates could quickly open to a court-sanctioned plundering of homes, property and bank accounts based on nothing more than suspicion.
He also warned that potentially innocent third parties are bound to fall prey to forfeitures, such as a pair of Barrie, Ont., landlords he represents whose buildings are being seized because some tenants sold crack cocaine there.
Mr. Diamond noted that the province originally marketed its forfeiture legislation as a method of defeating organized crime while helping victims obtain compensation.
In reality, he said, only about 15 per cent of the seizures have gone to victims, and a great many of those targeted for forfeiture had no organized crime connections.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a legal intervenor in the case, said that the act is so broadly worded that Ontario can plow the proceeds of forfeitures into police budgets.
In a moderate surprise, the federal government has thrown its support behind Ontario: “Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime is an important part of society's response to the various kinds of harm that profit-driven crime visits on individuals and communities at the local, national and international level,” said a federal brief by prosecutor Cheryl Tobias.
LPC is not dead!
Since before the election I’ve been hearing and reading about the demise of the Liberal Dinosaur. Apparently a comet containing financial and moral bankruptcy has lit up the skies over Canada and is about to descend into the ranks of LPC members and supporters, annihilating them all. Perhaps we’ll see them in the museums of the future; little boys and girls will have small plastic LPC figurines on their windowsills. Movies will be made with computer animated LPC members chasing down fleeing explorers in jeeps.
Folks we’ve seen this time and time again in Canada, people getting cocky, for various reasons when their political party dominates other political parties. It’s the ups and downs of a cycle.
And what always happens? Parties get cocky, arrogant, and complacent. Then the other parties walk up and knock them on their asses.
I get the horrible feeling that the CPC will be entering a stage of arrogance, one which may sow the seeds of their own defeat.
The LPC is not dead. They will regroup, reorganize and do whatever is necessary to make a comeback in the later rounds. Do not write them off, do not get complacent.
The CPC needs to stay lean and hungry if the want to dominate politics in Canada for the foreseeable future. Eye of the Tiger man, eye of the tiger.
Folks we’ve seen this time and time again in Canada, people getting cocky, for various reasons when their political party dominates other political parties. It’s the ups and downs of a cycle.
And what always happens? Parties get cocky, arrogant, and complacent. Then the other parties walk up and knock them on their asses.
I get the horrible feeling that the CPC will be entering a stage of arrogance, one which may sow the seeds of their own defeat.
The LPC is not dead. They will regroup, reorganize and do whatever is necessary to make a comeback in the later rounds. Do not write them off, do not get complacent.
The CPC needs to stay lean and hungry if the want to dominate politics in Canada for the foreseeable future. Eye of the Tiger man, eye of the tiger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)