On that Hamilton cop, er, thing

— 08.10.2017 09:53 PM

PCs are angrily telling me there’s no criminal investigation.

Libs are angrily telling me there is. QP Briefing, too.

Here’s the cops’ only statement I’m aware of:


Now, if you can see the words “criminal investigation” anywhere in there, let me know. I don’t see ’em, myself.

And, until someone is prepared to pay my legal bills after I falsely accuse someone of being investigated criminally, I will await a clearer statement from the cops.

Until then, let someone else allege a crime took place!


Comments (3)

Right here: live-reporting the Your Ward News-Canada Post hearing

— 08.10.2017 08:52 AM

As you know, a panel is reviewing Minister Judy Foote’s (appropriate, proper) decision to order Canada Post to stop delivering the neo-Nazi rag, Your Ward News. 

Yesterday was day two of the review. I didn’t see any reporters there, so I’ve decided to provide some ongoing updates. I’ll be posting them here, linkless and bulleted, for your enlightenment. 

A summary of yesterday:

  •  The lead panellist started by apologizing for – yet again – sharing the private information of various victims with the neo-Nazis. This has happened more than once, and it has given everyone the impression the panel doesn’t know what it’s doing – or is wholly disorganized. 
  • The day was mostly made up with submissions by the racists (Paul Fromm), or the lawyers who are supporting/working for the racists. They include high-priced criminal lawyer Frank Addario’s firm; Professor Cameron from Osgoode Hall Law school; and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. 
  • None were particularly effective. Most of their argument went like this: “The Nazis we support haven’t been charged criminally yet, so what’s the problem?” Inviting someone to charge your client criminally doesn’t seem like a very smart strategy, to me. Someone just might, you know, do it. 
  • The Nazis’ lawyers also argued, simultaneously, that the panel had great adjudicative powers, or none at all. Make sense to you? Me neither. 
  • The AG’s lawyer didn’t have a narrative. He argued piecemeal. He got lost in the weeds. Not helpful. 
  • The panel, meanwhile, was clearly (and understandably) vexed that the AG plans to shortly withdraw, and leave the victims to the tender mercies of Addario s cross-examination. Personally, I think they’re right. The authorities let Zundel put the Holocaust on trial; 30 years later, the authorities are about to let the Hitler freaks and white supremacists who run Your Ward News do likewise.
  • I am naturally biased, but my friends who represent CIJA, B’nai Brith and the Wiesenthal Centre clearly have a better understanding of the law and the issues, here. They will be continuing today. 

Today’s report:

  • No media here. Plenty of far-Right kooks, however. 
  • B’nai Brith lawyer smartly argues that Canada Post had a contract, and the contract permitted them to terminate delivery without notice. They terminated, and were right to do so. And they gave reasons. 
  • Mark Freiman, the legal giant who represents CIJA, is up. In the first 30 seconds, he has already pointed out why it is a mistake to permit the Nazis’ lawyers to rebut and rebut and rebut. Brilliant. 
  • Mark points out that the panel can’t “bootstrap” itself into more powers. It can only investigate, report and recommend. That’s it. They are not a court of superior jurisdiction. The Minister still decides. 
  • Mark reminds everyone there are two sections of the Charter at play – yes, the section 2 rights of even Nazis. Yes. But also the (forgotten) rights of minority communities to be protected from government-facilitated discrimation and hatred under section 15. Brilliantly done. 
  • Mark swiftly slices and dices white supremacist leader Paul Fromm. In 30 seconds. Goes on to say he and his ilk seek to foster fear and discrimination. “What is objectionable is hatred and criminally defaming.”
  • Freiman concludes by saying that the Nazis are arguing against “prior restraint” in their case – but they want to restrain Jews, gays, women and other victims from testifying. Rich, that. 
  • The Nazis’ lawyer is going down in flames as the hearing concludes. She/they desperately want to keep victims of these haters from testifying. And we all know why. 

Comments (1)

On that Hamilton police criminal investigation into the PCs: there is none

— 08.10.2017 07:57 AM

This, from CBC:

Hamilton police are looking into a complaint about a Progressive Conservative nomination meeting marred by allegations of ballot box stuffing.

But the service has yet to decide if it will launch a formal investigation.

Ben Levitt won the Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas nomination meeting in May, but it was challenged by two would-be candidates — Vikram Singh and Jeff Peller. Both have asked the court for a judicial review.

They allege the process was tainted by fraud and say the result should be overturned.

The allegations in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas are among several Progressive Conservative nomination results being questioned by party members.

See that? “But the service has yet to decide if it will launch a formal investigation.”

That sure as Hell isn’t what QP Briefing reported the other day, and as I breathlessly reported right away:

Hamilton police have launched a criminal investigation into a Progressive Conservative nomination contest clouded with allegations of fraud and ballot-tampering.

The probe comes in the wake of controversy around previous nomination meetings that caused mass resignations from two PC riding associations and alleged breaches of voting rules. The investigation comes after the PCs’ chorus of criticism around the Liberal gas plant scandal and bribery charges related to the Sudbury byelection, both of which will culminate in trials next month.

There is a huge – huge – difference between “looking into a complaint” and “have launched a criminal investigation.”

This is sloppy reporting.  I apologize to my readers for misleading them.  I hope QP Briefing does likewise.

 


Comments (1)

Alberta Conservative fraud?

— 08.10.2017 07:37 AM

Decide for yourself:

A United Conservative Party MLA says there’s nothing wrong with him subletting his downtown Edmonton apartment while claiming thousands of dollars in rent from the public purse.

Derek Fildebrandt, MLA for Strathmore-Brooks, advertises his downtown bachelor suite for rent online as “newly renovated, modernly furnished and very well-kept.”

“It has a sweeping view of the city and is in the thick of the action on Jasper Ave.,” the Airbnb listing says.

Between January and March, eight Airbnb renters reviewed the apartment. Over the same three months, Fildebrandt claimed $7,720 for accommodation in Edmonton.

Here’s the definition of fraud under the Criminal Code of Canada, which still applies in Alberta:

Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars…

Now, this Fildebrandt character has been a bottom-feeding scumbag for a long time – see here and here and here.  This Trumpian little creep is everything that is wrong with politics.

But this latest episode takes it to a wholly different level.  What do you think? If Wildrose doesn’t boot him out (again), I’ll be surprised.  And if the cops don’t charge him, I’ll be disappointed.


Comments (4)

This week’s column: fight night insight

— 08.08.2017 05:15 AM

Every political hack remembers where they were when the first black man was elected president of the United States, or when Nelson Mandela was freed from a South African prison, or (more recently, depressingly) when Comrade Donald Trump cheated his way into the White House. Those were big political events. 

But some of us even remember where we were when Liberal MP Justin Trudeau had a boxing match with Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau. March 31, 2012: where were you?

On that night, this writer was at the headquarters of the Sun News Network in Toronto, in the hallway they called a green room. Sun News had the rights to broadcast the Trudeau-Brazeau charity fight, and they’d been relentlessly hyping it – the Thrilla on the Hilla, I think someone called it – and the Sun types were openly pulling for the Conservative Senator, a former First Nations leader. 

Onscreen, on fight night, Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley were clearly having the time of their lives, with Levant mockingly calling Trudeau “the shiny pony,” over and over. They expected Brazeau – a burly, muscled black belt – to hurt Trudeau. 

So did I, frankly. Back then, this writer was friendly with the Montreal MP, and I occasionally gave him advice. If I’d been asked, I would have advised against challenging Brazeau. 

All of us knew the arguments in favour of it, of course. In those days, Trudeau was a backbench MP with not many accomplishments to his name. A win in the boxing ring would attract plenty of attention. 

A victory would also put to rest the insinuations that Justin Trudeau was a wimp and a dilettante, and not up to the task of defeating tough guys like Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair. It would make him a winner, and it would make him the tough guy.

But the arguments against it were more compelling, I felt. One, he could lose – and he would simply not recover from such a loss. Ask Robert Stanfield, after that time he famously fumbled that football on the campaign trail: the loser tag, once attached, is virtually impossible to remove. 

Two, it was swinging at the wrong target. The Conservatives – and, as the House Bolshevik at Sun News, I was surrounded by a lot of Trudeau-hating Conservatives – intended to run a campaign that Trudeau was weak intellectually, not weak physically. Trudeau, I felt, was providing an answer to the wrong question. 

Third, politics being all about symbols, the symbolism of the Trudeau-Brazeau match made me queasy. As the Dad to an indigenous girl, I did not like the symbolism of a rich white man beating on a poor aboriginal man. It was a bit like colonialism, except it was on live TV. 

Anyway. None of that happened, of course. 

We all know what happened next: Trudeau destroyed Brazeau. He was no longer a wimp. He became even more famous. And he became the contender – for 24 Sussex. 

The Trudeau-Brazeau fight became the stuff of legend. It became, in practical political terms, the night Justin Trudeau was transformed into something else, something bigger than what he had been. 

Time went by. Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister. Patrick Brazeau got in a lot of trouble with the law.

And then, a half-decade later, Prime Minister Trudeau sat down with Rolling Stone magazine to talk about his big night. And he said this:

“I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy tough-guy senator from an Indigenous community. He fit the bill, and it was a very nice counterpoint. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”

Lots of indigenous leaders got very upset about that quote, and you can (hopefully) see why. Some called Trudeau arrogant. Some called him racist. When the controversy got too big to ignore, Trudeau expressed “regret” for what he’d said. 

But the damage had been done. Justin Trudeau had actually achieved the impossible: he’d rendered Patrick Brazeau a sympathetic figure. 

Now, Canada’s indigenous leaders are quite capable of speaking for themselves. They don’t need me or anyone else to do it. To them, it had been a kind of racist thing to say, or pretty close to it. 

But there was something else about that now-infamous quote that rankled. 
It sounded calculated, didn’t it? It sounded like he was admitting to a manipulation. It felt cynical. 

Now, politicians do calculated, manipulative, cynical things all the time – Hell, some would say that’s all they do.

But Trudeau’s big mistake, here – along with sounding like he was singling out an indigenous leader for a literal beating, his later soaring rhetoric about indigenous issues notwithstanding – was talking about strategy in the media. He was talking about how sausages are made, in effect.

Here’s a free tip, JT: don’t talk about how you make sausages. It never ends well. 

Average folks don’t care, Liberal apologists insisted. Or: he apologized, its over, nothing to see here, they claimed. Or: Nanos and the like remind us that Trudeau has got nothing to worry about: he’s still going to win the next election. 

Perhaps he will. Probably he will. As Donald Trump has shown the civilized world, running down minorities isn’t the impediment to high public office it used to be (or should be). You can do it and win. 

But I would simply say to my Liberal friends that our greatest occupational hazard is – always, always – arrogance.

Arrogance is what gets us beaten in elections. 

Although not, apparently, on that memorable night in March 2012, in a boxing ring.


Comments (9)