Previous  1  2  3

Dio, please stop saying spam. By saying spam over and over, you're also being a spammer. It doesn't help anything. :/

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation.

   

The Rob Rae experience is all the evidence I need.

   

Hilarious!
MAO!!!
Great call Jesse!
Spamin the spam
You have set the standard for hilarity
Would noting that the call of spam is spamin not also be spam?
relax Jesse
turnabout is fairplay.
May I suggest you add the word"spam"to your list of what spam is?
or is the point lost on you

we come here to express ourselves to vent to accuse tosting and be stung to share toargue tobe right/wrong and everything inbetween
You have a habit of calling it the way you see it, as doI




---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

   

Robin Mathews contributes a solid point of view, on a variety of
vital topics on the Canadian scene. Agree or disagree, he is well
worth your time to read what he says; he's certainly the star writer
for Vive le Canada.

I appreciate those comments which debate or add to what Robin
writes. But the people who either babble incoherently or yearn for
the Gestapo to haul Robin away ... why in the world are those
postings considered worthy of a public forum?

   

The Gustavson lake standoff was arranged by RCMP's Peter Montague to emabarass the NDP government. Montague was later asked to run as a Liberal candidate , and only turned down the offer at the last minute.
The RCMP are truly a law unto themselves. I once caught Campbell River RCMP constable Wayne Tannahill deliberately and knowingly lying in court. He claimed the accused 's lawyer could not be contacted because his phone number was unlisted. I found the number clearly listed in both the phone book and in directory assistance. When I phoned the
number the lawyer in question answered.
I filed a criminal information with the prosecutor's office , they stalled for a year and I was finally told by chief regional prosecutor Bob Gillen ,that Tannahill did nothing illegal by lying to the court.
The attorny general of the time gave me a copy of ministry policy for dealing with criminal informations filed against police officers. Gillen completely ignored them in every way . I complained to then attorney general Colin Gabelman . Nothing was done. I asked then deputy minister Earnie Quantz why ministry policies were ignored and he said it was because he was on holiday at the time.He is now a judge?
I asked a long time opposition federal justice critic if in his 20 years in the house of commons ,he ever heard of a prosecutor or cop ever being charged with obstruction of justice for covering up evidence which would have prevented a wrongful conviction, and he said "Never."
It is no surprise that a party which would like to overide the charter at the slightest excuse would be endorsed by the RCMP. It is extremely dangerous to civil liberties to allow a police force to become a sacred cow ,or national symbol, which one is not allowed to criticise or question. It is equally dangerous to allow them to fabricate , or hide whatever evidence they need to get a conviction, with such impunity.
Read " An Unauthorised History of the RCMP" or "Gut Instinct" by Victor Malareck for more examples of the degree to which the RCMP are a law unto themselves.
An MP friend who persued that case for a long time told me that they are totally a law unto themselves.
From what I've seen the RCMP have roughly the same ratio of sleaze bags to good people as the rest of the population .A power hungry phsychotic is very good at giving the answer that is needed to get what he wants,
which makes any so called screening process ,ineffective.It is why they tend to rise to the top of the hierarchy and call the shots over the honest ones, who are totally unable to question their orders in any way.
Brent Swain

---
Brent

   

If I didn't have exposure myself I would take the above with a grain of thought. However, after considerable experience it is not only clear that RCMP are a law unto themselves but are part of the legal system being a 'law unto themselves'. At first when you research it you try to give the benefit of the doubt, but as you keep looking at it, it is clear that canadians simply do not know enough about our legal system. And that's a scary thought. It's led to such bizarre accusations like the 'soft on crime' idea so touted about. It's no surprise that conservatives typically dig out isolated cases rather than statistics. The courts are designed just as they were in the middle ages.

   

I agree with much of what has been posted by the last two contributors. My earlier comments on the subject were not intended to suggest that the actions of the RCMP or indeed the entire Canadian justice community are always above reproach. I know that is not true.

I just doubt that Stephen Harper could afford the enormous dangers that would be inherent in this type of situation. As I pointed out, if it were true, and hard evidence emerged that could not be ignored or hidden, his goose would be cooked for good, period. And very likely his party and the RCMP would go down with him. It does not seem to be within the limits of rational consideration that he would take such a terrible chance for such doubtful returns. It doesn't make sense, and I simply don't think its true.

Even though Mr. Matthews' articles are often frought with exageration and hyperbole, I believe he takes considerable risks to raise some very controversial issues. Most would never even be discussed if it were left to our pathetic mainstream media. These issues need to be much more widely debated, and if it takes someone like him to bring them forward, so be it.

In the meanwhile we should frequently be ashamed of the things that go on inside our police forces and justice system. Unfortunately these days we are so scared of being gunned down in the streets, instead of trying to clean up the mess, we are foolishly screaming for more of the same. How do you deal with something like that? It's not easy and will take courage and perservance. Sometimes, even articles like that of Mr. Matthews', arguably somewhat vacuous, may help. At least a few people will talk about the issues.

   

"Our country has never been attacked"

You are re-writing history. Canada has been attacked and invaded by the US before and after confederation: before and after the US independence.

Today, rather than a military takeover, we have the situation of hostile business takeovers. Is there much difference?

   

"we have almost no means of effecting government policy here, even at the local level"<br />
<br />
That may be true now but has not always been so. Now it is in fact illegal, unless you are a registered lobbyiest. And then, you need not register if you are American or a bigwig. <br />
<br />
Sitting in Vancouver, all by myself, at my electric typwriter in 1986, I lobbyed Ottawa during the drafts for WHIMIS. I made a minor, yet vitally important change: WHIMIS applies to all Canadians, not just organized labour.<br />
<br />
Today, if you approach an RCMP officer at a street corner and discuss their smoking policy, it is in violation of the Lobbyist act and you can be charged a fine and/or imprisonment.<br />
<br />
It is all in legistlation now. We are only allowed to speak with our MPs. Read the legislation. <a href="https://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ec/lrrs/guest.do;jsessionid=0000hpTJ9MWnz0wd2dT0gD9y3J7:vdd1k0er?lang=eng">https://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/ec/lrrs/guest.do;jsessionid=0000hpTJ9MWnz0wd2dT0gD9y3J7:vdd1k0er?lang=eng</a> <br />
<br />

   

I agree with "The RCMP are a law, unto themselves". Nothing I read in Robin's article indicated, at least to me, that Stephen Harper was trying to get the RCMP to act on his behalf, and initiate a criminal invesigation, during the election, even though he may benefit by it. What I see is the nation's police force using their powers, in a timely fashion, to favor one political party over another. I'm no supporter of Harper's Conservatives, in my opinion, his platform is more preferred by the "Law & Order" types in the National Police Force.

As a point in BC Mary's reply, they did raid the BC legislature of the governing BC Liberals, who are "Liberal" in name only, and are staying out of this election, reason being they favor the Conservatives, not their namesake. But, we also must remember that those that were charged in the Legislature raid were also highly placed organizers for the Federal Liberal Party. If the RCMP have a problem with the Federal Liberals, who better to go after than their supporters, especially in volatile BC?

Ask yourself this, who tipped of Global TV about the serving of the search warrant on Glen Clark? Who allowed this media outlet to video record the proceedings, even to recording Glen Clark pacing in his kitchen?

The gist of what Robin was saying, at least the way I see it, is that the RCMP have their own agenda, secreted away in their hierarchy, and they can and do control the public's perception of who's dirty.

BC Mary, I agree with your point about the judiciary in BC, isn't it odd that the same Justice, Patrick Dohm, issued the search warrants for the raid on Glen Clark, and readily released the reasons for said warrant. Yet, he also signed the search warrant for the Legislature, but is sitting on the reasons for that one, for over two years. Let's face it, the RCMP ask for the warrant(s), supposedly based on some reasonable grounds that there are reasons to further the investigation, and that's regardless of who is sitting in power, in the Provincial Legislature.

I have had my doubts about the "fairness" that should be exhibited, in this country (and Province) for some time, and Robin's article really cemented my suspiscions that all is not well in the judicial system.

Don F.

   

Oops; Forgot to log back in, the above is mine, sorry.

Don F.

---
Life is a one way trip, make it a good one.

   

Previous  1  2  3