Foot Tapping

Well I guess I won't be tapping my foot while waiting for a bowel movement or while listening to my IPod in the mens room at the Minneapolis airport. I could get busted.

...According to the police report, Craig entered a bathroom stall next to the police investigator, placed his bag against the front of the door and tapped his foot in a gesture commonly used to try to pick up men in public toilets.

"I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct," Roll Call wrote, quoting the investigator in the police incident report.

Another Republican Senator for Family Values bites the dust.

Craig is in his third term and up for re-election next year. He is a former member of the Senate's Republican leadership and played an active role in the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

In a June 2006 Senate vote, Craig voted in favour of an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage in the United States as a union between one man and one woman. The amendment was defeated by one vote.

Craig is a strong advocate for the rights of gun owners. He has a close association with the National Rifle Association and at one time sat on its board of directors.

Expect social conservatives to come out and defend Craig, in a backhanded way as they did with Senator Foley; claiming this as another example of gay bashing (sic) by Democrats.

In October last year, a gay rights activist claimed in an Internet blog that Craig had had several gay relationships. Craig's office denied it, saying the allegations were "completely ridiculous" and had "no basis in fact."

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Congress, Senator, Minneapolis, Foley, Idaho, Speaker, Ethics, Republicans, sex-scandal, US, politcs, gay, homosexuality, sex

Vote Conservative...Or Else

More Historical Revisionism with a dash of threat. Love it or Leave It. And vote Conservative or else. According to Craig Chandler, who is running to be the Alberta PC Candidate for MLA in Calgary Egmont.

"To those of you who have come to our great land from out of province, you need to remember that you came here to our home and we vote conservative. You came here to enjoy our economy, our natural beauty and more. This is our home and if you wish to live here, you must adapt to our rules and our voting patterns, or leave. Conservatism is our culture. Do not destroy what we have created."

The graphic from his web page its entitled "Wanna Fight."

I guess he can be forgiven for not knowing that Alberta was home to the founding convention of the socialist CCF, the radical industrial syndicalist union the OBU, and the original farmers workers government the UFA, it was the origin of socialized medicine in Canada, even before Tommy Douglas. Even the right wing Social Credit party was result of left wing farmer worker discontent in Alberta.Like the rest of the Conservative historical revisionists in Alberta Chandler forgets that Alberta politics were based on populism and producerism.

Like those he threatens Craig is not originally from Alberta.

Chandler moved to Alberta, and ran in the 1997 provincial election as a candidate for the Social Credit Party of Alberta, led at that time by future Alberta Alliance party leader Randy Thorsteinson. Chandler ran in the riding of Calgary West, finishing with 1,100 votes, or 7.5% of the electorate. He later rejoined the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and endorsed United Alternative candidate Brian Pallister in the party's 1998 Progressive Conservative leadership convention.

Nor is the right wing political business lobby front group he represents.

The Progressive Group for Independent Business (PGIB) was founded in 1992, in Burlington Ontario as a voice for small 'c' conservative business owners and individuals who were rapidly becoming economic refugees in their own country.

And he is proudly paleo-conservative. Which is how he makes his money. Through setting up political front groups. Which he then services. All very Republican.

Craig Chandler is chief executive officer of Concerned Christians Canada Inc., and a former pro-merger leadership candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

You will remember him from the Conservative Party leadership Convention.

In 2003, Chandler took out a membership in the Progressive Conservative Party in order to run in that party's 2003 leadership race. He ran on a platform of creating a coalition between the PC and Alliance party caucuses. He withdrew prior to voting in order to endorse the only other candidate that was open to tangible cooperation on the right, Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice.

The night before the PC leadership convention, Chandler delivered a platform that the Canadian Press described as homophobic, fundamentalist and "neoconservative to the bone." James Muldoon, a fundraiser for front runner Peter MacKay, described Chandler as "the true black face of neoconservatism. He could live to be 100 and he'll never know the meaning of, I am my brother's keeper." Chandler's statements were called "bitter and resentful" by MacKay, whom Chandler criticized for supporting of the passage of Criminal Code of Canada amendment Bill C-250 that added homosexuals to the list of groups protected by hate crimes legislation. Chandler suggested that the amendment would lead to the banning of the Bible and other religious texts in schools and public libraries. Chandler complimented Tory MP Elsie Wayne on her "honest statements" about homosexuals, suggesting that no one has to apologize for having an opinion, even if it is not politically correct. This section of his twenty minute speech was booed by many delegates.

And his political campaign against gays and lesbians resulted in this.

Edmontonian Rob Wells was pleased when the Canadian Human Rights Commission investigated his complaint against Craig Chandler, a Calgary-based “family values” activist. But Wells is not impressed with the actions the federal body is taking to remedy the situation.

Wells had alleged that three websites linked to Chandler—freetospeak.ca, concernedchristians.ca and freedomradionetwork.ca—contained material that is “likely to expose persons of an identifiable group to hatred or contempt.”

The Canadian Human Rights Commission’s investigation, received by the complainant in early July, agreed with Wells.

Canadian broadcast standards council

PRAIRIE regional panel

Decided January 9, 2007

CBSC File # 05/06-1959 – Complaint regarding a Freedom Radio Network program which was broadcast at 6:30 pm on Saturday, July 29, 2006 on AM 1140 Radio Station CHRB from High River, Alberta.

Freedom Radio Network is a talk show broadcast on CHRB-AM (High River) on Saturday evenings. The program’s website declares that the program is produced by people who are “freedom fighters for family values” and “socially conservative”. It is hosted by Craig Chandler and, on July 29, 2006, was co-hosted by Stephen Chapman

the decision

The Prairie Regional Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics:

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 2 – Human Rights

Recognizing that every person has the right to full and equal recognition and to enjoy certain fundamental rights and freedoms, broadcasters shall ensure that their programming contains no abusive or unduly discriminatory material or comment which is based on matters of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 7 – Controversial Public Issues

Recognizing in a democracy the necessity of presenting all sides of a public issue, it shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. Time shall be allotted with due regard to all the other elements of balanced program schedules, and the degree of public interest in the questions presented. Recognizing that healthy controversy is essential to the maintenance of democratic institutions, broadcasters will endeavour to encourage the presentation of news and opinion on any controversy which contains an element of the public interest.

The Prairie Regional Panel Adjudicators reviewed all of the correspondence and listened to a recording of the challenged episode. The Panel concludes that the broadcast was in violation of Clauses 6 and 7 but not Clause 2.

The Panel does not find that the co-hosts fared as well in terms of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Code. To begin, essentially all of the half hour was consumed with a one-sided attack on the complainant, who was a private, not a public, individual. This constituted, in and of itself, an unanswered application of the powerful microphone which broadcasters are licensed to use for the purposes laid down in the Broadcasting Act. This opportunity creates a disparity of power between the person(s) on the transmitting side of the microphone and those on the receiving end of the radio waves. There is, therefore, a need for those whose transmissions are to all extent untrammelled to exercise their licensed authority with a particular appreciation of the responsibility that that privilege bestows upon them. In the view of the Panel, the co-hosts exceeded reasonable bounds in this episode.

Among other things, they distorted the nature of the acts of the complainant in a serious way. They said that they had been accused of a “hate crime”.

The Panel considers that the cumulative effect of the comments discussed in the previous paragraphs of this section constitutes a breach of the obligation of broadcasters to present opinion, comment and editorial matter fully, fairly and properly, as required by Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

The Panel is also mindful of the not unrelated obligation established in Clause 7 to treat fairly all subjects of a controversial nature. In this respect, it also finds the broadcaster in breach. Not only has Freedom Radio stacked the odds against the complainant by directing virtually the entire half hour against the complainant, it has boasted that it will not only sue him and take the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary (which is their right to do), but it will not pay any fines that may be levied (in apparent disregard of the anticipated order of the duly constituted judicial authorities). It is rather arrogant to state baldly that “We won’t pay those.” The Panel considers the judicial assertions unfair and an example of electronic bullying, which is precisely the opposite of what is anticipated by the requirement of fairness in Clause 7.

Appendix A

Appendix B

After failing to lead the Conservative Party, he went back to being a third party lobbyist in the 2004 Federal Election.

Craig Chandler, chief executive officer of Concerned Christians Canada, says some of his membership are worried there won’t be any surprises behind the curtain should the Conservatives get elected.

“I’m getting lots of calls from people thinking Stephen might be abandoning them for the sake of appearing moderate,” said Chandler, who says he has faith in the Conservative leader. “I’m hearing from some people who are not going to vote. What I’m trying to tell them is that’s crazy. We’ve never been this close to getting rid of the Liberals.”

While Harper, by all accounts, doesn’t rank social issues at the top of his agenda – “He’s never ever given two hoots about social issues,” says REAL Women’s Gwen Landolt – groups like Chander’s and Landolt’s believe he will have to listen to his caucus. And their goal is to get MPs who share their beliefs elected.

“Harper is busy distancing himself from social issues, but who is in his caucus? They can put pressure on him. We have to get them in,” says Landolt, who stresses there are candidates they support in all three main parties. “Individual MPs carry more weight. He’ll have to listen to them.”

Chandler says he’s been stressing to his organization that this is an election, and that their best opportunity to influence the party’s direction will come at the policy convention.

“I tell them to get involved, become delegates and then we can make a difference,” he says. “There will be huge pressure from social conservatives at the policy convention.

“We have to stick to the game plan. It’s all in the follow through.”

Ever the political opportunist he supported the creation of the Alberta Alliance.

Alberta Alliance Party leadership election, 2005

David Crutcher

Campaign slogan: "A new Alberta"

David Crutcher, a member of the Progressive Group for Independent business, backed by Craig Chandler, ran in Calgary Egmont, and won the largerst percentage of the popular vote of any Alliance candidate in Calgary in the 2004 election.

• Supports an Alberta provincial tax on consumer goods
• Supports publicly funded alternative medicine in order to save money and resources
• Supports traditional marriage and is pro-life
• Supports Alberta's separation from Canada if the Conservative Party of Canada does not win in the upcoming federal election

Now he is running for Eddie Stelmach's Tired Old Tories. With friends like these Eddies in big trouble.




H/T to Idealist Pragmatist and Daveberta



g posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, Premier,Ed Stelmach,
Social Credit,Socreds, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, leadership, Conservatives, Edmonton, One Party State,History, Politics, Economics,Craig Chandler, social conservatives, PGIB,
Alberta, MLA,

Save Our Troops....Jobs

Forget Red Fridays.
Forget the Yellow Ribbons.

If you really want to support our troops
sign this petition.

Canadian reservists frequently volunteer to serve our country in extended overseas missions. Unfortunately our country--with the exception of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia--does not recognize their sacrifice and some reservists return home only to face the unemployment line.

This situation is simply not fair to the men and women who put their lives on the line for their fellow Canadians.

Therefore we believe it's long overdue for the Canadian government to enact federal legislation that will protect the jobs of reservists who volunteer to serve in extended overseas missions.

While politicians in Toronto and Calgary get into a kerfuffle over posting yellow ribbons on municipal vehicles, they overlook the little fact that there is no Job Protection for Reservists in their provinces. Nor across Canada.

The Canadian reservist, unlike his American counterpart or a pregnant mother, has almost no protection for his job, so that he will usually be taking a big risk employment-wise when he serves his country.

Certain Officers and NCMs of The Royal Montreal Regiment

You can lose your life or body parts in Kandahar, Darfur, or Haiti, or where-ever Canadian Armed Forces are deployed, even at air shows. And to add insult to injury, if you survive, you can also end up losing your job on your return from active duty.

Shame! Shame! Shame! as they say in the House.

Of course prior to Harpers War most reservists and recruits viewed the Canadian Armed Forces as a job, either part time or full time, a career as it was pushed then; there was no life like it. But Harper changed all that. Now they can sign up and fight and if they don't get killed can return to the unemployment line.

Of course labour standards are a provincial responsibility and should be amended, as should Federal legislation. But the fact remains that we should not have to regulate business in the capitalist market place according to the right wing. But once again that fallacy falls flat. Like their much vaunted 'Family Values'.

Major Noseworthy joined our reserve forces in good faith, seeking to do his bit for Canada as a part-time soldier. He answered the call dutifully when asked to go to Afghanistan and fight for peace in that country. But his employer did not have the same sense of duty to Major Noseworthy or Canada for than matter.

In addition to being an army reservist, Major Noseworthy was also the manager at Humber Motors Ford in Stephenville, Newfoundland. That was until he went to Afghanistan and Humber Ford — a firm that claims to be family friendly — refused him a leave of absence to serve his country. Major Noseworthy was dismissed, leaving him to return from his tour of duty and join the line up for Employment Insurance.

And why is there no federal legislation to protect these soldiers?

Jump back to November. That’s when Lt.

-Gen. Andrew Leslie told the House of Commons defense committee that to complete the mission in Afghanistan the Canadian military would have to draw on more of the country’s 18,000 reservists.

At the time Leslie said the military was trying to persuade about 1,500 of them to sign on for two to three years of military duty.

How many of those reservists have, or will have, to quit their jobs to help the country complete its mission?

The federal government was quick to put reserve soldiers in danger by sending them to Afghanistan; the least they can do is ensure they have a job to come home to. Is that too much to ask?

As for employers who require reservists to quit before heading overseas, it’s time to do the right thing. Don’t simply give lip service to supporting the troops, actually do it. If you have a reservist working for you, at the very least grant them a leave of absence if they are willing to put their life on the line for this country.

The only value the working class has in creating capitalism is either as wage slaves or canon fodder.

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council, a group of business people who volunteer to support Canada’s reservists, say this country’s voluntary approach to job protections has worked well.

So the council’s volunteers must have cringed at news earlier this month that a reservist in Newfoundland came back from six long months in Afghanistan to unemployment.

Newfoundland, like Alberta, is among the majority of provinces which extend no job protections to reservists. Meanwhile, reservists are in high demand to fulfil Canada’s commitment in Afghanistan.

But even with service an option for reservists, it’s clear job protections should also be legislated.

That even a single soldier who has served the nation on a potentially deadly mission wind up on the unemployment line for his/her efforts is a national shame.

Surely a call for political action on this front should command more attention than the push for politicians to put ribbon decals on publicly funded bumpers.

Here! Here! As they say in the House.

H/T to Another Point of View for drawing my attention to My Blahg's latest efforts.



SEE:

Kandahar

Afghanistan

War





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values,

Say No To Capital Punishment

Two little words this morning prove why Capital Punishment, murder by the state , is never justified.

Steven Truscott.

For fifty years he awaited justice, while the justice system failed him and Lynne Harper the victim of a brutal rape murder. This morning the Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted him.

Acquittal, but not innocence, likely for Truscott

Sentenced to death in 1959 for the murder of a 12-year-old, there is no avenue for the Canadian legal system to declare him innocent

The real sexual predator who brutally raped and murdered Lyn escaped justice, while Truscott suffered from a justice system that saw him as their best bet for conviction and would not be deterred by facts to the contrary.

Fifty years, the life of a man, to appeal an injustice, resulted finally in justice being served. Truscott is an excellent case for why capital punishment is never justified, it is an irreversible judgment.

No other crime in Canada has divided public opinion as much as the tragic story of the June 9, 1959, murder of 12-year-old Lynne Harper, for which Truscott, then 14, was ultimately convicted. He was the youngest person ever sentenced to death in Canada (his death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment). Still protesting his innocence, he began serving his sentence. His appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

Public opinion ran passionately in favour of his guilt. Pierre Berton had written a sympathetic verse in this very paper a week after the trial and later said he had never known a more violent response to any column he had ever written.

He was called "a sob sister for a monster" and callers expressed the hope that his own daughter would soon be raped. Yet, seven years later, the tide of opinion shifted spectacularly.

The public came to believe that Steven's trial suffered from serious deficiencies, questionable expert testimony and unfairness to the accused. The case was discussed everywhere, including the House of Commons. All because of Isabel LeBourdais, who had published The Trial of Steven Truscott in March 1966. The book was a passionate, emotional defence of Steven Truscott and a scathing denunciation of his trial. She was named woman of the year by The Canadian Press.

Isabel LeBourdais, whose book raised questions about the Truscott investigation, talks with Steven Truscott in 1968 outside Collins Bay Penitentiary.

The doubts raised by the book and the language in which these doubts were framed struck a nerve deep in the Canadian consciousness. As a result of the book, the minister of justice, for the first time in Canadian history, directed a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada as to the propriety of the conviction. It is also the first time in which that court heard live testimony.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on May 4, 1967, but doubts remained. Justice Emmett Hall, one of the most eminent judges of the court, wrote a powerful, passionate and stinging dissent and would have directed a new trial. He sharply criticized the conduct of the Crown. An already inflamed public, he said, was further inflamed by the Crown's improper suggestions and the trial judge's improper charge to the jury. Many Canadians believed that of the nine judges on the Supreme Court, only Justice Hall got it right.

Because of the Truscott Case capital punishment in Canada was reconsidered and eventually removed from the criminal code.

Canada banned the death penalty because of fears about wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty about the death penalty's role as a deterrent for crime.

The case of Steven Truscott, who was just 14 years old when convicted of a murder that many continue to believe he did not commit, was a significant impetus (although certainly not the only one) toward the abolishment of capital punishment.

The return to having Capital Punishment in the criminal code is a platform from the old Reform Party that is the base of the Harper Conservatives. And it came up in the Conservative Leadership race.

Tony Clement declared that he believes that capital punishment should be an option for extreme cases. "My personal view is that in the case of serial killers and murderers of police officers, for instance, that it would be appropriate in those circumstances". -- Tony Clement

This decision should bury that forever. But if it doesn't then my reply to the Law and Order right wingers who endlessly lobby for state murder, will forever remain two little words; Steven Truscott.

The first private bill calling for abolition of the death penalty was introduced in 1914. In 1954, rape was removed from capital offenses. In 1956, a parliamentary committee recommended exempting juvenile offenders from the death penalty, providing expert counsel at all stages of the proceedings and the institution of mandatory appeals in capital cases.

Between 1954 and 1963, a private member's bill was introduced in each parliamentary session calling for abolition of the death penalty. The first major debate on the issue took place in the House of Commons in 1966. Following a lengthy and emotional debate, the government introduced and passed Bill C-168, which limited capital murder to the killing of on-duty police officers and prison guards.

Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.

All of Canada's national political parties formally oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty, with the exception of the Reform Party which supports a binding national referendum on the issue.

The debate over capital punishment was renewed once again in 1984. There was a free vote in the House of Commons on the topic in 1987. Supporters of capital punishment narrowly lost the vote, 148 to 127. The Bill to reintroduce capital punishment came from Conservative backbencher Gordon Taylor. Taylor initially introduced the Bill to reinstate capital punishment for Clifford Olson in 1986 but the Speaker of the House refused the Bill, as a law cannot be passed relating to a specific person. Taylor therefore changed the Bill to cover all those convicted of first degree murder and mass murders. In the end though, the Bill was not successful.

The debate concerning capital punishment is far from over, and it is an issue that is not likely to end in the near future. For now though, the debate seems to be dormant. Yet at a time when Canadians are demanding that criminals be held accountable for their actions and that justice be put back into the justice system, it is not likely that the call for the reinstatement of capital punishment will ever go away. Poll after poll shows that Canadians support the use of capital punishment in certain circumstances, but the political will is simply not there. The recent acts of terrorism in the United States might spur a renewed call for capital punishment, even if only for terrorist murders.

In 1976, capital punishment was removed from Canada's Criminal Code. After years of debate, Parliament decided that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty. The reasons for this decision were due to the possibility of wrongful convictions, concerns about the state taking the lives of individuals, and uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.

• In 1961, legislation was passed which reclassified murder into capital and non-capital offences. Capital murder referred to planned or deliberate murder, murder that occurred during the course of other violent crimes, or the murder of a police officer or prison guard. At this time, only capital murder was punishable by death.
• On December 10, 1962, Arthur Lucas and Robert Turpin were the last people to be executed in Canada.
• In 1967, a bill was passed that placed a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, except in cases involving the murder of a police officer or corrections officer.
• On July 14, 1976, with the exception of certain offences under the National Defence Act, the death penalty was abolished in Canada. The bill, C-84, passed by a narrow margin on a free vote.
• In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote was in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty, 148 to127.
• In 1998, Parliament removed the death penalty with the passing of An Act to Amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 1998 c. 35.
• In Canada, the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice. Canada has played a key role in denouncing the use of capital punishment at the international level.
• The Supreme Court of Canada has held that prior to extraditing an individual for a capital crime, Canada must seek assurances, save in exceptional circumstances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be applied.

SEE:

Saddam and the CIA

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Ontario Court of Appeal, Truscott, capital-punishment, Canada, crime, death penalty, Lynne Harper, acquittal, justice,