There's been a lot said regarding the extensive media coverage of the Rafferty trial; specifically that it's too graphic. Even I cringe at some of the tweets coming from the two CBC Reporters who are inside the courtroom; the summary of Terri-Lynne McLintic's testimony about her actions in Tori Stafford's murder... the way she describes turning away while the accused allegedly committed sexual assault. That part made me hate twitter, and yet...
I understand why it's covered so extensively. Much of what McLintic has said was previously under a publication ban, and from that standpoint no matter how despicable and hateful the details it's news. We journalists wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't at least report on it. To their credit that's what the two CBC reporters are doing; summarizing the testimony in 140 character bursts. It's how I've been following the trial; I haven't been able to bring myself to read the print coverage.
There's a human need to understand, to try and figure out the puzzle; to ask how. How can someone ignore an innocent little girl's cries for help as Rafferty allegedly sexually assaulted her. How can someone knowingly abuse, and eventually kill another person as Mclintic now testifies she did? Where was the compassion as they kidnapped, then killed Tori Stafford?
In an effort to understand, reporters, and columnists are often driven to go deeper into the details; to analyze and speculate on those questions. In a trial like this it can get extremely uncomfortable for the viewer/reader/listener. If Journalists didn't at least try to provide some understanding; we wouldn't be doing our job. And we probably would be getting just as much flack for that too.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Measured Response to Ontario's Finances
Over the last couple of days the McGuinty government has made a pair of announcements that will end up making them more money; an increase in license renewal fees, and the possibility of an additional casino. In principle I don't have a problem with either; licensing charges haven't gone up in 15 years- an argument could be made for a slight increase on that alone.. just not the full $8 that is forecast for this year. If delicately handled more casinos could work; however they come with their own set of problems in the form of gamboling addictions, etc. And as some point out the revenue generated by the casinos potentially takes money away from somewhere else.
I have a problem with the general concept these two represent. These two specific solutions make it look like the Province is simply making more money while trying to avoid a lot of the cuts. More money always helps especially if people have to spend it as in the case of license fees. It should probably be part of the solution it shouldn't be the only solution. If the province is going to return to prosperity then it has to be a mixture of making money and cuts. It should be an increase of say $1 to licensing fees while cutting funding to the LHIN's (or eliminating them altogether. It should be putting a Casino in while cutting or eliminating the Green Energy benefit.
The measured response has been pretty much ignored by the McGuinty government. As I cynically predicted in a previous entry they've ignored pretty much all of the Drummond Report. They've said no to charging parking fees at Go Transit lots, no to slowing the implementation of all-day kindergarten. Instead of closing a casino at Niagara Falls, they are closing slot machines at three sites (Windsor, Sarnia, and Fort Erie). The McGuinty government is also trying to negotiate a pay freeze for the elementary school teachers; if it happens it would be a significant sign they are willing to do what's necessary to balance the books.
We ontarians are generally reasonable folks who would meet the government halfway by paying slightly increased fees. The government has to meet us halfway and put together a measured response that includes cuts, as well as increases.
I have a problem with the general concept these two represent. These two specific solutions make it look like the Province is simply making more money while trying to avoid a lot of the cuts. More money always helps especially if people have to spend it as in the case of license fees. It should probably be part of the solution it shouldn't be the only solution. If the province is going to return to prosperity then it has to be a mixture of making money and cuts. It should be an increase of say $1 to licensing fees while cutting funding to the LHIN's (or eliminating them altogether. It should be putting a Casino in while cutting or eliminating the Green Energy benefit.
The measured response has been pretty much ignored by the McGuinty government. As I cynically predicted in a previous entry they've ignored pretty much all of the Drummond Report. They've said no to charging parking fees at Go Transit lots, no to slowing the implementation of all-day kindergarten. Instead of closing a casino at Niagara Falls, they are closing slot machines at three sites (Windsor, Sarnia, and Fort Erie). The McGuinty government is also trying to negotiate a pay freeze for the elementary school teachers; if it happens it would be a significant sign they are willing to do what's necessary to balance the books.
We ontarians are generally reasonable folks who would meet the government halfway by paying slightly increased fees. The government has to meet us halfway and put together a measured response that includes cuts, as well as increases.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Robo-Calls and Revisionism
Let's rewind the clock. It's late April, 2011- mere weeks left in the federal election campaign. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff have spectacularly imploded, and Jack Layton is coming thisclose to actually getting the keys to 24 Sussex Drive. We all know how it ended; The Liberals lost their Official Opposition status to Layton and the NDP, sliding into a dismal third place finish.
Fast forward to now- approximately a year later. There are now allegations of fraud, and Elections Canada is now looking into 31 thousand robo-call complaints. This could turn criminal as the agency has called in the R.C.M.P to investigate. As the saying goes where there's smoke, there's fire. That's too many people to be a mere coincidence, too much allegedly illicit behavior to ignore. And it does make me angry to think someone somewhere would presume to try and take away people's votes... this is Canada for goodness sake one of the standard bearers for democracy.
Here's a question for the ages: If we knew about the robo-call scandal then would it have really changed the outcome that much? I'd say no. I would argue that there are too many other mitigating factors to tell if Robo-calls would've made much of a difference.
Voter turnout was so low partly because of the election timing. the 2011 federal election was the second of three elections in the space of a calendar year (October 2010- municipal elections, and October 2011 provincial elections to come). The electorate was tired out; everywhere we looked there was a politician promising us something if we voted for them.
And then you have the Liberals. Their campaign imploded almost from the first day when Michael Ignatieff fell right into the trap of mentioning the word "coalition." Not even former Prime Ministers Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien could help as they campaigned with the party close to election day. Ignatieff's personality was enough to put off even the most faithful Liberal voter, as that party's supporters ended up turning away and either voting Conservative, NDP or just staying home.
It was more than just Jack Layton's personality going for the N.D.P. It was a positive message that cut through the negativity being put forward by the other two parties. It was the party's determination to stick to their policies instead of playing in the mud with the others, as well as Canadians' thirst to believe that things could be different in Canadian politics.
We'll never know for certain whether the robo-call scandal affected the results, or whether it was one of these other factors. To try and apply it retroactively is madness. Our system doesn't have any mechanisms in it to allow for recall, or to force another election in the majority setting. The Governor General was appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and is bound by the constitution to obey a government so long as it sits in office. Besides honestly, another election won't solve anything- and would leave the country a few hundred million shorter. And I think something similar can be said of holding by-elections. But holding them would be a sign that allegations are being taken seriously.
If fraud was committed, someone will pay for it either through the justice system, or at the ballot box in the next election because Canadians will remember this. I think it's pointless to try and play revisionist history with this and say that robo-calls had a big impact on the results when there's so many other factors to consider.
Fast forward to now- approximately a year later. There are now allegations of fraud, and Elections Canada is now looking into 31 thousand robo-call complaints. This could turn criminal as the agency has called in the R.C.M.P to investigate. As the saying goes where there's smoke, there's fire. That's too many people to be a mere coincidence, too much allegedly illicit behavior to ignore. And it does make me angry to think someone somewhere would presume to try and take away people's votes... this is Canada for goodness sake one of the standard bearers for democracy.
Here's a question for the ages: If we knew about the robo-call scandal then would it have really changed the outcome that much? I'd say no. I would argue that there are too many other mitigating factors to tell if Robo-calls would've made much of a difference.
Voter turnout was so low partly because of the election timing. the 2011 federal election was the second of three elections in the space of a calendar year (October 2010- municipal elections, and October 2011 provincial elections to come). The electorate was tired out; everywhere we looked there was a politician promising us something if we voted for them.
And then you have the Liberals. Their campaign imploded almost from the first day when Michael Ignatieff fell right into the trap of mentioning the word "coalition." Not even former Prime Ministers Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien could help as they campaigned with the party close to election day. Ignatieff's personality was enough to put off even the most faithful Liberal voter, as that party's supporters ended up turning away and either voting Conservative, NDP or just staying home.
It was more than just Jack Layton's personality going for the N.D.P. It was a positive message that cut through the negativity being put forward by the other two parties. It was the party's determination to stick to their policies instead of playing in the mud with the others, as well as Canadians' thirst to believe that things could be different in Canadian politics.
We'll never know for certain whether the robo-call scandal affected the results, or whether it was one of these other factors. To try and apply it retroactively is madness. Our system doesn't have any mechanisms in it to allow for recall, or to force another election in the majority setting. The Governor General was appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and is bound by the constitution to obey a government so long as it sits in office. Besides honestly, another election won't solve anything- and would leave the country a few hundred million shorter. And I think something similar can be said of holding by-elections. But holding them would be a sign that allegations are being taken seriously.
If fraud was committed, someone will pay for it either through the justice system, or at the ballot box in the next election because Canadians will remember this. I think it's pointless to try and play revisionist history with this and say that robo-calls had a big impact on the results when there's so many other factors to consider.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Happy 30th Milton Toastmasters
On Tuesday Night the Milton Toastmasters celebrated their 30th anniversary with an open house for the public. The toastmasters for those who don't know is an organization that helps people with their public speaking, and presentation skills. People learn by making speeches before the club, and are given feedback by their fellow members. The Milton club is held at the Canadian Legion on Charles St, and current club president is Milton's Ward 8 Councilor Zeeshan Hamid.
The event featured three speakers. The first was my favourite; Susan Lamb-Robinson gave a speech entitled "How Big is your But." It was about how we all allow often let our fears get in the way of achieving our dreams. It struck a chord with me because it forced me to ask myself what I had to lose in taking a risk, and consider what obstacles I had standing in my own way. It was very thought provoking.
The other two were very brief. One was about how farming has changed over the years, and served as a good reminder to buy Canadian and support local farmers at the grocery store. The other I found quite funny was a timely rant on how complicated the Income Tax system is.
In surveys public speaking ranks up there as one of the top fears. It was inspiring to watch three diverse people speak with humour and eloquence about different topics.
The event featured three speakers. The first was my favourite; Susan Lamb-Robinson gave a speech entitled "How Big is your But." It was about how we all allow often let our fears get in the way of achieving our dreams. It struck a chord with me because it forced me to ask myself what I had to lose in taking a risk, and consider what obstacles I had standing in my own way. It was very thought provoking.
The other two were very brief. One was about how farming has changed over the years, and served as a good reminder to buy Canadian and support local farmers at the grocery store. The other I found quite funny was a timely rant on how complicated the Income Tax system is.
In surveys public speaking ranks up there as one of the top fears. It was inspiring to watch three diverse people speak with humour and eloquence about different topics.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Canada We have a Problem here
I haven't entirely made my mind up about the robo-call scandal. I've got a feeling it's going to get worse. (I hope I'm wrong about that) But one thing is for sure; we have a problem here.
The Liberals are leveling some very serious allegations of corruption, and tampering as it comes to last year's federal election. The scheme involved Edmonton marketing firm placing robo-calls on behalf of the Conservative Party misdirecting voters to different polls. The Conservatives have admitted it happened in 9 ridings, and have fired what Prime Minister Harper calls one rogue worker. the Liberals place that number of ridings affected much higher at 27 and have added accusations of voter harassment.
It's worth repeating; Canada we have a problem here. I've worked for Elections Canada enough to know a bit about the ins and outs on how the agency works. At a polling station for example nothing happens without the Deputy Return Officer (D.R.O.)If they should step away for any reason business shuts down. Another example; If a scrutineer gets too rough in any way with voters D.R.O.'s can ask them to leave, and I in serious cases can have them arrested. Another rule; candidate representatives or signs representing any candidate aren't allowed within a certain distance of the polling station. This makes me wonder how the Conservative election worker could come that close to voters as Bob Rae and the Liberals allege in today's Toronto Star.
The scandal looks bad for Canadian politics in general, worse for the Conservative Party. If I were Harper, I'd appoint the most anti-Conservative judge I could find and call an Inquiry. I'd give him some teeth, and find a way to do it outside Ottawa in order to keep the political games to a minimum. If the worst is true of the party I would immediately call by-elections for all ridings affected.
This won't go away simply because Harper fired the person allegedly responsible, and kind of admitted he was wrong. This is our electoral system, and Harper is the guy in charge. He first needs to admit there is a serious problem here, and address it quickly. His political future could depend on it.
The Liberals are leveling some very serious allegations of corruption, and tampering as it comes to last year's federal election. The scheme involved Edmonton marketing firm placing robo-calls on behalf of the Conservative Party misdirecting voters to different polls. The Conservatives have admitted it happened in 9 ridings, and have fired what Prime Minister Harper calls one rogue worker. the Liberals place that number of ridings affected much higher at 27 and have added accusations of voter harassment.
It's worth repeating; Canada we have a problem here. I've worked for Elections Canada enough to know a bit about the ins and outs on how the agency works. At a polling station for example nothing happens without the Deputy Return Officer (D.R.O.)If they should step away for any reason business shuts down. Another example; If a scrutineer gets too rough in any way with voters D.R.O.'s can ask them to leave, and I in serious cases can have them arrested. Another rule; candidate representatives or signs representing any candidate aren't allowed within a certain distance of the polling station. This makes me wonder how the Conservative election worker could come that close to voters as Bob Rae and the Liberals allege in today's Toronto Star.
The scandal looks bad for Canadian politics in general, worse for the Conservative Party. If I were Harper, I'd appoint the most anti-Conservative judge I could find and call an Inquiry. I'd give him some teeth, and find a way to do it outside Ottawa in order to keep the political games to a minimum. If the worst is true of the party I would immediately call by-elections for all ridings affected.
This won't go away simply because Harper fired the person allegedly responsible, and kind of admitted he was wrong. This is our electoral system, and Harper is the guy in charge. He first needs to admit there is a serious problem here, and address it quickly. His political future could depend on it.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
As The T.T.C.Turns
It's getting to be quite the soap opera isn't it? The latest developments involve Premier McGuinty and the firing of the system's General Manager Gary Webster.
Webster as we all know has been fired without cause, and Toronto taxpayers will likely be on the hook for somewhere between 500-750 thousand in severance. There's no getting around it; the firing had blatant political overtones and very likely had political motives behind it. Webster wasn't backing Ford's subway plan, and if speculation is to be believed may have maneuvered Karen Stintz into her motion. Regardless, if Ford had fired Webster a year ago he probably would've gotten away with it- when a regime changes everybody expects some personnel to change. What makes uglier than normal is it's coming now after Stintz got her motion passed.
When you take the politics, and intrigue out of it, was Gary Webster doing his job? Can anyone name one thing he's done besides taking ridership to new heights? Because I can't. I think the T.T.C. is pretty much a system stuck in the '80's, and it shows. Why didn't he try and automate the system? Or introduce new pass options. I'd find a 10-ride pass quite helpful for example; it would be a new way of making money. He could've done so much with the system and didn't. Ford may have been wrong to fire him the way he did, and with his timing but it probably needed to be done.
The ongoing drama at the T.T.C. prompted Premier McGuinty comment on his government's growing frustration with the situation saying in the press yesterday: we're running out of patience, I think the people of Toronto are running out of patience." This is as firm as I've heard McGuinty speak on the subject. It's also got a ring of truth to it; Torontonians are getting a little fed up with the dithering and want something done.
What does McGuinty really mean? Who knows. There is speculation it means Metrolinx will be asked to take over and sort the whole thing out. That would make sense- the provincial body could take over, and create one single broad cohesive system from Toronto to Hamilton. I'm sure the exact meaning will become to clear in the next installment of as the T.T.C. turns.
Webster as we all know has been fired without cause, and Toronto taxpayers will likely be on the hook for somewhere between 500-750 thousand in severance. There's no getting around it; the firing had blatant political overtones and very likely had political motives behind it. Webster wasn't backing Ford's subway plan, and if speculation is to be believed may have maneuvered Karen Stintz into her motion. Regardless, if Ford had fired Webster a year ago he probably would've gotten away with it- when a regime changes everybody expects some personnel to change. What makes uglier than normal is it's coming now after Stintz got her motion passed.
When you take the politics, and intrigue out of it, was Gary Webster doing his job? Can anyone name one thing he's done besides taking ridership to new heights? Because I can't. I think the T.T.C. is pretty much a system stuck in the '80's, and it shows. Why didn't he try and automate the system? Or introduce new pass options. I'd find a 10-ride pass quite helpful for example; it would be a new way of making money. He could've done so much with the system and didn't. Ford may have been wrong to fire him the way he did, and with his timing but it probably needed to be done.
The ongoing drama at the T.T.C. prompted Premier McGuinty comment on his government's growing frustration with the situation saying in the press yesterday: we're running out of patience, I think the people of Toronto are running out of patience." This is as firm as I've heard McGuinty speak on the subject. It's also got a ring of truth to it; Torontonians are getting a little fed up with the dithering and want something done.
What does McGuinty really mean? Who knows. There is speculation it means Metrolinx will be asked to take over and sort the whole thing out. That would make sense- the provincial body could take over, and create one single broad cohesive system from Toronto to Hamilton. I'm sure the exact meaning will become to clear in the next installment of as the T.T.C. turns.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Thoughts on Bill C-30
Much has been made the last week of bill C-30, or its more formal title: Investigating and preventing Criminal Electronic Communications Act. I had a look at the summary page of it and I don't really find anything wrong with the first part of it. Part 1 looks like an attempt to formalize relations between police and Internet Service Providers (I.S.P.) as it comes to gathering information for criminal investigations. It's at least the start of reigning in the so-called lawless Internet.
Part two of the bill goes way too far. Our system is built on checks and balances; the judges check the police for example. Bill C-30 gives police too much power, and judges not enough to check them. According to the charter of rights and freedoms, Canadians have the right to a fair trial; to be seen as equal before and under the law. Part 2 of the legislation violates that. It gets rid of the fairness angle of it because it allows a warrant to be valid for up to a year. In addition clause C requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to report on the interceptions of private communications made without authorizations. Assuming the Minister the ultimate authority on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who checks his authority?
Canadians have a right to privacy as well under the charter. The Minister of Public Safety; whomever that is shouldn't get the right to read my private email or check whatever websites I'm looking at. I'd imagine this legislation could be brought bear on journalists in a professional setting as well. Hypothetically speaking, let's say I'm investigating a government scandal that could bring down a politician , and I'm emailing a source. And using this legislation the government gets a hold of that email. Does this mean that under Bill C-30 the government could find a way to kill my story? When last I checked freedom of the press was included in the charter as well.
Section 2 also provides for an amendment to the Criminal Code as it deals with hate speech. The definition of hate speech is extremely vague... how about a discussion on that, and how it applies to regular law, before we apply it to the Internet?
Overall as it is now this bill gives me the chills. I'm glad it's been sent back to committee for further study and possible rewrites. Members of Parliament looking at the legislation should have learned two things from the controversy about the bill. One is that Canadians aren't stupid, we know when our rights and freedoms are being threatened. Second is a quick reminder to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms before proposing to change it in such a fundamental way as this legislation would. People who forget these two lessons will be as thoroughly mocked as Vic Towes.
Part two of the bill goes way too far. Our system is built on checks and balances; the judges check the police for example. Bill C-30 gives police too much power, and judges not enough to check them. According to the charter of rights and freedoms, Canadians have the right to a fair trial; to be seen as equal before and under the law. Part 2 of the legislation violates that. It gets rid of the fairness angle of it because it allows a warrant to be valid for up to a year. In addition clause C requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to report on the interceptions of private communications made without authorizations. Assuming the Minister the ultimate authority on Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who checks his authority?
Canadians have a right to privacy as well under the charter. The Minister of Public Safety; whomever that is shouldn't get the right to read my private email or check whatever websites I'm looking at. I'd imagine this legislation could be brought bear on journalists in a professional setting as well. Hypothetically speaking, let's say I'm investigating a government scandal that could bring down a politician , and I'm emailing a source. And using this legislation the government gets a hold of that email. Does this mean that under Bill C-30 the government could find a way to kill my story? When last I checked freedom of the press was included in the charter as well.
Section 2 also provides for an amendment to the Criminal Code as it deals with hate speech. The definition of hate speech is extremely vague... how about a discussion on that, and how it applies to regular law, before we apply it to the Internet?
Overall as it is now this bill gives me the chills. I'm glad it's been sent back to committee for further study and possible rewrites. Members of Parliament looking at the legislation should have learned two things from the controversy about the bill. One is that Canadians aren't stupid, we know when our rights and freedoms are being threatened. Second is a quick reminder to read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms before proposing to change it in such a fundamental way as this legislation would. People who forget these two lessons will be as thoroughly mocked as Vic Towes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)