Sometimes it is worthwhile to review a sequence of events.
As it relates to the SNC situation that we find our Country transfixed by - the discussion around the deluge of lobbying by the company as they sat charged with serious criminal offences - has been somewhat vetted.
Many have also talked about the fact that changes to the Criminal Code were buried in a Budget Bill. Most seem to find that inappropriate.
Obviously there are continued questions and escalating mistrust which will likely continue to haunt the PMO and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - as long as there are no comments from Jody Wilson-Raybould.
This post however will review a surely impossible sequence of events that lead up to the tabled change to the Criminal Code within the Budget Bill.
Let's make this short. It will add to the call for investigative measures to take place regarding this SNC mess.
You've probably heard by now that Canadians were told that the government was considering Deferred Prosecution Agreements. The spin - partially true - was that the public could have commented on this idea. Let's say the MP's did not do a full court press to constituents on this very important matter. The MSM were not all aflutter with advising Canadians of this very important consultation process.
Putting that aside - the consultation took place between September 25th - December 08 2017.
The report on the consultations found (PRESS HERE) was dated February 22nd 2018. The report is a general summary of what was heard or submitted by participants, a copy of the questions given to participants to answer, and a paragraph at the end of report titles "Next Steps", The following is that paragraph: The Government of Canada will further review the feedback received and assess whether enhancements to the Integrity Regime are warranted to ensure that the Regime continues to achieve its objectives, is efficient in doing so, and addresses new trends and risks in a constantly changing marketplace. Feedback will also be used by the Government of Canada in considering the possibility of introducing a Canadian DPA regime as an additional tool for prosecutors, to be used in appropriate circumstances, to address corporate crime. (emphasis added)
Further the last paragraph reads: While this public consultation has ended, the Government of Canada remains committed to hearing from interested parties regarding both the Integrity Regime and DPAs.
So on February 22nd of 2018 the report for consideration - to be assessed and reviewed - and even to possibly continue to hear from other people was released. It could be reviewed by Canadians and Parliamentarians alike. Let's have a discussion kind of tone.
5 days later there is a Budget Bill presented to the House of Commons that included the changes to the Criminal Code on these matters.
The proposed law was written and presented to Parliament 5 days after the report is released for assessment, review, and even more invited commentary.
Please take the time to think about that. In 5 short days 3 months of material and findings were reviewed - assessed - and already presented for passage of the Budget Bill.
Any reasonably minded person would conclude the proposed changes to the Criminal Code were already written before the report was released.
Any reasonably minded person knows that Criminal Code changes just don't happen that way or that fast.
The report does not allow Canadians to see who said what - and what exactly was being submitted.
But lucky for Canadians - SNC Lavalin put its submission on their site.
Have a look at the report referenced above and then the changes to the Criminal Code (PRESS HERE) and then decide who influenced our law.
Undue influence? Need to get the fix in place for SNC in a timely manner?
Next post will deal with the change in language from Deferred Prosecution Agreements to Remediation Agreements. Funny that when GM Butts resigned - he actually used the term Deferred Prosecution Agreements instead of Remediation Agreements - the latter of which is actually law.
Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MP. Show all posts
Monday, February 18, 2019
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Protect our children - Stop the predators
A story in the Telegram this week reminds us all - once again - that predators continue to threaten our children and that the current system of punishment fails to deter them.
In this particular case a former Tim Horton's franchisee was in court "for the first part of his sentencing hearing on charges of possession of child pornography and unlawfully luring a child (under 18) by means of a computer system."
The former District Governor for the Lions Club is hardly a model choice when the Lions Quest Program is to "Inform and Strengthen our Youth".
This "man" (deviant) plead guilty to possessing child pornography and luring a child under 18 - in this case an 11 year old girl.
He asked for and received sexually explicit photos of the child and sent pictures of an adult male penis to her. They also had online conversations with many sexual references.
The Crown lawyer asked for a sentence of 18-24 months that "his name be placed on the National Sex Offender Registry for life, that he be subject to a firearms prohibition for five years, be placed on probation for three years and a Section 161 order imposed that would place limits on him having contact with anyone under 16."
The lawyer for the child predator suggested a "lighter sentence" of 15 months, "a two-year period of probation and that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren.He also disagreed with the firearms prohibition and the length of time on the sex offender designation."
Oral Clarke's (predator) actions apparently had "already cost him greatly". He lost his Tim Horton's relationship, was booted from the Lions and people are "treating him different". This his lawyer suggested would "help achieve the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation."
Let's look at this suggestion and determine the reality of the situation.
Oral Clarke was a successful business person with significant social standing in the community at large. Despite this Oral Clarke decided to lure an 11 year old girl via the internet. He decided his desire to see an 11 year old girl's vagina and breasts and his desire to show an 11 year old girl an adult male penis was okay.
Oral Clarke knew full well what he was doing was criminal and extremely harmful to a child, he knew his actions would be extremely harmful to his family, business, and social organizations he was involved in.
Oral Clarke knew if he was caught - his material world would take a hit and his family would also be victims. Oral Clarke knew he was deliberately and knowingly harming a child. His sick perverted desires outweighed all else. He satisfied his deviant need to violate an innocent child.
Clarke said he "realized the foolishness of his actions". The fact that he made such a statement demonstrates how trivial he finds his behavior. Foolishness is "lack of good sense or judgment; stupidity". We are reminded by the definition how all of us may have behaved foolishly in the past or in our youth. Clarke's behavior was not "foolishness" it was deviant, criminal, predatory, and beyond the comprehension of most human beings.
In order to protect our children - we must force ourselves to look seriously at how Oral Clarke and other child predators think. Despite the disgusting nature of the crime - we must force ourselves to talk about it and deal with our legislators with regard to punishment and deterrence.
If knowing you would lose your business, your social standing, and perhaps all of your family was not a deterrent for Oral Clarke - then 15-24 months in jail won't deter him.
The problem is that thinking about such crimes is so abhorrent - most of us try to erase the fact we've ever read it.
It is important to note that Clarke's lawyer also suggested "that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren."
If the Court were to except the order as it relates to his grandchildren - it might be knowingly placing children in harms way. If the parents of the children were actually willing to give Oral Clarke access to them - they need to be protected from themselves and the court should ensure that.
Oral Clarke has no doubt victimized many people whom he claims to love and care about - but Oral Clarke was only ever interested in himself and satisfying his twisted need to sexually exploit a child.
The police did their work and now society (lawyers, judges, legislators, and citizens) need to do ours. We need to do whatever we must to truly punish and deter these predators. This means our MHA's and MP's must be guided to adjust sentencing to truly reflect the crime and to more assuredly deter the predator.
Think of it this way. One morning Oral Clarke woke up and decided what he needed was to lure an 11 year old girl to satisfy his deviant and criminal mind. He then proceeded to find one, lure one, and exploit one. Wrap your head around those thoughts - it's not possible. The children need to be permanently protected from Oral Clarke and other predators. Make sure the sentence protects children and has nothing to do with Oral Clarke's personal or business losses. If it were your child what would you want the sentence to be?
In this particular case a former Tim Horton's franchisee was in court "for the first part of his sentencing hearing on charges of possession of child pornography and unlawfully luring a child (under 18) by means of a computer system."
The former District Governor for the Lions Club is hardly a model choice when the Lions Quest Program is to "Inform and Strengthen our Youth".
This "man" (deviant) plead guilty to possessing child pornography and luring a child under 18 - in this case an 11 year old girl.
He asked for and received sexually explicit photos of the child and sent pictures of an adult male penis to her. They also had online conversations with many sexual references.
The Crown lawyer asked for a sentence of 18-24 months that "his name be placed on the National Sex Offender Registry for life, that he be subject to a firearms prohibition for five years, be placed on probation for three years and a Section 161 order imposed that would place limits on him having contact with anyone under 16."
The lawyer for the child predator suggested a "lighter sentence" of 15 months, "a two-year period of probation and that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren.He also disagreed with the firearms prohibition and the length of time on the sex offender designation."
Oral Clarke's (predator) actions apparently had "already cost him greatly". He lost his Tim Horton's relationship, was booted from the Lions and people are "treating him different". This his lawyer suggested would "help achieve the sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation."
Let's look at this suggestion and determine the reality of the situation.
Oral Clarke was a successful business person with significant social standing in the community at large. Despite this Oral Clarke decided to lure an 11 year old girl via the internet. He decided his desire to see an 11 year old girl's vagina and breasts and his desire to show an 11 year old girl an adult male penis was okay.
Oral Clarke knew full well what he was doing was criminal and extremely harmful to a child, he knew his actions would be extremely harmful to his family, business, and social organizations he was involved in.
Oral Clarke knew if he was caught - his material world would take a hit and his family would also be victims. Oral Clarke knew he was deliberately and knowingly harming a child. His sick perverted desires outweighed all else. He satisfied his deviant need to violate an innocent child.
Clarke said he "realized the foolishness of his actions". The fact that he made such a statement demonstrates how trivial he finds his behavior. Foolishness is "lack of good sense or judgment; stupidity". We are reminded by the definition how all of us may have behaved foolishly in the past or in our youth. Clarke's behavior was not "foolishness" it was deviant, criminal, predatory, and beyond the comprehension of most human beings.
In order to protect our children - we must force ourselves to look seriously at how Oral Clarke and other child predators think. Despite the disgusting nature of the crime - we must force ourselves to talk about it and deal with our legislators with regard to punishment and deterrence.
If knowing you would lose your business, your social standing, and perhaps all of your family was not a deterrent for Oral Clarke - then 15-24 months in jail won't deter him.
The problem is that thinking about such crimes is so abhorrent - most of us try to erase the fact we've ever read it.
It is important to note that Clarke's lawyer also suggested "that a general no-contact order with youth is not needed. If it is ordered, he asked that it include an exception to allow contact with his grandchildren."
If the Court were to except the order as it relates to his grandchildren - it might be knowingly placing children in harms way. If the parents of the children were actually willing to give Oral Clarke access to them - they need to be protected from themselves and the court should ensure that.
Oral Clarke has no doubt victimized many people whom he claims to love and care about - but Oral Clarke was only ever interested in himself and satisfying his twisted need to sexually exploit a child.
The police did their work and now society (lawyers, judges, legislators, and citizens) need to do ours. We need to do whatever we must to truly punish and deter these predators. This means our MHA's and MP's must be guided to adjust sentencing to truly reflect the crime and to more assuredly deter the predator.
Think of it this way. One morning Oral Clarke woke up and decided what he needed was to lure an 11 year old girl to satisfy his deviant and criminal mind. He then proceeded to find one, lure one, and exploit one. Wrap your head around those thoughts - it's not possible. The children need to be permanently protected from Oral Clarke and other predators. Make sure the sentence protects children and has nothing to do with Oral Clarke's personal or business losses. If it were your child what would you want the sentence to be?
 |
| This is Oral Clarke (Telegram Photo) |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)