At what point do we - as a society - say - enough?
The history of child abuse in Newfoundland and Labrador is horrific.
The cover-ups at Mount Cashel, the inordinate number of times we witnessed "systemic failure", and the constant stories of our children being battered, tortured, molested and traumatized by foster parents, parents, priests, relatives, and strangers.
These precious little people, innocent, without a voice, without protection from society.
Pedophiles in every position of power and authority - having their pick of victims.
Please have a look into the sweet faces of one of your children, grandchildren, your niece or nephew - and try to imagine a so-called human-being harming them.
These predators need to go to prison and go to prison for a long time. Yet many of them are walking among us - they are living life freely as they take a child and crush their trust, their innocence, their life.
The "system" designed to protect them has failed over and over again.
It is time to terminate the employment of adults who through negligence, incompetence, or reprehensible lack of caring, allow these atrocities to occur.
It is time to create a fail-safe system.
Clearly policies and legislation have failed.
The voices of adults speaking out against, racism, gender bias, and inequalities of all sorts are strong, united, and get the attention of media on a daily basis. Yet virtually the only time we hear the voice of a child who is a victim of abuse is after the crime has been committed - and usually it is after multiple occurances.
A 12 year old girl impregnated by her adult caregiver twice and twice having an abortion!
If we can't do something to prevent this - then we are not fit to be called an advanced society.
Grown men - pretending to be boys - stalking young girls on the internet for their twisted pleasure while the community and family want to add that otherwise they are good people?
Little children being murdered by a parent - to spite another parent? Yes people this is the type of garbage walking our streets.
So politicians and bureaucrats - get your collective act together - and make certain our children are protected.
Fish policy, energy policy, forestry policy, health policy, tourism policy, education policy can all be damned if we cannot first find a way to make our children safe.
We have had Inquiries, reviews, panels of experts, and promises.
Enough of that crap - protect the children of our province. If you can't step aside, quit, hide your head somewhere out of it.
If a child is failed by the system - fire the system.
It is rather difficult to focus on all the economic turmoil, corruption, and boondoggles of our province when 12 year olds are whisked into a room for impregnation by an adult caregiver.
Does this turn your guts? It should. Please join me and demand a resolve to this. Let no other child suffer like this again.
No more excuses.
Showing posts with label rcmp. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rcmp. Show all posts
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Is Pierre Poilievre being monitored?
The most obvious example of how blatantly corrupt the Harper government is was on full social media display the past few days.
The Universal Child Care benefit - touted as everything short of the savior of mankind (which it is not) - is being used by the Harper government as a major election plank.
Pierre Poilievre Harper's choice for Minister of Employment and Social Development has taken propaganda, deception, and unethical to a whole new level.
This born again Harperite preaches from the Conservative Party Pulpit wearing a CPC Cassock and expects that thinking Canadians will accept his version of the Harper bible.
In a completely abused Twitter account Poilievre spams the Canadian Twitter-sphere with garbage like: "One more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads!"
This Minister should be removed from his portfolio and made to apologize to Canadians for ignoring/breaking Treasury Board rules. This extremist should be monitored to insure this zealot is not dangerous to the social well being of Canada. He is knowingly and deliberately ignoring established guidelines and is a Minister of the Crown.
I have no idea - as a Canadian - how far this fellow will go to promote the CPC doctrine - which in and of itself is concerning.
The fellow who once said - "But I can’t accept a union representing public servants working for the government of Canada which forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants to support parties that want to break up the country. How can it be in the interests of public servants to support the breakup of Canada? - has no problem using government money (our tax dollars) to support a political party.
The fellow who used the term "tar baby" and used foul language in a committee meeting and made unparliamentary gestures - continues to believe he is not out of control.
The fellow who despite his vocal concern on national security did not believe rules applied to him and "got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected."
The fellow who suggested that aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need financial compensation - should probably apply that thought to himself.
The fellow who when talking about the Fair Elections Act (a complete fiasco) claimed the Chief Electoral Officer wanted "more power, a bigger budget and less accountability." - when Marc Mayrand dared criticize the Act.
It is time that Canadians from coast to coast to coast removed from office - through the election process - this Minister and many more of the CPC zealots.
On another note - the NDP and LPC should remember that the majority of Canadians do not want Harper or the Conservatives re-elected - therefore they should do everything to insure that does not happen. Focusing on their own political lot versus focusing on defeating the CPC is self-serving - not nation-serving.
The Conservatives believe that the collective intelligence of the Canadian public can be mitigated by sending out this Minister who acts like the head cheerleader of a dictator. Listening to him - one wonders if there will be only one name on ballots this fall.
Lastly - while the national media made an attempt to counter the propaganda of the CPC on the Universal Child Care benefit bribe - they continue to fall short on holding Stephen Harper to account. The PM continues to successfully manipulate journalists by avoiding scrums and open interviews.
The national media continues to be a source for parliamentary secretaries to chant CPC propaganda - while hoping to convince Canadians that such rubbish is news.
Is this Minister being monitored?
The Universal Child Care benefit - touted as everything short of the savior of mankind (which it is not) - is being used by the Harper government as a major election plank.
Pierre Poilievre Harper's choice for Minister of Employment and Social Development has taken propaganda, deception, and unethical to a whole new level.
This born again Harperite preaches from the Conservative Party Pulpit wearing a CPC Cassock and expects that thinking Canadians will accept his version of the Harper bible.
In a completely abused Twitter account Poilievre spams the Canadian Twitter-sphere with garbage like: "One more sleep until Christmas in July for Moms and Dads!"
This Minister should be removed from his portfolio and made to apologize to Canadians for ignoring/breaking Treasury Board rules. This extremist should be monitored to insure this zealot is not dangerous to the social well being of Canada. He is knowingly and deliberately ignoring established guidelines and is a Minister of the Crown.
I have no idea - as a Canadian - how far this fellow will go to promote the CPC doctrine - which in and of itself is concerning.
The fellow who once said - "But I can’t accept a union representing public servants working for the government of Canada which forcefully takes money out of the pockets of Canada’s public servants to support parties that want to break up the country. How can it be in the interests of public servants to support the breakup of Canada? - has no problem using government money (our tax dollars) to support a political party.
The fellow who used the term "tar baby" and used foul language in a committee meeting and made unparliamentary gestures - continues to believe he is not out of control.
The fellow who despite his vocal concern on national security did not believe rules applied to him and "got impatient waiting at a Parliament Hill checkpoint and pressed a button to open the security gate and drove his car through without being identified and without having his vehicle inspected."
The fellow who suggested that aboriginals need to learn the value of hard work more than they need financial compensation - should probably apply that thought to himself.
The fellow who when talking about the Fair Elections Act (a complete fiasco) claimed the Chief Electoral Officer wanted "more power, a bigger budget and less accountability." - when Marc Mayrand dared criticize the Act.
It is time that Canadians from coast to coast to coast removed from office - through the election process - this Minister and many more of the CPC zealots.
On another note - the NDP and LPC should remember that the majority of Canadians do not want Harper or the Conservatives re-elected - therefore they should do everything to insure that does not happen. Focusing on their own political lot versus focusing on defeating the CPC is self-serving - not nation-serving.
The Conservatives believe that the collective intelligence of the Canadian public can be mitigated by sending out this Minister who acts like the head cheerleader of a dictator. Listening to him - one wonders if there will be only one name on ballots this fall.
Lastly - while the national media made an attempt to counter the propaganda of the CPC on the Universal Child Care benefit bribe - they continue to fall short on holding Stephen Harper to account. The PM continues to successfully manipulate journalists by avoiding scrums and open interviews.
The national media continues to be a source for parliamentary secretaries to chant CPC propaganda - while hoping to convince Canadians that such rubbish is news.
Is this Minister being monitored?
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Canada's National Media - News or Propaganda?
I would like to scrum the national media. I would like to ask
questions about their coverage of "news" and of their editorial
decisions. I would like to grill the assignment editors and get reasons
for their choices.
Yesterday I watched a Harper orchestrated media fest and watched our Prime Minister do what he does best - direct our national media outlets as he sees fit. The fact that our media complies is another issue and one that should concern all Canadians.
The federal election is in October and the Conservative Party Script is unfolding.
Yesterday morning many of us were alerted - on Twitter - that Peter MacKay was "resigning". This set the stage for the all-day puppy like behavior of our national "journalists".
Next we were told that the RCMP had released the remainder (18 seconds) of the video left by the deceased Parliament Hill shooter. This too began a Pavlovian like fear conditioning of the voting public. The timing of the release begs questions that were not forthcoming.
Today Canada's media stopped being journalistic and became part of the Conservative Party of Canada narrative.
The media - for a brief second - mused that the 18 second video release was not much more than what had already been released. Regardless of that assessment - the media then spent half the nation's daily media time to talk about ISIS, terror, war, and national defence.
With regard to the MacKay story - Canada's national media spent an entire day predicting, chasing, and musing on the announcement that the CPC co-founder and PC defector was not going to run again. This of course became frenzied once it was determined that the Prime Minister was going to attend the "announcement".
Oh good I thought - finally the media would trap the Prime Minister in Nova Scotia and scrum him. That hope was quickly dashed when I recognized the choreography unfolding. Harper spoke first - then MacKay - then a tea - and finally Peter MacKay gave a scrum. Prime Minister Harper - once again - used the media for free campaign advertising. You see the PM began and ended with CPC talking points on the government's "accomplishments" - without one second for the media to question him on those statements. That is not news. That is propaganda.
Peter MacKay is not running again because he "loves his family more". As a senior Cabinet Minister and long time MP a News Release was warranted and could be noted by the media. What we got however was a soap opera of the entire MacKay family - probably best kept for a thank-you party for his dedicated volunteers - in private.
We are without a fully functioning fourth estate - making the fifth estate more important now than ever before.
It is now suggested by noted academics that bloggers, social media, and non-mainstream forums are the fifth estate. READ MORE HERE
It is time that our national media refuse to cover photo-ops and prepared self-serving events of the Prime Minister until he opens himself up to proper media scrutiny. It is time that we challenged our mainstream national media. We have the social media tools and technology and we must use these to protect our democracy.
We must have the courage to challenge our media and hold them to account as we would our politicians. There is no doubt there are some in the mainstream media that can be as vindictive and petty as the worst of our hyper-partisan elected officials. Some spend more time attacking the general public on social media than they spend keeping our MP's honest. There are journalists in our country who maintain professional standards and understand the important role they play in our society. Ironically - many of them have turned to blogs and use of social media to free themselves of outside or inside (management/executive) influence.
Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs all enable the citizens of Canada to communicate with one another and share opinions, information, and ideas - with relative ease. We can now utilize more resources to get the news of the day and different spins of it.
With these relatively new communications tools - people are seeing the mainstream media in a new light. The national news broadcasters, national papers, and news magazines are seen as one source of news not the only source. Breaking news often comes from citizen reporter and often provides evidence in the case of criminal activity.
Political events have changed as live tweeting occurs during the affair. What a politician says one day can be replayed at a moments notice. Budget documents - legislation - the Hansard and talk shows - all easily accessible.
Some journalists have embraced this new communications era. They supplement and improve their own material with information from social media. Sadly others dismiss bloggers, tweeters and citizen reporters. They actually spend work time attempting to marginalize people - ironically the same people they want to support their work.
So yesterday was a banner day for mainstream media. Mackay's announcement that he was not going to seek election again was given coverage usually reserved for a second coming. Just to pump the CPC a little more - they threw in 18 seconds of video that added nothing substantial to what we citizens have already seen regarding the Parliament Hill shooting.
Yesterday was Stephen Harper's day - orchestrated and directed. We were subjected to hours of propaganda and free CPC advertising.
Paid political pundits and "journalists" going on about Peter MacKay and his love of family. I would hope that all our politicians have such love and that all politicians do not find it necessary to bail on public service when they have a family.
When my children were young - I spent a period of time working full-time - raising two wonderful children (now wonderful adults) and on the side spending 30-40 hours a week for 2 years trying to stop the privatization of hydro. I am not alone - there are parents out there doing the same thing everyday - some having to work three jobs to support their families. We have thousands of volunteers giving of themselves while raising children and earning income.
The media should know that a cardiologist putting in 80 hour weeks so others may live to be with their families - retire without a word - let alone a Prime Ministerial visit and speaking engagement.
As for Peter's body of work - well after they dispensed with his political pedigree (the history of Elmer) they spoke ad nauseam about his portfolios and importance in the political history of Canada. The fathers of Confederation had nothing on Steve and Pete. MacKay's body of work has for the most part been a failure. I cannot speak to the benefits received directly by his district - but looking at his national contribution he has been a failure.
1. The first order of his business was to be slimy - how did he win the PC leadership? What did he swear not to do?
2. Pesky helicopters.
3. Questionable comments about women - (judges, lawyers, past girlfriend).
4. Extreme right-wing "family" values. Marriage, Right to die, or how about a woman's right to choose which political party she'd like to support?
5. Complete dismissal or ignorance of our Constitution.
6. “far-fetched hypothetical scenario” he says while condemning the Supreme Court of Canada (arrogant much?)
7. "life cycles" of F-35's fiasco.
8. Harper's lieutenant (wow) there's a plus
The mainstream media did a complete disservice to the public yesterday and once again showed how fearful or supportive they are of Harper. The Prime Minister who ducks debates, ducks scrums, ducks first Minister's conferences, and ducks real democracy - pulled the strings of our national media yet again.
Yesterday I watched a Harper orchestrated media fest and watched our Prime Minister do what he does best - direct our national media outlets as he sees fit. The fact that our media complies is another issue and one that should concern all Canadians.
The federal election is in October and the Conservative Party Script is unfolding.
Yesterday morning many of us were alerted - on Twitter - that Peter MacKay was "resigning". This set the stage for the all-day puppy like behavior of our national "journalists".
Next we were told that the RCMP had released the remainder (18 seconds) of the video left by the deceased Parliament Hill shooter. This too began a Pavlovian like fear conditioning of the voting public. The timing of the release begs questions that were not forthcoming.
Today Canada's media stopped being journalistic and became part of the Conservative Party of Canada narrative.
The media - for a brief second - mused that the 18 second video release was not much more than what had already been released. Regardless of that assessment - the media then spent half the nation's daily media time to talk about ISIS, terror, war, and national defence.
With regard to the MacKay story - Canada's national media spent an entire day predicting, chasing, and musing on the announcement that the CPC co-founder and PC defector was not going to run again. This of course became frenzied once it was determined that the Prime Minister was going to attend the "announcement".
Oh good I thought - finally the media would trap the Prime Minister in Nova Scotia and scrum him. That hope was quickly dashed when I recognized the choreography unfolding. Harper spoke first - then MacKay - then a tea - and finally Peter MacKay gave a scrum. Prime Minister Harper - once again - used the media for free campaign advertising. You see the PM began and ended with CPC talking points on the government's "accomplishments" - without one second for the media to question him on those statements. That is not news. That is propaganda.
Peter MacKay is not running again because he "loves his family more". As a senior Cabinet Minister and long time MP a News Release was warranted and could be noted by the media. What we got however was a soap opera of the entire MacKay family - probably best kept for a thank-you party for his dedicated volunteers - in private.
We are without a fully functioning fourth estate - making the fifth estate more important now than ever before.
It is now suggested by noted academics that bloggers, social media, and non-mainstream forums are the fifth estate. READ MORE HERE
It is time that our national media refuse to cover photo-ops and prepared self-serving events of the Prime Minister until he opens himself up to proper media scrutiny. It is time that we challenged our mainstream national media. We have the social media tools and technology and we must use these to protect our democracy.
We must have the courage to challenge our media and hold them to account as we would our politicians. There is no doubt there are some in the mainstream media that can be as vindictive and petty as the worst of our hyper-partisan elected officials. Some spend more time attacking the general public on social media than they spend keeping our MP's honest. There are journalists in our country who maintain professional standards and understand the important role they play in our society. Ironically - many of them have turned to blogs and use of social media to free themselves of outside or inside (management/executive) influence.
Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs all enable the citizens of Canada to communicate with one another and share opinions, information, and ideas - with relative ease. We can now utilize more resources to get the news of the day and different spins of it.
With these relatively new communications tools - people are seeing the mainstream media in a new light. The national news broadcasters, national papers, and news magazines are seen as one source of news not the only source. Breaking news often comes from citizen reporter and often provides evidence in the case of criminal activity.
Political events have changed as live tweeting occurs during the affair. What a politician says one day can be replayed at a moments notice. Budget documents - legislation - the Hansard and talk shows - all easily accessible.
Some journalists have embraced this new communications era. They supplement and improve their own material with information from social media. Sadly others dismiss bloggers, tweeters and citizen reporters. They actually spend work time attempting to marginalize people - ironically the same people they want to support their work.
So yesterday was a banner day for mainstream media. Mackay's announcement that he was not going to seek election again was given coverage usually reserved for a second coming. Just to pump the CPC a little more - they threw in 18 seconds of video that added nothing substantial to what we citizens have already seen regarding the Parliament Hill shooting.
Yesterday was Stephen Harper's day - orchestrated and directed. We were subjected to hours of propaganda and free CPC advertising.
Paid political pundits and "journalists" going on about Peter MacKay and his love of family. I would hope that all our politicians have such love and that all politicians do not find it necessary to bail on public service when they have a family.
When my children were young - I spent a period of time working full-time - raising two wonderful children (now wonderful adults) and on the side spending 30-40 hours a week for 2 years trying to stop the privatization of hydro. I am not alone - there are parents out there doing the same thing everyday - some having to work three jobs to support their families. We have thousands of volunteers giving of themselves while raising children and earning income.
The media should know that a cardiologist putting in 80 hour weeks so others may live to be with their families - retire without a word - let alone a Prime Ministerial visit and speaking engagement.
As for Peter's body of work - well after they dispensed with his political pedigree (the history of Elmer) they spoke ad nauseam about his portfolios and importance in the political history of Canada. The fathers of Confederation had nothing on Steve and Pete. MacKay's body of work has for the most part been a failure. I cannot speak to the benefits received directly by his district - but looking at his national contribution he has been a failure.
1. The first order of his business was to be slimy - how did he win the PC leadership? What did he swear not to do?
2. Pesky helicopters.
3. Questionable comments about women - (judges, lawyers, past girlfriend).
4. Extreme right-wing "family" values. Marriage, Right to die, or how about a woman's right to choose which political party she'd like to support?
5. Complete dismissal or ignorance of our Constitution.
6. “far-fetched hypothetical scenario” he says while condemning the Supreme Court of Canada (arrogant much?)
7. "life cycles" of F-35's fiasco.
8. Harper's lieutenant (wow) there's a plus
The mainstream media did a complete disservice to the public yesterday and once again showed how fearful or supportive they are of Harper. The Prime Minister who ducks debates, ducks scrums, ducks first Minister's conferences, and ducks real democracy - pulled the strings of our national media yet again.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Public correction of error by Minister King necessary
It's bad enough that Darin King believes the need for a public inquiry rests on his feelings on the investigation when it's over. The Minister, however, outdid himself by proclaiming for all radio-land that he and he alone is the one who decides if an inquiry is called.
I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.
What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.
I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.
What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.
Here is part of Section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act
Commissions of Inquiry
3.(1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order establish a commission of inquiry and report on a matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers to be a public concern.
(2) Where a commission is established under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order,
(a) appoint the members of the commission in accordance with section 21;
(b) establish the jurisdiction of the commission by setting terms of reference for the inquiry;
(c) designate the Minister responsible for the inquiry; and
(d) fix a date for the termination of the inquiry and for the delivery of the commission's report.
emphasis added
It is not only responsible but one would think in keeping with the Minister's Oath of Office that Darin King clear up any errors he may make when explaining anything to the public.
Not only is it - not his decision to call an inquiry - he may not even be chosen by the Cabinet to be the Minister responsible for the inquiry after it has been called.
As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are going to have to hold our politicians more accountable. It is very difficult to have faith in our government when a Minister of the Crown speaks with authority about a law that he/she clearly does not understand.
This is what Minister King said:
"Well I guess I decide that if I'm the one that calls the inquiry - ultimately - to be blunt about it. I think the Public Inquiries Act provides that the Minister is the one that makes the call so ultimately I would be the person who had to make the decision."
Please try to reconcile the Act and the Minister words. How long has he been a Minister of the Crown?
Further to insure the Minister's red herring does not continue - we are not asking that an inquiry actually take place before the current investigation is over. We want a commitment that one will be called.
Darin King - shed the Political cloak
Since the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - many people in the public have been asking for an inquiry.
Today - our Justice Minister Darin King had a response to that. CBC Story
I have no issue with Minister King waiting for the investigation to be over before an inquiry is called.
I have a real issue with the Minister saying, "I think it will be much too early to predetermine whether in fact there will be another inquiry called," and "I will want to see the current, ongoing investigation unfold and see what the results are,".
The investigation into the event is a justice issue. It seeks to determine what took place and if any charges should be laid in connection with the event.
There is no doubt that for the family this process is very important and they will - according to their lawyer - make decisions regarding any potential civil legal action after the investigation has concluded.
The Inquiry though is a different matter altogether. The public confidence has already been shaken to the core and there is evidence that people may have lost faith in public institutions or bodies. Further as the protocols for protection of elected officials forms one component of the event - it already meets the need for an inquiry to be called.
I can imagine no outcome of the investigation that would cause me to lose interest in holding an inquiry.
Minister King should know that as important as insuring the family of the deceased and the officer have the benefit of justice - society as a whole must move forward progressively to achieve better policies, protocols, and outcomes.
One of the best summations of what a judicial inquiry or inquest is may be found on the website of Toronto law firm - Paliare and Roland,
It states:
Public or judicial inquiries are called by the municipal, provincial or federal government to review events that cause public concern or outcry. Unlike a trial, the inquiry process is investigative, rather than adversarial – its purpose is to review those events, in order to determine what happened and why, and most importantly, how to prevent them from ever happening again.
If one is looking for a more in depth look at inquiries - I recommend "Some Observations on Public Inquiries" written by the Honourable Dennis O'Connor, former Chief Justice - Ontario Court of Appeal.
Despite the judgement cast upon those of us in the public who are vocal in our concerns - by some traditional media and politicians - most of us are genuinely concerned about all the events leading to the death of Don Dunphy and want to ensure this type of tragedy never happens again.
Minister King should remove his usual partisan political cloak and don instead the cloak of duty - his office demands. Right now the Minister needs to eliminate any hint of politics and instead forge ahead to find answers and solutions. If the Minister is fearful that such an inquiry may intrude into the Premier's office - he must rid himself of those concerns and understand he is a representative of the people not the Premier. Is the problem that he cannot convince his Cabinet colleagues?
Now is a really good time to announce that the government of which you are a part will call a judicial inquiry after the investigation is completed. Now is a really good time to make the necessary preparations for this to occur.
Today - our Justice Minister Darin King had a response to that. CBC Story
I have no issue with Minister King waiting for the investigation to be over before an inquiry is called.
I have a real issue with the Minister saying, "I think it will be much too early to predetermine whether in fact there will be another inquiry called," and "I will want to see the current, ongoing investigation unfold and see what the results are,".
The investigation into the event is a justice issue. It seeks to determine what took place and if any charges should be laid in connection with the event.
There is no doubt that for the family this process is very important and they will - according to their lawyer - make decisions regarding any potential civil legal action after the investigation has concluded.
The Inquiry though is a different matter altogether. The public confidence has already been shaken to the core and there is evidence that people may have lost faith in public institutions or bodies. Further as the protocols for protection of elected officials forms one component of the event - it already meets the need for an inquiry to be called.
I can imagine no outcome of the investigation that would cause me to lose interest in holding an inquiry.
Minister King should know that as important as insuring the family of the deceased and the officer have the benefit of justice - society as a whole must move forward progressively to achieve better policies, protocols, and outcomes.
One of the best summations of what a judicial inquiry or inquest is may be found on the website of Toronto law firm - Paliare and Roland,
It states:
Public or judicial inquiries are called by the municipal, provincial or federal government to review events that cause public concern or outcry. Unlike a trial, the inquiry process is investigative, rather than adversarial – its purpose is to review those events, in order to determine what happened and why, and most importantly, how to prevent them from ever happening again.
If one is looking for a more in depth look at inquiries - I recommend "Some Observations on Public Inquiries" written by the Honourable Dennis O'Connor, former Chief Justice - Ontario Court of Appeal.
Despite the judgement cast upon those of us in the public who are vocal in our concerns - by some traditional media and politicians - most of us are genuinely concerned about all the events leading to the death of Don Dunphy and want to ensure this type of tragedy never happens again.
Minister King should remove his usual partisan political cloak and don instead the cloak of duty - his office demands. Right now the Minister needs to eliminate any hint of politics and instead forge ahead to find answers and solutions. If the Minister is fearful that such an inquiry may intrude into the Premier's office - he must rid himself of those concerns and understand he is a representative of the people not the Premier. Is the problem that he cannot convince his Cabinet colleagues?
Now is a really good time to announce that the government of which you are a part will call a judicial inquiry after the investigation is completed. Now is a really good time to make the necessary preparations for this to occur.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Hello - are you out there media?
Leaks - partial information - one-sided declarations - are present in the reporting - regarding the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.
There has been much debate over what should be released or answered now and what should wait until the "investigation" is complete.
How about this - journalists of Newfoundland and Labrador - will you please provide the citizenry of our province with factual information that is helpful.
1. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home?
2. If so - was the police officer alone?
3. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home under circumstances where a single officer was simply conducting a voluntary questioning?
4. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officer in their own home following a "perceived" threat on any social media site?
5. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officers in their own home - where the only officer present was in the ordinary jurisdiction of another police force?
6. In Canada - how many times has a person been killed by a police officer in their own home following "proactive" and not "reactive" policing.
7. In all cases - if any exist - what was the follow-up to the event. Was there an inquest or inquiry?
8. Many provinces in Canada have a special investigations unit that is separate from police - do we have one?
Determining that this situation is unique is very helpful in determining what procedures are needed to give the fatal incident a thorough vetting. In the event it is not unique - applying processes used for other similar events.
It is also important that we work as a society to prevent this from ever occurring again.
There has been much debate over what should be released or answered now and what should wait until the "investigation" is complete.
How about this - journalists of Newfoundland and Labrador - will you please provide the citizenry of our province with factual information that is helpful.
1. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home?
2. If so - was the police officer alone?
3. In Canada - has a police officer shot and killed a person in their own home under circumstances where a single officer was simply conducting a voluntary questioning?
4. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officer in their own home following a "perceived" threat on any social media site?
5. In Canada - has a person been shot and killed by a police officers in their own home - where the only officer present was in the ordinary jurisdiction of another police force?
6. In Canada - how many times has a person been killed by a police officer in their own home following "proactive" and not "reactive" policing.
7. In all cases - if any exist - what was the follow-up to the event. Was there an inquest or inquiry?
8. Many provinces in Canada have a special investigations unit that is separate from police - do we have one?
Determining that this situation is unique is very helpful in determining what procedures are needed to give the fatal incident a thorough vetting. In the event it is not unique - applying processes used for other similar events.
It is also important that we work as a society to prevent this from ever occurring again.
Did Chief Janes give thumbs up to email?
On Saturday Sue's Blog dealt with an email allegedly written by the RNC officer who shot Don Dunphy.
Read here
Later - blogger Brad Cabana tracked down a Canadian Press story Read here
The story was a reaction to the email that was allegedly leaked to the CBC and then disseminated by some media outlets to the public.
According to the story - lawyer Erin Breen commented that; the family was frustrated to see this email considering they knew very little about the incident themselves. Further the story contained the following quotes from the lawyer:
1. “Any time a person is under investigation, any statement they make is potentially evidence. So what you have is potentially a piece of evidence, because it does refer to the incident, being thrown out there in the public domain at a time when this investigation has just commenced,”
2. “That flies in the face of everything that we believe should be happening right now.”
The journalist added that he was unable to reach the RNC to confirm the authenticity of the email.
I agree with the lawyer's concern regarding the potential public release of evidence. When reading it I was questioning how I would even be able to see such information at this time.
Now we need answers to these questions:
1. Was the alleged email actually written by the RNC officer?
2. Was the alleged email vetted by a superior officer before transmitted?
3. Did RNC Chief Janes see the alleged email before transmission?
4. What is the complete list of recipients of this alleged email.
5. Will the team investigating the shooting of Don Dunphy provide opinion on the release?
6. Will media or the RNC authenticate the alleged email?
7. Is this another example of interference in an ongoing police investigation?
8. Does this alleged email break any rules regarding the transmission of evidence during an investigation?
9. Is the release of the alleged email currently under investigation?
10. Was the alleged email leaked to the CBC via the RNC officer involved or was it released by another source?
11. Considering the leaks to the media regarding this case - are the leaks under investigation by the RNC or the RCMP?
Considering the content of the alleged email - these are reasonable questions. The public needs answers.
Read here
Later - blogger Brad Cabana tracked down a Canadian Press story Read here
The story was a reaction to the email that was allegedly leaked to the CBC and then disseminated by some media outlets to the public.
According to the story - lawyer Erin Breen commented that; the family was frustrated to see this email considering they knew very little about the incident themselves. Further the story contained the following quotes from the lawyer:
1. “Any time a person is under investigation, any statement they make is potentially evidence. So what you have is potentially a piece of evidence, because it does refer to the incident, being thrown out there in the public domain at a time when this investigation has just commenced,”
2. “That flies in the face of everything that we believe should be happening right now.”
The journalist added that he was unable to reach the RNC to confirm the authenticity of the email.
I agree with the lawyer's concern regarding the potential public release of evidence. When reading it I was questioning how I would even be able to see such information at this time.
Now we need answers to these questions:
1. Was the alleged email actually written by the RNC officer?
2. Was the alleged email vetted by a superior officer before transmitted?
3. Did RNC Chief Janes see the alleged email before transmission?
4. What is the complete list of recipients of this alleged email.
5. Will the team investigating the shooting of Don Dunphy provide opinion on the release?
6. Will media or the RNC authenticate the alleged email?
7. Is this another example of interference in an ongoing police investigation?
8. Does this alleged email break any rules regarding the transmission of evidence during an investigation?
9. Is the release of the alleged email currently under investigation?
10. Was the alleged email leaked to the CBC via the RNC officer involved or was it released by another source?
11. Considering the leaks to the media regarding this case - are the leaks under investigation by the RNC or the RCMP?
Considering the content of the alleged email - these are reasonable questions. The public needs answers.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
An email or manifesto?
Mr. Dunphy's funeral service is over. The family is left to mourn his tragic death and find a way forward.
The leaked "email" from the yet unidentified officer involved in the shooting death of Don Dunphy - was reportedly sent to the officer's colleagues at the RNC.
Let's reflect first on what RNC Chief Janes said about the officer when answering questions from the media. Listen and watch HERE
Question from Fred Hutton VOCM news:
Have you spoken with the officer who fired the shot?
Answer from Chief Janes: Yes I have
Question from Fred Hutton: and How's he doing?
Answer from Chief Janes:
umm I think ah how he feels will change over time and em part of our response is the....
I now ask Chief Janes if the "email" reflects how the officer felt when he first spoke to him? Or does the "email" by the officer represent a change in how the officer felt when he first spoke to him?
In my opinion the alleged "email" from an unnamed individual to an unconfirmed list of people - leaked or given to the CBC is hardly a communication that would lessen the concerns of a troubled society.
If this "email" was written by the officer and sent to his colleagues - he/she has managed to increase the level of confusion, take a wide swipe at the intelligence of the population, cause even more questions that need to be vetted by a judicial inquiry, and continues to ignore the actions and behavior of some of his police colleagues.
Unlike the tweets of Mr. Dunphy - which were separated and referenced without context in the initial released information of the "perceived" threat, the CBC in this instance released all of the "email" so we could read it in context. Further the CBC unlike the immediate identification of Mr. Dunphy has yet to release the name of the officer.
Without at the very least the CBC telling us - the officers rank - years of service - educational background - professional areas of expertise - before or in conjunction with the release of the "email" - in my opinion is irresponsible. It appears the CBC is being controlled by somebody outside of it's own organization.
Over the past number of years and as recently as the days immediately after the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - the public has been served up with very questionable and some criminal activity of RNC officers.
We have been subject to wrongful convictions, failure to act on the Mount Cashel complaints, convictions under the criminal code, investigations of officers who did not act professionally during investigations, evidence being thrown out in court as the result of improper collection of said evidence. This coupled with events both in other provinces in Canada and and states in the USA involving questionable or criminal activity of police officers - provide educated reason for the public to be skeptical, concerned, troubled and vocal when an instance such as the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy happens.
The alleged "email" from the officer pointed many fingers at social media participants, callers to talk shows, and the "prolific ignorance prevailing in our society" - but failed however to point one finger at the behavior of some of his police colleagues as a significant reason for distrust and concern.
While this "email" appears to take some issue with social media and callers to talk shows speaking freely and asking questions that they feel need answers - there are many in society and authority who give thanks for such openness of communication and scrutiny of authorities. It has resulted in many instances where events that may never have seen the light of day - being fully vetted through independent inquiry.
The "email" has made its way to the public and presents a one-sided view of an event that took the life of the only other witness.
The positive components of the "email" revolve around identifying the need to help a person in crisis. If one reads the "email" and accepts as truth the entire contents then they are left with serious questions about WHSCC, sitting politicians, the RCMP and family members. The "email" allegedly written by the officer who shot Mr. Dunphy certainly questions how Mr. Dunphy would have reached this state without receiving some sort of help.
It questions any other officer who has visited Dunphy prior to this event. It questions the response of government, commission employees, and politicians to Mr. Dunphy over a significant period of time. It even questions the role of his family and their response to his needs. What the "email" does state by the author is "For Mr. Dunphy we were certainly too late - " and "I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible". So what was everybody else doing during that time? The statement and judgement issued by the officer in the alleged "email" can certainly appear to be damning to others who were in communication with Mr. Dunphy regarding his grievances. It certainly should be enough to warrant a judicial inquiry into the entire event that led to the death of Mr. Dunphy.
The "email" contains the following statement: "We live in a time where opinion is ubiquitous, while facts seemingly take a back seat to what is titillating." My response to that is when did we live in a time when opinion was not ubiquitous? My understanding is that the great wars were fought to protect that. With regard to the "titillating" comment - I take issue with the word used - however if we are to use it - arguably the most "titillating" information comes from this "email" by an anonymous author - leaked to the CBC and the select use of one tweet by Mr. Dunphy in isolation of the entire thread.
I would respectfully suggest the author of the "email" read a report entitled Police Involved Deaths - The Need for Reform found here and the Judicial Inquiry headed by Justice Donald Luther found here and the McDonald Commission of Inquiry found here and the Lamer Commission of Inquiry found here (University of Manitoba site - unbelievably it has been removed from the NL Dept. of Justice Link) and many others readily available thanks to the internet and social media. Perhaps the author of the "email" could provide some insight into the transcript between Sgt. Buckle and Const. Kelly found here currently under review of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice. Perhaps the author can suggest what the appropriate response from the public should be upon reading that transcript.
Oddly the "email" suggests failures but does not insist on a judicial inquiry. Why not? These inquiries have resulted in policy and educational changes in police forces - have found deficiencies in Mental Health programs and responses to individuals needing that help.
The "email" states "The vocal minority engaged in social media and open line talk shows appear to want an immediate cyber-trial in a veritable town square, instead of a professional and detailed investigation involving interviews and scientific analysis." It did not say some of the vocal minority or some participants in social media and open line talk shows - it painted all of such participants to appear to want...
To the contrary - most people involved on social media and open line talk shows want a judicial inquiry. We want an inquiry independent of the police forces involved in the events leading to the death of Mr. Dunphy. I do note that the author of the "email" does not even suggest that potential appearances of conflict with police investigating police should be addressed.
The "email" bordering on a manifesto states: "Some will tell you that our Premier should be, or is an ordinary person; the reality however is that while they may have once been an "ordinary person" (if such a thing exists), they are now our Premier, and there is nothing ordinary about that Office. Society has eroded many of the comforts and standard amenities that should come with being an elected official - all in the name of politics."
Surely this statement should cause all in a democracy to be concerned. The basic premise of democracy is the participation of all citizens in their governance - and does not include providing amenities and comforts for political office. It is a position of public service and the indisputable evidence that that person is "ordinary" is found in the arguable position that many Premiers and Cabinet Ministers are not educated sufficiently in the portfolio they hold. Perhaps the author of the "email" might tell us how to change our democracy to suit his/her beliefs on this political system. The "email" blames a society - he serves and is paid by - for eroding comforts and amenities of politicians. This appears to be an individual who believes in the entitlement of elected officials. It also ignores the conviction and incarceration of many politicians who felt they were entitled to more. It was his/her force that participated in the investigation of many of these politicians. Once an elected person ceases to be an ordinary person - they should quit or join in a political system where the public serves the politicians and not the other way around.
I also note the "email" is addressed to friends and colleagues - I was of the understanding by the media that it was addressed to colleagues. Has the email been sent to any person other than currently active duty RNC officers or has it been sent to others as well - if so - what is the complete list? Considering the CBC got a copy - how far did the original email go?
The email certainly goes a long way in describing the judgement of the officer on the event, on the mental health of Don Dunphy, on the behavior of participants in social media, on the behavior of open line talk show participants, how society treats politicians, and the general ignorance of people.
The "email" states the following: "Protective Policing — is predicated on intelligence led investigations. Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive. ie. Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly. Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs. Use the Ottawa shooting as an inverse comparison; society was quick in this case to ask where the police were in identifying red flags. Erroneous misleading statistics associated to the depth of work police carry out is difficult to explain in a media sound-bite, but people need to understand that a singular police file number does not capture what we do in its totality."
One of the key questions from the vocal portion of the public has been why did the officer attend Mr. Dunphy on his/her own without another officer. Was the risk assessment that led to this decision accurate? Many people I have spoken to have grave concerns about this and are concerned about circumstances such as this where there are no other witnesses to the outcome. Clearly the concern is warranted - as one individual has lost their life. This is what the majority of people in our society want to avoid. Further the question remains on whether or not the officer was under orders to attend the residence of Mr. Dunphy and if so by whom. On the issue of using an "inverse comparison" - we might also ask ourselves what would be the reaction if it was a police officer shot and killed by an individual - without witnesses. Would that individual be sending out emails to friends and colleagues suggesting the state of the officer at the time of the event? Would the individual be taken into custody? Would the CBC be publishing leaks? Have a look in South Carolina and ask - what would be the story if a video-tape had not been produced by a private citizen?
This "email" reinforces not reduces the need for a judicial inquiry on this matter.
I am the daughter and granddaughter of retired uniformed officers.
The leaked "email" from the yet unidentified officer involved in the shooting death of Don Dunphy - was reportedly sent to the officer's colleagues at the RNC.
Let's reflect first on what RNC Chief Janes said about the officer when answering questions from the media. Listen and watch HERE
Question from Fred Hutton VOCM news:
Have you spoken with the officer who fired the shot?
Answer from Chief Janes: Yes I have
Question from Fred Hutton: and How's he doing?
Answer from Chief Janes:
umm I think ah how he feels will change over time and em part of our response is the....
I now ask Chief Janes if the "email" reflects how the officer felt when he first spoke to him? Or does the "email" by the officer represent a change in how the officer felt when he first spoke to him?
In my opinion the alleged "email" from an unnamed individual to an unconfirmed list of people - leaked or given to the CBC is hardly a communication that would lessen the concerns of a troubled society.
If this "email" was written by the officer and sent to his colleagues - he/she has managed to increase the level of confusion, take a wide swipe at the intelligence of the population, cause even more questions that need to be vetted by a judicial inquiry, and continues to ignore the actions and behavior of some of his police colleagues.
Unlike the tweets of Mr. Dunphy - which were separated and referenced without context in the initial released information of the "perceived" threat, the CBC in this instance released all of the "email" so we could read it in context. Further the CBC unlike the immediate identification of Mr. Dunphy has yet to release the name of the officer.
Without at the very least the CBC telling us - the officers rank - years of service - educational background - professional areas of expertise - before or in conjunction with the release of the "email" - in my opinion is irresponsible. It appears the CBC is being controlled by somebody outside of it's own organization.
Over the past number of years and as recently as the days immediately after the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - the public has been served up with very questionable and some criminal activity of RNC officers.
We have been subject to wrongful convictions, failure to act on the Mount Cashel complaints, convictions under the criminal code, investigations of officers who did not act professionally during investigations, evidence being thrown out in court as the result of improper collection of said evidence. This coupled with events both in other provinces in Canada and and states in the USA involving questionable or criminal activity of police officers - provide educated reason for the public to be skeptical, concerned, troubled and vocal when an instance such as the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy happens.
The alleged "email" from the officer pointed many fingers at social media participants, callers to talk shows, and the "prolific ignorance prevailing in our society" - but failed however to point one finger at the behavior of some of his police colleagues as a significant reason for distrust and concern.
While this "email" appears to take some issue with social media and callers to talk shows speaking freely and asking questions that they feel need answers - there are many in society and authority who give thanks for such openness of communication and scrutiny of authorities. It has resulted in many instances where events that may never have seen the light of day - being fully vetted through independent inquiry.
The "email" has made its way to the public and presents a one-sided view of an event that took the life of the only other witness.
The positive components of the "email" revolve around identifying the need to help a person in crisis. If one reads the "email" and accepts as truth the entire contents then they are left with serious questions about WHSCC, sitting politicians, the RCMP and family members. The "email" allegedly written by the officer who shot Mr. Dunphy certainly questions how Mr. Dunphy would have reached this state without receiving some sort of help.
It questions any other officer who has visited Dunphy prior to this event. It questions the response of government, commission employees, and politicians to Mr. Dunphy over a significant period of time. It even questions the role of his family and their response to his needs. What the "email" does state by the author is "For Mr. Dunphy we were certainly too late - " and "I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible". So what was everybody else doing during that time? The statement and judgement issued by the officer in the alleged "email" can certainly appear to be damning to others who were in communication with Mr. Dunphy regarding his grievances. It certainly should be enough to warrant a judicial inquiry into the entire event that led to the death of Mr. Dunphy.
The "email" contains the following statement: "We live in a time where opinion is ubiquitous, while facts seemingly take a back seat to what is titillating." My response to that is when did we live in a time when opinion was not ubiquitous? My understanding is that the great wars were fought to protect that. With regard to the "titillating" comment - I take issue with the word used - however if we are to use it - arguably the most "titillating" information comes from this "email" by an anonymous author - leaked to the CBC and the select use of one tweet by Mr. Dunphy in isolation of the entire thread.
I would respectfully suggest the author of the "email" read a report entitled Police Involved Deaths - The Need for Reform found here and the Judicial Inquiry headed by Justice Donald Luther found here and the McDonald Commission of Inquiry found here and the Lamer Commission of Inquiry found here (University of Manitoba site - unbelievably it has been removed from the NL Dept. of Justice Link) and many others readily available thanks to the internet and social media. Perhaps the author of the "email" could provide some insight into the transcript between Sgt. Buckle and Const. Kelly found here currently under review of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice. Perhaps the author can suggest what the appropriate response from the public should be upon reading that transcript.
Oddly the "email" suggests failures but does not insist on a judicial inquiry. Why not? These inquiries have resulted in policy and educational changes in police forces - have found deficiencies in Mental Health programs and responses to individuals needing that help.
The "email" states "The vocal minority engaged in social media and open line talk shows appear to want an immediate cyber-trial in a veritable town square, instead of a professional and detailed investigation involving interviews and scientific analysis." It did not say some of the vocal minority or some participants in social media and open line talk shows - it painted all of such participants to appear to want...
To the contrary - most people involved on social media and open line talk shows want a judicial inquiry. We want an inquiry independent of the police forces involved in the events leading to the death of Mr. Dunphy. I do note that the author of the "email" does not even suggest that potential appearances of conflict with police investigating police should be addressed.
The "email" bordering on a manifesto states: "Some will tell you that our Premier should be, or is an ordinary person; the reality however is that while they may have once been an "ordinary person" (if such a thing exists), they are now our Premier, and there is nothing ordinary about that Office. Society has eroded many of the comforts and standard amenities that should come with being an elected official - all in the name of politics."
Surely this statement should cause all in a democracy to be concerned. The basic premise of democracy is the participation of all citizens in their governance - and does not include providing amenities and comforts for political office. It is a position of public service and the indisputable evidence that that person is "ordinary" is found in the arguable position that many Premiers and Cabinet Ministers are not educated sufficiently in the portfolio they hold. Perhaps the author of the "email" might tell us how to change our democracy to suit his/her beliefs on this political system. The "email" blames a society - he serves and is paid by - for eroding comforts and amenities of politicians. This appears to be an individual who believes in the entitlement of elected officials. It also ignores the conviction and incarceration of many politicians who felt they were entitled to more. It was his/her force that participated in the investigation of many of these politicians. Once an elected person ceases to be an ordinary person - they should quit or join in a political system where the public serves the politicians and not the other way around.
I also note the "email" is addressed to friends and colleagues - I was of the understanding by the media that it was addressed to colleagues. Has the email been sent to any person other than currently active duty RNC officers or has it been sent to others as well - if so - what is the complete list? Considering the CBC got a copy - how far did the original email go?
The email certainly goes a long way in describing the judgement of the officer on the event, on the mental health of Don Dunphy, on the behavior of participants in social media, on the behavior of open line talk show participants, how society treats politicians, and the general ignorance of people.
The "email" states the following: "Protective Policing — is predicated on intelligence led investigations. Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive. ie. Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly. Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs. Use the Ottawa shooting as an inverse comparison; society was quick in this case to ask where the police were in identifying red flags. Erroneous misleading statistics associated to the depth of work police carry out is difficult to explain in a media sound-bite, but people need to understand that a singular police file number does not capture what we do in its totality."
One of the key questions from the vocal portion of the public has been why did the officer attend Mr. Dunphy on his/her own without another officer. Was the risk assessment that led to this decision accurate? Many people I have spoken to have grave concerns about this and are concerned about circumstances such as this where there are no other witnesses to the outcome. Clearly the concern is warranted - as one individual has lost their life. This is what the majority of people in our society want to avoid. Further the question remains on whether or not the officer was under orders to attend the residence of Mr. Dunphy and if so by whom. On the issue of using an "inverse comparison" - we might also ask ourselves what would be the reaction if it was a police officer shot and killed by an individual - without witnesses. Would that individual be sending out emails to friends and colleagues suggesting the state of the officer at the time of the event? Would the individual be taken into custody? Would the CBC be publishing leaks? Have a look in South Carolina and ask - what would be the story if a video-tape had not been produced by a private citizen?
This "email" reinforces not reduces the need for a judicial inquiry on this matter.
I am the daughter and granddaughter of retired uniformed officers.
Thursday, April 09, 2015
Role of the Media - Dunphy death
This morning - fourth day after the shooting death of Don Dunphy.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Yesterday we were informed that the RCMP has called in retired justice David Riche to oversee the independence and thoroughness of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
Clearly this is a good decision and one which I hope sets the stage for a continued presence of logic into this tragic death.
It is also comforting to see local lawyers weigh in with commentary on the processes of investigation and policies of the police forces. Having the discussion means we are moving away from the cloak of secrecy.
The media response to this horrific event must also be placed under scrutiny. How our journalists cover such events is also essential to the integrity of the justice system.
Let me start here:
Almost immediately following the death of Mr. Dunphy - media reports stated that "source/s told" followed by a proclamation that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun at the officer before he was shot and killed by the officer.
Let me point out what was glaring in its absence. The name of the officer. It was and continues to be protected by all. The media had sources close enough to the investigation to inform the public that Mr. Dunphy pointed a long gun - but not close enough to say "source/s" told ... the officer's name is .... and he/she has ___ years of service and has the following rank. Does the officer have a lawyer? What does he/she say?
In the past few days the media has been hunting down and reporting that sources/s said what type of person Mr. Dunphy was - his family - his means of income. We feel as if we know the guy. The family through a lawyer has had to ask for privacy during their time of mourning.
What do we know about the officer? Surely "sources/s" must have told the media who the officer was. Or did the "source/s" stick to what Mr. Dunphy allegedly did on that fateful Easter Sunday.
This is - by the way exactly what fuelled the fire in Ferguson. It is part of what continues to haunt the residents of that town in the USA.
We need some answers on this and what the media deems okay to report. I believe some of the media know who the officer is and are simply respecting a privacy request.
Let me add this:
In the past week we have had two citizens of our province involved with police regarding perceived "threats" on Twitter.
The first is Mr. Dunphy and he is deceased. He was killed by an plain clothed officer in an unmarked SUV who went to the Dunphy residence by himself.
The second reported event is the detention of Andrew Abbass of Corner Brook. This man was apparently taken from his home by two RNC officers and detained under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Mr. Abbass is still alive.
Has there been an internal change in policy at the RNC?
Two individuals that allegedly may have threatened politicians through twitter - treated completely differently. Why?
First Mr. Dunphy was in RCMP turf but the RNC responded - while in Corner Brook RNC turf the RNC responded.
In Mr. Dunphy's case there was one plain clothed officer while in the case of Mr. Abbass there were two uniformed officers.
Mr. Abbass has reported that the RNC telephoned him and asked him to come to the station prior to the detention at his home. What about Mr. Dunphy - was he asked to come in? Was he told an officer was coming? Was there a warrant?
How about the media start "working their sources" and get some answers to these questions.
Let me end by saying that while it's great that a healthy discussion has started by ordinary citizens, municipal leaders, and lawyers - we must have an independent inquiry on the death of Mr. Dunphy.
Regardless of whether the investigation finds fault or no fault with the officer - the events that lead to this horrific outcome must be thoroughly vetted through an independent and public process.
Wednesday, April 08, 2015
Glaring inconsistency - did it cost a life?
I have been blogging and tweeting for the past few days on the need for an inquiry on the death of Don Dunphy.
Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.
One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.
Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.
I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.
Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.
If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.
Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?
Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.
If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.
If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.
The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.
Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.
We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.
Always remembering to keep an open mind helps when you are seeking fair questions. Analytical versus confrontational is best when tragedies like this occur.
One of the most contentious points in this entire discussion has been whether or not Don Dunphy's tweets were threatening or simply a political statement.
Most people I have heard or spoken to and much of what I have read points to the latter - a political statement.
I will be open about my belief - I believe the statements were a political rant in response to two politicians out driving on a sunny day listening to a CD. People who suffer as much as Don said he did with respect to a workplace injury are bound to get riled when he perceives two politicians relaxing out for a drive - while he tries to get any one of them to listen to his plight.
Forget what I believe for a moment - let's go back to the objective and not subjective.
If the police, Premier's staff, and others really believed that a threat might have been made or in the absence of that - had been made - they erred on the side of caution and treated it like a threat. A decision was then made to follow that up by investigating Mr. Dunphy - part of which was visiting him at his home. So we can say with certainty that what police authorities and staff of the Premier are telling us is that they believe the tweets might represent a threat.
Now let's move to the risk assessment portion of this tragic event. Apparently an assessment was done on Mr. Dunphy with participation of both the RNC and RCMP - this is what we have been told. Considering a decision was made that a "threat" might be present here - enough to warrant investigation - then how did a risk assessment come back as "low". Why did they not err on the side of caution with respect to the type of deployment to Mr. Dunphy's house?
Err on the side of caution to protect politicians - but not err on the side of caution for Mr. Dunphy? This thinking is not logical and leads one to suspect the visit was more of an intimidation than a justified interrogation.
If we are to believe the officer's statement in full - then we must also believe completely that the risk assessment was incorrect. If it was incorrect then - obviously we need changes so as to avoid another such tragedy.
If the visit was one of political intimidation then we may find some clues as to the state of mind of both the officer and Mr. Dunphy at the time of the event.
The inconsistency in determining the tweet was a potential threat but the risk assessment was low - may have cost a man his life.
Further as the assessment was completed with participation by both RNC and RCMP - neither can investigate this aspect of the event.
We need an independent inquiry into the death of Mr. Don Dunphy.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The shooting aftermath and truth
This afternoon we had an "update" from the RCMP regarding the shooting of Don Dunphy by an RNC officer on Easter Sunday.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
"Sources told the CBC"
It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Judicial Inquiry or Coroner's Inquest needed
This is a very difficult and disturbing post I write. (NEW INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF POST)
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Monday, October 27, 2014
RCMP - not enough resources?
Dear Royal Canadian Mounted Police
There really is no need to spend time on my blog. I am a political critic.
Resources could be better used elsewhere.
The CPC's disgraceful fundraising efforts are really not a police matter - but rather an ethical/moral matter that Canadians have to deal with in the next federal election.
There really is no need to spend time on my blog. I am a political critic.
Resources could be better used elsewhere.
The CPC's disgraceful fundraising efforts are really not a police matter - but rather an ethical/moral matter that Canadians have to deal with in the next federal election.
| Domain Name | (Unknown) | ||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 199.212.150.5 ? (Royal Canadian Mounted | ||||||||||||||||
| ISP | Royal Canadian Mounted Police | ||||||||||||||||
| Location |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us | ||||||||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinNT | ||||||||||||||||
| Browser | Netscape 5.0 Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/6.0) | ||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.4 | ||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Oct 27 2014 8:08:44 am | ||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Oct 27 2014 8:10:21 am | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 1 minute 37 seconds | ||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | http://sourpuss65.bl...-here- | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | http://nlpost.blogsp...ce- | ||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | http://nlpost.blogsp... SuesBlog Sue's Blog | ||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | Conservative Disgrace - Call display http://feedproxy.goo...ce- | ||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-2:00 | ||||||||||||||||
| Visitor's Time | Oct 27 2014 9:38:44 am |
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
Will CBC or CTV or Mulcair or Trudeau step-up?
So the Prime Minister - who attended the annual Jewish Negav Dinner and fundraiser in Toronto this week - is giddy with talks of freedom and democracy. The 3500 in attendance must have been ignoring the fact that Stephen J Harper is doing more to destroy democracy than all Canadian leaders before him combined.
Our PM is no doubt - excessively partisan - and that may be considered politics as usual - but the rest of his behavior is not. Canada has changed drastically and negatively under his leadership.
He aligns himself with the USA - on issues of crime, punishment, guns, and jails while distancing himself from the USA on matters of progressive peace talks and actions.
If you recognize Canada today - you must not have been watching for the past 50 years.
Stephen Harper has neutered and spayed the country's media. Stephen Harper has ignored and diminished the importance of provinces and territories in our confederation.
No man is an island - with the exception of our Prime Minister. He rules as a king not as a parliamentarian. He serves himself not the people. He does not take the provinces seriously and punishes those who do not fall at his knees.
The most disturbing parts of this entire situation are that politicians representing other parties federally and provincial politicians are letting him away with eroding our democracy and the national media is allowing him to control all communication with Canadians.
We are currently in the middle of an embarrassing perhaps criminal situation with the Senate scandal - and his office is right in the middle of it. While I appreciate the efforts of Tom Mulcair to expose him in the House of Commons - I do not appreciate Harper's ability to keep it contained to that location.
Our Prime Minister dictates where and when the media can have access to him. He dictates who may ask questions of him and how many questions may be asked. He refuses to appear on either national network and answer for himself. He sends other people out to speculate on his thoughts, reasoning, and actions. The national media is promoting rather than deterring his behavior by allowing this to continue.
All members of the House of Commons who are not elected Conservatives should take their seats and say nothing until the Prime Minister agrees to normal media relations and explains himself to Canadians. If the Prime Minister continues to act like a dictator then all members of the HOC should stand outside the chamber and refuse to enter until he does so. This is newsworthy and is not controlled by Harper. The media should refuse to cover any News coming out of the government - particularly out of the Prime Minister's office - until he agrees to resume normal media relations.
So while Power and Politics (CBC) and Power Play (CTV) present themselves as "must see political-affairs program" and "daily marquee political program" respectively - neither have been successful in getting Harper to join them on the program regarding his role in the Duffy affair. The RCMP have taken emails and correspondence from the PMO and the PCO and speculation is abound on the role Harper may have played. The one thing missing is Harper - telling us himself - under media scrutiny - without limitations.
Our two national television networks have a responsibility to bring us the news - all the news - not just what Harper permits. I no longer am interested in "political panels" using ESP to tell us what's in Harper's mind. I am no longer interested in parliamentary secretaries, backbenchers, or even Ministers speaking scripted verse from Stephen's HOC Bible. I am interested in our Members of Parliament and our national media doing their jobs. This madness must stop and Harper must face his bosses - us.
I am not interested in hearing that Harper will have a migratory bird sanctuary in Israel named after him - nor am I interested in what sports teams he likes - or his woefully lacking musical talent - or that he and his wife like Pandas - we employ him to run the affairs of our country and to report to us on that.
If either Mulcair or Trudeau want the reins - show us what you're made of and restore our democracy.
Our PM is no doubt - excessively partisan - and that may be considered politics as usual - but the rest of his behavior is not. Canada has changed drastically and negatively under his leadership.
He aligns himself with the USA - on issues of crime, punishment, guns, and jails while distancing himself from the USA on matters of progressive peace talks and actions.
If you recognize Canada today - you must not have been watching for the past 50 years.
Stephen Harper has neutered and spayed the country's media. Stephen Harper has ignored and diminished the importance of provinces and territories in our confederation.
No man is an island - with the exception of our Prime Minister. He rules as a king not as a parliamentarian. He serves himself not the people. He does not take the provinces seriously and punishes those who do not fall at his knees.
The most disturbing parts of this entire situation are that politicians representing other parties federally and provincial politicians are letting him away with eroding our democracy and the national media is allowing him to control all communication with Canadians.
We are currently in the middle of an embarrassing perhaps criminal situation with the Senate scandal - and his office is right in the middle of it. While I appreciate the efforts of Tom Mulcair to expose him in the House of Commons - I do not appreciate Harper's ability to keep it contained to that location.
Our Prime Minister dictates where and when the media can have access to him. He dictates who may ask questions of him and how many questions may be asked. He refuses to appear on either national network and answer for himself. He sends other people out to speculate on his thoughts, reasoning, and actions. The national media is promoting rather than deterring his behavior by allowing this to continue.
All members of the House of Commons who are not elected Conservatives should take their seats and say nothing until the Prime Minister agrees to normal media relations and explains himself to Canadians. If the Prime Minister continues to act like a dictator then all members of the HOC should stand outside the chamber and refuse to enter until he does so. This is newsworthy and is not controlled by Harper. The media should refuse to cover any News coming out of the government - particularly out of the Prime Minister's office - until he agrees to resume normal media relations.
So while Power and Politics (CBC) and Power Play (CTV) present themselves as "must see political-affairs program" and "daily marquee political program" respectively - neither have been successful in getting Harper to join them on the program regarding his role in the Duffy affair. The RCMP have taken emails and correspondence from the PMO and the PCO and speculation is abound on the role Harper may have played. The one thing missing is Harper - telling us himself - under media scrutiny - without limitations.
Our two national television networks have a responsibility to bring us the news - all the news - not just what Harper permits. I no longer am interested in "political panels" using ESP to tell us what's in Harper's mind. I am no longer interested in parliamentary secretaries, backbenchers, or even Ministers speaking scripted verse from Stephen's HOC Bible. I am interested in our Members of Parliament and our national media doing their jobs. This madness must stop and Harper must face his bosses - us.
I am not interested in hearing that Harper will have a migratory bird sanctuary in Israel named after him - nor am I interested in what sports teams he likes - or his woefully lacking musical talent - or that he and his wife like Pandas - we employ him to run the affairs of our country and to report to us on that.
If either Mulcair or Trudeau want the reins - show us what you're made of and restore our democracy.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
MHA Brazil's Oversight - another Red Flag
Tory oversights of which Dave Brazil owns the most recent must cause all people of Newfoundland and Labrador to pause.
In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.
Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".
Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight
So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.
So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.
Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?
And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight.
Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.
In Canada right now we have a Senate mess that has some files referred to the RCMP, Senators repaying hundreds of thousands of dollars, the PM's former Chief of Staff cutting a personal cheque to cover Duffy (a Tory Senator), and hundred's of thousands of tax payer dollars spent to audit the oversights, omissions, falsehoods, half-truths, and possible criminal behavior of some of our Upper Chamber. The House of sober second thought has become the House of drunken spending.
Not too long ago we had Steve Kent apologizing on YouTube for his failure to achieve complete information on the Boy Scouts situation before commenting publicly about what he said were "facts".
Then there is the accidental expropriation of what has been called the entire community of Grand Falls - Windsor under the then Minister now Premier Kathy Dunderdale.
And who can forget the stream of MHA's led away in handcuffs for stealing from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Peter Penashue fiasco still resonates in the Big Land. Oversight - Oversight - Oversight
So now we have Brazil who violated the Member's Code of Conduct apologizing for yet another OVERSIGHT.
So then ask yourself - is it it any way possible that there has been any oversight in this Muskrat Falls deal. Is it in any way possible that serious mistakes have been made and missed? In ten years will we be hearing yet again that it was just an oversight - I apologize.
Lack of an escalation clause in the Upper Churchill agreement was an oversight - how many billions has that cost?
And last but not least Bill 29 - The oversight Bill. Because we can't see things means Cabinet gets a future pass to claim oversight.
Sorry - there are too many red flags to proceed with this deal on Muskrat Falls.
Monday, May 07, 2012
DND - con-(FES)-sion Demand an Inquiry
Do - Not - Disturb point - Finger - at Everybody but - Self
The audio tapes of telephone conversations between the JRCC, RCMP, and FES during the search for Burton Winters are very troubling.
These recordings have been made available to the public by CBC - obtained from the Department of National Defence.
One thing is for certain - the odds for Burton Winters survival were reduced - when people in authority made the decisions they made.
This is not meant to offend - but there appeared to be a more urgency in doing a survival probability model than was coordination for rescue.
Burton Winters was lost. A young Labradorian who deserved all the resources available to help him find his way home.
If his fight to walk 19 km's - in frigid northern weather and challenging ice conditions - was matched by sheer determination of people responsible for rescue - the outcome may have been different.
One particular recording stood out to me: PRESS HERE to Listen
If one does not know what resources are available - how does one coordinate or participate in a rescue effort?
The death of Burton Winters demands an enquiry and requires enhanced not reduced federal search and rescue assets in both Newfoundland and Labrador.
The provincial component of these services known as FES (Fire and Emergency Services) needs to be questioned thoroughly by an independent body. The objective should be to determine the qualifications and knowledge of decision makers and the training provided staff.
For people reading this story - please take the time to visit the Facebook site The Burton Winters' Rescue Centre in Labrador - and please participate.
Burton Winters deserved more and your children and families deserve more.
This is not a time for federal and provincial officials to play off each other - in order to lay ultimate blame. This is a time for action - to make sure this does not happen to any other child or youth of our province.
The audio tapes of telephone conversations between the JRCC, RCMP, and FES during the search for Burton Winters are very troubling.
These recordings have been made available to the public by CBC - obtained from the Department of National Defence.
One thing is for certain - the odds for Burton Winters survival were reduced - when people in authority made the decisions they made.
This is not meant to offend - but there appeared to be a more urgency in doing a survival probability model than was coordination for rescue.
Burton Winters was lost. A young Labradorian who deserved all the resources available to help him find his way home.
If his fight to walk 19 km's - in frigid northern weather and challenging ice conditions - was matched by sheer determination of people responsible for rescue - the outcome may have been different.
One particular recording stood out to me: PRESS HERE to Listen
If one does not know what resources are available - how does one coordinate or participate in a rescue effort?
The death of Burton Winters demands an enquiry and requires enhanced not reduced federal search and rescue assets in both Newfoundland and Labrador.
The provincial component of these services known as FES (Fire and Emergency Services) needs to be questioned thoroughly by an independent body. The objective should be to determine the qualifications and knowledge of decision makers and the training provided staff.
For people reading this story - please take the time to visit the Facebook site The Burton Winters' Rescue Centre in Labrador - and please participate.
Burton Winters deserved more and your children and families deserve more.
This is not a time for federal and provincial officials to play off each other - in order to lay ultimate blame. This is a time for action - to make sure this does not happen to any other child or youth of our province.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Go American all the way Harper, Toews, and MacKay
Vic, Peter, and Stephen want to be treated like Canadians - while they treat Canadian citizens like Americans. Not On!
Tell Vic Toews Everything was a social media revolt opposed to the Minister's proposed bill to give a free reign of investigation to law enforcement on ordinary Canadian Citizens. The online surveillance bill contained things that even the Minister was not aware of.
Putting aside for a moment that Toews should have resigned his portfolio based on his ignorance - Toews should have been prepared to come under extreme scrutiny by ordinary Canadians not used to this type of police state power.
So Toews, Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper are pushing an American agenda down our throats - the only problem is they don't want American back at them.
Toews was offended at his opponents taking cracks at his personal life and making public information - so public.
MacKay was offended by Canadians who questioned his privileged vacation flight from the Gander river - courtesy of Search and Rescue.
Harper is never really offended by anything - his steely blue lyin eyes reveal that his is a purpose of delivering the goods.
MacKay is a traitor - straight up - lied and almost single-handedly delivered the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to the Reformers. He either is a straight-up liar or he was purchased to pay off debts accumulated during his campaign to lead the federal PC`s.
Toews and his public temper tantrum over the public release of public information is laughable - and I will tell you why. Mr. Toews and his gun slinging government are looking to breach the privacy of law abiding Canadians without so much as a warrant. At the same time they have killed the gun registry and are seeking to put more people in jail (tough on crime). What follows from here is in Stephen Harper's private little world - where his buddies seek to establish private prisons to be filled with non-violent offenders. Yes you and I will pay for the maximum security detail and the "entrepreneurs" will take the rest. Problem is they don't know if they have enough to fill their proposed private jails.Easy fix - put everybody in jail for a joint of weed.
So Mr. Toews, Mr. MacKay, and Mr. Harper - you want us to treat you like Canadians. Stay out of your private lives - be polite and not talk about your little indiscretions - while you get to treat us like Americans. Sorry - that's not how it works.
From now on I want to see ten years of your tax returns, I want the full deal on Toews and any others the same way the American people got to do the job on John Edwards. Let me see now John had affair with a household staffer and broke elections rules - fair game from now on Mr. Toews - you got the Canadian beat right out of me.
Peter Mackay - I want to know all about you and all the other girls every detail and I'd like to see what would happen to you in the USA if you let's say betrayed the Republicans and merged with the Libertarians. As for Harper - he is much more American that Michael Ignatieff ever was or could be and he will pay the piper.
In the Prime Minister's case we get to know about his last colonoscopy and whether or not he has polyps. what type of treatment he received, how the operation went - and the prognosis.
You people are a joke - you want to shove the stars and stripes down our maple leaf throats then be prepared for absolute scrutiny of every aspect of your personal lives.
And while we are going American - please allow the American naval fleet to deal with foreign fishing trawlers. They'd be willing to call a war on that issue.
Tell Vic Toews Everything was a social media revolt opposed to the Minister's proposed bill to give a free reign of investigation to law enforcement on ordinary Canadian Citizens. The online surveillance bill contained things that even the Minister was not aware of.
Putting aside for a moment that Toews should have resigned his portfolio based on his ignorance - Toews should have been prepared to come under extreme scrutiny by ordinary Canadians not used to this type of police state power.
So Toews, Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper are pushing an American agenda down our throats - the only problem is they don't want American back at them.
Toews was offended at his opponents taking cracks at his personal life and making public information - so public.
MacKay was offended by Canadians who questioned his privileged vacation flight from the Gander river - courtesy of Search and Rescue.
Harper is never really offended by anything - his steely blue lyin eyes reveal that his is a purpose of delivering the goods.
MacKay is a traitor - straight up - lied and almost single-handedly delivered the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to the Reformers. He either is a straight-up liar or he was purchased to pay off debts accumulated during his campaign to lead the federal PC`s.
Toews and his public temper tantrum over the public release of public information is laughable - and I will tell you why. Mr. Toews and his gun slinging government are looking to breach the privacy of law abiding Canadians without so much as a warrant. At the same time they have killed the gun registry and are seeking to put more people in jail (tough on crime). What follows from here is in Stephen Harper's private little world - where his buddies seek to establish private prisons to be filled with non-violent offenders. Yes you and I will pay for the maximum security detail and the "entrepreneurs" will take the rest. Problem is they don't know if they have enough to fill their proposed private jails.Easy fix - put everybody in jail for a joint of weed.
So Mr. Toews, Mr. MacKay, and Mr. Harper - you want us to treat you like Canadians. Stay out of your private lives - be polite and not talk about your little indiscretions - while you get to treat us like Americans. Sorry - that's not how it works.
From now on I want to see ten years of your tax returns, I want the full deal on Toews and any others the same way the American people got to do the job on John Edwards. Let me see now John had affair with a household staffer and broke elections rules - fair game from now on Mr. Toews - you got the Canadian beat right out of me.
Peter Mackay - I want to know all about you and all the other girls every detail and I'd like to see what would happen to you in the USA if you let's say betrayed the Republicans and merged with the Libertarians. As for Harper - he is much more American that Michael Ignatieff ever was or could be and he will pay the piper.
In the Prime Minister's case we get to know about his last colonoscopy and whether or not he has polyps. what type of treatment he received, how the operation went - and the prognosis.
You people are a joke - you want to shove the stars and stripes down our maple leaf throats then be prepared for absolute scrutiny of every aspect of your personal lives.
And while we are going American - please allow the American naval fleet to deal with foreign fishing trawlers. They'd be willing to call a war on that issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)