Calgary MLA Richard Magnus Announces Retirement From Politics

Richard Magnus (Calgary North Hill) announced today that he is the next PC departee from de PC party. So another veteran that has decided to move on and out of politics. We can expect many more similar announcements like this over the next few weeks I imagine.

Renewal and revitalization of Alberta politics requires it. The Progressive Conservative Party definitely needs to address the issue of political renewal. The party undertook a half-hearted attempt after the less than stellar 2004 election. But that was under old leadership. Now we have new leadership and that brings new opportunity.

The Harper Adscam is Heating up

Kudos to the Ottawa Citizen for delving into the details of the Cons version of Adscam and lets hope they keep up the good work

Citizens better get behind the people at Elections Canada and demand no political interference by the Harper Cons in this investigation. They need to be independent and able to pursue this issue without political pressure or interference.

Remember Jean-Pierre Kingsley? He used to be the Chief Electoral Officer and he “suddenly resigned” last December when he took on the Harper Cons over donor status of convention fees. That decision caused Mr. Harper himself to be caught as contributing over the legal donation limits. I am sure it is merely coincidental that the Chief Electoral Officer resigned shortly after that decision. But you have to wonder.

How Accountable has the Harper Con government been around their much vaunted Federal; Accountability Act? Check out Democracy Watch for some background.

Small wonder we feel we can’t rust this government.

Lessons Learned From Steven Truscott

Let the Steven Truscott story be a warning to those who see the death penalty as unquestionably justified. Let the Steven Truscott story be a warning to those who would blithely try children in adult court and subject to adult sanctions.

The Canadian justice system is a human construct and consequently mistakes get made. Appeals are there to try to minimize their incidence and correct them when they occur.

Systems are like people, they develop cultures, attitudes, patterns and blind spots. Judges are the flesh and blood stuff of human frailty and the judgements they make are mostly honest efforts at rational assessment. They reach their conclusions by weighing evidence and that is based on their experience, insights and a pursuit of practical wisdom. This is all within the laws written for us by our politicians.

The Truscott story show just how wrong and misdirected our systems and judgments can be sometimes. There is a manifestation of this misdirection epitomized in the point made in today’s Globe and Mail editorial. It notes that the original trial judge approached the then federal Minister of Justice (one Mr. Trudeau) attempting to have him launch a prosecution against an author. The author’s offence was that she wrote a book alleging Truscott’s innocence in 1966.

Trudeau declined the invitation to politically interfere in the judicial system as well he ignored the judge’s interference in the political system. We need the judiciary to be feistly independent of politics. We need politicians who value, honour and respect that necessary distance between themselves and the courts.

Steven Truscott finally has seen the benefit of that independent judiciary and lawyers who are well trained and dedicated to protecting citizens from abuse by the state. In light of these events I wonder if Steve Harper is having second thought about his plan to politically interfere with the judicial appointment process. I doubt it. Too bad!

The big lesson from this story for citizens – be careful who you elect and be wary of who they appoint to the bench. Your freedom demands your vigilance.

Congratulations Steven Truscott – too long in coming but Free at last, Free at last!

The Court’s decision is too long to digest quickly so here is part of the “Conclusion” which says enough about the injustices done to this man:

“[776] For the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that the fresh evidence and the new material before this court have significantly undermined the strength of each of the four factual pillars of the Crown’s case. In contrast, much of that material has given added force to the evidentiary foundation of the defence case.
[786] Finally, then as now, the crime scene continues to raise serious questions about the Crown’s theory as to how this crime was committed. While the evidence does not exclude the possibility that the appellant was the killer, aspects of the scene of Lynne’s death seem inconsistent with the theory that the appellant was the perpetrator.
[787] For these reasons, dealt with in considerably more detail above, we have concluded that, while it cannot be said that no jury acting judicially could reasonably convict, we are satisfied that if a new trial were possible, an acquittal would clearly be the more likely result. Having regard to the highly unusual circumstances of this Reference, we have determined that the most appropriate remedy is to enter an acquittal. Accordingly, in the words of s. 696.3(3)(ii) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is allowed, the conviction for murder is set aside and an acquittal entered.
[788] We wish to thank all counsel for their assistance in this unique and difficult case. We have already referred to the determination of Mr. Truscott’s counsel, who diligently pursued every possible avenue and presented their case with candour and great skill. Likewise, Crown counsel were extremely thorough and, as one would expect, candid and helpful in their presentation of the Crown’s case."

Damn I love it when the system works. We citizens all owe a debt of gratitude to Steven Truscott and David Milgard before him for their persistence and patience and especially their strength of character in pursuing justice.

Is Elections Canada Investigating a Conservative Party "Adscam?"

It looks like there is another Adscam brewing in Ottawa these days. This time it is not to save the country from another Referendum over Quebec sovereignty. This time the allegations are about the Harper Cons apparently “conning” the public and effectively beating the system.

Even if Elections Canada finds the scheme was legal, the Cons 2006 election advertising spending trickery sure doesn’t pass the sniff test. This kind of allegation is not the stuff of a trustworthy government with indisputable integrity. Doing indirectly what you can't do directly is great old school politics but bad modern governance.

Here is a summary of what I understand is being investigated by Elections Canada. The issue is did the Harper Cons use a campaign spending loophole and if they did, have they exceeded their $18,300,000.00 campaign spending limits in the 2006 election, and then, if so, have they broken the law?

The trick Mr. Harper’s Cons have apparently used was, after they spent the full allowable campaign limit $18,300,000.00 they discovered some local candidates had not used up their spending limits. The central party apparently “gave” the local candidates some $1,200,000.00 in total to “use up” the remaining spending limits.

The clever party apparatus puppies in Con-land then had the local candidates “give” back the money on the very same day. The central party operators then spent the “new” local candidate “donations” on targeted regional election campaign advertising.

This scheme apparently involves 37 individual candidates whose financial officers are now in a court case with Elections Canada about if this was a systematic and deliberate attempt evade election campaign spending laws or just old fashioned politics as usual.

As a taxpaying citizen of Canada, you actually kickback 60% of any party’s candidate election campaign spending, we are talking about your hard earned tax dollars. In close races, regional advertising spending, in excess of legal limits, may have had an impact on outcomes. We can’t ever tell. But we should not have to even ask that question.

The question I now have is, are Mr. Harper’s Cons worthy of our trust and respect as government? Are they worthy of our vote and our consent to be our governors? Are Mr Harper’s Cons capable of governing in a responsible, democratic, accountable, open and transparent manner AND with integrity when they would pull off such a stunt?

I wonder what other tricks Mr. Harper’s Cons have up their sleeves we don’t know about yet?