Two weeks after the G20 summit concluded the fallout continues, and so it should. Canadians watched an unprecedented attack on our civil liberties and human rights as the result of police action during that weekend. The question is, who issued the orders which allowed this to take place with impunity?

Many Canadians remain blissfully unaware, while others are choosing to be unaware as they don’t believe what happened. Many choose to focus on the violence as justification for the mass arrests which followed the next day. The question should be: where were the police and why did they not move in to corral and stop those who were committing the violence?

All too many Canadians are choosing to ignore the facts and the politicians who should be on the hot seats are able to avoid answering to the public they are supposed to be serving.

An acquaintance of mine seems to be pretty typical of those who haven’t woke up to the assault on them that took place. When the subject came up, he immediately pointed to the violence on Saturday and said the police had to react.

When I responded by agreeing and then asking, so where were the police when this was going on? How come with an an overwhelming police presence in the downtown those individuals were able to rampage for upwards of 90 minutes. He responded blissfully that the police were told to stand back. By who I asked? He shrugged.

When I described to him the video footage I had watched on the web including the real time footage of a group eventually rounded up and arrested near the Eastern Ave detention centre early Sunday morning, his response was “they should have left when they were told to”. I described to him, again, how I watched as the group were surrounded by a ring of riot shields and met with a wall of silence when one young man asked repeatedly in which direction they could leave.

Again he shrugged, replying they shouldn’t have been there. When I suggested he should try telling that to those who were rounded for simply being on the street trying to go about their business, he gave me the same response. When I asked him when martial law was declared that would have told those people they were supposed to stay in their homes, his response was they should have used common sense and stayed away. When pointed out that those people going about their business lived there, he again shrugged.

At no point did he get it that the cornerstone of a democracy is the right to peaceful assembly and protest. He didn’t get it that it is a basic democratic right to be able to go about our daily business without fear of arrest.

The only ones who should have feared arrest were those who carried out the violence on the Saturday. They lacked fear because the police backed away from them and their rampage.  Instead they went on an unconstitutional rampage against the rest of the citizens the following day.

The questions remain and Canadians should continue to push until they are answered. Who issued the orders which allowed rank and file police to disregard the constitution and human rights? Who allowed police to attack and round up citizens with impunity? Who allowed the deplorable conditions at the detention centre to occur?

Canadians have the right to know. We should not have to demand that politicians who are elected to serve us find out those answers. The refusals by the provincial and the federal governments leads to an obvious conclusion that the highest levels of authority allowed this to happen.

So, when does what happened during the G20 start to become the normal conditions under which we live start? Don’t shrug too often, it may be sooner than you think. Complacency breeds greater boldness.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• What is Karzai Inhaling? (1)
• The Plot That Wasn’t (3)
• Prime Minister is Not Directly Elected (0)
• Playing Games With Democracy (4)
• Pakistan Signs Deal With the Devil (0)

I watched in disgust on Saturday the footage of the rampage by black clad protesters as they wantonly vandalized stores and businesses in the downtown area of Toronto. I saw police cruisers vandalized and set on fire. For a while, I was willing to reluctantly consider that the almost $1billion in security costs may have been money well spent.

The question also arose in my mind though, with all that money spent and the massive police presence in Toronto — just how did that group of 100 or so vandals manage to run roughshod over areas of Toronto? It became rather apparent the police were far more intent on protecting that fence than the downtown area outside of it.

Ah yes, that fence, the same one that Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair asked the provincial cabinet to pass regulations which allowed police officers to violate our rights and freedoms to protect. The regulations which were supposed to only have effect five metres from that fence. The regulations which appear to have been applied throughout the city to accommodate whatever police state tactics the cops chose to deploy.

I read in the Toronto Star on Sunday morning that the police were aware of at least one bus load of people from Quebec who were headed to Toronto for what appeared to be exactly what we saw on Saturday. That begs the question — if the cops knew they were coming, why did they let them arrive? Being unable to prevent their arrival, why was some of that massive police presence not used to keep a close eye on them and nail them as soon as they started something?

Even being willing to understand the cops can’t be everywhere at once, doesn’t account for what unfolded by Sunday. During Saturday night I caught a couple of things on my Twitter feed I found disturbing. The first was the report from Steve Paiken of TVO about Jesse Rosenfeld who reports for the  British newspaper, The Guardian, being beaten and arrested.

The second was live footage from a young man at the Eastern Ave detention centre around 2am. He was filming a peaceful protest which the police had surrounded. The people present were ordered to leave but no opening was provided for them to do so. A young man was filmed asking the police how they could leave, there were willing to leave but wanted to know in which direction they were allowed to go, they were met with a wall of silence from the cops. The footage ended as the police moved in, presumably the young man joined the rest of those in the detention centre.

Sunday, I setup a #G20 search column on my Twitter client and followed some of the links which appeared there. Several times I watched video feeds of peaceful (usually sitting) protesters being surrounded and advanced on by riot clad police. I didn’t hear in any of those feeds police clearly telling the protesters to move or which direction they could depart in.

They were advanced on and seemingly random people grabbed and arrested, people were pepper sprayed and clubbed. This is how a democracy allows free expression? These people were not near the precious security fence, they were well away from it. In many cases, bystanders and accredited media were rounded up along with protesters.

There are some who would argue that people should have stayed away. That would have been sensible, however, the right to free and peaceful assembly is fundamental to our democracy. You also might want to explain how staying away would have helped this homeowner from having his home invaded, jerked out of his bed and being arrested apparently without warrant. The person they were after lived in the other part of the house and apparently police were so sure of who they were arresting, they lacked the knowledge the house was actually two apartments.

As the day drew to a close yesterday police surrounded another peaceful protest at Queen and Spadina, once again boxing people in so they had no where to go. As the crowd finished singing “O Canada” the police line charged at them without warning. Media, including mainstream media, were ordered out of the area, some were arrested. The police arrested several members of the crowd as they stood penned in for about three hours in pouring rain and then eventually released the rest of them.

Today Chief Blair claims that dozens of people heading to that protest were arrested carrying molotov cocktails. Excuse me while I disbelieve that line in view of the behaviour which went before it on the part of the police.

The crowd there was small enough and the police presence large enough, that even if someone had managed to get into the area to cause trouble, they could have been spotted quickly. If Blair is telling the truth, then why didn’t the police create a funnel for people to leave after their bags were checked? Why hold them in pouring rain, apparently just for the fun of it?

Over 900 were rounded up off of the streets of Toronto, held in reportedly deplorable conditions and denied their basic rights of phone calls and contact with legal advise. It appears at this point it is likely the vast majority of them will be released without charges when the cops get around to it.

The police and political leaders who bear responsibility for unleashing this on the public are claiming the police did an admirable job, that the cost was worth it. Really? This attack on free assembly and expression well away from the security fence was worth it? Just how far are Canadians willing to go before they recognize what we are losing?

These so called leaders claim the G20 can’t be held in a more remote location as there would not be room to accommodate the 10-20,000 (depending on who’s talking) delegates who attend. If it is important for the 20 leaders to have this face time, fine.

Did it occur to anyone that 500 to 1000 person average entourage is excessive? Trim the attendance list and take these gatherings to more remote secure areas where Canadian’s rights and freedoms wont be coming under attack.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• The Plot That Wasn’t (3)
• Pardon System to be Revamped (1)
• Mme Arbour Speaks Truth to Canada’s Foreign ‘Policy’ (1)
• Conservatives No Benefit to Canada (0)

Just two days away from returning safely home, Pvt. Kevin McKay was on patrol in Afghanistan on Thursday.  In an instant his life ended.  Instead of returning home to a party, he will be returned to his family for a funeral.  He is the 144th Canadian to die on this mission.

The father of this brave young Canadian has looked past his own grief to call on our government to stay the course in Afghanistan.  He’s calling on the government not to set an end date but to set obtainable objectives and stay until they’re finished.  He’s calling for the objective to be the training of the Afghan army and police.

Pvt McKay’s father is a deputy fire chief in Toronto.  Firefighters in Toronto and along the Highway Of Heroes all understand the cost of this war, they have been a strong presence on every overpass between Trenton and Toronto every time Canadian soldiers are repatriated.  I understand the cost of this war.  I weep privately for our fallen and then join the firefighters on the bridges.

Parliament by way of a confidence motion in 2008 determined that Canada’s mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011 and our troops would be brought home.  At the time Canada was battling alone in Kandahar Province.  One of the conditions for Canadian troops to remain until 2011 was another NATO Force willing to send 1000 troops to join us.

Public support for the mission wavered as young Canadians were dying with little indication that any progress was being made.  Almost 3000 troops was not enough to try to tame the Taliban insurgency, more were greatly needed.  More were not readily forthcoming and Canada was sustaining the highest rate of deaths per capita of any nation serving in Afghanistan, it was no wonder Canadians questioned the mission.

Harper has made it clear all Canadian troops will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011.  Around the same time that Harper made this clear, Obama initiated a troop surge of 30,000 American troops, about one third are expected to be sent to Kandahar.  With this change in circumstances one would expect that Harper would be willing to bring the mission and its conclusion back to parliament for debate.

Harper appears to have gone from steadfastly supporting our troops and their mission to being unwilling to even discuss any possible change in their mission.  Yes, this mission is costing Canada in blood and treasure. The plea from those who have lost family members to this mission need to be listened to and given careful consideration.

Our pool of experienced combat troops are a valuable resource for the training of the Afghans.  A reduced force of experience troops remaining in Afghanistan after 2011 devoted to the training and mentoring of the Afghans while leaving other nations like the U.S.  to take on securing the country for the Afghan forces to take over and hold would contribute to completing the mission.

Training of security forces in the middle of an insurgency is not something that can be done without danger.  As long as one Canadian remains in Afghanistan, Canadian lives will be at risk.  Yet if Canada and other countries pull out of Afghanistan there is a clear danger that chaos will create an opening for terrorism to once again establish a base of operations there.

I think often of my discussions with my late father, a veteran of WWII, about our mission in Afghanistan.  Dad was adamant, the troops were sent in to do a job, and they needed to be allowed to complete the job.  He said trying to cut losses by leaving only served politicians and didn’t honour the sacrifices of those who have served.

I have wondered if now, four years later, dad would have wavered in that resolve.  Then I remember that edge of steel that I heard in his voice, that steel that was forged fighting up through Italy and across Europe.  He’s fought beside those who’ve died, he understood the sacrifice, the need to honour it, to not waste it.  He understood the courage needed to push on and get the job done.

Politicians, in their statements after the death of our soldiers all pledge that their service will not be forgotten.  Part of honouring that pledge is ensuring that their sacrifice was not made in vain.  Part of honouring that pledge is having the courage to do what’s right, even if it’s not popular.  Our war dead deserve at minimum the future of  the mission to be properly debated and for their family’s wishes to be heard.

We will remember them.  We must remember and honour.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• Has Obama Taken a Lesson From Canada? (1)
• Canadian Soldiers Are Both Warriors and Peacekeepers (0)
• Yes, I’ve Joined the Liberal Party, Get Over It! (1)
• What is Karzai Inhaling? (1)
• Violent Surge in Kandahar Province (3)

In the last couple of weeks, on the Sundays to be exact, I’ve received a phone call which appears to come from an 800#. As I do during the week, I let calls like that go to the answering machine. When one arrives on Sunday though, I get rather irritated along the lines of do those bloody telemarketers have no limits!!

The two calls I’ve received came from a pharmacist in Port Hope which is west of where I live. I’m not and never have been a customer of his. I definitely will NEVER now be a customer of his. It’s bad enough he’s calling on Sunday but it isn’t even about whatever mundane specials he happens to be running in an effort to expand his business.

In an article in Northumberland Today the pharmacist indicates the calls could continue indefinitely. I’ve sent him an email from his website to advise him in no uncertain terms to stop making those calls to my home. He will do his cause more harm than good doing so.

In his call he urges people to call the local MPPs office to protest the cuts. I called to leave a message urging the MPP to hold the line and support the cuts. I called again today to inquire if others did the same. The lady in his office said yes, often, but was diplomatic enough not to say which was the greater numbers.

The pharmacist’s calls are about the current political battle between the Government of Ontario and the pharmacists. The government is moving to eliminate the ‘professional allowances’ the pharmaceutical firms pay the pharmacies for carrying their product. The pharmacies are claiming this move will amount to cuts in frontline health care.

Nice try but a pharmacy is not a frontline health service. Frontline health is the doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics etc.  Those are directly funded by public health dollars. Pharmacists receive some public health dollars particularly for those covered under social programs and for providing programs like MedCheck and for the ‘counselling’ you receive when you go into pick up a prescription.

A pharmacy is a private business which includes dispensing medications. It is the part of the business which dispenses medications which is done so under government regulation as to the amount of money can be charged the consumer. That same part also receives money directly from the government for delivering what amounts to customer service each time they ‘counsel’ a customer.

I had a doctor who was very thorough when prescribing medication to me in that she was careful to review with me what to expect on the medication, what the possible side-effects were and if it would impact any of the supplements I take. I expect that from my doctor.

I expect a pharmacist to fill the prescription and receive their payment. If I have questions and the pharmacist is able to answer them, that is a bonus. What I usually encountered was a pharmacist insisting on attempting to discuss my medication (often in front of others) over my objections. Turns out there was a reason for that, the pharmacist bills the government for doing this.

The professional allowances generic drug companies were paying to the pharmacies were supposed to help cover those costs which would have helped keep costs down for the government. What has happened is they have artificially inflated the costs of the drugs while the allowances were being used to boost the bottom line of these private businesses.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve always considered customer service to be something that is done to build customer awareness and loyalty. It isn’t usually something which directly adds to the bottom line but overall helps it. For a pharmacist, apparently they consider it to be the bottom line.

For more information on the cuts and the disinformation from the pharmacists you can read here. In the interest of giving voice to both sides, you can read more about the pharmacist’s side of things here. Personally, I found that site heavily on the side of baffle’m with BS but your mileage may vary.

Ontario has one of the largest buying power of any jurisdiction in the world yet we pay considerably more than many jurisdictions. For example, a diabetes medication called Metformin costs 9.7cents in Ontario, 6.9cents in the US and 1.6cents in New Zealand per dose. There is no excuse for that wide of a gap, Ontario should be considerably lower and will be after the cuts are fully implemented.

Pharmacies need to rethink their business plans. You ever been in a pharmacy which only sells medications?  I haven’t yet, to listen to the wailing going on, you’d think that was their only income stream.

They can either keep up their complaining or they can look for opportunities this presents. Those who find the opportunities will thrive, the others — well have you heard of the law of natural selection?

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• No related posts.

The Toronto Star today is reporting that a little noticed move by the RCMP last December to comply with provisions of the Privacy laws has resulted in breaking the police check system. Anyone who has volunteered in the community, particularly in positions dealing with children, will be familiar with having a police check done.

The check is supposed to insure that the volunteer is free of any criminal past which would endanger the people the volunteer is working with and the organization they are volunteering for. In some instances volunteers undergo multiply checks as a single check can’t be shared with other agencies.

They are a routine nuisance for honest people in the belief that they will catch those who should not be anywhere near vulnerable clients, especially children. Not only are pedophiles who have been pardoned, some 887 sex offenders in 2009-10, shielded from discovery in these checks but now those who have been convicted are as well.

With the changes, a police check will return a report either there is no record or their ‘might’ be a record. That can leave organizations in a dilemma over how to respond. Either they take on a zero tolerance of any records, or possible records, policy or they attempt to get to the bottom of the situation.

The government needs to make provisions to the privacy laws which allows the police to report sexual offences, especially those against children. In view of the number of sexual offenders already granted pardons, the government needs to unseal those records as well.

An individual convicted of a sexual offence against a child should never ever be allowed to hide from that fact. I’m not advocating the public announcements of an offender’s presence but I’m most definitely advocating if they should attempt to get anywhere near programs involving children the leadership of those programs need to know without a doubt who they are dealing with.

No quarter for pedophiles, ever. They don’t change their ways. Society has to do everything in our power to keep them away from children. One abused child is too many.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• Pardon System to be Revamped (1)

Of all the crimes in our society I don’t believe there is any which raises the ire of people more than crimes, especially sexual crimes, against our children. Children are the future of any society, without healthy children a future healthy adult society just wont happen.

Two stories have been getting a lot of press time lately. The first is the series of scandals hitting the Roman Catholic Church and in particular the Pope’s possible involvement in attempts to coverup the crimes of its clergy. The second is the National Parole Board’s decision to grant a pardon to Gordon James, a junior hockey coach convicted of sexually molesting two players, one being a former NHL player.

I read accounts over the Easter weekend of those who condemned the RC church for not raising the issues during Holy Week services. Others who condemned the few attempts to defend the church from the pulpit by referring to the charges as ‘petty gossip’. Opinion columns, like Anthony Persichilli’s in the Toronto Star, who predicts the resilient church will overcome the scandal. Or from the other perspective in the same paper, Ted Schmidt sees the very rot of the institution enshrined in the scandal.

The New York based blog “Blogging Religiously” asks the question: “Are the Media Picking on the Catholic Church”. The writer argues with all the church has put in place to attempt to screen and identify pedophiles, the mistakes of the past should not be haunting the church of today.

Meanwhile we had the revelation that Gordon James had been pardoned in 2007 and that would likely have remained unknown had another accuser not come forward and wanted to bring a complaint against him. The reaction of the government was to promise a review of the pardon process saying “certain types of criminals cannot be rehabilitated”.

My take on this mess is maybe a bit simplistic.

The government hasn’t gone far enough, the churches (and yes I mean all of them) haven’t gone far enough, institutions as a whole have not gone far enough. It has become increasingly clear over the years that pedophiles do not change, their urges to offend are kept in check by either being removed from society or being allowed no corner to hide in.

Not only should convicted pedophiles never receive a pardon for their crimes, they should be on permanent parole, subject to state supervision for life.

Churches and institutions will continue to find themselves infiltrated by pedophiles, it’s the nature of the beast. Screening programs and police checks can keep out those already known but not those not yet identified. Programs to protect will help to reduce the ability of a pedophile to operate freely, but wont necessarily stop them. So, what’s a group to do?

Resist the urge to close ranks around the perpetrator and thus ‘protect’ the institution. Authorities should be called in immediately without exception. It doesn’t matter if the accusation is from the past or the present, the law should be allowed to take its course with the full cooperation of the institution.

The uproar with the Roman Catholic church (and others in the past) is not so much that a pedophile was able to operate within the institution but that the institution moved to provide cover for the perpetrator while failing to be faithful defenders of the safety of the children.

Their attempts to hide who may have had dirt on their hands only adds fuel to that anger. Do the mea culpas and faithfully turning out those found in their midsts from now on will go a long way to letting the anger cool.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• One Ban I Agree With (1)
• Debt Related Deaths (0)

Sixteen professors at the University of Regina have written a letter protesting their institutions involvement in Project Hero. This scholarship program provides children of fallen Canadian soldiers with free tuition for their post-secondary education. Several post-secondary institutions across the country are taking part in the program.

The 16 profs in question believe the University of Regina should withdraw from the program. They denounce the program as “a glorification of Canadian imperialism in Afghanistan and elsewhere.” and “support for Project Hero represents a dangerous cultural turn. It associates heroism with the act of military intervention. It erases the space for critical discussion of military policy and practices“.

Are these people so far up on their ivory towers they don’t know how to find their way to a simple dictionary? I managed to find one and discovered that one of the meanings of ‘imperialism’ is: the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

The last time I looked, Canada’s mission (and indeed NATO’s mission) in Afghanistan was to secure the country in order to allow the elected government of Afghanistan to establish themselves as the properly constituted government. In order to accomplish that end, Canada and other countries are needing to work with the civil authorities to assist them in establishing the various elements of good government.

The bottom line is, when Canada (and eventually the other NATO forces) withdraws from Afghanistan, the Afghani government is free to use or not use the assistance they have received. In fact they are free to exercise their sovereignty now, which is why Karzai’s demands in regards to safeguarding civilians are being taken seriously. That is not imperialism.

If those 16 professors believe differently, maybe they need to climb out of their ivory towers long enough to visit the real world. It scares me sometimes when I hear the bunk that so called learned people are free to try to indoctrinate our young people with.

As for their claims of associating heroism with the act of military intervention. How quickly they forget the soldiers who serve our country are committed to defending this country and carrying out the mission(s) given to them by our government.

If these ivory tower dwellers wanted to go after the government over their efforts to equate any questioning of the mission given our soldiers to a lack of support of the troops, have at it.

By trying to go after a program designed to give back to those children who have lost their parent as the result of missions given to our soldiers, the ivory tower dwellers are trying to take out their displeasure at the mission on the children. Go after the government, not the innocent survivors.

As for their dislike of the program’s name. I’m reminding of something I read when researching the origins of the Victoria Cross. When Queen Victoria was commissioning the creation of the Victoria Cross she was reported to have said she didn’t want the medal engraved with the word ‘bravery’ because she believed any man who went into battle was brave. Instead the medal carries the words ‘For Valour’.

When I return to my trusty dictionary and look up the word ‘hero’ I find: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. Notwithstanding the slightly sexist language, it seems once more we cross paths with the word brave in relation to being a hero.

I don’t believe it is a very big leap to see all our men and women serving our country and in particular those serving in combat as being heroes. Some of those heroes have ended up dead, 141 to be exact. Some of those dead heroes left young children behind. Young children to whom a grateful country should be proud to make sure they receive a future education.

So, those 16 ivory tower dwellers need to exercise their democratic right to disagree with the government who sent those men and women into harm’s way by directing their complaints to the government. Leave the innocents alone.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• Just Who Is Standing Behind the Troops (1)
• Father calls for Canada to finish mission (1)

Ann Coulter, a self-proclaimed Conservative bigot, ran from her speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa on Tuesday evening. She didn’t physically run, she just threw in the metaphorical white towel.

While initial reports claimed the police and the University were the cause of the event being cancelled, it is looking more and more like Coulter’s own people threw in the towel.

I’m saying she’s ‘self-proclaimed’ as  Conservative mainly because I can’t imagine any true conservative with a brain in their head wanting her held up as an example of conservative thinking on either side of the border. If she truly is an example of conservative thinking, I am understanding more and more why Canadians wont allow Harper a majority government.

The more I’ve read about this incident the more I believe this whole thing is a publicity stunt for a two bit red-neck hack who brings new meaning to ‘dumb blonde’.  Prior to her scheduled visit to the University she received an email from the vice-president of the university cautioning her to be aware of Canadian hate laws which differ from laws in the USA.

Given Coulter’s reputation and history, his caution wasn’t really uncalled for. Coulter’s a foreign national, it would have been inhospitable not to have given her a heads up. While potentially true, using even the veiled threat of criminal prosecution wasn’t really wise. Telling someone local laws warrant review and caution sends the message that violating the law has consequences, that didn’t need to be spelled out.

Had organizers of the event been more focused on the speaking engagement taking place and less on capitalizing on the controversy, the event would have gone ahead. Police called to the scene had a duty to call in enough support to get the crowd under control.

While Coulter is claiming “the auditorium was surrounded by thousands of rioting liberals — screaming, blocking the entrance, throwing tables, demanding that my books be burned, and finally setting off the fire alarm” the reality is that the crowd included those who had turned up to hear her and posed no threat at all.

Journalists at the scene report no more than a few dozen were actually protesters. The bigger concern was that more people had showed up trying to get into the hall than the hall would hold, the venue should have been larger.

Coulter also claims elected officials were banned from attending her speech. Pony up there girl.. what elected officials and by who? Speaking of elected officials, now if she really wants to slam a lack of freedom of speech in this country, she doesn’t need to go farther than Conservative Prime Minister Harper… never have we had a government more prone to the stifling of free speech than his.

So, since Coulter claims to be a conservative, she should have some common ground to have at it with Harper. She could get lots of real publicity by taking him to task for his stifling of free speech since he’s been in power. She wouldn’t even have to make up lies to get it.

Word to the wise though, Jason Kenny would likely find a way to get her frog marched back across the border if she tried it.

Visit Out of the Shadows - Thoughts emerging from the quiet of the shadow become ideas, actions and opinion. Come, join my ramblings.

Related posts

• No related posts.